Liberals who aren't liberal

Ulysses Gaze

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The sacking of folau was not a free speech issue. He was sacked because he broke the rules of a contract he signed.

A contract he voluntarily signed and was being very well renumerated for.

KikiLaRue

recedite wrote: »

0.3% today, 0.4% tomorrow.
But in 20 years time Nigeria will still be 100% Nigerian. Whereas the Irish will probably be a minority in Ireland.



So it turns out that you are in favour of sexism after all.


And it turns out that you are against Free Speech. If religion is against homosexual acts (and all the major world religions are) then you are fine with religious discrimination, even up to the point of sacking somebody from their job on account of their off-duty social media posts. A guy quotes the bible on twitter or facebook, and you grab your pitchfork.


You epitomise all that is most intolerant about the "progressive" and "liberal" agenda.

All you’re establishing is your own ignorance. You don’t understand the concepts of free speech or sexism, and I’m not going to waste my time attempting to educate you.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The sacking of folau was not a free speech issue. He was sacked because he broke the rules of a contract he signed.

In fact they have admitted now he did not break any contract, so they are now alleging he breached a code of conduct (which is not normally a sacking offence)

Rugby Australia will not, it appears, be relying on any express or specific term in the player’s contract; rather, their arguments will be premised on the general and standard contractual clause that players employed by Rugby Australia must abide by the Code

source


Its a bit of a legal quagmire. But at the end of the day, we all know what is happening there. The intolerant "liberals" allied with the LGBT lobby have gone after him with their pitchforks. These guys are adept at organising social media campaigns, and they now have the sponsors running scared.
If its a choice between sacrificing the player, or losing their sponsorship cash, Rugby Australia will find a way to lynch the player.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

In fact they have admitted now he did not break any contract, so they are now alleging he breached a code of conduct (which is not normally a sacking offence)
source


Its a bit of a legal quagmire. But at the end of the day, we all know what is happening there. The intolerant "liberals" allied with the LGBT lobby have gone after him with their pitchforks. These guys are adept at organising social media campaigns, and they now have the sponsors running scared.
If its a choice between sacrificing the player, or losing their sponsorship cash, Rugby Australia will find a way to lynch the player.

their arguments will be premised on the general and standard contractual clause that players employed by Rugby Australia must abide by the Code

Now you'e just splitting hairs. He broke their rules, he pays the price. And breaching a code of conduct is not normally a sacking offence but when the offence is repeated after a warning what are Rugby Australia to do. I would have thought that decrying homphobia was a good thing. Clearly you disagree and are happy for it to go unchecked.

jimgoose

19th Century Liberal:



21st Century Liberal:

cgcsb

This thread reminded me of something, I know a couple of people who self describe as liberal but have opinions that are completely inconsistent. Example:

Girl I know is a vegan, won't eat an egg because it's immoral, that egg could become a chicken, same girl supports human abortion on demand, except for sex selective abortions (female babies aren't welcome in some countries), which she thinks should be banned(somehow). Same girl is opposed to direct provision, and is unwilling to pay more taxes to give the dole to anyone who turns up at an airport/port. Wants to allow extreme Islamist preachers speak here because of 'freedom of speach' and wants Tony Robins band from the country.

I think a lot of people like her are only basing their opinions on what's popular, not really subjecting those opinions to any logic tests.

jimgoose

cgcsb wrote: »

...I think a lot of people like her are only basing their opinions on what's popular, not really subjecting those opinions to any logic tests.

In the same way that many so-called "conservatives" or "republicans" these days base their views and opinions not on any proper, solid Conservative philosophy but some sort of uneducated "Gawd tole me!" or "Europe bad, innit?!?" notions, many modern so-called "Liberals" are nothing of the sort - they're misguided, wannabe professional Victims all trying to out-virtue each other.

cgcsb

jimgoose wrote: »

In the same way that many so-called "conservatives" or "republicans" these days base their views and opinions not on any proper, solid Conservative philosophy but some sort of uneducated "Gawd tole me!" or "Europe bad, innit?!?" notions, many modern so-called "Liberals" are nothing of the sort - they're misguided, wannabe professional Victims all trying to out-virtue each other.

Absolutely, the opposite is also true, however, you rarely hear people voicing conservative opinions these days, well at least in my social circle. We see this in the Southern US, which is becoming more and more close to the ideal Islamic state (for extremists), but the same people hate muslims.

is_that_so

cgcsb wrote: »

This thread reminded me of something, I know a couple of people who self describe as liberal but have opinions that are completely inconsistent. Example:

Girl I know is a vegan, won't eat an egg because it's immoral, that egg could become a chicken, same girl supports human abortion on demand, except for sex selective abortions (female babies aren't welcome in some countries), which she thinks should be banned(somehow). Same girl is opposed to direct provision, and is unwilling to pay more taxes to give the dole to anyone who turns up at an airport/port. Wants to allow extreme Islamist preachers speak here because of 'freedom of speach' and wants Tony Robins band from the country.

I think a lot of people like her are only basing their opinions on what's popular, not really subjecting those opinions to any logic tests.

Most people would not be capable of challenging those contradictions and even if they did they'd get a blast of insults and completely incoherent dogma. Then again most of the rest of her circle probably share similar views.

Skylinehead

jimgoose wrote: »

19th Century Liberal:

20th

jimgoose

Skylinehead wrote: »

20th

Both!

jimgoose

cgcsb wrote: »

Absolutely, the opposite is also true, however, you rarely hear people voicing conservative opinions these days, well at least in my social circle. We see this in the Southern US, which is becoming more and more close to the ideal Islamic state (for extremists), but the same people hate muslims.

Precisely. Such a set-up is actually closer to the current "liberal" notions of promoting and drawing attention to differences between people. I believe they call it "Celebrating Diversity". I want the wild man of Baluba living next-door to me, giving out about USC, washing his Avensis on Sunday morning and sending his youngfella out playing hurling on the green with mine!

recedite

jimgoose wrote: »

I believe they call it "Celebrating Diversity". I want the wild man of Baluba living next-door to me, giving out about USC, washing his Avensis on Sunday morning and sending his youngfella out playing hurling on the green with mine!

I was at the UCD entrance scholarship awards last November. The front two thirds of the room was made up of young lads and lassies who had attained very high points in the Leaving Cert exams through their own hard work and intelligence. The back rows were occupied by the "diversity placings".
Why were these people relegated to the back of the room? Was it because of their black faces or their ridiculously "camp" affectations?
No, its because they were a bit thick. Despite getting scholarships, they only had enough points for various arts and humanities courses (social justice and the like) Whereas the higher points faculties of medicine, veterinary, business etc get the front seats.
I'd have thought that scholarships were meant for students that were poor but bright. Apparently not.

You might say "sure what harm". But for every one of these diversity placings, some other poor fecker who worked hard has been bumped off the list.

cgcsb

recedite wrote: »

I was at the UCD entrance scholarship awards last November. The front two thirds of the room was made up of young lads and lassies who had attained very high points in the Leaving Cert exams through their own hard work and intelligence. The back rows were occupied by the "diversity placings".
Why were these people relegated to the back of the room? Was it because of their black faces or their ridiculously "camp" affectations?
No, its because they were a bit thick. Despite getting scholarships, they only had enough points for various arts and humanities courses (social justice and the like) Whereas the higher points faculties of medicine, veterinary, business etc get the front seats.
I'd have thought that scholarships were meant for students that were poor but bright. Apparently not.

You might say "sure what harm". But for every one of these diversity placings, some other poor fecker who worked hard has been bumped off the list.

leaving cert points aren't a conclusive measure of brightness. Economic disadvantage often leads to lower leaving cert points. There are people with 500 points who are dumb as posts, they got those points because their parents had a private tutor bate course material into their head as teenagers and they weren't expected to have part time jobs in school. I knew lots of posh kids in college who didn't know their arse from their elbow. One guy, although being aware that the world was round questioned why rockets taking off didn't hit China, because he believed we lived on the inner side of the sphere, after having his mind blown, learning that not to be true, he queried how the air doesn't escape. He was in the same course as me so he must have gotten a minimum of 450.

Disgraceful that there was a pecking order of seating.

recedite

cgcsb wrote: »

leaving cert points aren't a conclusive measure of brightness. Economic disadvantage often leads to lower leaving cert points. There are people with 500 points who are dumb as posts, they got those points because their parents had a private tutor bate course material into their head as teenagers and they weren't expected to have part time jobs in school. I knew lots of posh kids in college who didn't know their arse from their elbow. One guy, although being aware that the world was round questioned why rockets taking off didn't hit China, because he believed we lived on the inner side of the sphere, after having his mind blown, learning that not to be true, he queried how the air doesn't escape. He was in the same course as me so he must have gotten a minimum of 450.

That can happen. But generally speaking, if you are not the brightest, or you are a dosser, you don't get the points.

cgcsb wrote: »

Disgraceful that there was a pecking order of seating.

Yes I was really appalled at that. It looked like something from apartheid era South Africa. Very bad optics.
But this is what happens when you have a ceremony that is traditionally designed to recognise high achievement, and then try to turn it into a celebration of diversity. Chalk and cheese.

Zorya

recedite wrote: »

I was at the UCD entrance scholarship awards last November. The front two thirds of the room was made up of young lads and lassies who had attained very high points in the Leaving Cert exams through their own hard work and intelligence. The back rows were occupied by the "diversity placings".
Why were these people relegated to the back of the room? Was it because of their black faces or their ridiculously "camp" affectations?
No, its because they were a bit thick. Despite getting scholarships, they only had enough points for various arts and humanities courses (social justice and the like) Whereas the higher points faculties of medicine, veterinary, business etc get the front seats.
I'd have thought that scholarships were meant for students that were poor but bright. Apparently not.

You might say "sure what harm". But for every one of these diversity placings, some other poor fecker who worked hard has been bumped off the list.

This seems like an odd situation, or maybe I am not understanding it. UCD Scholarships are awarded simply for diversity?Or for points obtained?

And the seating arrangement created some sort of perceptible divisions because they were done by faculty or because some people got scholarships without points being the decider? Don't really know what is going on here.

Hmmmm.

I've been to the JP McManus Scholarships awards ceremonies. The children of first generation immigrants are very well represented, but every single one of them are there because they were damn hard workers who got the top results in their counties in their income group, the only qualification being that they have to be poor enough to have a Medical Card. Some of them had literally arrived only one or two years earlier and there they were with fantastic leaving cert points. It is not diversity being awarded there but pure personal effort.

recedite

Zorya wrote: »

I've been to the JP McManus Scholarships awards ceremonies. The children of first generation immigrants are very well represented, but every single one of them are there because they were damn hard workers who got the top results in their counties in their income group, the only qualification being that they have to be poor enough to have a Medical Card. Some of them had literally arrived only one or two years earlier and there they were with fantastic leaving cert points. It is not diversity being awarded there but pure personal effort.

That's fair enough then.
In the UCD ceremony, many students are getting the awards because they are African or because they are gay. Most are there because they got lots of "A"s in their LC exams.
However, because the seating seems to be arranged in order of the various schools or faculties, with the more prestigious ones at the front, in practice the "diversity placements" all end up sitting at the back together.
TBH I'm not sure what the point of it is. I was only there to bask in reflected glory, and to dine on the free food (lukewarm tea and miniscule cocktail sausages)

Zorya

recedite wrote: »

That's fair enough then.
In the UCD ceremony, many students are getting the awards because they are African or because they are gay.
However, because the seating seems to be arranged in order of the various schools or faculties, with the more prestigious ones at the front, in practice the "diversity placements" all end up sitting at the back together.
TBH I'm not sure what the point of it is. I was only there to bask in reflected glory, and to dine on the free food (lukewarm tea and miniscule cocktail sausages)

The JP McManus does a fabulous buffet and I'm familiar with the reflected basking pose . I honestly cannot believe though that there are scholarships simply for gayness....hahahah If there are that is just silly.

riffmongous

Zorya wrote: »

The JP McManus does a fabulous buffet and I'm familiar with the reflected basking pose . I honestly cannot believe though that there are scholarships simply for gayness....hahahah If there are that is just silly.

It's hard to tell but I reckon those aren't scholarships but actually bursaries.

Zorya

riffmongous wrote: »

It's hard to tell but I reckon those aren't scholarships but actually bursaries.

Bursaries for being a lesbian? That's got to be a joke.
Feck, I missed my calling. Could I have gotten a scholarship for being a nerdy virgin instead of working in Abracababra to pay my rent in college?

Please tell me one cannot get a special payment just for being gay? :pac::pac:

1641

recedite wrote: »

That's fair enough then.
In the UCD ceremony, many students are getting the awards because they are African or because they are gay. Most are there because they got lots of "A"s in their LC exams.

Well, presumably these scholarships based on skin colour or "gayness" are advertised in some way or their is some link to how someone might apply for them. Have you got any link to information on these "scholarships" or to any source other than your observation/opinion?

In case, like, someone might think that because you saw "African" or "gay" students at an awards ceremony you assumed they weren't there on merit.

recedite

Zorya wrote: »

Please tell me one cannot get a special payment just for being gay? :pac::pac:

No cash unfortunately. But I believe some people were getting places in those nice on-campus UCD student pads allocated to them.

BTW, Good luck to all students starting the annual trial by Leaving Cert today!

riffmongous

Zorya wrote: »

Bursaries for being a lesbian? That's got to be a joke.
Feck, I missed my calling. Could I have gotten a scholarship for being a nerdy virgin instead of working in Abracababra to pay my rent in college?

Please tell me one cannot get a special payment just for being gay? :pac::pac:

Not for being gay as far as I know, maybe that was just the OP being colourful, or if they didn't get the difference between a scholarship and bursary who knows what else they missed. However, being a refugee, mature student, traveller, low income single parent etc you could apply for one. UCD gives out around 10 as far as I can remember

recedite

1641 wrote: »

In case, like, someone might think that because you saw "African" or "gay" students at an awards ceremony you assumed they weren't there on merit.

If they had been there on merit, they wouldn't have had to sit at the back.

Grayson

recedite wrote: »

That can happen. But generally speaking, if you are not the brightest, or you are a dosser, you don't get the points.
Yes I was really appalled at that. It looked like something from apartheid era South Africa. Very bad optics.
But this is what happens when you have a ceremony that is traditionally designed to recognise high achievement, and then try to turn it into a celebration of diversity. Chalk and cheese.

The leaving cert is by and large learning off material by rote. You don't even need to understand it.

I did terribly in mine. But I now have loads of degrees and qualifications. And one of my specialities is logic. I'm a professional problem solver. But the leaving cert didn't test any of that kind of stuff.

And there have been many studies that show even without the kind of issues I had, people from poorer areas dow worse. It's not because they're stupid, it's just that there are a hell of a lot of advantages that go with having parents who are loaded.

Zorya

riffmongous wrote: »

Not for being gay as far as I know, maybe that was just the OP being colourful, or if they didn't get the difference between a scholarship and bursary who knows what else they missed. However, being a refugee, mature student, traveller, low income single parent etc you could apply for one. UCD gives out around 10 as far as I can remember

That's fair enough, it's connected with financial circumstance.

riffmongous

Zorya wrote: »

That's fair enough, it's connected with financial circumstance.

It would also explain why they were all at the back, as it was a different award to the points related scholarships.

I'm guessing this was it

https://www.ucd.ie/all/cometoucd/financialsupport/scholarships/1916bursary/

batgoat

riffmongous wrote: »

It would also explain why they were all at the back, as it was a different award to the points related scholarships.

I'm guessing this was it

https://www.ucd.ie/all/cometoucd/financialsupport/scholarships/1916bursary/

All sound reasonable to me.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

Bursaries for being a lesbian? That's got to be a joke.

It's not a joke, it's simply untrue.

Zorya

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's not a joke, it's simply untrue.

''A joke'' is a colloquial way of saying ''untrue''. It's okay, we got it figured out, universal order has been restored.