News Folau case may send Rugby Australia broke.

[Wahesh]

I've honestly been confused about this part of the rationale for saying Folau is an awful person.

If you don't believe in god or religion, then how is a footballer saying you're going to an imaginary placed ruled by an imaginary guy called the devil, even remotely offensive?

And even if you put this argument aside, since when is it illegal to simply state your opinion on a topic, so long as it isn't promoting violence against anyone? Keeping in mind Folau openly says he loves sinners and wants them to experience god's love. Doesn't sound very hateful to me?

That has been my argument since day 1. I have no idea how people can be offended by someone's opinion that they don't believe in/follow.

If this was the case, every mass going on every day around the nation would offend them.

And yes, there are masses every day in Australia, not just Saturday/Sunday.

 

[Bob dog]

Bulldogs chase Folau, when he learns his personal beliefs are his own for his life.

 

[Dawgfather]

One is inclusive while the other is exclusive.

Allowing an Indigenous player to not sing the National anthem supports their culture while not attacking anyone else. Anyone who gets offended by a player not singing the National anthem is either full of it or just racist themselves.

The other is directly offending a group of people causing exclusion of a group.

So what’s the standard you think we should use? If anyone says anything that excludes even a single person, then they can be sacked? Or is the threshold higher? 100 ppl? 1000 ppl?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So what’s the standard you think we should use? If anyone says anything that excludes even a single person, then they can be sacked? Or is the threshold higher? 100 ppl? 1000 ppl?

If the person carries out an act designed to exclude and offend. Here's an example:

Offensive - "Being gay is a choice. Stop being gay"

Not offensive - "I choose not to sing the national anthem out of respect for my ancestors"

Inclusive - "you're free to choose not to sing the national anthem"

Exclusive - "stop being gay"

 

[Utility]

I've honestly been confused about this part of the rationale for saying Folau is an awful person.

If you don't believe in god or religion, then how is a footballer saying you're going to an imaginary placed ruled by an imaginary guy called the devil, even remotely offensive?

And even if you put this argument aside, since when is it illegal to simply state your opinion on a topic, so long as it isn't promoting violence against anyone? Keeping in mind Folau openly says he loves sinners and wants them to experience god's love. Doesn't sound very hateful to me?

It doesn’t matter if gay people believe in Hell or not (and some do, btw). What Folau said was antagonistic and a direct challenge to gay people’s lifestyles. If he loves them as he says, he should be trying to share his message in a more compassionate and respectful manner.

What Cody Walker said was a personal opinion, expressed in a respectful and considered way....and if people want to get offended by it, it’s their problem, not his. If he had verbally attacked others for choosing to sing the anthem and made negative judgments about their character, it might be a different conversation....but he didn’t do that, regardless of any inference you choose to read into his words or actions.

 

[Utility]

So what’s the standard you think we should use? If anyone says anything that excludes even a single person, then they can be sacked? Or is the threshold higher? 100 ppl? 1000 ppl?

I know you’re not addressing me here, but it all depends on the contract they sign and the code of conduct they agree to. If someone signs a contract which calls for a commitment to be inclusive, they can reasonably expect repercussions for any talk which excludes others.

Folau’s tights haven’t been violated. He will have his day in court.... and if the court finds he did not violate the terms of his contract, he’ll get his payout.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Folau’s tights haven’t been violated

I sure hope not

 

[Dawgfather]

If the person carries out an act designed to exclude and offend. Here's an example:

Offensive - "Being gay is a choice. Stop being gay"

Not offensive - "I choose not to sing the national anthem out of respect for my ancestors"

Inclusive - "you're free to choose not to sing the national anthem"

Exclusive - "stop being gay"

Ok, so no one should ever say anything if it causes or could cause offence?

 

[Utility]

I sure hope not

Lol..., oops.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Ok, so no one should ever say anything if it causes or could cause offence?

Nope. They can say whatever they want as long as they aren't under a contractual agreement.

I mean, if I started insulting people at a work function, I'm pretty sure I'd get fired.

 

[SARGE]

Nope. They can say whatever they want as long as they aren't under a contractual agreement.

I mean, if I started insulting people at a work function, I'm pretty sure I'd get fired.

Can I come to your work and offend *****? Lol

 

[Rodzilla]

If you don't believe in god or religion, then how is a footballer saying you're going to an imaginary placed ruled by an imaginary guy called the devil, even remotely offensive?

because its homophobic, liarphobic and unalcoholic, he chooses what he wants to vilify

if he truly believes in the bible he should ask for the death penalty because he worked on sunday and I assume that leads to hell as well

 

[Wahesh]

Can I come to your work and offend *****? Lol

I'll roll out the red carpet for you, my liege.

 

[Dawgfather]

Nope. They can say whatever they want as long as they aren't under a contractual agreement.

I mean, if I started insulting people at a work function, I'm pretty sure I'd get fired.

As far as I know, Raelene Castle never inserted any social media clauses into his contract after the first incident last year. She was stupid enough to leave it up to Israel as to what he would do in the future without any contractual clauses.

 

[Dawgfather]

I think my views have been pretty much detailed as well as they can be in here.

I won't add any more replies unless it's on an area that hasn't already been done to death or that won't lead to people ending up at each other's throats lol

It's a good thing when we can argue this issue to it's end and in the end agree to disagree.

 

[Dawgfather]

because its homophobic, liarphobic and unalcoholic, he chooses what he wants to vilify

if he truly believes in the bible he should ask for the death penalty because he worked on sunday and I assume that leads to hell as well

I agree, his post was all of those things and singled out a whole raft of people and groups of people.

However, I think people should consider why the media and other people generally only spoke about gay people and not the other groups he singled out. IMO, this highlighted the extreme bias and double standards of the media these days where they will claim to be open and inclusive etc, but only towards certain 'approved' groups, such as homosexuals, muslims, indigenous and women etc.

Of course it's true that Israel Folau offended potentially the majority of the Australian population by posting what he posted. I personally don't agree with anything that he said but I will always defend his right to say what he believes, regardless of who it offends.

Offence taking has become a career in the last decade and it's to the detriment of western society.

Offending someone is not a crime, nor should it be an offence that you can be sacked for.

We should be teaching people to be resilient in the face of someone who offends us. We should be teaching people to THINK when they're offended instead of getting emotional and curling up into a ball. Maybe if people think they might learn something and take a different view.

 

[Memberberries]

I agree, his post was all of those things and singled out a whole raft of people and groups of people.

However, I think people should consider why the media and other people generally only spoke about gay people and not the other groups he singled out. IMO, this highlighted the extreme bias and double standards of the media these days where they will claim to be open and inclusive etc, but only towards certain 'approved' groups, such as homosexuals, muslims, indigenous and women etc.

Of course it's true that Israel Folau offended potentially the majority of the Australian population by posting what he posted. I personally don't agree with anything that he said but I will always defend his right to say what he believes, regardless of who it offends.

Offence taking has become a career in the last decade and it's to the detriment of western society.

Offending someone is not a crime, nor should it be an offence that you can be sacked for.

We should be teaching people to be resilient in the face of someone who offends us. We should be teaching people to THINK when they're offended instead of getting emotional and curling up into a ball. Maybe if people think they might learn something and take a different view.

Why don't the media report how men are more likely to commit suicide if they want to be all inclusive?

 

[Dawgfather]

Why don't the media report how men are more likely to commit suicide if they want to be all inclusive?

I don't want to get too much into 'conspiracy theory' style discussion etc, but anyone with a bit of a brain can see the media are generally left leaning and generally part of the ruling class 'elite' along with many politicians and celebrities etc. They sing from the same hymn sheet - i.e. they are all 'progressive' and all have the same thoughts when it comes to talking points like:

Men are a problem and women are victims
White people and western culture are the problem and ethnic and indigenous people are victims
Straight people are problems and homosexuals are victims
Hetero people are problems and transgender people are victims

It would be viewed as extremely offensive (for example) to state a fact like 'Women physically abuse men far more often than men abuse women, however women suffer worse because men are physically stronger and as a result do more damage than women do'.

 

[Utility]

As far as I know, Raelene Castle never inserted any social media clauses into his contract after the first incident last year. She was stupid enough to leave it up to Israel as to what he would do in the future without any contractual clauses.

There weren't any clauses inserted....Rugby Australia's argument is they were unnecessary as expectations were outlined in the code of conduct which all players signed off on. I guess it's up to the courts to decide whether RA is correct.

 

[Dawgfather]

There weren't any clauses inserted....Rugby Australia's argument is they were unnecessary as expectations were outlined in the code of conduct which all players signed off on. I guess it's up to the courts to decide whether RA is correct.

Yep spot on. At the end of the day I guess it will be up to the courts to decide.