The lunatic left

[rederob]

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.

I pointed out your numerous inaccuracies and errors of logic along the way and wonder what it is about bigotry that you want me to accept.
You seem unable to explain this.
Neither you nor @SirRumpole seem to know what a strawman argument is, and the reality is that you both have used it in making your points. For example the settlement between Folau and RA relates to the complete opposite of what you have been talking about, as it was based on a push by Falau to claim his sacking was due to a right to free speech based on his bigoted commentary.
You further believe it is wrong that the media and members of the public speak out about bigotry, and claim this is a use of "force" or "pressure". I personally find this remarkable, especially when you go on to accuse @IFocus of bullying when he suggests you are out of touch. I suspect @SirRumpole might regard that as being a rather delicate position to hold, petal.

 

[SirRumpole]

You further believe it is wrong that the media and members of the public speak out about bigotry, and claim this is a use of "force" or "pressure".

People have a right to speak out about what they see as bigotry, the wrongful action is that individuals are deprived of their trade or employment for expressing an opinion.

Why you cannot see that this is wrong escapes me. Words can be dealt with by words without having to end up in court.

 

[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.

I pointed out your numerous inaccuracies and errors of logic along the way and wonder what it is about bigotry that you want me to accept.
You seem unable to explain this.
Neither you nor @SirRumpole seem to know what a strawman argument is, and the reality is that you both have used it in making your points. For example the settlement between Folau and RA relates to the complete opposite of what you have been talking about, as it was based on a push by Falau to claim his sacking was due to a right to free speech based on his bigoted commentary.
You further believe it is wrong that the media and members of the public speak out about bigotry, and claim this is a use of "force" or "pressure". I personally find this remarkable, especially when you go on to accuse @IFocus of bullying when he suggests you are out of touch. I suspect @SirRumpole might regard that as being a rather delicate position to hold, petal.

As can be seen in the IFocus quote, he actually said I have a stance that favours the privileged against the vulnerable, that is just another ridiculous statement and is only pulled out of the butt to try and demean my argument and paint me in an uncaring and selfish light. Which boils back to bullying and is as far from the truth as possible, but is a tried and proven method of some sectors.
Another ridiculous part while we are on the IFocus post was the statement:
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.
1. If there was no leak to the media, it wouldn't have got air play, Court and Folau didn't chase the media to splurt it out, the media chased them.
2. The 2000 year old text is probably interpreted every Sunday at least, so if it targeted a minority group why not take on the Church and have the offending text removed? As for targeting a minority group, you can't get much smaller a minority group than two Court and Folau.

As for you pointing out anything, far from it you have made baseless points of disagreement, to the facts I have posted.
If RA had every right to sack Folau for breach of contract, they would not have given him millions of dollars they could ill afford, to try a palm it off as some sort of gift is the sort of nonsense argument you provide.
I have no problem with people and the media speaking out about bigotry, what I take exception to is the demonic pursuit of said bigots in a frenzied mob like manner. That does nothing to further the cause of the minority, it IMO just further alienates them from the middle ground, as it paints them in fanatic light.

 

[rederob]

People have a right to speak out about what they see as bigotry, the wrongful action is that individuals are deprived of their trade or employment for expressing an opinion.

Why you cannot see that this is wrong escapes me. Words can be dealt with by words without having to end up in court.

Please rewrite that into a sense as I have no idea what you mean.

 

[SirRumpole]

Please rewrite that into a sense as I have no idea what you mean.

No point really, you clearly lack comprehension skills.

 

[wayneL]

I'm loving the ignore feature of this forum.

But it is fun knowing who all these responses are to LMAO.

 

[rederob]

As can be seen in the IFocus quote, he actually said I have a stance that favours the privileged against the vulnerable, that is just another ridiculous statement and is only pulled out of the butt to try and demean my argument and paint me in an uncaring and selfish light.

His comment relates to young people not holding such an archaic position, and not sharing your views. I cannot follow your argument as it does not seem to make sense.

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.
1. If there was no leak to the media, it wouldn't have got air play, Court and Folau didn't chase the media to splurt it out, the media chased them.

I read Folau's comments on social media and Court's in an article from an interview with Reuters.
The media simply followed up on what they put out there.

2. The 2000 year old text is probably interpreted every Sunday at least, so if it targeted a minority group why not take on the Church and have the offending text removed? As for targeting a minority group, you can't get much smaller a minority group than two Court and Folau.

This point is exactly what constitutes a strawman argument.

As for you pointing out anything, far from it you have made baseless points of disagreement, to the facts I have posted.

Ok, show where Folau was banned from playing rugby, or Court was gagged, for starters.
I have a long list that goes back to the Folau thread that I never bothered replying to.

If RA had every right to sack Folau for breach of contract, they would not have given him millions of dollars they could ill afford, to try a palm it off as some sort of gift is the sort of nonsense argument you provide.

Another strawman argument. Either work it out or PM me.

I have no problem with people and the media speaking out about bigotry, what I take exception to is the demonic pursuit of said bigots in a frenzied mob like manner. That does nothing to further the cause of the minority, it IMO just further alienates them from the middle ground, as it paints them in fanatic light.

I agree.

 

[rederob]

No point really, you clearly lack comprehension skills.

But, inter alia, you said this:

Words can be dealt with by words without having to end up in court.

Yet Folau instigated court action against RA, so what you said cannot make sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yet Folau instigated court action against RA, so what you said cannot make sense.

I thought your comprehension was weak.

Folau took RA to court for the action of sacking him, not for anything they said.

 

[sptrawler]

His comment relates to young people not holding such an archaic position, and not sharing your views. I cannot follow your argument as it does not seem to make sense.

I need go no further, you are again misrepresenting something.

The IFocus quote:
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.

If you don't think that is attempting to paint me in an uncaring light, your struggle to follow the debate is understandable, also your lack of seeing anything other than your own point of view now becomes obvious.
I doubt anyone while having a discussion with IFocus or yourself, would have the courage to say anything, other than what you wanted to hear, the result wouldn't be worth the angst.
Cheers.

 

[rederob]

I thought your comprehension was weak.

Folau took RA to court for the action of sacking him, not for anything they said.

What he did was use social media in breach of a commercial contract he entered into, and which he acknowledged occurred.
I do not know how you have confused contract law with mere words.

 

[rederob]

I need go no further, you are again misrepresenting something.

The IFocus quote:
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.

If you don't think that is attempting to paint me in an uncaring light, your struggle to follow the debate is understandable, also your lack of seeing anything other than your own point of view now becomes obvious.
I doubt anyone while having a discussion with IFocus or yourself, would have the courage to say anything, other than what you wanted to hear, the result wouldn't be worth the angst.
Cheers.

Given that I have not been backward in agreeing with some of your points it is unfair to suggest I have another agenda.
How many times will you avoid explaining the positive features of bigotry that I appear to have overlooked, because apparently I have taken "sides".
I am keenly interested in this "other side" as apparently we lefties demand your complete capitulation and I don't know what you will be capitulating.

 

[sptrawler]

I think we have done it to death, people reading through the posts can decide as to the veracity of both sides of the debate, as I said earlier time to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[IFocus]

I think we have done it to death, people reading through the posts can decide as to the veracity of both sides of the debate, as I said earlier time to agree to disagree and move on.

Haha...nope that means I am right and you are left or wrong.

 

[rederob]

Haha...nope that means I am right and you are left or wrong.

Apparently they think we need them to capitulate to our "side", which has no room for bigotry.
Despite asking several times, they have no response to what it is they would capitulate.
The best I can work out is that they only see bigotry in terms of "different opinions".
@SirRumpole even stated that bigotry is an opinion.
I am open to arguments that apparent leftist ideas of fairness and equality are not sound, and will jump "sides" if so.
That would put to bed this proposition:

The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side, no matter what the issue is.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am open to arguments that apparent leftist ideas of fairness and equality are not sound, and will jump "sides" if so.

I never said ideas of equality and fairness are "not sound", it's a matter of what you want to do to "enforce" your version of Utopia.

Silencing dissent is as obnoxious as racism in my view.

Opinions can be fought with other opinions not with Draconian legislation or sanctions robbing people of their rights to earn a living.

Totalitarianism is apparently what you want, anyone who disagrees with you must be crushed.

 

[rederob]

I never said ideas of equality and fairness are "not sound", it's a matter of what you want to do to "enforce" your version of Utopia.

Silencing dissent is as obnoxious as racism in my view.

Opinions can be fought with other opinions not with Draconian legislation or sanctions robbing people of their rights to earn a living.

Totalitarianism is apparently what you want, anyone who disagrees with you must be crushed.

You seem unwilling to accept we have laws that govern what we are able to say "freely", and these are not about any version of Utopia.
For the umteenth time, neither Folau nor Court were silenced.
You are wanting to rehash matters of other threads where you never once showed where there were laws that supported your views.

 

[SirRumpole]

You seem unwilling to accept we have laws that govern what we are able to say "freely", and these are not about any version of Utopia.

That is exactly the problem, laws that restrict freedom of speech.

You don't think that's a problem, I disagree.

Our rights are being constrained by Leftists like you.

 

[moXJO]

Our rights are being constrained by Leftists

This is the jist of it. Using strong arm tactics that end up failing when the law is applied.

 

[rederob]

That is exactly the problem, laws that restrict freedom of speech.

You don't think that's a problem, I disagree.

Our rights are being constrained by Leftists like you.

I don't make the laws of our land, and we haven't had a truly leftist government since Whitlam.
Your idea that I or any leftist is able to constrain what you can say belongs to the lunatic fringe.