Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

sydthebeat · 30-05-2019 2:22pm

recedite wrote: »

So the Catechism of the Catholic church is a hate speech document then.
.

on this issue, yes it is.

i have absolutely no problem stating that.

30-05-2019 2:23pm

recedite wrote:

Free speech is all about agreeing to differ. Its the intolerance of Free Speech that I oppose, and that intolerance is something that is slipping into contemporary "progressive" and "liberal" society. Folau was sacked because he directly quoted the bible and expressed a fairly standard religious belief.

What puzzles me is the vitriolic outrage being directed solely against the homosexual aspect.

30-05-2019 2:24pm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

It is hate speech.

Everything is hate speech these days.

recedite · 30-05-2019 2:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What puzzles me is the vitriolic outrage being directed solely against the homosexual aspect.

Its too early in the day for for the drunks, they're still asleep.
The fornicators are lying low.
And the atheists are too busy arguing with each other here

sydthebeat · 30-05-2019 2:31pm

recedite wrote: »

Its the intolerance of Free Speech that I oppose, and that intolerance is something that is slipping into contemporary "progressive" and "liberal" society.
.

intolerance of free speech???

what is that supposed to mean???

is everyone supposed to be tolerant if a neo nazi called out for death to all jews???
free speech is the right to state your views, which folau had and still has.... but free speech is not the right to have your views accepted or tolerated.

to be fair recedite, you can normally argue reasonably... but that statement is just very, very ridiculous, so ill assume you meant something differently

sydthebeat · 30-05-2019 2:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What puzzles me is the vitriolic outrage being directed solely against the homosexual aspect.

if that is the confusing point for you, then you 100% absolutely do not understand the issue at all.

im suprised you got so heavily involved in a discussion you just admitted to be confused about.

smacl · 30-05-2019 2:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I've addressed that and retracted it.

Your retraction doesn't do any better I'm afraid, so you said

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I certainly am not.

Unfortunate that you took it that way but I understand how it could happen. I should have simply said "not normal".

I was going by this definition:

"deviating from the normal or average"

but I can see how you could be mistaken and will cheerily agree that abnormal was not the wisest of words to use and clarify that I meant nothing except "not normal".

Going by the dictionary definition normal, in what way would you suggest being gay is "not normal"?

Merriam-Webster wrote:

normal adjective
nor·mal | \ ˈnȯr-məl \
Definition of normal (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
normal working hours
He had a normal childhood.
the effect of normal aging
b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
The normal way to pluralize a noun is by adding -s.
2 : occurring naturally
normal immunity
3a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
IQs within the normal range
b : free from mental illness : mentally sound

By contrast one could reasonably state that homophobia is not normal in that it fails to conform to our societies standard which is to not discriminate by sexual orientation.

30-05-2019 2:52pm

smacl wrote:

Going by the dictionary definition normal, in what way would you suggest being gay is "not normal"?

Because the definition I used was:
Â usual, typical, or expected state or condition

Most people are straight. It's most usual, typical and expected.

It's not a slight or insult.

smacl wrote:

By contrast one could reasonably state that homophobia is not normal in that it fails to conform to our societies standard which is to not discriminate by sexual orientation.

Yes I agree. Homophobia (in Ireland) is not normal.

Cabaal · 30-05-2019 3:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the definition I used was:
usual, typical, or expected state or condition

Most people are straight. It's most usual, typical and expected.

It's not a slight or insult.

and yet it is, if I call a person abnormal on the street people will see it as an insult and rightly so. No different to calling somebody odd or strange.

Your use of the word is insulting and misleading, we wouldn't call women/girls abnormal on the basis that the majority of human's are male.

To call gay people abnormal just because they are in a minority is insulting and misleading whatever way you want to twist it.

30-05-2019 3:24pm

Cabaal wrote: »

and yet it is, if I call a person abnormal on the street people will see it as an insult and rightly so. No different to calling somebody odd or strange.

Your use of the word is insulting and misleading, we wouldn't call women/girls abnormal on the basis that the majority of human's are male.

To call gay people abnormal just because they are in a minority is insulting and misleading whatever way you want to twist it.

I retracted it. What more do you want. I explained my intention and admitted that due to the negative connotations that come with abnormal, I should have phrased it better.

Get over it.

Cabaal · 30-05-2019 3:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I retracted it. What more do you want. I explained my intention and admitted that due to the negative connotations that come with abnormal, I should have phrased it better.

You are still trying to claim it wasn't a slight or insult.
I don't think you actually see it as insulting regardless of your comments that you should have phrased it better.

smacl · 30-05-2019 3:46pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the definition I used was:
usual, typical, or expected state or condition

Most people are straight. It's most usual, typical and expected.

It's not a slight or insult.

Firstly, you might want to give the full definition. Looks like it is part of the Google dictionary definition which reads

"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected."

By modern standards there is nothing unusual about being gay. It is quite specifically stated in UN human rights documents and taught in our schools that we do not discriminated based on sexual orientation, or more simply being gay is entirely normal.

And telling someone that they're not normal will commonly be taken as an insult. In this thread, I'm of the opinion that it is clearly intended as an insult, albeit not in the same league as comparing homosexuality the pedophilia.

30-05-2019 4:01pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You are still trying to claim it wasn't a slight or insult.
I don't think you actually see it as insulting regardless of your comments that you should have phrased it better.

Are you serious?

I stated NUMEROUS times that it was not intended as a slight or an insult but could absolutely see how it could be taken as one so I happily admitted that I should not have used the word abnormal.

I don't think it is an insult to say that being the gay isn't the norm, or not normal. I can see why abnormal COULD be taken as an insult and it was never my intention to offend.

I think the rugby lad in question has a right to his beliefs and a right to talk about them without fear of losing his job.

I don't think people have the right NOT to be offended.

30-05-2019 4:06pm

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, you might want to give the full definition. Looks like it is part of the Google dictionary definition which reads

"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected."

By modern standards there is nothing unusual about being gay. It is quite specifically stated in UN human rights documents and taught in our schools that we do not discriminated based on sexual orientation, or more simply being gay is entirely normal.

And telling someone that they're not normal will commonly be taken as an insult. In this thread, I'm of the opinion that it is clearly intended as an insult, albeit not in the same league as comparing homosexuality the pedophilia.

I do not discriminate because of sexual orientation and can see why people do not like to be defined as not normal.

I stand by my definition though and I can honestly say that it was not meant as an insult.

recedite · 30-05-2019 4:27pm

I stated NUMEROUS times that it was not intended as a slight or an insult

smacl wrote: »

By modern standards there is nothing unusual about being gay. It is quite specifically stated in UN human rights documents and taught in our schools that we do not discriminated based on sexual orientation, or more simply being gay is entirely normal.

And telling someone that they're not normal will commonly be taken as an insult. In this thread, I'm of the opinion that it is clearly intended as an insult, albeit not in the same league as comparing homosexuality the pedophilia.

Just as well you are not a mod here then

recedite · 30-05-2019 4:40pm

If UN or some other human rights organisation sets out to protect some group of persons, that is not the proof that they are "normal".
In fact, the less "normal" the group is, the more likely they are to need some special protection.

Professor Moriarty · 30-05-2019 4:43pm

recedite wrote: »

If UN or some other human rights organisation sets out to protect some group of persons, that is not the proof that they are "normal".
In fact, the less "normal" the group is, the more likely they are to need some special protection.

If gay people are persecuted in a society, it is the society that is abnormal not the gay people.

30-05-2019 4:48pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If gay people are persecuted in a society, it is the society that is abnormal not the gay people.

Lovely sound bite, Means absolutely **** all though. Ireland is extremely tolerant. In what way are gay people persecuted in Ireland?

recedite · 30-05-2019 4:48pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If gay people are persecuted in a society, it is the society that is abnormal not the gay people.

But gay people are not persecuted in western societies.
Its the opposite, they are lauded and given every advantage.

On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.

smacl · 30-05-2019 4:49pm

recedite wrote: »

If UN or some other human rights organisation sets out to protect some group of persons, that is not the proof that they are "normal".
In fact, the less "normal" the group is, the more likely they are to need some special protection.

You might say that, but I don't see them jumping to the defense of religiously inspired homophobes any time soon. :pac:

Professor Moriarty · 30-05-2019 4:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Lovely sound bite, Means absolutely **** all though. Ireland is extremely tolerant. In what way are gay people persecuted in Ireland?

What makes you think I was talking about Ireland?

30-05-2019 4:50pm

recedite wrote: »

But gay people are not persecuted in western societies.
Its the opposite, they are lauded and given every advantage.

On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.

FFS. don't use the word "abnormal". People will lose their sh!t.

30-05-2019 4:53pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What makes you think I was talking about Ireland?

Apologies. Yeah, it's **** to be gay in Qatar or any mostly Muslim country.

I think we all agree on that.

Oh crap.... am I Islamaphobic now!?

Professor Moriarty · 30-05-2019 4:54pm

recedite wrote: »

But gay people are not persecuted in western societies.
Its the opposite, they are lauded and given every advantage.

On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.

Why were you talking about the UN and Human Rights in your post so? You're moving goalposts.

robinph · 30-05-2019 4:55pm

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.

Which I think brings us back to my initial post on the thread

robinph wrote: »

You not being allowed to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.

All that I've seen from any christians on this thread essentially boils down to that you used to be allowed to say and do things to certain groups of people on the basis of what is written in the bible, but you can't anymore.

Professor Moriarty · 30-05-2019 4:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies. Yeah, it's **** to be gay in Qatar or any mostly Muslim country.

I think we all agree on that.

Oh crap.... am I Islamaphobic now!?

Indeed. Qatari society is flawed in its attitude towards LGBT rights. As are many such societies.

30-05-2019 4:58pm

robinph wrote: »

Which I think brings us back to my initial post on the thread

All that I've seen from any christians on this thread essentially boils down to that you used to be allowed to say and do things to certain groups of people on the basis of what is written in the bible, but you can't anymore.

I think that is wrong though. You should be allowed say what you want as long as it is not a call to violence.

If someone thinks a gay person soul is going to burn in hell for all eternity, so what? Why can't he think that and say it?

If gay people think that people who hold those opinions are "literally Hitler" then fine.

It's opinions. People should not be in fear of losing their job because they think differently.

smacl · 30-05-2019 5:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies. Yeah, it's **** to be gay in Qatar or any mostly Muslim country.

I think we all agree on that.

Oh crap.... am I Islamaphobic now!?

Islam in many regions where it predominates, in my opinion, is a deeply homophobic and misogynistic religion. Christianity used to be, but for the most isn't any more in Europe at least. The likes of Folau's sentiments in relation to homosexuals, atheists, drunks etc... aren't representative of most Christians, certainly not those in this part of the world who openly stand up for the likes of same sex marriage. I'd suggest that it is Folau's religious expression that is abnormal here, which is why we're having this discussion.

recedite · 30-05-2019 5:10pm

robinph wrote: »

Which I think brings us back to my initial post on the thread

You not being allowed to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.

All that I've seen from any christians on this thread essentially boils down to that you used to be allowed to say and do things to certain groups of people on the basis of what is written in the bible, but you can't anymore.

Expressing a religious belief is not the same as discriminating against somebody.
Apart from the guy who obviously was sacked, can you name one single victim of discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation in Australian rugby?

30-05-2019 5:13pm

smacl wrote:

Islam in many regions where it predominates, in my opinion, is a deeply homophobic and misogynistic religion. Christianity used to be, but for the most isn't any more in Europe at least. The likes of Folau's sentiments in relation to homosexuals, atheists, drunks etc... aren't representative of most Christians, certainly not those in this part of the world who openly stand up for the likes of same sex marriage. I'd suggest that it is Folau's religious expression that is abnormal here, which is why we're having this discussion.

Yeah. His views are (in my opinion) wrong. I still think he should be allowed state them without being fired. His job had nothing to do with his religion.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments