Jump to content

Folau set to depart the Dragons ?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

 

That wasn't what I was saying. I didn't say people were sheep for their views on Folau, more the fact they have a view is because the media decide (dictate) he is newsworthy and therefore run stories scrutinising every aspect of his being. Meanwhile we've just had somebody who's actually convicted of serious offences signed into the league and because the media have deemed, in their view, it not being a matter of interest, then it'll go by unchallenged. 

That does not sit right with me. I judge based on the action not the hype. 

 

 

Thing is, the counter example you gave is someone who has had their time in court, been convicted and who has, subsequently, (apparently) but some effort into addressing his previous behaviour.

As a firm believer in rehabilitation, he seems to have done enough to be allowed a second chance.

Rugby league could also do a lot, lot more to address domestic abuse issues too, incidentally.

  • Like 3

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 post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My advice to Israel.  When deciding whether to break your contract, fail to turn up for pre-season training, ignore the attempts at contact from your employer and consider a move to French Rugby Union

Well, this is an entirely unexpected development.

Hard to comment on Folau threads without seemingly like a sympathiser. I'm not to be clear - I completely disagree with his 'beliefs'.  But once again many on here appear to have their moral comp

Posted Images

49 minutes ago, RP London said:

Sorry i dont understand your point here... Aus RU settled with him.. he was in control and could have said no he wanted to fight it but he chose not to have his day in court (maybe because he knew he was on shaky ground) and Aus RU chose not to fight it in court either (probably for similar reasons). The choice to settle is made between the 2 parties, no one is "made" to settle they chose to and they are happy otherwise they carry on with the court action.

I’m not disagreeing the settlement process mike.  Your statement was that ‘he settled, he didn’t win’, when in fact, they both agreed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a headline:

Tabloid Trash, Click Bait Article on Channel 9 Website With No Factual Content Draws Hysterical Criticism For Isarael Falou From RL Fans

i know, I know, it’s a bit wordy... I will work on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Thing is, the counter example you gave is someone who has had their time in court, been convicted and who has, subsequently, (apparently) but some effort into addressing his previous behaviour.

As a firm believer in rehabilitation, he seems to have done enough to be allowed a second chance.

Rugby league could also do a lot, lot more to address domestic abuse issues too, incidentally.

I take all that onboard and actually agree with second chances. So, Folau never had his time in court because he committed no crime in the eyes of the law. He has said he won't publicly post his views again and to my knowledge he hasn't. Is that not his version of rehabilitation or will people only be satisfied if he says he no longer holds those beliefs? 

Again i'm no Folau fan, I just struggle with idea that the treatment afforded to man who was convicted of serious crimes can be better than that of a man who holds a belief system, however warped it may be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

 

That wasn't what I was saying. I didn't say people were sheep for their views on Folau, more the fact they have a view is because the media decide (dictate) he is newsworthy and therefore run stories scrutinising every aspect of his being. Meanwhile we've just had somebody who's actually convicted of serious offences signed into the league and because the media have deemed, in their view, it not being a matter of interest, then it'll go by unchallenged. 

That does not sit right with me. I judge based on the action not the hype. 

 

 

But that isn't what you said. You talked about people's moral compass. 

What you are now saying you are talking about is awareness of individuals behaviour. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I’m not disagreeing the settlement process mike.  Your statement was that ‘he settled, he didn’t win’, when in fact, they both agreed.

 

whose Mike?

My statement was about Folau because you had said that "he had won his case and Aus RU had paid out".. therefore "he settled he didnt win" because he had settled (yes with Aus RU but that bits a bit obvious I thought) and he didnt win.. there was no need for "they" because you had said "he" and I was responding to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Don't disagree with that. I thought liberals weren't keen on wife beaters either? 

Liberal society tends to also allow people who have been to prison and atoned for their crimes nearly a decade ago to be rehabilitated - as an hand down from Christianity 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that isn't what you said. You talked about people's moral compass. 

What you are now saying you are talking about is awareness of individuals behaviour. 

 

I did mention the moral compass of people yes - that was mainly addressing the fact on an entire thread dedicated to Zane Tetevano, the third or forth comment on there was in relation to his domestic violence convictions. It was barely acknowledged in the further 7 pages despite coming back up by a few posters throughout the thread. There was no awareness issue, Dave. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I did mention the moral compass of people yes - that was mainly addressing the fact on an entire thread dedicated to Zane Tetevano, the third or forth comment on there was in relation to his domestic violence convictions. It was barely acknowledged in the further 7 pages despite coming back up by a few posters throughout the thread. There was no awareness issue, Dave. 

Over 10 years ago, which he has been punished by going to prison for, and crucially is openly repentent of. None of which ever has applied to Folau, especially the last part.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Liberal society tends to also allow people who have been to prison and atoned for their crimes nearly a decade ago to be rehabilitated - as an hand down from Christianity 

 

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Over 10 years ago, which he has been punished by going to prison for, and crucially is openly repentent of. None of which ever has applied to Folau, especially the last part.

So criminal goes to prison and repents = stand up guy in society 

Non criminal but holds a belief system = menace to society 

That's shakey ground to be on for me, Tommy. Each to their own I guess. 

A side issue but this wasn't 10 years ago, it was 2015. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I did mention the moral compass of people yes - that was mainly addressing the fact on an entire thread dedicated to Zane Tetevano, the third or forth comment on there was in relation to his domestic violence convictions. It was barely acknowledged in the further 7 pages despite coming back up by a few posters throughout the thread. There was no awareness issue, Dave. 

Without going into the individual cases, that absolutely does highlight an awareness issue. I still know little about Tetevano but know plenty about Folau because of his far higher worldwide profile.

More people will see a thread about Folau and go on and give their view about that than they did about Tetevano who is somebody many people won't even have heard of. 

Had you complained about media inbalance, that is a worthy discussion - but I don't follow the thought that people don't have their own moral compass. It doesn't make sense. Once you also start using the label 'liberals' I'm afraid it sends some warning signals. I'll wait for the word 'woke' to pop up before I leave the thread alone.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

 

So criminal goes to prison and repents = stand up guy in society 

Non criminal but holds a belief system = menace to society 

You are portraying a position that is really dishonest. This is not the reality of what has happened here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

 

So criminal goes to prison and repents = stand up guy in society 

Non criminal but holds a belief system = menace to society 

That's shakey ground to be on for me, Tommy. Each to their own I guess. 

A side issue but this wasn't 10 years ago, it was 2015. 

No, criminal emerges as free person who has served their time as punishment. Equally so when his status and profile haven't insulated him from being punished for his crimes in the way someone without those could never be.

Tactless individual who uses his public given platform and preaches from a stand point of freedom of speech but doesn't understand the responsibility and consequence of that, nor others right to respond in equal measure, fool. 

I think Folau has every right to say whatever he likes, I'll never advocate him being stopped. That doesn't incumber anyone else saying he's bigoted, hypocritical and of course plain wrong on some counts. My main thoughts on him are that he isn't very bright.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think Folau has every right to say whatever he likes, I'll never advocate him being stopped. That doesn't incumber anyone else saying he's bigoted, hypocritical and of course plain wrong on some counts. My main thoughts on him are that he isn't very bright.

I wouldn't classify Folau as bigoted.  We have to remember that he believes what he says. He believes that practicing homosexuality is a sin and he is in fact trying to save people's eternal souls by encouraging them to change their ways. 

I think that there is a critical difference between this action and someone who discriminates on the basis of sexuality (which I haven't seen with Folau if he has).

What I do agree with is that he is wrong. But then I don't hold his beliefs.

What I do agree with is that he is a hypocrite (as I stated previously as he didn't fight for his rights to speak). And he is also a very poor judge as he should not have been making such statements when he was a named ambassador for the ARU who had a policy of tolerance and inclusiveness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Without going into the individual cases, that absolutely does highlight an awareness issue. I still know little about Tetevano but know plenty about Folau because of his far higher worldwide profile.

More people will see a thread about Folau and go on and give their view about that than they did about Tetevano who is somebody many people won't even have heard of. 

Had you complained about media inbalance, that is a worthy discussion - but I don't follow the thought that people don't have their own moral compass. It doesn't make sense. Once you also start using the label 'liberals' I'm afraid it sends some warning signals. I'll wait for the word 'woke' to pop up before I leave the thread alone.

 

We're not going to agree on this, Dave, I've accepted that. 

The use of the word 'liberals' was in response to somebody using the word liberal, therefore there was context you've omitted. Don't presume to know my views.

You earlier accused me of being arrogant and condescending - i'd suggest you might want to consider how that last sentence comes across. Self awareness is important. 

 

Edited by hunsletgreenandgold
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth, my view is that there is no smoke without fire. 

I can't see him coming back and even less so if its to be holded up in a hotel all season with his family in France. 

Same goes for Maloney. He has been linked with moves back home since being at the club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

We're not going to agree on this, Dave, I've accepted that. 

The use of the word 'liberals' was in response to somebody using the word liberal. Don't presume to know my views.

You earlier accused me of being arrogant and condescending - i'd suggest you might want to consider how that last sentence comes across. Self awareness is important. 

 

Yes, happy to disagree, and to apologise if I came across as arrogant, but I do want to address the point you make here.

Tommy described our society as "largely agnostic/atheistic liberal society" - to which you replied "I thought liberals weren't keen on wife beaters". That is using a label as a stick to beat people with. On the back of you questioning people's moral compass I don't think my post was unreasonable at all. 

So to recap, on a thread about Israel Folau - you accuse people of not setting their own moral compass, and use the word liberals as a snarky reference. Surely you can see how I come to my position that we may hear the word 'woke' soon? 

A final point, when I said your post was arrogant and condescending (and telling people they are not making their own mind up is absolutely that) I did clarify "whether you meant that or not" and that was because I have never witnessed that approach in your posts and was giving you the benefit of assuming it was clumsy phrasing.

But, it's all good, happy to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I wouldn't classify Folau as bigoted.  We have to remember that he believes what he says. He believes that practicing homosexuality is a sin and he is in fact trying to save people's eternal souls by encouraging them to change their ways. 

 

from the oxford english dictionary "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

Its really going to come down to your definition of "unreasonably attached" when you think it is coming from the bible.. and "atagonistic" when your telling people they are going to hell for being gay... 

its a tough one i suppose can see where some would say he is and understand those who may not.. 

my biggest issue with the whole thing wasnt necessarily about folau (though i dont like him) it was the fact i was not, and still am not, sure it was a wise move for catalans. The potential for him to "slip" and come out with something like this again was always there and I am not sure I would personally have taken that risk. With a lot of the other incidents brought up on this thread I would say the risk of re offence is lower. If i were a club i would have thought very hard about Zak Hardaker too as he seems to have a history of "slipping" etc.. I am not trying to be a moral compass, and havent as far as I remember, I try and look at it from the clubs and the risks to them of repeat offences etc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tommy described our society as "largely agnostic/atheistic liberal society" - to which you replied "I thought liberals weren't keen on wife beaters". That is using a label as a stick to beat people with. On the back of you questioning people's moral compass I don't think my post was unreasonable at all. 

So to recap, on a thread about Israel Folau - you accuse people of not setting their own moral compass, and use the word liberals as a snarky reference. Surely you can see how I come to my position that we may hear the word 'woke' soon? 

The target of my response wasn't liberals though, Dave. There was more context which made my essentially rhetorical question more pertinent. I would've hoped that was clear. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Folau isn't the only one who has misused social media.

Plenty of players/those in the game have criticised referees decisions, let alone claiming Boris Johnson's coronavirus was a publicity stunt, and little seems to be done to hold them responsible.

Someone should remind the players, again, of their responsibility, and actually take action.

 

On Tetevano, maybe some of the press should ask Leeds about his past, not much we can do moaning on forums! 😀

Edited by RigbyLuger
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RP London said:

from the oxford english dictionary "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

Its really going to come down to your definition of "unreasonably attached" when you think it is coming from the bible.. and "atagonistic" when your telling people they are going to hell for being gay... 

its a tough one i suppose can see where some would say he is and understand those who may not.. 

It is a really tough one.  Not least because there are more people in the world who believe in the teachings of the Abrahamic religions than do not.  The world is in a strange place at the moment as the majority of people will agree that acceptance of people irrespective of their sexuality is a decent thing and any form of discrimination against people based on sexuality is abhorrent.  But this view goes directly against the traditional teachings of religion where such things are 'wrong'.  Although (as I say) they are teaching the practice as wrong and not particularly any hatred to the individual... in fact they would say they are trying to save them.

This last point is why I will give Israel Folau the benefit of the doubt when he says he is trying to save people.  However a strong caveat here is that there are many people who are being persecuted for their sexuality by religious elements simply because they are not fortunate enough to live in a tolerant society.  I believe that the beliefs and statements of the likes of Folau go some way to validating the actions of those who do persecute.  This is where freedom of speech and religious views come into direct conflict with modern tolerant society.  I would prefer it if we all tolerate each other.

As you say, a tough one! 

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is a really tough one.  Not least because there are more people in the world who believe in the teachings of the Abrahamic religions than do not.  The world is in a strange place at the moment as the majority of people will agree that acceptance of people irrespective of their sexuality is a decent thing and any form of discrimination of against people based on sexuality is abhorrent.  But this view goes directly against the traditional teachings of religion where such things are 'wrong'.  Although (as I say) they are teaching the practice as wrong and not particularly any hatred to the individual... in fact they would say they are trying to save them.

This last point is why I will give Israel Folau the benefit of the doubt when he says he is trying to save people.  However a strong caveat here is that there are many people who are being persecuted for their sexuality by religious elements simply because they are not fortunate enough to live in a tolerant society.  I believe that the beliefs and statements of the likes of Folau go some way to validating the actions of those who do persecute.  This is where freedom of speech and religious views come into direct conflict with modern tolerant society.  I would prefer it if we all tolerate each other.

As you say, a tough one! 

spacer.png

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I wouldn't classify Folau as bigoted.  We have to remember that he believes what he says. He believes that practicing homosexuality is a sin and he is in fact trying to save people's eternal souls by encouraging them to change their ways. 

I think that there is a critical difference between this action and someone who discriminates on the basis of sexuality (which I haven't seen with Folau if he has).

What I do agree with is that he is wrong. But then I don't hold his beliefs.

What I do agree with is that he is a hypocrite (as I stated previously as he didn't fight for his rights to speak). And he is also a very poor judge as he should not have been making such statements when he was a named ambassador for the ARU who had a policy of tolerance and inclusiveness.

I'd say he's wrong not because of his beliefs, which obviously are personal and heartfelt, but because of how he preaches his beliefs affect the modern world. Natural disasters in Australia being the fault of society accepting gay people is factually innaccurate.

I do think bigoted has a place in that criticism. Christianity has demonstrated a clear ability to evolve and with so many different variations it is possible to say you don't like some aspects of one and prefer the teachings of another - I wonder what exactly Folau's thoughts are on the Catholic church for example? Equally, its not an uncommon concept that people use various religions, institutions or philosophies to hide behind or use as a vehicle of their prejudice. I don't think Folau is bright enough for that, but is ignorance an excuse?

I agree though that the main problem he consistently demonstrates is that despite his supreme athletic ability, he evidently isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Edited by Tommygilf
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I'd say he's wrong not because of his beliefs, which obviously are personal and heartfelt, but because of how he preaches his beliefs affect the modern world. Natural disasters in Australia being the fault of society accepting gay people is factually innaccurate.

I do think bigoted has a place in that criticism. Christianity has demonstrated a clear ability to evolve and with so many different variations it is possible to say you don't like some aspects of one and prefer the teachings of another - I wonder what exactly Folau's thoughts are on the Catholic church for example? Equally, its not an uncommon concept that people use various religions, institutions or philosophies to hide behind or use as a vehicle of their prejudice. I don't think Folau is bright enough for that, but is ignorance an excuse?

I agree though that the main problem he consistently demonstrates is that despite his supreme athletic ability, he evidently isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

The new Woke Gender Revolution also comes under that umbrella.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RP London said:

from the oxford english dictionary "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

Its really going to come down to your definition of "unreasonably attached" when you think it is coming from the bible.. and "atagonistic" when your telling people they are going to hell for being gay... 

its a tough one i suppose can see where some would say he is and understand those who may not.. 

my biggest issue with the whole thing wasnt necessarily about folau (though i dont like him) it was the fact i was not, and still am not, sure it was a wise move for catalans. The potential for him to "slip" and come out with something like this again was always there and I am not sure I would personally have taken that risk. With a lot of the other incidents brought up on this thread I would say the risk of re offence is lower. If i were a club i would have thought very hard about Zak Hardaker too as he seems to have a history of "slipping" etc.. I am not trying to be a moral compass, and havent as far as I remember, I try and look at it from the clubs and the risks to them of repeat offences etc

Don't think Hardakers done too much wrong recently? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...