Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

1…78101213…54

Comments

  • #272
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    eagle eye wrote: »
    People should have the right to voice their opinions so long as it's only speech and they are not out breaking the law.
    One guy is gay and unhappy about the religious guy saying he is going to hell. Should the guy castigating the man who is religious for being religious not suffer the same fate?
    Folau is entitled to say whatever he wants. He’s not entitled to say it with no consequences.


  • #273
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Now you're getting it.

    Keep your condescension in your back pocket. It's what I have been saying all along. Some people are happy to see a company like Qantas use its influence to have a player sacked if it suits their purpose. Those are the people who don't get it.


  • #274
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    salmocab wrote: »
    Folau is entitled to say whatever he wants. He’s not entitled to say it with no consequences.

    Why not?


  • #275
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    cgcsb wrote:
    No
    Why not?


  • #276
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    has the concept of tweeting been around long enough that it can be considered part of practicing your religion?
    i know plenty of people who practice their religion who don't even have a twitter account.

    If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

    Folau is merely a pawn.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,210 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    he's a grown man, responsible for his own opinions. you're letting him off the hook - and patronising him too.


  • #278
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,026 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Varta wrote: »
    If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

    Folau is merely a pawn.

    Ok. Let him preach. But not as an employee of AR.


  • #279
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,000 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    Varta wrote: »
    If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

    Folau is merely a pawn.

    That's fine, he can be a pawn or he can be employed, he chose the former. Maybe his religious organisation will give him a salary for his pawning.


  • #280
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,210 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eagle eye wrote: »
    One guy is gay and unhappy about the religious guy saying he is going to hell. Should the guy castigating the man who is religious for being religious not suffer the same fate?
    are you genuinely trying to claim the two sides are equivalent?


  • #281
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Varta wrote: »
    Why not?
    Because speech has consequences.

    This is the simple, "should someone be permitted to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre without consequences?" question.

    The answer is quite obviously "no", since the act of doing so is dangerous.

    If the things you say have no impact, then you will suffer no consequences.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    magicbastarder wrote:
    are you genuinely trying to claim the two sides are equivalent?
    It's similar.


  • #283
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    he's a grown man, responsible for his own opinions. you're letting him off the hook - and patronising him too.

    And an opinion is exactly what it is. An opinion that is based on superstitious nonsense. Promising a punishment that doesn't even exist. As for patronising him, I have no time for anyone's religion. I don't, however, deny people the right to preach.


  • #284
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Is he not entitled to his own opinions? Why should it cost him his job? Are we that far gone that you can't day your bit in public anymore without serious repercussions?
    Who wants to live in this type if world?

    You've previously had no problems with Colin Kaepernick being blacklisted... Bit of a double standard, no? Kaepernick was far less controversial and had human decency behind his motivation.


  • #285
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,210 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eagle eye wrote: »
    It's similar.
    i'm all ears. how is the act of objecting to homophobia similar to homophobia?


  • #286
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    Why not?

    Because he has/had an employer who expected certain thing of him, he didn’t keep his end of the bargain up so there were consequences. I really don’t see what you have any issue with. He knew what would likely happen and did it regardless.


  • #287
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    batgoat wrote:
    You've previously had no problems with Colin Kaepernick being blacklisted... Bit of a double standard, no? Kaep
    And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
    I don't think this would.
    Ridiculous comparison.


  • #288
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    seamus wrote: »
    Because speech has consequences.

    This is the simple, "should someone be permitted to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre without consequences?" question.

    The answer is quite obviously "no", since the act of doing so is dangerous.

    If the things you say have no impact, then you will suffer no consequences.

    Utter nonsense. It is anything but a simple question. Are you going to put a gagging order on every preacher in the world? Religion, all religion, is infused with hatred. All preachers preach hatred at some time or other. The love bit is just marketing. The person yelling 'fire' is not preaching.


  • #289
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    eagle eye wrote: »
    And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
    I don't think this would.
    Ridiculous comparison.

    Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.


  • #290
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    batgoat wrote: »
    Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.

    How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.


  • #291
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    eagle eye wrote: »
    And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
    I don't think this would.
    Ridiculous comparison.

    I’d say it would David pocock has very strong views on homophobia


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,210 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Ridiculous comparison.
    yet you're comfortable with comparing homophobia to an objection to homophobia.


  • #293
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.

    So long as he keeps his views to himself I doubt they’d care. It’s not his views but expressing publicily them that are the problem.


  • #294
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Vunipola warned by Saracens for supporting Folau. This is becoming ridiculous.

    Time for a new rugby union organisation which allows you to have an opinion.


  • #295
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Varta wrote: »
    How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.

    Salah isn't publicly condemning gay people, it would likely get him in trouble with his team as well.


  • #296
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    batgoat wrote:
    Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.
    I don't think it's fair to call Folau homophobic. He is just calling them sinners not showing any fear of them.


  • #297
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Vunipola warned by Saracens for supporting Folau. This is becoming ridiculous.

    Time for a new rugby union organisation which allows you to have an opinion.

    Nobody is stopping anyone from having an opinion


  • #298
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,210 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Time for a new rugby union organisation which allows you to have an opinion.
    that's an ideal solution. so long as the players don't expect to have an employment contract, nor have to face up to the consequences of hate speech.


  • #299
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Vunipola warned by Saracens for supporting Folau. This is becoming ridiculous.
    Saracens persecuting Christians LOL. Should've joined the Crusaders instead.


  • #300
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,000 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    eagle eye wrote: »
    People should have the right to voice their opinions so long as it's only speech and they are not out breaking the law.
    One guy is gay and unhappy about the religious guy saying he is going to hell. Should the guy castigating the man who is religious for being religious not suffer the same fate?
    eagle eye wrote: »
    Why not?

    Sorry I didn't think you were seriously asking that question. People have the right to voice their opinion, rights also carry responsibilities and consequences. This matter was resolved by contract termination a year after a warning was issued and the behaviour continued. Open and shut case.

    The victim in this case is a lot more than one person. Your question is, if someone makes a derogatory or abusive statement about another person or group of people, is denouncing that person and their statement bad, the answer is no.

    Where some people are getting hung up is they think such statements are a-ok so long as you claim that this is part of your religious beliefs. But of course, it is not ok.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,000 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    Varta wrote: »
    And an opinion is exactly what it is. An opinion that is based on superstitious nonsense. Promising a punishment that doesn't even exist. As for patronising him, I have no time for anyone's religion. I don't, however, deny people the right to preach.

    He has a right to preach, perhaps believing this to be a better career path, his choice.


Advertisement