Israel Folau has Wallabies contract terminated

[K E]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/w...u/news-story/e411fabff52c128c49f79e701433a596

 

[Mr Invisible]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/w...u/news-story/e411fabff52c128c49f79e701433a596

He has a point.... but theres no way in hell Folau is returning to Rugby League.

 

[Wolfmother]

I just watched raelene explain how falaou has breached the code of conduct.

She states falaou has been warned previously about his use of social media in relation to the code of conduct but the code of conduct doesn't mention social media at all.
She continues to loosely quote the relevant part of the code of conduct by alleging falaou is guilty of section( k) 'doing something to insult, offend ,intimidate or humiliate someone based on their sexual orientation. "

What falaou has done is consistent with his religious practise, in that he is spreading the gospel... if this insults, offends, intimidates or humiliates someone and Falaou is terminated for it then ARU are in breach of discriminating on grounds of religious beliefs.

Don't these people have lawyers to confer with before putting it out there and looking like total incompetents?

 

[Mr Invisible]

Don't these people have lawyers to confer with before putting it out there and looking like total incompetents?

It's Raelene... that's all you need to know.

Did the same at the Dogs.

How she ever got the ARU gig still astounds me...goes to show just how shit the other applications were!

 

[Rodzilla]

I just watched raelene explain how falaou has breached the code of conduct.

She states falaou has been warned previously about his use of social media in relation to the code of conduct but the code of conduct doesn't mention social media at all.
She continues to loosely quote the relevant part of the code of conduct by alleging falaou is guilty of section( k) 'doing something to insult, offend ,intimidate or humiliate someone based on their sexual orientation. "

What falaou has done is consistent with his religious practise, in that he is spreading the gospel... if this insults, offends, intimidates or humiliates someone and Falaou is terminated for it then ARU are in breach of discriminating on grounds of religious beliefs.

Don't these people have lawyers to confer with before putting it out there and looking like total incompetents?

they are correct to discriminate against those religious beliefs, take a look at countries that didn't discriminate

btw social media doesn't need to be included, its counted as 'something'

 

[Wolfmother]

they are correct to discriminate against those religious beliefs, take a look at countries that didn't discriminate

btw social media doesn't need to be included, its counted as 'something'

They are not correct to discriminate against religious practise. If the practise doesn't break any other laws it's fair game.
Offending someone is subjective, I could claim I'm offended by the undertones of raelenes hatred of Christianity

 

[Rodzilla]

They are not correct to discriminate against religious practise. If the practise doesn't break any other laws it's fair game.
Offending someone is subjective, I could claim I'm offended by the undertones of raelenes hatred of Christianity

then I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protection

 

[SoulCrusher]

I'm offended that this obese, bald, kiwi got the top job in Australian Rugby as a reward for running one of the most decorated NRL teams into the ground.

Sow should resign in disgrace, she's duped the sporting world out of enough money

 

[SoulCrusher]

then I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protection

The "pastafarian" argument. Sign of a truly towering intellect.

 

[Rodzilla]

The "pastafarian" argument. Sign of a truly towering intellect.

actually my main argument is that the bible is insane and people are very selective about what parts they want to adhere to, still waiting for an explanation about why god killed 40 kids in a PC overkill move

but I could use any number of arguments, I can even say because a certain religious group spent 1,000 years cooking to death people that didn't believe in it, then they deserve some inconvenience and should stfu

 

[SoulCrusher]

actually my main argument is that the bible is insane and people are very selective about what parts they want to adhere to, still waiting for an explanation about why god killed 40 kids in a PC overkill move

but I could use any number of arguments, I can even say because a certain religious group spent 1,000 years cooking to death people that didn't believe in it, then they deserve some inconvenience and should stfu

Not a religious person, but your points are all very shallow.

1. Humans attempting to understand or explain the action and motives of the demiurge is like an ant trying to understand or explain the motives or actions of a human. You really think you are capable of comprehending the omnipitent and eternal creator of all things?

2. Violence is the natural state of all carnivorous beings. Acting like the inquistions were somehow unique in their brutality is very narrow minded. Peaceful groups do not remain that way for long, they either learn to use violence or the cease to exist.

3. No living christian, is responsible for nor participated in the inquistions. Do you believe everybody should be subject to the same retributory inconvenience based on the actions of people who had similar religious views as them? Can I hold you responsible for the (far more recent and relevant) brutality of athiests like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot?

 

[Rodzilla]

Not a religious person, but your points are all very shallow.

1. Humans attempting to understand or explain the action and motives of the demiurge is like an ant trying to understand or explain the motives or actions of a human. You really think you are capable of comprehending the omnipitent and eternal creator of all things?

2. Violence is the natural state of all carnivorous beings. Acting like the inquistions were somehow unique in their brutality is very narrow minded. Peaceful groups do not remain that way for long, they either learn to use violence or the cease to exist.

3. No living christian, is responsible for nor participated in the inquistions. Do you believe everybody should be subject to the same retributory inconvenience based on the actions of people who had similar religious views as them? Can I hold you responsible for the (far more recent and relevant) brutality of athiests like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot?

1. im capable of understanding that the bible is not about the motives of the demiurge whatever that means, its about male powerful humans at the time (probable bald and definitely bad parents with fantasies about rape) trying to create something to keep everyone scared, so they made their god someone who is extremely pissed off, its proven to be wrong already so im just entertaining the story

2. learning to use violence and boiling people for not believing in the religion is different, so you are saying that boiling people to death was necessary? I agree its necessary if you are the church only interested in church survival, so kelloggs should start killing people for eating rival breakfast cereal if they are down in sales?

3. yes people should have some inconvenience if they fought all of the way to this point and are desperate to regain lost ground, its also harsh to hold me responsible for those atheists because atheists are a group of people who just aren't part of other groups, we didn't ask to be grouped

 

[kaluah8123]

If you are easily offended stay off social media. This whole country is full of soft cocks.
I’m not a religious man but if I was I would ignore him for the meat head Rugby player he is.

 

[Wolfmother]

then I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protection

You can't claim anything and hide behind religion, you need to be able to back it up. Faloau has a history of being actively involved in his religious faith, his faith also requires that he spread the gospel. He didn't make it up it's what his faith preaches

 

[Rodzilla]

You can't claim anything and hide behind religion, you need to be able to back it up. Faloau has a history of being actively involved in his religious faith, his faith also requires that he spread the gospel. He didn't make it up it's what his faith preaches

yes I can make up a religion and hide behind it, for example im thinking about making a religion where the smaller your penis is then the more respect you get from society, coincidentally this will make me the new leader of the world

so then when we have 1,000 or so members we will start a social media campaign targeting women who prefer large penis, calling them whores etc, and if my boss doesn't like it and wants to fire me I will claim religious discrimination

 

[SoulCrusher]

1. im capable of understanding that the bible is not about the motives of the demiurge whatever that means, its about male powerful humans at the time (probable bald and definitely bad parents with fantasies about rape) trying to create something to keep everyone scared, so they made their god someone who is extremely pissed off, its proven to be wrong already so im just entertaining the story

2. learning to use violence and boiling people for not believing in the religion is different, so you are saying that boiling people to death was necessary? I agree its necessary if you are the church only interested in church survival, so kelloggs should start killing people for eating rival breakfast cereal if they are down in sales?

3. yes people should have some inconvenience if they fought all of the way to this point and are desperate to regain lost ground, its also harsh to hold me responsible for those atheists because atheists are a group of people who just aren't part of other groups, we didn't ask to be grouped

You don't seem to have understood my post and have resorted to yet more shallow critiques of religion that do not hold up to scrutiny.

1. I wasn't saying that you were claiming thats what the bible does, I was saying that you personally wanting to ascribe certain motives to God ("Still waiting for an explaination why God killed 40 kids") is ridiculous, given that you will live for 70 years and are capable of building nothing more complex than a model aeroplane and God is eternal and built the very fabric of existence. Even assuming that an omnipitent, omniscient being HAS motivations as you or I comprehend the concept is is silly.

Your conceptualization of the foundation of the christian religion is also quite shallow. The idea of a demiurge not only pre-dates Christianity by 10's of 1000's of years but is ubiquitous across the globe, pointing to it being innate to the human psyche and not a cynical invention of those who wish to exert control over others.
Furthermore the fathers of Christianity were not "powerful men". Jesus was a carpenter who died because the Pharisees exerted control over Jerusalem, John the Revelator lived in exile on Patmos, St. Peter was a lowly fisherman etc. These are not "powerful men."

2. Violence exists among all people. Trying to single out the European Christians as being uniquely guilty for using violence in support of their beliefs is just silly. Pre-christian Europeans would throw gays into bogs and beat or even murder those who did not properly observe sacrificial rites. Muslims have waged jihad against non-believers throughout their existence. The Mayan's would sacrifice their captured enemies. Not all systemic violence is neccessarily conected to religion. The plains indians would indiscriminately scalp any member of another tribe they could get their hands on. Infants included.

My point here is that violence exists. It always has and always will. Religon didn't create violence, yet you act as though it did.

3. Athiests most certainly are a group, that's how you can use a group moniker to identify them. You actively believe that there is NO God, which itself is a form of belief system, not unlike a religion. It seems awfully inconsistent of you to want to impose collective punishment on a group of people but think your own group should be free from such punishments for your own transgressions. Another characteristic you share with the religious is that you seem to believe you have some divine insight into who ought to have punishment meted out to them for their sins.


But this is all quite far from being on topic.

 

[Rodzilla]

You don't seem to have understood my post and have resorted to yet more shallow critiques of religion that do not hold up to scrutiny.

1. I wasn't saying that you were claiming thats what the bible does, I was saying that you personally wanting to ascribe certain motives to God ("Still waiting for an explaination why God killed 40 kids") is ridiculous, given that you will live for 70 years and are capable of building nothing more complex than a model aeroplane and God is eternal and built the very fabric of existence. Even assuming that an omnipitent, omniscient being HAS motivations as you or I comprehend the concept is is silly.

Your conceptualization of the foundation of the christian religion is also quite shallow. The idea of a demiurge not only pre-dates Christianity by 10's of 1000's of years but is ubiquitous across the globe, pointing to it being innate to the human psyche and not a cynical invention of those who wish to exert control over others.
Furthermore the fathers of Christianity were not "powerful men". Jesus was a carpenter who died because the Pharisees exerted control over Jerusalem, John the Revelator lived in exile on Patmos, St. Peter was a lowly fisherman etc. These are not "powerful men."

2. Violence exists among all people. Trying to single out the European Christians as being uniquely guilty for using violence in support of their beliefs is just silly. Pre-christian Europeans would throw gays into bogs and beat or even murder those who did not properly observe sacrificial rites. Muslims have waged jihad against non-believers throughout their existence. The Mayan's would sacrifice their captured enemies. Not all systemic violence is neccessarily conected to religion. The plains indians would indiscriminately scalp any member of another tribe they could get their hands on. Infants included.

My point here is that violence exists. It always has and always will. Religon didn't create violence, yet you act as though it did.

3. Athiests most certainly are a group, that's how you can use a group moniker to identify them. You actively believe that there is NO God, which itself is a form of belief system, not unlike a religion. It seems awfully inconsistent of you to want to impose collective punishment on a group of people but think your own group should be free from such punishments for your own transgressions. Another characteristic you share with the religious is that you seem to believe you have some divine insight into who ought to have punishment meted out to them for their sins.


But this is all quite far from being on topic.

1. ok so how do you understand that he has special motivations? are you guessing? because there are many instances where he just gets pissed off and is about self glorification, even caring at all if a penis gets inserted into a male asshole is petty, there can be no other way to look at it and if you have a possible explanation then by all means speculate

what the hell does it being a part of the human psyche have anything to do with it not being a cynical invention?, that should put it further into the man-made argument

2. well mayans and Indians are also insane if that's what you want me to say, the current subject is the bible though so give me a break, it did create more than its fair share of violence and still does

3. atheists are named so we can be identified but there is no group, we don't meet up and talk about anything etc, possibly because of the history like they would end up in a bubble bath if they did (heat bubbles)

if the atheist group gets organised then we go around killing people because they were religious then ok you can hold it against the group

 

[Mr Invisible]

This has gone far enough off topic.

Will reopen when there are changes in circumstances.