• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Bill said:
The only difference to 30 years ago is that instead of people mindlessly attacking homosexuality, they're mindlessly defending it.
Click to expand...
There's a lot to unpick right there...
 
ncurd said:
There's a lot to unpick right there...
Click to expand...

There's really not.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to defend peoples' right to be homosexual. I have said the exact opposite.

What I'm criticising - as is very clear from my posts - is people waging into create a conflict in an illogical mindless way, just as those who used to vilify people for their sexuality used to do.
 
Bill said:
There's really not.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to defend peoples' right to be homosexual. I have said the exact opposite.

What I'm criticising - as is very clear from my posts - is people waging into create a conflict in an illogical mindless way, just as those who used to vilify people for their sexuality used to do.
Click to expand...
No you're using faux intelligence to defend bigotry. You say you condemn stuff but that condemn us for condemning it. And the fact you use statement like "mindlessly defending" when people have an extremely detailed discussion that's 22 pages just shows your true colours. I've been round the blocks enough times to know a false actor when I see one.
 
until recently, people were scared of gays. they found it unpalatable. if you knew someone was gay and you didn't bully them or abuse them for it, then there was something wrong with you.

thankfully that has now changed and it's no longer the case.

i'm just saying that now instead of there being something wrong with you for not having a go at gay people, it seems to be considered that there's something wrong with you, if you don't find a way of identifying something as politically incorrect and wading into it with all guns blazing.

it's not the same obviously because to be the victim of bullying etc for being gay was far worse than being identified as politically incorrect baddy, but the principle's still the same.

people need to be tolerant, and to discuss issues in a considered, reasonable and mature manner. they still don't just as they didn't then. there's just a different bad guy than there was before.
 
ncurd said:
No you're using faux intelligence to defend bigotry. You say you condemn stuff but that condemn us for condemning it. And the fact you use statement like "mindlessly defending" when people have an extremely detailed discussion that's 22 pages just shows your true colours. I've been round the blocks enough times to know a false actor when I see one.
Click to expand...

a false actor ? go on...
 
I'd put good money btw on the fact that the majority of people who passionately defend homosexuality at the slightest oportunity today, would have been homophobic bigots 20-30 years ago. Trotting out trite illogical arguments that purport to be morally virtuous, whoever you're persecuting, is 2 sides of the same coin, and requires exactly the same character set.

My social warrior medal cabinet remains bare. I wasn't homophobic then, and I don't blindly wade into to arguments for the sake of trying to be recognised as some kind of virtuous hero now. If that makes me faux intelligent, then sobeit !
 
Bill said:
people need to be tolerant, and to discuss issues in a considered, reasonable and mature manner. they still don't just as they didn't then. there's just a different bad guy than there was before.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats a bit difficult when you are dealing with someone who belongs to a messed up Religious cult.

Attitudes like Folau's have no place in a modern society and they shouldn't be indulged. We don't except racist or sexist opinions so why would we discuss homophobic ones. If you want to live somewhere where no one is gay, drinks, fornicates, or doesn't believe there's a big person in the sky then sod off and join ISIS but don't put your crap on social media then get upset when you lose your job.
 
Tallshort said:
Yeah thats a bit difficult when you are dealing with someone who belongs to a messed up Religious cult.

Attitudes like Folau's have no place in a modern society and they shouldn't be indulged. We don't except racist or sexist opinions so why would we discuss homophobic ones. If you want to live somewhere where no one is gay, drinks, fornicates, or doesn't believe there's a big person in the sky then sod off and join ISIS but don't put your crap on social media then get upset when you lose your job.
Click to expand...

My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know. Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever, I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual. What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts. It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.
 
Bill said:
My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know. Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever, I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual. What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts. It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.
Click to expand...

No sorry hes a grown man who should know right from wrong. The excuse of "oh its what I have told" doesn't stack up and is frankly a cop out.

If he honestly thinks that he was trying to save people by saying they would go to hell unless they change shows a very very immature mindset and if he is supposed to be a good Christian then he shouldn't judge what others do.

As for Religion is society, not sure what there is to discuss. Religion should be a private thing and should have no bearing on a liberal Western Society. If anything Society is too indulgent of religious beliefs.
 
Bill said:
I'd put good money btw on the fact that the majority of people who passionately defend homosexuality at the slightest oportunity today, would have been homophobic bigots 20-30 years ago. Trotting out trite illogical arguments that purport to be morally virtuous, whoever you're persecuting, is 2 sides of the same coin, and requires exactly the same character set.

My social warrior medal cabinet remains bare. I wasn't homophobic then, and I don't blindly wade into to arguments for the sake of trying to be recognised as some kind of virtuous hero now. If that makes me faux intelligent, then sobeit !
Click to expand...

Geez, We're not all old farts here.

30 years ago I was 4 years old FFS! The only bigotry I had at that stage was with regards to the kind of sweets I was getting.
 
TRF_heineken said:
Geez, We're not all old farts here.

30 years ago I was 4 years old FFS! The only bigotry I had at that stage was with regards to the kind of sweets I was getting.
Click to expand...
​

Just saying guys, not to get too carried away with patting yourselves on the backs. You are no different to people 40 years ago. What's changes is society, not its individuals. Then being gay was socially unacceptable, and people acted accordingly. In the80s or 90s, believe me, this thread would have been COMPLETELY different. It's not the contributors who have changed, it's the society who moulds them.

Whilst I disagree with what Folau says, in a way there's part of me who respects the courage of him saying what he believes in. It wasn't people tapping away on the side of the majority today who changed attitudes towards these issues, it was the few then who were brave enough to speak up against the majority. In a way that's what Folau's done, so whilst his message is wrong, I for one don't completely knock him for trying.
 
Tallshort said:
No sorry hes a grown man who should know right from wrong. The excuse of "oh its what I have told" doesn't stack up and is frankly a cop out.

If he honestly thinks that he was trying to save people by saying they would go to hell unless they change shows a very very immature mindset and if he is supposed to be a good Christian then he shouldn't judge what others do.

As for Religion is society, not sure what there is to discuss. Religion should be a private thing and should have no bearing on a liberal Western Society. If anything Society is too indulgent of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

OK, now we're getting somewhere. At least we are starting to have the right conversation now.
 
Man 300 years ago most of us would of been pro-slavery.

So deep, so intellectual....
 
Umaga's Witness said:
Im not sure I follow. We currently have a society where hate speech is not acceptable.
It's called most western societies.

This is not discriminating, it's saying discriminating based on who someone is is not ok.

This has none of the connotations you are suggesting.

Lawmakers are simply saying everyone in the society is ok, except those who think others in the society are not ok. Pretty obvious basis for a society.

Imagine some ancient people back in the day. If there were 5 people who could live in an area, and 4 of them thought everyone was ok people, but person 5 thought person 3 was immoral and liked to point it out all the time this offending person 3, person 3 wouldn't want to live with person 5. Persons 1,2,and 4 would then have to decide whether they wanted to live with person 3 or person 5. Who would they choose? It's a pretty safe bet.
Click to expand...


"Hate Speech".......

WTF does does even mean

Is there even a standard & legal definition of such an absurd phrase that's applied interbationally?

It's uttered blindly without context or meaning

Too often it appears to used to state the following:

I don;t like what you're saying as it;s offensive or it's .......-ist or ...........-phobic hence it's "Hate Speech"

We're approaching CLOWN WORLD with this sort of buffoonery
 
ncurd said:
Man 300 years ago most of us would of been pro-slavery.

So deep, so intellectual....
Click to expand...

Exactly. But don't pass the buck on to others. Let's be brave enough to all say it out loud.

If I was here 300 years ago I would have supported slavery
If I was here 40 years ago I would have condemned homosexuals
I am here today so I condemn the minority who still condemn homosexuals
I am moulded by the society in which I live, and my moral judgment is largely dependent on the prevailing social norm

If we can move the discussion on from trying to advertise our individual moral virtues and recognise that these are just an accident of history, then we're more likely to break constructive ground imo.
 
Man more incredible insight we are all a product of time we are born in! Who knew!
 
For what it's worth on religion btw, I do think it should be more of a personal thing. Obviously I'm in no position to advise on creation, and sometimes my mind does turn to what could have done all this, as well I suppose as where is it all leading. And if people have faith then kudos to them. I personally though struggle with the Christian narrative, even if I think it contains a lot of good messages. To me there's a conflict though between having a society where hate speech is recognised and criminalised, and having religious texts distributed which contain messages that at the end of the day represent hate speech and discrimination by today's standards. I don't see this as walking a thin line, I see it as walking a non existent line, and it strikes me that we are shying away as a society from tacking the fact that this huge conflict exists between our popular society & our modern laws and the religious texts which form the cornerstone of the religions which many of us follow. I think it needs to be addressed.

I for one would advocate a more flexible religious teaching which can rely in parts upon historic scriptures but which encourages people to develop spirituality in a more individual and personal way.
 
Bill said:
My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know. Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever, I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual. What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts. It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.
Click to expand...
And how are you going to go about that? And how long is that going to take?
 

Latest posts

Top