Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News

[weststigers]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

 

[weststigers]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

 

[TIGER]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

 

[avocadoontoast]

@weststigers fair enough. He’s a polarising person. I for one wouldn’t want him anywhere near the club. I think he sets a horrible example to children and is just generally someone I’d never cheer on.

As for your last comment. I think Folau is the one that lacked maturity and displayed incredibly poor judgment. I’m glad the ARU terminated his contract and I’m glad the NRL want nothing to do with him either.

 

[happy_tiger]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

Is the pool empty or full and how big is the turd

 

[weststigers]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

Come on mate...take it easy

 

[cktiger]

Seems like all the holier than thou comments are coming from the people who don’t believe in God.
As for Folau ... would be our best back by a country mile if he joined us.

 

[JD Tiger]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

It's not about being illegal or not, it's about his views being representative of the organisation he is associated with. Similar to expectations surrounding public servants. His views could be taken to be inline with the broader organisation he represents (ARU in that case), which is why they did restrict him in what he could say.

But I think you get that, from what your second sentence said.

I don't think it's about society not being mature enough, I think it's more about the moral outrage on social media.

Moral outrage on social media is a massive thing now, it used to be the news outlets would put out their stories, and we read them and think what we want but have no way to respond. Now, there is a way to respond, and they listen to that response. You read stories now about how so-and-so responded via twitter to the news media's original story.

When Warner, Smith and Bancroft were facing their trouble for match fixing, there was definite swings in the media as to what their punishments should be, as was responding to social media stories, and from all appearances the final punishments also were reflecting the social response.

When a religious person comes out and says their views now, other people will jump on them and act like they are mortally wounded. And that response creates news stories. It's not about right or wrong, for big organisations it often just is not worth the hassle.

I have my own personal thoughts about what Israel Folau is like (having never met him) from some of his tweets, but what does my opinion of a man I have never met matter? Answer used to be it doesn't matter. Well now if I can make enough noise on social media, it will matter.

 

[TIGER]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

Is the pool empty or full and how big is the turd

Full and just your run of the mill average size turd.

 

[happy_tiger]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

Is the pool empty or full and how big is the turd

Full and just your run of the mill average size turd.

Whose turd though more importantly ......Caddyshack is coming to mind lol

 

[weststigers]

@weststigers fair enough. He’s a polarising person. I for one wouldn’t want him anywhere near the club. I think he sets a horrible example to children and is just generally someone I’d never cheer on.

As for your last comment. I think Folau is the one that lacked maturity and displayed incredibly poor judgment. I’m glad the ARU terminated his contract and I’m glad the NRL want nothing to do with him either.

Just try to understand where the views come from...it's been taken as anti-gay, but the church's stance is anti every sex act that has no possibility of conception outside of marriage. That includes sex outside marriage and adultery. I wrote a post - I think it was on page 8 that explains it which might help to soften the initial shock of what he posted. He's not saying gay bad, straight good.

It's a linear logic and once you can see how they arrive there, it's not as shocking. You and I believe that people are born gay or straight and individuals choose what feels right to them. That's also linear logic, but our view is not shocking to religious people as they can see why we believe that. It needs to go both ways.

 

[TIGER]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

Come on mate...take it easy

Oh I'm taking it easier than The Eagles.

It's a serious question though, would you dive in?

 

[weststigers]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

It's not about being illegal or not, it's about his views being representative of the organisation he is associated with. Similar to expectations surrounding public servants. His views could be taken to be inline with the broader organisation he represents (ARU in that case), which is why they did restrict him in what he could say.

But I think you get that, from what your second sentence said.

I don't think it's about society not being mature enough, I think it's more about the moral outrage on social media.

Moral outrage on social media is a massive thing now, it used to be the news outlets would put out their stories, and we read them and think what we want but have no way to respond. Now, there is a way to respond, and they listen to that response. You read stories now about how so-and-so responded via twitter to the news media's original story.

When Warner, Smith and Bancroft were facing their trouble for match fixing, there was definite swings in the media as to what their punishments should be, as was responding to social media stories, and from all appearances the final punishments also were reflecting the social response.

When a religious person comes out and says their views now, other people will jump on them and act like they are mortally wounded. And that response creates news stories. It's not about right or wrong, for big organisations it often just is not worth the hassle.

I have my own personal thoughts about what Israel Folau is like (having never met him) from some of his tweets, but what does my opinion of a man I have never met matter? Answer used to be it doesn't matter. Well now if I can make enough noise on social media, it will matter.

Don't disagree with anything you've written.

I guess my maturity comment was pointing to the moral outrage culture. The default reaction is outrage rather than trying to understand the other person.

There's a big discussion that's not being had between someone's comment and the arrival at moral outrage.

The maturity part comes in the middle where we can have a civil dialogue and arrive at respectful disagreement rather than outrage. It's really easy to pi$$ someone off these days :laughing:

 

[weststigers]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

Come on mate...take it easy

Oh I'm taking it easier than The Eagles.

It's a serious question though, would you dive in?

It's a low resolution and lazy way of looking at things.

 

[JD Tiger]

On Folau, I'd take him...

In the cold light of day, his views are not illegal, therefore he should not be restricted in being able to voice those views by an employer.

I wouldn't be against a blanket ban on players commenting on any religion, politics etc.

Our society is simply not mature enough to deal with controversial topics in a constructive way.

It's not about being illegal or not, it's about his views being representative of the organisation he is associated with. Similar to expectations surrounding public servants. His views could be taken to be inline with the broader organisation he represents (ARU in that case), which is why they did restrict him in what he could say.

But I think you get that, from what your second sentence said.

I don't think it's about society not being mature enough, I think it's more about the moral outrage on social media.

Moral outrage on social media is a massive thing now, it used to be the news outlets would put out their stories, and we read them and think what we want but have no way to respond. Now, there is a way to respond, and they listen to that response. You read stories now about how so-and-so responded via twitter to the news media's original story.

When Warner, Smith and Bancroft were facing their trouble for match fixing, there was definite swings in the media as to what their punishments should be, as was responding to social media stories, and from all appearances the final punishments also were reflecting the social response.

When a religious person comes out and says their views now, other people will jump on them and act like they are mortally wounded. And that response creates news stories. It's not about right or wrong, for big organisations it often just is not worth the hassle.

I have my own personal thoughts about what Israel Folau is like (having never met him) from some of his tweets, but what does my opinion of a man I have never met matter? Answer used to be it doesn't matter. Well now if I can make enough noise on social media, it will matter.

Don't disagree with anything you've written.

I guess my maturity comment was pointing to the moral outrage culture. The default reaction is outrage rather than trying to understand the other person.

There's a big discussion that's not being had between someone's comment and the arrival at moral outrage.

The maturity part comes in the middle where we can have a civil dialogue and arrive at respectful disagreement rather than outrage. It's really easy to pi$$ someone off these days :laughing:

Yeah, I hear that. I think people find it fun and enjoyable to get offended. Sort of like stirring someone up can be fun. Plus they like the fact that people are listening to them, like their opinion does matter (even though it may not even be their real opinion if they thought about it)

And I'm a person, I'm sure I do this sometimes too without realising.

 

[TIGER]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

Come on mate...take it easy

Oh I'm taking it easier than The Eagles.

It's a serious question though, would you dive in?

It's a low resolution and lazy way of looking at things.

Nice way to avoid answering, so I'm going to assume that you wouldn't dive in.

So what bothers me about religious beliefs are that there's more than a few turds in their pools, yet people keep diving in.
(When I say turds, I don't mean individuals, I mean ideas in their holy books)

Your comment about religion not being 100% bad is what made me ask the question, even if a pool is 95% good and 5% turds you wouldn't even dip your toe in, would you?

So why do it with religion?

 

[weststigers]

@TIGER Couldn't agree more... religious nutjobs are cancer.

I'm not religious, but not everything about religion is 100% bad. We need some balance to the judgment of others views.

If there was only one turd in a pool, would you dive in?

Come on mate...take it easy

Oh I'm taking it easier than The Eagles.

It's a serious question though, would you dive in?

It's a low resolution and lazy way of looking at things.

Nice way to avoid answering, so I'm going to assume that you wouldn't dive in.

So what bothers me about religious beliefs are that there's more than a few turds in their pools, yet people keep diving in.
(When I say turds, I don't mean individuals, I mean ideas in their holy books)

Your comment about religion not being 100% bad is what made me ask the question, even if a pool is 95% good and 5% turds you wouldn't even dip your toe in, would you?

So why do it with religion?

I'm not avoiding anything.

I just don't view it like you.

By that logic, you'd never do anything that wasn't 100% perfect.

It's an impossible standard to apply to someone or something.

 

[TheDaBoss]

Dwz is gone, bring on folau... regardless of his beliefs, its a free country

 

[dazza65]

Not saying that at all. Just relaying one argument is heard

 

[upthetigers]

@upthetigers look i didn’t personally offend you in any way, I was having a civilised conversation on here, no need for that comment.

I wasn't having a go at you personally... religious nutjobs like Folau just piss me off. They want to act all high and mighty when the head of the church are a bunch of pedos in denial.