WOULD IZZY ADD VALUE TO WESTS TIGERS

User avatar
weststigers
Member
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 6:25 pm

Re: WOULD IZZY ADD VALUE TO WESTS TIGERS

Post by weststigers » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:41 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:27 pm
People defending free speech. My question, is there a limit to free speech? Or can you say absolutely anything when you are in the public spotlight? Somehow i don't think you can.
I guess it's not free speech if you limit what can or can't be said?


User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 22183
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:44 pm

weststigers wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:41 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:27 pm
People defending free speech. My question, is there a limit to free speech? Or can you say absolutely anything when you are in the public spotlight? Somehow i don't think you can.
I guess it's not free speech if you limit what can or can't be said?
So if i said the most said the most vicious things about you, like i think you should be killed, then hid behind free speech, that would be ok? Extreme example but how far is too far. Id say when it is said against you, you would feel differently.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm

Post by Abraham » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:48 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:44 pm
weststigers wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:41 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:27 pm
People defending free speech. My question, is there a limit to free speech? Or can you say absolutely anything when you are in the public spotlight? Somehow i don't think you can.
I guess it's not free speech if you limit what can or can't be said?
So if i said the most said the most vicious things about you, like i think you should be killed, then hid behind free speech, that would be ok? Extreme example but how far is too far. Id say when it is said against you, you would feel differently.
In the USA free speech is regarded as absolute until you start calling for violence .

That's what most fair people would regard as an acceptable limit. This excludes leftists, but again, i did say 'fair people'.

murf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 04 Apr, 2018 10:11 am

Post by murf » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:57 pm

ID RATHER SPEND A MILLION ON A CLASS CENTRE AMD UPGRADE SOME CONTRACTS THAT MAY NEED UPGRADING

murf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 04 Apr, 2018 10:11 am

Post by murf » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:00 pm

bbobb wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 10:16 am
Interesting... would you take Mansour for a reported 700k or Izzy at a mill?
NEITHER UPGRADE EXISTING CONTRACTS


User avatar
weststigers
Member
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by weststigers » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:04 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:44 pm
weststigers wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:41 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 1:27 pm
People defending free speech. My question, is there a limit to free speech? Or can you say absolutely anything when you are in the public spotlight? Somehow i don't think you can.
I guess it's not free speech if you limit what can or can't be said?
So if i said the most said the most vicious things about you, like i think you should be killed, then hid behind free speech, that would be ok? Extreme example but how far is too far. Id say when it is said against you, you would feel differently.
I see your point, but free speech and inciting violence are 2 separate things.

I will grant you, we cannot say absolutely anything we like, but luckily, we have laws in place to stop the incitement of violence so your example is covered.

I guess I'm talking about freedom of ideas. As an example:

Liberal politics vs Labor politics
Marriage Equality debate
Atheism vs Religion
Is the world round or flat?

To cut off one side of the debate is not the way forward because it may be your side of the debate that is cut off one day. As I said earlier, If your argument has merit, you will convince people to come to your way of thinking.

Inciting violence is not part of free speech.

User avatar
teddy23
Member
Member
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue 03 Feb, 2015 10:46 am

Post by teddy23 » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:10 pm

I understand the reasoning for people going against what he said

But if anything I respect that he isn’t giving us a media written response - he’s being 110% honest on his views and I for one respect that

From what I’ve heard he’s a humble guy and very religious

User avatar
Fibros
Member
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon 14 Aug, 2017 6:23 pm

Post by Fibros » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:11 pm

No value assuming he wants a mil.
We will smash em 50+ get on.

User avatar
teddy23
Member
Member
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue 03 Feb, 2015 10:46 am

Post by teddy23 » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:13 pm

Fibros wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:11 pm
No value assuming he wants a mil.
Reynolds at 700k

Izzy for a mil

Think about that for a second please

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5352
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:25 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:39 am


BTW he didn't just say homosexuals were going to hell, he ended up in an interview quoting the whole verse:
the sexually immoral
idolaters
adulterers
thieves
the greedy
drunkards
revilers
swindlers

all going to hell in a handbasket.
The greedy are going to hell aswell?
Good thing he went to AFL for the challenge.

tiger05premier
Member
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue 11 Mar, 2014 6:26 pm
Location: Newcastle

Post by tiger05premier » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:25 pm

No to izzy for me

And on his comments i think he should learn to keep certain beliefs to himself

Does he think gay people chose to be gay?

That they are deliberately sinning? (Not that i believe they as i don't one little bit)

They are born like that

It's natural.

No religion should discriminate against it.

What's he going to do if he has a child that is gay?

Theyhave a right to have yhe same rights as everyone else on the planet

He needs to get over himself

Silentio
Member
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon 01 Jun, 2015 1:21 pm

Post by Silentio » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:28 pm

He'd be a good signing (even more so because he's originally from Campbelltown), but league can't match the rugby dollars. Simple.

Whether you agree with him or not, he has huge balls to stick by his beliefs with all the heat he's copping.

User avatar
Cairnstigers
Member
Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Wed 07 Feb, 2018 10:00 pm

Post by Cairnstigers » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:39 pm

1st of all
Imo
Any player who has made our 1st 17 this year should be with the club till at least 2020
We need stability
Maybe and just maybe with the exception of Sue
I would like to see him play a little bit more
After that anyone else who is off contract will have to work very hard for a new contract
I am sure we would all like IZZY and at the beginning of the season I would have said pay a million $ a season
Now that we have shown what we can do I think we might have a few off contract players looking at us as a possible destination
Let Ivan see what they can do for us
Let's face it
It was a master stroke to get Benji back

tiger05premier
Member
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue 11 Mar, 2014 6:26 pm
Location: Newcastle

Post by tiger05premier » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:39 pm

Silentio wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:28 pm
He'd be a good signing (even more so because he's originally from Campbelltown), but league can't match the rugby dollars. Simple.

Whether you agree with him or not, he has huge balls to stick by his beliefs with all the heat he's copping.
Na

I think he is just rude

It's none of his business what people do with their private lives

I get the feeling (and yes its only my opinion ) that most people that think like that hide behind their religion when they would have the same feeling towards gays evenif they weren't religious

I just don't get why anyone thinks that gay people are some sought lower class citizen

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5918
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:48 pm

Mccarry wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 11:57 am
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:39 am
cktiger wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:23 am
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:13 am

Folau was the one who brought it up himself, he's brought the politics into the sporting sphere himself and is a DH for doing so. He's entitled to his views, but as has been said on here before, he doesn't work for himself alone, he has an employer who has a public image linked to financial outcomes, and he is damaging that brand.

So Izzy is a DH because he puts himself first, cannot help but make public statements condemning certain lifestyles and generally hasn't learned to pull his stupid head in.

Plenty of Christians in our team as you note, who don't force their views or opinions into the public sphere. Also plenty of Christians who don't privately condemn homosexuals - it isn't all or nothing.
He was asked a question and gave his honest opinion.
I can't see how that is forcing his opinion on the public .... unlike the sponsors of his code.
It's funny how people spout inclusiveness yet are happy to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views.
He was asked his opinion on instagram and he doesn't have to respond.

Smart folks say "no comment" or just don't engage with every troll who throws up a topical question.

What he in fact said is that homosexuals are going to hell. Not just "my religion teaches that homosexuality is immoral" or some such, they are going to hell.

Now imagine if Izzy had said "All Jews are going to hell, also black people. All babies born out of wedlock are going to hell and all adulterers and divorcees also." That may still in fact be his opinion.

What happens if Paul Gallen comes out tomorrow and says "I've always hated Polynesians, they smell like coconuts and I can't stand being anywhere near them".

All opinions, nothing expressly illegal. But not smart public commentary.

Sponsors are allowed to force opinions. They pay money for that right, they purchase the air time and the jersey space.

You miss the point totally, the rugby administration is not condemning him for his views, they are concerned about the damage he is doing to their brand, as an employee. And Folau doesn't seem to care, they've tried to be quiet about it and have some meetings to discuss how he might make his controversial opinions less public, and he won't do it. You don't want that crap in a football side, it's Jarryd Hayne all over again, player not just bigger than the team, but bigger than the code.

BTW he didn't just say homosexuals were going to hell, he ended up in an interview quoting the whole verse:
the sexually immoral
idolaters
adulterers
thieves
the greedy
drunkards
revilers
swindlers

all going to hell in a handbasket.
I’m trying to figure out if your trolling or not.

The bible has been around for approx 2000 years. It’s the number 1 best selling book of all time.

So your angry at him for quoting a verse from it? What do you think the verse was a secret before Folou quoted it.

Your calling him a DH is such a hypocritical comment. Surely you can see that.

He shares his beliefs. Your belief is he can’t share his and hence your belief is right so he is a DH.

You talk about sponsors pushing their views. I suggest you do a little work on the corporations act.

Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders. I find it hard to believe that the best interests of share holders are met by a CEO promoting his personal beliefs by giving or withdrawing sponsorship based on another quoting the worlds number 1 selling book.

You advocate (perhaps accidentally) for a vastly different Australia to what we all enjoy today.
1. corporates overriding personal beliefs
2. Individuals can’t talk about what is important to them unless it’s vanilla or homogenised
Not trolling, not my style. If I was trolling, I'd be asking you where exactly the God-shaped hole is in my life, and what sort of shape that is? Rhombus? Frustum?

So just to be clear, I support freedom of speech. There's actually no Australian law to guarantee freedom of speech, not like in the American Constitution, so it's largely based on implied freedoms. But freedom to speak does not mean freedom of consequences - all public opinions and comments can be made subject to scrutiny, and if that happens to be uncomfortable, it's not persecution and legally employers do have the rights to saction or sack people.

Have a read of a few of these:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/right-to ... mwn9f.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/tweetin ... 2uija.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/w ... es/6427158

So good luck to Izzy for speaking his mind, but he also needs to understand that the current social climate is not particularly supportive of his anti-homosexual stance, particularly evident with the gay marriage law change last year. I personally think Izzy is being a DH because he knows his public statements cause his employers grief, but he doesn't care. Understand: whether or not I agree with his comments is irrelevant, the point is he knows he is causing trouble and he does it anyway. This isn't even the first time Izzy's public opinions have caused him or the ARU trouble, and not even the first Australian sporting personality by a long shot.

You said it yourself, "Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders." Too right. How many thousands of shareholders does the ARU have, and how many of those shareholders are named Israel Folau?

So to bring it back to the question of whether or not Izzy would be good for the Tigers? Hell no. We want stability at this club, we want players who bleed black/white/gold and do what is best for the club. We don't want players with personalities and agendas bigger than the club, who draw negative media and social attention to the club. Doesn't matter why he says what he says. Don't care how good a footballer he is, I believe Folau has a negative side to his public image which can damage the Tigers brand.

Silentio
Member
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon 01 Jun, 2015 1:21 pm

Post by Silentio » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:48 pm

tiger05premier wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:39 pm
Silentio wrote:
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:28 pm
He'd be a good signing (even more so because he's originally from Campbelltown), but league can't match the rugby dollars. Simple.

Whether you agree with him or not, he has huge balls to stick by his beliefs with all the heat he's copping.
Na

I think he is just rude

It's none of his business what people do with their private lives

I get the feeling (and yes its only my opinion ) that most people that think like that hide behind their religion when they would have the same feeling towards gays evenif they weren't religious

I just don't get why anyone thinks that gay people are some sought lower class citizen
He (originally) didn't come out and make a statement, write an essay, hold a public speech or run a hate campaign. Somebody just asked him a question on Instagram.

He also never said he hated homosexual people or that they were lower class citizens.

All he has done is express his religion's theological view and has stood by it.

Go You Good Things
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 13 Jul, 2016 3:54 pm

Post by Go You Good Things » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 3:01 pm

Izzy ? . . . NO

And as for anyone that differs in opinion from the left . . don't waste your breath. They will tell you they are the most tolerant on earth, but when it comes to actually entertaining an opinion that differs to theirs . . . just forget it. :deadhorse:
How dare Izzy express his beliefs !!!! :?
If his beliefs were in line with the ideology of the left . . then fine ! Express away my good man. Or woman. Or gender fluid being.
So what is the connection with Qantas and Emirates, and how does this affect the level of outrage shown by Qantas ?

I await the usual civil and rational responses . . . . .

User avatar
momo&medo
Member
Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri 20 May, 2016 9:48 am
Location: NSW central coast

Post by momo&medo » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 3:10 pm

Let’s stick to football.
I may not agree with his religious views but in the end it’s his opinion .
He would be a great addition to our team however I don’t think it will not happen because he is too expensive and he is managed by Isaac Moses.

Post Reply