The lunatic left

[SirRumpole]

Protecting yourself from bigotry cannot be bigotry!
Why is this so hard to understand?

Bigotry is just words. People can fight back with words, not using the resources of the State or powerful organisations to protect onself from another's right to express their opinions.

 

[rederob]

I guess it is the reason, why you can't admit you could be mistaken in your view, sometimes there isn't common ground.
Punishing people for their personal and lawful religious views, is persecution, which is a form of bigotry. Why is that so hard to understand.

Please tell us all how protecting oneself from bigotry is wrong, or why organisations should not also act to remove it when they are able.
You have already written in this thread that bigotry is conducive to harmony in society.
Apparently you now believe that acting to remove bigotry is a form of punishment to the bigot. Yet bigotry negatively affects the opposite party, so what you are saying does not add up.

 

[rederob]

Bigotry is just words. People can fight back with words, not using the resources of the State or powerful organisations to protect onself from another's right to express their opinions.

There is no evidence that your claim is accurate, and you refuse to acknowledge the medical literature which is unequivocal.

 

[rederob]

You have already written in this thread that bigotry is not conducive to harmony in society.

I wonder if @Joe Blow can give us more than 20 minutes to fix our (my) really bad mistakes!

 

[Joe Blow]

I wonder if @Joe Blow can give us more than 20 minutes to fix our (my) really bad mistakes!

It's set to 30 minutes at the moment. Just get into the habit of reading your posts through in full right after you post them. I do it religiously and manage to fix about 90-95% of errors. There are always some you miss, even after proofreading, and you will miss those irrespective of how much editing time there is.

 

[sptrawler]

Please tell us all how protecting oneself from bigotry is wrong, or why organisations should not also act to remove it when they are able.
You have already written in this thread that bigotry is conducive to harmony in society.
Apparently you now believe that acting to remove bigotry is a form of punishment to the bigot. Yet bigotry negatively affects the opposite party, so what you are saying does not add up.

There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself from bigotry, the issue is what is fair and reasonable force, I can't understand why you can't grasp that. ?
As I have tried to explain to you, it isn't against the law to recite the bible, the bible is actually fundamental to the laws of our land.
If some of those scriptures are found offensive by some, so be it, but to try and punish someone for reciting them actually would border on illegal, as Rugby Australia nearly found out.
For Qantas to use financial pressure, to stop a person from being able to actively pursue their profession, due to their religious beliefs, is as bigoted as those who disagree with someone's homosexual leanings.
It appears from your statements, only one side can be seen as a bigot, the other side has carte blanche, to act any way they see fit and are free of repercussions.
As usual, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[rederob]

There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself from bigotry, the issue is what is fair and reasonable force, I can't understand why you can't grasp that.

No force was ever applied so I have no idea what you are talking about now, aside from not being an appropriate thread.
Furthermore, bigotry is bigotry. There are no sides or levels to bigotry.
I have no idea what you think you are disagreeing with as your points are sometimes inaccurate when they are otherwise not logical.

 

[sptrawler]

No force was ever applied so I have no idea what you are talking about now, aside from not being an appropriate thread.
Furthermore, bigotry is bigotry. There are no sides or levels to bigotry.
I have no idea what you think you are disagreeing with as your points are sometimes inaccurate when they are otherwise not logical.

I see both parties as having rights, you see only one party as having rights, that's fine.
By the way force doesn't have to be of a physical nature, it can be media pressure, it can be social pressure, it can be financial pressure, but as usual your reluctance to acceptance an alternative to your view is an issue.
We have to agree to disagree, the discussion is becoming circular and going nowhere as usual.

 

[rederob]

I see both parties as having rights, you see only one party as having rights, that's fine.
By the way force doesn't have to be of a physical nature, it can be media pressure, it can be social pressure, it can be financial pressure, but as usual your reluctance to acceptance reality is an issue.
Like I said, we as usual have to agree to disagree, the discussion is becoming circular and going nowhere as usual.

You have a right to be bigoted, and express bigoted views - it's not unlawful - just as those affected by such views can act to protect themselves from them.
Your posts suggest that those acting to protect themselves are wrong in doing so. Am I misreading you?

 

[sptrawler]

You have a right to be bigoted, and express bigoted views - it's not unlawful - just as those affected by such views can act to protect themselves from them.
Your posts suggest that those acting to protect themselves are wrong in doing so. Am I misreading you?

As was proven by Rugby Australia paying millions of dollars to Folau rather than go to court, any action taken against a person has to be taken in context and has to be seen as fair and reasonable in that context.
The same as when someone finds a person breaking into their house and attacks the criminal, if that criminal is injured, the force used becomes a crime in itself and if undue force is found to have been used it is an offence.
People can protect themselves, but in doing so it has to be fair, reasonable and suitable to the circumstances..
The real issue appears to be an emotional one, as I said I have no interest either way, I'm just stating the obvious.
People who have an emotional attachment to either side of an issue, are going to support that side, that's human it doesn't make it right.

 

[SirRumpole]

People who have an emotional attachment to either side of an issue, are going to support that side, that's human it doesn't make it right.

Absolutely. You can imagine the stink that would be raised if a Labor supporter expressed views opposite to that of his employer and got the sack for it.

Hypocrisy abounds in this debate.

 

[sptrawler]

Absolutely. You can imagine the stink that would be raised if a Labor supporter expressed views opposite to that of his employer and got the sack for it.

Hypocrisy abounds in this debate.

That's life and the very reason laws are made, they try and remove the emotion from the issue, if that didn't happen every minority pressure group would be running amok and deciding what is fair and reasonable.

 

[rederob]

As was proven by Rugby Australia paying millions of dollars to Folau rather than go to court, any action taken against a person has to be taken in context and has to be seen as fair and reasonable in that context.
The same as when someone finds a person breaking into their house and attacks the criminal, if that criminal is injured, the force used becomes a crime in itself and if undue force is found to have been used it is an offence.
People can protect themselves, but in doing so it has to be fair, reasonable and suitable to the circumstances..
The real issue appears to be an emotional one, as I said I have no interest either way, I'm just stating the obvious.
People who have an emotional attachment to either side of an issue, are going to support that side, that's human it doesn't make it right.

Folau was terminated due to a breach of the players' code of conduct - an offence he admitted to.
Folau chose to protect his bigotry with the pretense his free speech was violated and it was he who acted against RA - the opposite of your contention! This is old ground.
The parties settled.
You are implying that RA acted unreasonably, but that is nowhere evident.
Commercial interests literally cannot afford to be associated with bigotry and their actions were prudent.
I am sure people affected by overt bigotry get emotional, but I completely disagree that it is the "real issue" as you say. The real issue as I see it is the proven harm that bigotry causes.

 

[sptrawler]

Folau was terminated due to a breach of the players' code of conduct - an offence he admitted to.
Folau chose to protect his bigotry with the pretense his free speech was violated and it was he who acted against RA - the opposite of your contention! This is old ground.
The parties settled.
You are implying that RA acted unreasonably, but that is nowhere evident.
Commercial interests literally cannot afford to be associated with bigotry and their actions were prudent.
I am sure people affected by overt bigotry get emotional, but I completely disagree that it is the "real issue" as you say. The real issue as I see it is the proven harm that bigotry causes.

Your stance is emotional, which again is fine, whether it would stand up in court is questionable, as was proven by the payout and supported by the recent NRL decission not to follow RA lead.

 

[IFocus]

Your stance is emotional, which again is fine, whether it would stand up in court is questionable, as was proven by the payout and supported by the recent NRL decission not to follow RA lead.

Not so Rob has been very logical IMHO.

Both Folau and Court made public statements (there was no leaking to the media) on their beliefs and interpretation of text 2000 years old that was not supported across the religious divide not that it matters, but it targeted a minority group without any thought as to the consequences affecting that group.

Both are very public figures plus millionaires and are not without wealth, influence, power, connections.

It would have be a shock perhaps to both that such conservative organisations actually also took unbridged against their public statements.

The world / Australia have moved on and I note the younger generation (at least the ones I speak to) don't hold to your view and are not interested in such an archaic position of protecting the privileged against the interests of the vulnerable.

 

[SirRumpole]

Both are very public figures plus millionaires and are not without wealth, influence, power, connections.

They are individuals and had the weight of all the vested interest lobby groups yelling in their faces, I wouldn't call it an equal fight.

 

[rederob]

Your stance is emotional, which again is fine, whether it would stand up in court is questionable, as was proven by the payout.

The payout had zip to do with the unequivocal fact that Folau is a bigot.
There is no emotion to this point and it is not a matter of opinion.
Your claims have been variously inaccurate and illogical.
Both Folau and Court made bigoted comments that were expressed in public media.
Furthermore QANTAS had no say in Folau's employability, and RA only terminated his contract, never banning him from playing rugby.
Margaret Court remains able to continue her bigoted sermons unaffected - she has never been gagged as you claimed. Nor was there ever any attempt to strip Court of any awards she received: her non-inclusive views were not regarded as appropriate by many for a tennis arena to bear her name.
The Bible is not fundamental to the laws of our land.
Unlike your claim, I agree that people have a personal right to their bigotry. Just as I think it natural that when expressed publicly by prominent figures it causes proven harms.
Maybe that puts me left of centre, but I can't think of any redeeming features to bigotry that warrant a different perspective.
So let's go back to where this started:

The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side...

... and tell me about the positive features of bigotry that I appear to have overlooked, because I am presently not convinced there are any.

 

[sptrawler]

Presumably Margaret Court has continued with her sermons, it is only that the loonie left has moved on, that it isnt still in the media.
The circus continues.lol

 

[sptrawler]

The payout had zip to do with the unequivocal fact that Folau is a bigot.
There is no emotion to this point and it is not a matter of opinion.
Your claims have been variously inaccurate and illogical.
Both Folau and Court made bigoted comments that were expressed in public media.
Furthermore QANTAS had no say in Folau's employability, and RA only terminated his contract, never banning him from playing rugby.
Margaret Court remains able to continue her bigoted sermons unaffected - she has never been gagged as you claimed. Nor was there ever any attempt to strip Court of any awards she received: her non-inclusive views were not regarded as appropriate by many for a tennis arena to bear her name.
The Bible is not fundamental to the laws of our land.
Unlike your claim, I agree that people have a personal right to their bigotry. Just as I think it natural that when expressed publicly by prominent figures it causes proven harms.
Maybe that puts me left of centre, but I can't think of any redeeming features to bigotry that warrant a different perspective.
So let's go back to where this started:
The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side..

... and tell me about the positive features of bigotry that I appear to have overlooked, because I am presently not convinced there are any.

All you have to do is read through the length of our debate, I gave numerous examples, arguments and facts to support my points.
You on the other hand added nothing other than try and deride my points and somehow try and use straw man statements that were emotionally sourced, rather than factually based.

 

[sptrawler]

Not so Rob has been very logical IMHO.

Both Folau and Court made public statements (there was no leaking to the media) on their beliefs and interpretation of text 2000 years old that was not supported across the religious divide not that it matters, but it targeted a minority group without any thought as to the consequences affecting that group.

Both are very public figures plus millionaires and are not without wealth, influence, power, connections.

It would have be a shock perhaps to both that such conservative organisations actually also took unbridged against their public statements.

The world / Australia have moved on and I note the younger generation (at least the ones I speak to) don't hold to your view and are not interested in such an archaic position of protecting the privileged against the interests of the vulnerable.

Nicely said, despite saying very little, what has the fact that they are public figures or their monetary status have to do with anything, other than trying to use that to in some way demean them?
The law is the law, RA ended up in a lot of manure over the issue, not only did they have to give a multi million dollar settlement, many are no longer with RA.
I understand the world has moved on, fortunately not far enough that vocal minority groups have over taken civil law, unfair dismissal laws were introduced so that powerful employers couldn't use excessive punishment in an ad hock fashion as they saw fit.
See the bullying in your last sentence, the goto fall back position, I haven't demeaned anyone, I've just stated facts as Rob would say.
You are the one bullying and making aspersions against me, based on your personal belief, nothing changes the left is the left and underlines my statement about not being happy until complete capitulation of the other party.