Israel Folau has Wallabies contract terminated

[bulldogfan1]

I've stated my argument clearly twice. Beliefs and poorly chosen words are two completely different things.

I dont see the difference.
If someone asks SBW what religion he is and he says Muslim. If he then goes in the middle of the pitch in front of a packed crowd and prays before a game, people know that he believes homosexuals will go to hell.

Makes no difference.

 

[bulldogfan1]

Did he tell her to also spend the rest of her life wanderiung around and threatening others with hellfire? You're doing a spectacular job of missing the point.

No because she was not a disciple.
He clearly told his disciples to spread the "good news"

 

[bulldogfan1]

Were you dropped on your head as a child? My question is about as relevant to the discussion as yours.

I'd say I'm more agnostic than atheist..... overly dogmatic and judgmental people make me hesitant to embrace organised religion. As does my belief that religious texts have been tinkered with and amended by those in power over the years for the purpose of control.

In the absence of God, there are no objective moral values and duties. Therefore, harming others is neither right or wrong if God does not exist.

 

[Flanagun]

I dont see the difference.
If someone asks SBW what religion he is and he says Muslim. If he then goes in the middle of the pitch in front of a packed crowd and prays before a game, people know that he believes homosexuals will go to hell.

Makes no difference.

Who are you? Constable of the thought police? I'll repeat one more time....you do not get to choose what offends other people. This is getting repetitive and a bit tiresome. If you don't see my point, you don't see it. I see no value in bashing my head against this brick wall any more.

 

[Flanagun]

No because she was not a disciple.
He clearly told his disciples to spread the "good news"

To spread the "good news" not to go around openly judging people and alienating them from the faith.

 

[bulldogfan1]

Let me ask you.

You are an agnostic, so you are not a Muslim.

If SBW tweeted that all people that eat pork will go to hell, would you "utility half" get outraged? Would you become suicidal?

Or would you laugh?

I would say the latter.

Then you might say, you cannot compare eating pork to homosexuality because homosexuals do not have a choice.

Well, what damn difference does it make? If you dont believe hell exists in the first place then you dont believe you will be going there. What difference does it make if you have a choice or not? What relevance does it have if you dont believe in hell in the first place?

This whole reponse and outrage has shown mem truely how stupid human beings can be.

 

[Flanagun]

In the absence of God, there are no objective moral values and duties. Therefore, harming others is neither right or wrong if God does not exist.

Ok, that's your belief. I disagree. the human conscience exists in both believers and non believers and predates Christianity. All values are subjective....which is why there is disagreement and frequent debate even among the believers.

 

[Flanagun]

Let me ask you.

You are an agnostic, so you are not a Muslim.

If SBW tweeted that all people that eat pork will go to hell, would you "utility half" get outraged? Would you become suicidal?

Or would you laugh?

I would say the latter.

Then you might say, you cannot compare eating pork to homosexuality because homosexuals do not have a choice.

Well, what damn difference does it make? If you dont believe hell exists in the first place then you dont believe you will be going there. What difference does it make if you have a choice or not? What relevance does it have if you dont believe in hell in the first place?

This whole reponse and outrage has shown mem truely how stupid human beings can be.

I don't think I would do either.... but if his employer decided to terminate his contract, I would probably say the same thing as I'm saying about Folau - that he probably should have chosen his words more wisely. Outrage is a selective notion....who says those criticising Folau are any more outraged than those criticising the ARU for its response? The ARU believes it has a strong enough legal footing to terminate his contract....I guess we will see what the courts decide.

 

[bulldogfan1]

Ok, that's your belief. I disagree. the human conscience exists in both believers and non believers and predates Christianity. All values are subjective....which is why there is disagreement and frequent debate even among the believers.

The fact that there are disagreements shows that morality is objective, otherwise what are people disagreeing about?

 

[bulldogfan1]

I don't think I would do either.... but if his employer decided to terminate his contract, I would probably say the same thing as I'm saying about Folau - that he probably should have chosen his words more wisely. Outrage is a selective notion....who says those criticising Folau are any more outraged than those criticising the ARU for its response? The ARU believes it has a strong enough legal footing to terminate his contract....I guess we will see what the courts decide.

I am not talking about his employer. My response is in response to the outrage which has influenced the employer in the first place.

 

[Flanagun]

The fact that there are disagreements shows that morality is objective, otherwise what are people disagreeing about?

Do you mean subjective? Objective truths are supposedly fixed and non debatable.

 

[Flanagun]

I am not talking about his employer. My response is in response to the outrage which has influenced the employer in the first place.

But that outrage exists on both sides of the ideological fence. I've seen plenty of comments of people threatening to not fly Qantas or support the ARU. I think it really has less to do with outrage than it has to do with people's subjective interpretations of what is right and wrong.

 

[bulldogfan1]

Do you mean subjective? Objective truths are supposedly fixed and non debatable.

Taste in food is subjective.
If someone is eating and enjoying a piece of fruit you dislike, do you tell them that they are wrong to find that fruit tasty?

No, you simply say you dont like it. You dont tell them they are wrong for thinking it tastes good. You dont argue with them and condemn them.

Yet when you see ISIS throwing people off buildings, you tell them they are wrong for doing that because you are appealing to an objective standard outside and beyond yourself.

If morality was subjective then you would react the same way when you see ISIS throw people off building as you would when you see someone eat a piece of fruit you dislike.

Reality is, you dont because in one instance you realise taste in fruit is subjective hence there is no right or wrong. Inthe other isntance you condemn them because you are appealing to an objective standard.

 

[Rodzilla]

In ancient Palestine some 3000 years ago, if a woman was raped, she was deemed by society as damaged goods. Essentially, no one would marry here, give her a job etc.
Its just how they viewed it back then.
Therefore, they would force the rapist to marry to essentially provide for her and provide a roof over her head.
In need to view things light of the back drop of the culture.

was it also in the culture to kill kids for laughing at a bald man?

if its real then god is an asshole but more likely the bible is written by men fascinated by rape and murder and wanting to control people

 

[bulldogfan1]

was it also in the culture to kill kids for laughing at a bald man?

if its real then god is an asshole but more likely the bible is written by men fascinated by rape and murder and wanting to control people

Kill kids for laughing at a bald man?

 

[Rodzilla]

Kill kids for laughing at a bald man?

42 kids told him to leave and made an emphasis on his baldness so he cursed them in the name of god then 2 bears came out of nowhere to kill them all

god is the original PC brigade ffs

 

[Flanagun]

Taste in food is subjective.
If someone is eating and enjoying a piece of fruit you dislike, do you tell them that they are wrong to find that fruit tasty?

No, you simply say you dont like it. You dont tell them they are wrong for thinking it tastes good. You dont argue with them and condemn them.

Yet when you see ISIS throwing people off buildings, you tell them they are wrong for doing that because you are appealing to an objective standard outside and beyond yourself.

If morality was subjective then you would react the same way when you see ISIS throw people off building as you would when you see someone eat a piece of fruit you dislike.

Reality is, you dont because in one instance you realise taste in fruit is subjective hence there is no right or wrong. Inthe other isntance you condemn them because you are appealing to an objective standard.

Interesting analogy, but that's a bit of a stretch. A viewpoint or belief can be fixed and inflexible without being objective. To go back to your fruit analogy, a lot of people might say "lemon is gross", or something similar. The framing of their comment as an objective statement doesn't change its subjectivity. If morality was objective, we would all share the same values and beliefs about right and wrong. To become an objective fact, a belief has to be proven and objective statements usually deal only with evidence, not emotions.

 

[blueyedsamurai]

42 kids told him to leave and made an emphasis on his baldness so he cursed them in the name of god then 2 bears came out of nowhere to kill them all

god is the original PC brigade ffs

 

[Dawgfather]

Why has all the media and general commentary been purely about homosexuals? He brought up 6-7 different categories of people.

Personally I think rugby players should play rugby. Sponsors should stick to handing over money and Governing bodies like the ARU should stick to trying to create a world class rugby team for Australia.

I don't agree with any of what Folau posted, but that doesn't mean I want him to lose his job.

 

[Flanagun]

Why has all the media and general commentary been purely about homosexuals? He brought up 6-7 different categories of people.

Personally I think rugby players should play rugby. Sponsors should stick to handing over money and Governing bodies like the ARU should stick to trying to create a world class rugby team for Australia.

I don't agree with any of what Folau posted, but that doesn't mean I want him to lose his job.

Probably because the other perceived sins he mentioned did not represent a stigmatised and frequently demonised minority...... liars for example....Folau is one himself....

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rug...-of-conduct-hearing/duyf4sljvpfz1o12011v9q8uv

Folau knew what he was doing and actually said he'd walk away in the future, if necessary. I hope now that this little piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out to him, he will withdraw any objections to the ARU's decision and walk away. He'll get by without his "job"....it's not like he'll be lining up at Centrelink.