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?

Options
1…4445474950…54

Comments

  • Options
    #1382
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Firstly I want to say that I edited my post as I went along. I am just alerting you to the fact that you may have missed some of it, and there may be other points that you wish to address. It may be even wordier and more longwinded than you think.
    You might wish to read it afresh.


  • Options
    #1383
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    feargale wrote: »
    Firstly I want to say that I edited my post as I went along. I am just alerting you to the fact that you may have missed some of it, and there may be other points that you wish to address. It may be even wordier and more longwinded than you think.
    You might wish to read it afresh.

    I have read your post,

    You are going for the freedom of speech angle and claiming that I would not have an issue with someone who's views I agree with using their public platform to espouse those views.

    You have made an awful of of assumptions there.

    Firstly, Israel Falou the individual is free to say what he wishes. No one has said otherwise, myself included.
    However, Israel Falou sporting a Wallabies jersey and identified as an employee of Rugby Australia is bound by the code of conduct he agreed to when he signed his highly lucrative contract to represent his country as an international sportsperson.

    He broke his contract.

    I believe that if a person signs a contract of their own free will - they abide by that contract, It's called keeping your word. Something Falou doesn't seem to believe is important.
    If he had an issue with the terms of his contract he could have refused to sign it - but then he wouldn't have gotten millions and millions of dollars a year.

    As it happens, I disagree with many many things Sinead O'Conner says. I have been disagreeing with Sinead since the 1980s. I am old enough to have started disagreeing with her to her face never mind via social media.

    I wasn't aware that either Sinead or Tommy Teirnan have lucrative contracts with an organisation that receives funds from the Irish government which places either/both of them in a position where they represent Ireland (with a universally identifiable uniform and everything) and as a result they are expected to abide by a code of conduct as part of said lucrative contract.
    Tommy might know but I don't think Sinead does - she'll be well miffed as she's a bit skint at the moment and could do with the dosh.

    Falou wants to have his (heterosexuals only) cake and eat it.
    He wants the money but he doesn't want to keep to the terms of his contract.
    He wants the international exposure of being a sports star while claiming he is a private individual when he utilises that platform to flout the terms of his employment.
    He wants to preach about how those who do not follow his religious dictates are going to Hell while ignoring those dictates that do not suit him.

    Edit to add: and I still do not see the relevance of an Atheist in UCC in 1960 allegedly being told to keep his opinions to himself to events nearly 60 years later and 10,000 miles away.


  • Options
    #1384
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ok. So we know where we stand.

    You stand on the side of pre-judging a person because they happen to be a mod. There does not appear to be any particular criteria for how you make your judgments nor right of appeal should the mod thus judged feel they have been the victim of an injustice.

    I stand on the side that is tasked with making sure a particular charter is adhered to and any who believe I am biased or acting outside my remit are free to seek redress in either DRP or Helpdesk.

    Glad we cleared that up.

    I also hope my response above is in keeping with your big wordy random stream of consciousness post but for the meat of your longwinded reply -perhaps you get paid each time you use the word 'liberal' - I shall be brief.

    I am in favour of people abiding by the terms and conditions of the contracts they sign. I know, that's a conservative view held by conservative people who wish to conserve such notions as keeping one's word but there you have it.


    You're cross with me.


  • Options
    #1385
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    Firstly, Israel Falou the individual is free to say what he wishes. No one has said otherwise, myself included.
    However, Israel Falou sporting a Wallabies jersey and identified as an employee of Rugby Australia is bound by the code of conduct he agreed to when he signed his highly lucrative contract to represent his country as an international sportsperson.

    He broke his contract.

    Eileen Flynn?


  • Options
    #1386
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    feargale wrote: »
    You're cross with me.

    I might have been a little bit but I'm over it now. I dislike being pre-judged.

    I am still, and you are far from the only person to go down that route, sick of the Falou as champion of free speech angle.
    He isn't.

    He is a person who wanted the caché of being an international sports star and the person who wants the million dollar income without being the person who sees that there are terms and conditions attached to being both of these.

    Terms and conditions he accepted when he signed the contract.

    He is not a champion of free speech. He is the embodiment of I want to say what I like with zero repercussions.

    There have been genuine champions of free speech (and I may or may not agree with what they had to say) and they were jailed for it, some died for it. They knew these things could happen and yet they spoke.

    Falou lost his job - then launched a crowd fund to pay for his legal costs where he is suing for financial compensation. He is already a multi-millionaire.
    But he wants other people to pay for his 'right' to free speech.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1387
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Eileen Flynn?


  • Options
    #1388
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    feargale wrote: »
    Eileen Flynn?

    Alan Turing.


  • Options
    #1389
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,060 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    feargale wrote: »
    Eileen Flynn?
    Ah, bless, you're young. You don't remember.

    In the early 1980s she was fired from her job as a teacher in a Catholic secondary school for being shacked up with (and having a child with) a man who was married to someone else. She took unfair dismissal proceeings, and lost.

    It was much discussed at the time, but with hindsight it has been largely eclipsed by more dramatic incidents from the same period that raised similar issues - the Kerry Babies case, the death of Anne Lovett.

    Not quite analogous to the Israel Folau case, perhaps, in that it didn't raise any free speech issues. The demand made of Flynn, if she were to keep her job, was that she would leave her partner (and his three children from his failed marriage, to whom she was stepmother).


  • Options
    #1390
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Ah, bless, you're young. You don't remember.

    One can only hope that you are a better judge of other matters than of age.

    Peregrinus wrote: »

    Not quite analogous to the Israel Folau case, perhaps, in that it didn't raise any free speech issues. The demand made of Flynn, if she were to keep her job, was that she would leave her partner (and his three children from his failed marriage, to whom she was stepmother).

    No, no issues of free speech arose, but Bannasidhe is basing his case against Folau on contract, and contract was what did for Eileen Flynn. I fail to see Ann Lovett or the Kerry babies being relevant to this.


  • Options
    #1391
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Alan Turing.

    I don't know what point you are making about Alan Turing. The only relevance I can see is this:
    While Turing initially indicated that he would contest the criminal prosecution, ultimately he pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor. I can find no record of him contesting being fired. If he had it is safe to assume that his employers, British Intelligence would have relied on contract, implied if not express. They barred LGBT people from employment until 1990.

    You lay great store by contractual terms, but in most if not all Common Law jurisdictions terms must be reasonable. And if you don't see it that way it can come back to bite you,

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Australian courts. Australia does not provide the same constitutional protection of free speech as do, for example Ireland and the USA.

    In conclusion I fail to see why any sane person gives a fiddler's about whether Israel Folau thinks they are going up or down in the hereafter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1392
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    feargale wrote: »
    I don't know what point you are making about Alan Turing. The only relevance I can see is this:
    While Turing initially indicated that he would contest the criminal prosecution, ultimately he pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor. I can find no record of him contesting being fired. If he had it is safe to assume that his employers, British Intelligence would have relied on contract, implied if not express. They barred LGBT people from employment until 1990.

    You lay great store by contractual terms, but in most if not all Common Law jurisdictions terms must be reasonable. And if you don't see it that way it can come back to bite you,

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Australian courts. Australia does not provide the same constitutional protection of free speech as do, for example Ireland and the USA.

    In conclusion I fail to see why any sane person gives a fiddler's about whether Israel Folau thinks they are going up or down in the hereafter.

    I thought we were playing whataboutry when you introduced Eileen Flynn to the conversation.

    Eileen Flynn was the victim of an intolerant society. One that imposed a religious ethos on civil society to the detriment of many.
    Alan Turing was prosecuted by an intolerant society - one who's views at an institutional level mirrored Falou's i.e that there is something 'wrong' with homosexuals.

    I do not agree with Falou. However, I never said he didn't have the right to voice his opinion.
    I said his contract with his employer states that he was contractually forbidden from associating them with his intolerant views. The first time he did it he was warned, the second time he was fired.
    Many people have contracts of employment that stipulate there are restrictions on their behavior in contexts where they are publicly linked with their employer.
    I do myself. There are times I would like to comment on things but I don't because I understand the repercussions. And that I read and signed the contract of my own free will with full knowledge of what I agreed to.
    Therefore I am bound by it.

    Why shouldn't Falou be bound by the terms and conditions of the contracts he signs?
    Why does religion give him the right to break a contractual obligation but keep his job?
    Do we extend that to everyone? Should every contract become 'flexible' when one party decides it's not compatible with their religious beliefs - after they have signed it?


  • Options
    #1393
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Prominent public intellectual and former rugby player, Israel Folau, took to the pulpit to explain that the six people who died in the latest Australian bushfires were undergoing a "little taste of God's judgement". The remarks have not gone down well:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50455162


  • Options
    #1394
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,405 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    did god's fire only burn sodomites?


  • Options
    #1395
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    did god's fire only burn sodomites?

    Nah, it also burnt all those sinful Christians who were disrespectful of the almighty by not properly discriminating against the gay community. Apparently the worst is yet to come :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1396
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,991 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    did god's fire only burn sodomites?




    Though the all powerful creator of all and everything, the Lord is apparently and evidently unable to specifically target the 'guilty'.


  • Options
    #1397
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Though the all powerful creator of all and everything, the Lord is apparently and evidently unable to specifically target the 'guilty'.

    Ineffable innit.


  • Options
    #1398
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,991 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ineffable innit.




    Medieval thinking really - 'God has punished us for not taking the Jews/catholics/protestants to task for their heresy'.


  • Options
    #1399
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    Prominent public intellectual and former rugby player, Israel Folau, took to the pulpit to explain that the six people who died in the latest Australian bushfires were undergoing a "little taste of God's judgement". The remarks have not gone down well:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50455162

    Whatever about how the wrath of God expresses, it's hardly surprising the remarks haven't gone down well.

    Presumably if Israel had chosen his remarks in the wake of Jeffery Epsteins suicide or some such, there wouldn't be a whimper.

    Wrath no problem, so long as man the decision maker on where and when it ought be applied.


  • Options
    #1400
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Whatever about how the wrath of God expresses, it's hardly surprising the remarks haven't gone down well.

    Presumably if Israel had chosen his remarks in the wake of Jeffery Epsteins suicide or some such, there wouldn't be a whimper.

    Wrath no problem, so long as man the decision maker on where and when it ought be applied.

    MOD

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have phrased that badly and are in no way comparing LGBT people to a convicted sex offender and trafficker of girls. Kindly think more carefully before posting as rather like Australian Rugby there is a policy of not tolerating homophobic comments in this forum and it would be a shame if you were sanctioned in the future for ill judged remarks. Thanking you.


  • Options
    #1401
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    MOD

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have phrased that badly and are in no way comparing LGBT people to a convicted sex offender and trafficker of girls. Kindly think more carefully before posting as rather like Australian Rugby there is a policy of not tolerating homophobic comments in this forum and it would be a shame if you were sanctioned in the future for ill judged remarks. Thanking you.

    I thought it clear as crystal: people wouldn't get their knickers in a twist if the wrath supposedly being visited upon a person matched their particular view on who it was that deserved that wrath

    God raining down wrath on paedophiles would be fine. God raining down wrath on the (in their view) innocent not.

    Nothing more stated or implied than God's wrath an extension of the the persons own view. And knickers in twist if there is a mismatch. And knickers not if there is not.

    If this forum considers saying homosexual acts sinful = homophobia then good luck with the echo chamber.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1402
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I thought it clear as crystal: people wouldn't get their knickers in a twist if the wrath supposedly being visited upon a person matched their particular view on who it was that deserved that wrath

    God raining down wrath on paedophiles would be fine. God raining down wrath on the (in their view) innocent not.

    Nothing more stated or implied than God's wrath an extension of the the persons own view. And knickers in twist if there is a mismatch. And knickers not if there is not.

    If this forum considers saying homosexual acts sinful = homophobia then good luck with the echo chamber.

    Mod: Antiskeptic, you've been carded for ignoring mod instruction. As advised previously, your ongoing rhetoric predicated on the behaviour of your god is better placed on the Christianity forum as it doesn't correspond to rational argument in the context of this forum. Thanks for your attention.


  • Options
    #1403
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I thought it clear as crystal: people wouldn't get their knickers in a twist if the wrath supposedly being visited upon a person matched their particular view on who it was that deserved that wrath

    God raining down wrath on paedophiles would be fine. God raining down wrath on the (in their view) innocent not.

    Do you know something about the people who died in the bushfires that nobody else does? What were they guilty of? Is everyone who dies unexpectedly guilty of a crime being punished with death by god? What about the corollary, are people who die peacefully of old age always perfectly innocent?


  • Options
    #1404
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you know something about the people who died in the bushfires that nobody else does? What were they guilty of? Is everyone who dies unexpectedly guilty of a crime being punished with death by god? What about the corollary, are people who die peacefully of old age always perfectly innocent?

    Would folk have hopped up and down in a rage had Folau said God's wrath was upon Epstein?

    If you answer "No" then you're half way to understanding what I wrote.


  • Options
    #1405
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would folk have hopped up and down in a rage had Folau said God's wrath was upon Epstein?

    If you answer "No" then you're half way to understanding what I wrote.

    I think most people would have asked why people in Australia had to die because of an American sex trafficker and sexual offender.


  • Options
    #1406
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,285 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I think most people would have asked why people in Australia had to die because of an American sex trafficker and sexual offender.

    Or certainly why anyone would think the two things were in any way related


  • Options
    #1407
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would folk have hopped up and down in a rage had Folau said God's wrath was upon Epstein?

    If you answer "No" then you're half way to understanding what I wrote.

    I understand what you wrote, do you? I questioned the implications of you said:
    Do you know something about the people who died in the bushfires that nobody else does? What were they guilty of? Is everyone who dies unexpectedly guilty of a crime being punished with death by god? What about the corollary, are people who die peacefully of old age always perfectly innocent?


  • Options
    #1408
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I think most people would have asked why people in Australia had to die because of an American sex trafficker and sexual offender.

    I think what antiskeptic is badly trying to say is that people wouldn't have been bothered if Folau had said that Epstein died because of god's wrath over Epstein's own crimes. This of course begs the questions I asked:
    -What, then, did the people who did die in the bushfires do (in relation to homosexuality and abortion) to deserve gods wrath and death?
    -Are all unexpected deaths because of gods wrath against the deceased?
    -Does dying peacefully of old age mean that person never did anything to incur gods wrath?


  • Options
    #1409
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I understand what you wrote, do you? I questioned the implications of you said:


    The implication of what I said was that people where picky and choosy when it comes to when and where God's wrath (a wrath they don't actually believe in) might be considered appropriate to apply.


    Do you know something about the people who died in the bushfires that nobody else does? What were they guilty of? Is everyone who dies unexpectedly guilty of a crime being punished with death by god? What about the corollary, are people who die peacefully of old age always perfectly innocent?

    I had nothing to say the matter of God's wrath and how it might or might not express in practice. And so I have nothing to say on a matter not implicated by my post.


  • Options
    #1410
    jmreire
    Registered Users Posts: 8,298 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Though the all powerful creator of all and everything, the Lord is apparently and evidently unable to specifically target the 'guilty'.

    Depending on your religious convictions, (or not) Odhinn, you will know that judgement will be in the next life, and not in this one. All manner of injustice's can and are taking place presently, and without hindrance.This can be confirmed by reading the newspapers or looking at the news on TV. In fact it seem's to be the case that evil is triumphing over good world wide.
    And if you are a non-believer, atheist etc. this religious etho's will not bother you. You are free to live your life according to your own standard's, and that's guaranteed by our Constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1411
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,285 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would folk have hopped up and down in a rage had Folau said God's wrath was upon Epstein?

    If you answer "No" then you're half way to understanding what I wrote.

    The answer to that is obviously no, people wouldn’t care beyond wondering why someone would make that connection. Equating Epstein to victims of a fire is surely stretching this though, people died in a fire and the fool tried to suggest it was because of something other people did, your example would have been because of things Epstein himself did.


Advertisement