-
Litigation is an expensive exercise. QC’s, junior barristers, solicitor and two junior lawyers - those 6 minute increments start to add up very quickly.
I would say the $300K figure quoted early is extremely conservative, especially if this proceeds to the Federal Court.
-
On a more conceptual level, the argument here seems to be the standard we set for offensive comments.
Those on one side of this debate think the yardstick for offence should be themselves - pretty hardy folk who can let these sorts of things wash over them without taking anything away from it.
The other side argue the yardstick should be the hypothetical teenaged disabled indigenous lesbian who is also transitioning - the most vulnerable of vulnerable who are affected if a falling leaf lands in their path. Worth pointing out that nobody here takes a position quite this extreme, but those elsewhere certainly do.
So when it comes to Folau, the yardstick you use for offence obviously affects how seriously you view the matter.
I honestly think the standard is somewhere in between the two, but defining exactly where is the crux of the argument.
I don't buy the argument by some on here that 'I was fine with the comment, therefore everybody else should be too'. And while I acknowledge the presence of vulnerable Polynesian homosexual teenagers, I don't think they should necessarily be the standard either.
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
-
@barbarian well put - that was the nuance I was aiming at.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
Good call.
Will also provide some clarity for what counts as 'offensive' as well - simply being offended is not a high enough bar. I get offended by people getting offended easily - so they should stop being offended so I don't get offended
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
And soon as you used the phrase 'lived experience' I phased out. Such a lame phrase that means basically that you just dont want to admit that your anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence.
Your anecdotal proof is just not worth alot. No more than my opinion is.
And your opinion is 'the vast majority of fans' don't care about his tweet, without anything to back it up other than gut.
OK.
Well we may as well leave it here then, as we'll just go in circles. A pleasure, as always.
@barbarian
Oh right.. so yours is a lived experience and mine is a gut feel?riiight
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
On a more conceptual level, the argument here seems to be the standard we set for offensive comments.
Those on one side of this debate think the yardstick for offence should be themselves - pretty hardy folk who can let these sorts of things wash over them without taking anything away from it.
The other side argue the yardstick should be the hypothetical teenaged disabled indigenous lesbian who is also transitioning - the most vulnerable of vulnerable who are affected if a falling leaf lands in their path. Worth pointing out that nobody here takes a position quite this extreme, but those elsewhere certainly do.
So when it comes to Folau, the yardstick you use for offence obviously affects how seriously you view the matter.
I honestly think the standard is somewhere in between the two, but defining exactly where is the crux of the argument.
I don't buy the argument by some on here that 'I was fine with the comment, therefore everybody else should be too'. And while I acknowledge the presence of vulnerable Polynesian homosexual teenagers, I don't think they should necessarily be the standard either.
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
Offensive should be irrelevant, illegal should be the only yardstick. Trying to put some sort of measure on hurty feelings is a nonsense. And results in situations like this.
I am offended ny QANTAS actions and bullying... tough shit for me really. My hurty feelings are real, just not really relevant to others.
Nobody is denying that some people find things offensive. I have no doubt some people were heavily traumatized by his mean words. But so what? Where exactly does it all end when hurt feeligs are the yardstick and no evidence of impact is required?
I am amazed so many people are buying into this hurty feelings means something must happen bullshit.The world is fucked. The west has had it to easy for to long and has created a bunch of limp wristed pansies. Given how annoyed I am by QANTAS there is a good chance I am included in that. -
Decent article here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/06/our-fury-at-censorship-by-governments-and-corporations-has-burst-with-the-folau-fiasco/
This was linked from a US blog btw, so this thing is going international.
Some quotes:
"Maybe Rugby Australia did have the right to sack Folau as a matter of contract law (or maybe not, but that’s for the courts to decide). The likes of Qantas and ANZ can direct sponsorship money wherever they like, and they wouldn’t be the first big corporates to engage in such asinine virtue-signalling. GoFundMe is a private platform, and may very well have been within its rights under its own terms of service to boot out Folau’s fundraising appeal, hypocritical and selective as that may have been.
But just because those organisations could have done what they did doesn’t mean that they should have. As a matter of public policy, the Folau affair is a dead end, but as a cultural issue, it is troubling. It’s another front in what the left derisively write off as the ‘culture wars’, in a world in which what can and can’t be said (by force of law or otherwise) is becoming increasingly limited.
And here is where Phelps is dead wrong: The media feeding frenzy created by the Folau case is not a ‘rally point’ seized upon by the right. If the left are frustrated by the amount of attention Folau is getting – and no doubt they probably are – then they only have themselves to blame."
-
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
Homophobe!
-
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
Homophobe!
To clarify. I obviously meant painfully aware of his views or those of the more fundamentalist community.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel yeah plus heard in the church sermon, read in the bible, etc.
-
Do we know, with any data, if the gay community actually were offended by the tweets, or does Alan Joyce speak for all homosexuals?
My gay cousin and his mate weren't triggered at all and they spent shitloads on a house across the street from Eden Park - so they're rugby.
That's 2
-
@Siam Of my gay mates it's split evenly between, 'don't give a frick', 'what a dick' and 'which one is rugby again?'...now my straight gay ally friends were all about the petition to stop gofundme and have been quiet about it since those maybe premature celebrations.
-
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam @Rembrandt Anecdotal.
It's called 'lived' and @Baron-Silas-Greenback says it can't be used.
-
We all live in a society that has norms and values, in theory our laws will be influenced by these. As norms and values change the laws will eventually follow. Many laws have reflected religious sins such as adultery and homosexuality. In many countries people are still arrested and even killed for these "sins".
Thankfully in western cultures views have changed dramatically, don't forget homosexuality in Tasmania was still illegal as late as 1997. Now a short 22 years later gay people can marry and have as much sex as they like.
I believe what Folau stands for is an outdated cultural view that is no longer accepted. I think the outrage is not because he is a Christian but because as a society we no longer tolerate any hateful or discriminatory speech(even if its in the bible) towards homosexuals.
I believe slavery and segregation of blacks was accepted by the church and believers found passages in the bible to support this. Once society no longer tolerated slavery people eventually stopped spreading these views even though it was once supported by the church.
I believe homosexuality is heading down the same path, that is even though it maybe in the bible as a sin, society will not tolerate any discrimination against homosexuals. This is probably the reason nearly every other christian footy player isn't posting "gays go to hell" on their social media posts.
-
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
We all live in a society that has norms and values, in theory our laws will be influenced by these. As norms and values change the laws will eventually follow. Many laws have reflected religious sins such as adultery and homosexuality. In many countries people are still arrested and even killed for these "sins".
Thankfully in western cultures views have changed dramatically, don't forget homosexuality in Tasmania was still illegal as late as 1997. Now a short 22 years later gay people can marry and have as much sex as they like.
I believe what Folau stands for is an outdated cultural view that is no longer accepted. I think the outrage is not because he is a Christian but because as a society we no longer tolerate any hateful or discriminatory speech(even if its in the bible) towards homosexuals.
I believe slavery and segregation of blacks was accepted by the church and believers found passages in the bible to support this. Once society no longer tolerated slavery people eventually stopped spreading these views even though it was once supported by the church.
I believe homosexuality is heading down the same path, that is even though it maybe in the bible as a sin, society will not tolerate any discrimination against homosexuals. This is probably the reason nearly every other christian footy player isn't posting "gays go to hell" on their social media posts.
Gee I think bringing slavery into it is a bit much. It should also be mentioned that religious doctrine played a part in ending slavery as well. But regardless, it's been mentioned numerous times now that he doesn't just think gays are going to hell. He thinks pretty much all of us are all going to hell. I'm certainly going to hell apparently. Last night I drank, fornicated, gambled and I'm sure as fuck not going to church on Sunday morning. My wife died a committed atheist. She's going to hell too according to Foolmouth. Now I can choose to get all upset about that or not give a shit. I choose to not give a shit because what Fooltool says has zero bearing on my life and if anything I can't help but feel sorry for someone who is so demented in the head that he crosses himself every night and lives his life in fear of eternal damnation. For every tweet like that from Foolcow there are probably a million supporting gay rights. His opinions should be ignored and the only time the press or anybody reports on him it should be when he's actually done the one thing he actually contributes to the world, and that's catch a rugby ball. And in the end, he's not owning human beings as property, he just sent out a fucking tweet.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions