Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Residency Rule Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umaga&#039;s Witness" data-source="post: 957176" data-attributes="member: 65365"><p>I agree with a lot of this, having put forward the same issue in two of my posts in this thread - that the rich countries get first choice. </p><p></p><p>If you can vote you can probably be security advisor too. </p><p></p><p>I'm not as patriotic as I was as a kid following my countries sports teams, i more just play into it for the fun of the charade. In saying that the fun is greater the more you feel the team represents the country. But I do feel some patriotism, to the extent I am part of a society with values I can influence and have a responsibility for. </p><p></p><p>At the same time if I was a woman in Pakistan I'd probably not want to live there and wouldn't want to represent their country. So if I was the greatest rugby player in the world I wouldn't be allowed to play for any country, by your policy. Even if I moved to another country that I felt represented me better. If you don't feel like your country represents you, why would you want to represent them?</p><p></p><p>Now I don't know what the answer is, and understand our philosophy underlying this is quite different. </p><p></p><p>Part of the problem is nations like New Zealand who make money off their national team, it becomes less about nationalism, more about money. It's not all that different to the general immigration policy, but it does mean richer countries will have better, hence more profitable, rugby teams, just as they have more labour resources in general. In that sense the rugby team represents the nation; a nation that prioritises wealth over culture.</p><p></p><p>Did I end up agreeing with you? I don't know, but I think I decided my stance on immigration is that it should be based on values to society, not on value to the economy. I'd rather have a refugee that wasn't a bigot than a billionaire white supremicist.</p><p></p><p>Hmmm, I think that was a tangent. What I wanted to say was that it would help if there was no money in the national teams, that any money gained went to compensating the clubs you had taken the player from. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws to that too, but I've had a few....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 957176, member: 65365"] I agree with a lot of this, having put forward the same issue in two of my posts in this thread - that the rich countries get first choice. If you can vote you can probably be security advisor too. I’m not as patriotic as I was as a kid following my countries sports teams, i more just play into it for the fun of the charade. In saying that the fun is greater the more you feel the team represents the country. But I do feel some patriotism, to the extent I am part of a society with values I can influence and have a responsibility for. At the same time if I was a woman in Pakistan I’d probably not want to live there and wouldn’t want to represent their country. So if I was the greatest rugby player in the world I wouldn’t be allowed to play for any country, by your policy. Even if I moved to another country that I felt represented me better. If you don’t feel like your country represents you, why would you want to represent them? Now I don’t know what the answer is, and understand our philosophy underlying this is quite different. Part of the problem is nations like New Zealand who make money off their national team, it becomes less about nationalism, more about money. It’s not all that different to the general immigration policy, but it does mean richer countries will have better, hence more profitable, rugby teams, just as they have more labour resources in general. In that sense the rugby team represents the nation; a nation that prioritises wealth over culture. Did I end up agreeing with you? I don’t know, but I think I decided my stance on immigration is that it should be based on values to society, not on value to the economy. I’d rather have a refugee that wasn’t a bigot than a billionaire white supremicist. Hmmm, I think that was a tangent. What I wanted to say was that it would help if there was no money in the national teams, that any money gained went to compensating the clubs you had taken the player from. I’m sure there are plenty of flaws to that too, but I’ve had a few.... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Residency Rule Thread
Top