Jump to content

Israel Folau


fevnut

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

So, you are contradictory, assumptive and repetitive?

Anything else?

After page 3 this whole thread has been repetitive 

Im going to cut and paste one of my posts from the first 3 pages and I bet nobody will.even notice 

Its been done to death move on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, aj1908 said:

After page 3 this whole thread has been repetitive 

Im going to cut and paste one of my posts from the first 3 pages and I bet nobody will.even notice 

Its been done to death move on!

Yet you have contributed more posts on the subject then anyone else seemingly.

You do take contradiction to a whole new level. Maybe practise what you (frequently) preach?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Who made him apologise? The article doesn't say. 

Choosing to drink alcohol and being gay are not similar in the slightest.

RA I'd imagine or the Queensland reds. A lot of rugby fans said that due to this incident he pushed through the move to Japan and there were also rumours of him wanting to switch to representing Fiji. You'll never hear him admit that so who knows.

The point isn't that it's similar in any way, it's that i dont understand why people get so offended by comments made on social media. Seriously who cares what he or any sports star or celeb says online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

Yet you have contributed more posts on the subject then anyone else seemingly.

You do take contradiction to a whole new level. Maybe practise what you (frequently) preach?

 

It's a nuanced argument

Sorry you couldn't follow it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

I wouldn't mind folau taking the nrl to court for not allowing him to play 

It would've been interesting argument on.the basis he has been discriminated against his religious beliefs 

 

Hang on a minute, I thought you were against Folau coming back because of the way he treated League when he left (post on this thread yesterday)

Now you are saying you want him to take the NRL to court.

You either don't know what you are going on about half the time or I guess you are just here to wind people up.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Has he made anybody's rights to religious expression worse following his court battle? Have any of over 2,000 who donated to his cause asked for their money back because he didn't get something changed? He wasn't in court on any charges and everybody knew that so it was naive if anybody thought he was trying to get some kind law changed. I think most people donated because they thought what happened to him with regard to the RA was unjust. Also, it's worth noting the RA also apologised for any hurt/harm caused by their comments about others religious rights/freedoms. To many of his supporters the fact the RA wanted to settle was seen as a victory. I certainly don't see him as a moral role model but he did lose a lot of sponsors prior to his contract termination for similar reasons and clearly knew the financial consequences of his words. 

I’m worried now the mushy peas sponsors will run for the hills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Hang on a minute, I thought you were against Folau coming back because of the way he treated League when he left (post on this thread yesterday)

Now you are saying you want him to take the NRL to court.

You either don't know what you are going on about half the time or I guess you are just here to wind people up.

Do.you read ?

The Nrl didn't ban him bc of what he did to league 

I said this explicitly in my post 

It's boring repeating the same thing over and over and over 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

It's a nuanced argument

Sorry you couldn't follow it 

Your undertones are a subtle as a kick up the bum. Nothing nuanced about it at all. 

Feel free to leave the thread that has been boring you since Page 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, John Drake said:

For me, it's as simple as this. 

If a sport seriously wants to proclaim itself LGBTQ+ friendly and reap the associated benefits of such a policy, as Rugby League does, then it is incompatible with those stated values to welcome into the same sport a high profile, vociferous and unapologetic homophobe. 

Those two positions are mutually exclusive. You have to choose one, or the other, or be held in contempt. Actions speak louder than words, and all the fine words about LGBTQ+ inclusivity in Rugby League have effectively now been rendered worthless. When push comes to shove, we now know that exceptions will be made to accomodate homophobes, and those who we have welcomed into the sport on the basis of its LGBTQ+ friendly credentials will be told to shut up and stop making a fuss about it, as if the problem is suddenly theirs: the exact opposite of being LGBTQ+ friendly!

However good a player Israel Folau may or may not be, the damage his signing has done to Rugby League's reputation in this regard is absolutely not worth it. My personal view is that Catalans Dragons have brought the sport into disrepute.

I'm sure there are plenty of people involved in this sport who are not LGBTQ+ friendly at all, but unlike Israel Folau, they have not made a name for themselves by expressing such opinions repeatedly in public.

What associated benefits are we as a game reaping John?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Do.you read ?

The Nrl didn't ban him bc of what he did to league 

I said this explicitly in my post 

It's boring repeating the same thing over and over and over 

I didn't say that the NRL banned him because of what he did to League.

But...

You said you didn't want him back in League because of the damage he did to the sport and now you say you want him to take the governing body of the sport to court. That's completely contradictory and clearly just a wind up.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

This whole thing has blown up by the games reaction. I'm confident there would be nowhere near the level of angst had the RFL and SL simply said they find his views abhorrent and if he makes them again he will be out

They have said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iangidds said:

What associated benefits are we as a game reaping John?

We shouldnt be picking sides

But if we were wouldn't we do a study on which side brings the most to rugby league?

I'm.certain there would be some rugby league fans who agree with folau and would be miffed at the comments from elstone and the rfl 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Reverse it imagine it was found out a player was in the KKK. Then he said he wouldn’t be changing his views but it was his private life. Do you think he would be allowed to sign for a SL club. 

No but that’s not what I was saying. I was saying is it acceptable to have those views but just keep quiet? 
But now I think about it, it’s not a particularly good point anyway. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't say that the NRL banned him because of what he did to League.

But...

You said you didn't want him back in League because of the damage he did to the sport and now you say you want him to take the governing body of the sport to court. That's completely contradictory and clearly just a wind up.

Sigh 

If the nrl got up and said this guy left the game and wanted it to fail and did a lot of damage to and that's why he's banned then I would fully support it 

But the nrl was wrong to ban him for quoting the bible.  Especially given who they have allowed back in

Its not really a difficult argument 

And an article I read said it's probably not legal to bam him on religious grounds either and the nrl knew this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Who made him apologise? The article doesn't say. 

Choosing to drink alcohol and being gay are not similar in the slightest.

I don't think he particularly apologised either - having read a bit about it. He did say sorry for any misunderstanding but also repeated his deeply held personal beliefs regarding whichever entirely fictitious deity he thinks is going to save him in the afterlife that doesn't exist.

Did you know it's impossible to be Christian on the internet? You will literally be arrested and shot. Happens all the time.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I don't think he particularly apologised either - having read a bit about it. He did say sorry for any misunderstanding but also repeated his deeply held personal beliefs regarding whichever entirely fictitious deity he thinks is going to save him in the afterlife that doesn't exist.

Did you know it's impossible to be Christian on the internet? You will literally be arrested and shot. Happens all the time.

Well its not the popular religion on internet forums thata for sure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aj1908 said:

Well its not the popular religion on internet forums thata for sure 

It'll be all that telling gays they're going to hell because some celibate wrote a letter two thousand years ago.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

So, you are contradictory, assumptive and repetitive?

Anything else?

No let’s avoid having An argument and have a discussion , let’s look at this 20 years ago nobody would have batted an eyelid to have suggested a problem at that time would have seemed wrong . My point is that when the arbiters of right and wrong are undemocratically elected and not judicial , we fall back in to who shouts loudest or who has the biggest muscles deciding policy . All sane people know looking at history this never ends well from either political spectrum . I do not agree with or condone Israel’s comments but to deprive someone of a livelihood when they have broken no laws sets a very very dangerous precedent . Should you disagree with his signing pack the rafters at the DW for the pride fixture and use your  freedom of expression . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

It'll be all that telling gays they're going to hell because some celibate wrote a letter two thousand years ago.

There won't be any room in hell for them anyway with all the atheists on here anyway so they are safe 

And Jesus didn't write any letters lol 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Choosing to drink alcohol and being gay are not similar in the slightest.

Drawing a parallel with extensive heterosexual experience:

If you are gay and go to a party; its best not to overindulge the drink. You are then far more likely to end up getting off with a really ugly bloke and regretting it bigstyle the next day.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don't think he particularly apologised either - having read a bit about it. He did say sorry for any misunderstanding but also repeated his deeply held personal beliefs regarding whichever entirely fictitious deity he thinks is going to save him in the afterlife that doesn't exist.

Did you know it's impossible to be Christian on the internet? You will literally be arrested and shot. Happens all the time.

It's why I'm cynical that anybody actually did make him apologise, because as you say, he didn't really apologise for saying he loved Jesus, he pretty much repeated his faith after the 'apology'.

If that was a forced apology I don't think an organisation would have accepted that tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...