Chicken_Faced_Killa
Well-known member
He wouldn’t be worth the price tag as others have said. He would be a solid player and would adapt to fullback in the NRL well imo but it is also a risk.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@ said:@ said:@ said:@ said:After his statements on Instagram/Twitter, No I don't want him at the club.
Goes against the no DH policy.
We have a number of fiercely religious guys in our team.
It's likely some will hold the same views as Izzy.
You're living under a rock if you think that everyone is love and mung beans when it comes to this topic.
To say Folau is a DH for expressing a view is the same of saying you're a DH for expressing your view isn't it?
Let's keep politics out of sport….
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.
@ said:@ said:@ said:@ said:We have a number of fiercely religious guys in our team.
It's likely some will hold the same views as Izzy.
You're living under a rock if you think that everyone is love and mung beans when it comes to this topic.
To say Folau is a DH for expressing a view is the same of saying you're a DH for expressing your view isn't it?
Let's keep politics out of sport….
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.
@ said: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.
@ said:@ said: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?
@ said:@ said:@ said: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.
@ said:Interesting… would you take Mansour for a reported 700k or Izzy at a mill?
@ said:@ said:@ said: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.