Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:45 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 959 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22235
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Thomas wrote:
Apparently I am a coward if I don't march down to my local mosque and start a fight with people.

Utterly bizarre logic.


I read that as local morgue first. I thought you could have an easy win there Thomas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 13966
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16209
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 13966
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.

Sure mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16209
CrazyIslander wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.

Sure mate

Glad we can agree on this much at least. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22235
Location: STRAYA PLUM
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.

Sure mate

Glad we can agree on this much at least. :thumbup:


Are we still talking about Thomas and fighting at the morgue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:53 am
Posts: 1408
Location: LHI
Farva wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Apparently I am a coward if I don't march down to my local mosque and start a fight with people.

Utterly bizarre logic.


I read that as local morgue first. I thought you could have an easy win there Thomas.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19712
Location: STRAYA!
Farva wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.

Sure mate

Glad we can agree on this much at least. :thumbup:


Are we still talking about Thomas and fighting at the morgue?


I sure hope so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
SecretAgentMan wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Or he wants them to fire him and them for him to quit. Avoid payout

Either way, for the good of the game he has to go.


It's what Princess Diana would have wanted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Toro wrote:
It's certainly turned out to be an interesting discussion and I find it interesting that some still see such talk as different from being racist or sexist. Does freedom of speech allow anyone to post racist comments and where is the line that makes it hate speech and unacceptable in today's world? When we talk of equality you could generally boil it down to three themes/topics that get discussed. Gender, Sexual Orientation and Race (with a loose modern definition)

Why does basing it on religious beliefs get you a pass? I don't think what he posted was as bad as the media and some journalists have made out, I said from the start that he would only offend those gays that believe in hell anyway. I don't find what he said offensive, but I do this you can reduce his comment to publicly stating that being Gay is wrong. Which in some way I think is worse than being racist and sexist which deals more with thinking another group is inferior.

Quote:
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommendations CM/Rec(2010)5 on combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and specially the Recommendation R(97)20 on “hate speech” provides a strong basis for action and call for measures to combat ‘inciting, spreading or promoting hatred or other forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, including in the media and on the Internet’. However, these two legal instruments also remind us that all measures should respect the fundamental right to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the Court. Freedom of expression argues that the most effective response to hate speech is more speech, and states have a role in ensuring that all voices in a debate can be heard - including the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, without fearing violence. Yet at the same time, states should clearly prohibit the advocacy of homophobic or transphobic hatred that constitutes incitement to imminent hostility,


Not really arguing anything with the quote but it's just an example of the recognition that some people would like a line to be drawn between free speech and hate speech. I don't think Izzy's post is hate speech but in his position it was certainly a declaration that he thinks (whether it's his God's will or not) that homosexuality is wrong, and this undermines so much that we are working for in society these days in terms of equality.


When a sinner repents all is equal.

EDIT : And Issy was taught that we are ALL sinners, not only gays and murderers and thieves and fornicaters and people wearing mixed clothing or dacncing on the shabbat or whatever. ...

This whole thing is blown out of context.


It has been blown out all proportion IMO.

I think it different to racism, or several 'isms

Whatever one's views on religion, the concept of repenting is consistent with the form of Christianity that Folau adheres to.

"What is your view on Chinese people, Izzy?"
"They are going to Hell unless they stop being Chinese"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22235
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Mick Mannock wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Toro wrote:
It's certainly turned out to be an interesting discussion and I find it interesting that some still see such talk as different from being racist or sexist. Does freedom of speech allow anyone to post racist comments and where is the line that makes it hate speech and unacceptable in today's world? When we talk of equality you could generally boil it down to three themes/topics that get discussed. Gender, Sexual Orientation and Race (with a loose modern definition)

Why does basing it on religious beliefs get you a pass? I don't think what he posted was as bad as the media and some journalists have made out, I said from the start that he would only offend those gays that believe in hell anyway. I don't find what he said offensive, but I do this you can reduce his comment to publicly stating that being Gay is wrong. Which in some way I think is worse than being racist and sexist which deals more with thinking another group is inferior.

Quote:
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommendations CM/Rec(2010)5 on combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and specially the Recommendation R(97)20 on “hate speech” provides a strong basis for action and call for measures to combat ‘inciting, spreading or promoting hatred or other forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, including in the media and on the Internet’. However, these two legal instruments also remind us that all measures should respect the fundamental right to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the Court. Freedom of expression argues that the most effective response to hate speech is more speech, and states have a role in ensuring that all voices in a debate can be heard - including the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, without fearing violence. Yet at the same time, states should clearly prohibit the advocacy of homophobic or transphobic hatred that constitutes incitement to imminent hostility,


Not really arguing anything with the quote but it's just an example of the recognition that some people would like a line to be drawn between free speech and hate speech. I don't think Izzy's post is hate speech but in his position it was certainly a declaration that he thinks (whether it's his God's will or not) that homosexuality is wrong, and this undermines so much that we are working for in society these days in terms of equality.


When a sinner repents all is equal.

EDIT : And Issy was taught that we are ALL sinners, not only gays and murderers and thieves and fornicaters and people wearing mixed clothing or dacncing on the shabbat or whatever. ...

This whole thing is blown out of context.


It has been blown out all proportion IMO.

I think it different to racism, or several 'isms

Whatever one's views on religion, the concept of repenting is consistent with the form of Christianity that Folau adheres to.

"What is your view on Chinese people, Izzy?"
"They are going to Hell unless they stop being Chinese"


Izzy is free to have his views on sexuality. What he has said is certainly not inclusive though. It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.
What he has said publicly, is at direct odds with his employers values that are being pushed from a corporate level, and by the major sponsors of his corporation. These organisations believe that an inclusive message is important to their revenue and corporate profile. If Izzy is challenging that (and there is an association between what he says, RA and the sponsors) then quite rightly the sponsors will be reassessing their connection to RA. If they do that, RA will lose out. If RA consider it better value to cut Izzy (and I assume that they have a clause in the contract that allows them to do that) and retain the sponsors then so be it. Otherwise they might consider it better to cut the sponsor and keep Izzy. Given its a major sponsor, Id have my money on the former.

Izzy is more than welcome to say whatever he wants. But if he wants to get a paycheck from RA he needs to abide by their rules. One of those is inclusion. Its not blown out of proportion as it has hit the headlines in Australia and corporations might well be considering negative reputational risk through that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31971
Thomas wrote:
I have nearly five times the number of Twitter followers than Dave.

As such, I am smarterer than Dave and know all about the Falool biz.


Anyone know where Dave was tweeting from? If it was in the pub then it's over for Izzy. Tweets do not come more authorative than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:33 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 6913
Location: Stockholm
Toro wrote:
I find it interesting that some still see such talk as different from being racist or sexist.

I don't see a huge difference. Bar the details.

Toro wrote:
Does freedom of speech allow anyone to post racist comments

Yes.

Toro wrote:
Why does basing it on religious beliefs get you a pass?

A pass from what? Being heavily critisized, losing respect in the eyes of the nation/world, possibly losing your job? It doesn't.

Toro wrote:
Not really arguing anything with the quote but it's just an example of the recognition that some people would like a line to be drawn between free speech and hate speech. I don't think Izzy's post is hate speech ... <snip>

The quote was fine, and perfectly correct: the answer to bad speech is not silencing it. The answer is better speech.

What's hate speech? What is hate speech to you is clearly not hate speech to me. Case in point, I regard what Folau said as hate speech. What is Donald Trump's definition of hate speech? Anything that critisizes Donald Trump?

You can't say, "you're not allowed to even mention that or that or <insert my definition of "hate speech" here>. It's a criminal offence to even utter it.". That's treading a very dangerous line. You can say whatever you like. And you can cop the social repurcussions. But we can't have the state enforcing silence on any issue. That is not acceptable imo.

If you banned people from even saying what Folau said, you'd also have to ban people from reading aloud The Bible or the Koran or any many of other books. When does the state start burning them to enforce that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
Farva wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:

It has been blown out all proportion IMO.

I think it different to racism, or several 'isms

Whatever one's views on religion, the concept of repenting is consistent with the form of Christianity that Folau adheres to.

"What is your view on Chinese people, Izzy?"
"They are going to Hell unless they stop being Chinese"


Izzy is free to have his views on sexuality. What he has said is certainly not inclusive though. It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.
What he has said publicly, is at direct odds with his employers values that are being pushed from a corporate level, and by the major sponsors of his corporation. These organisations believe that an inclusive message is important to their revenue and corporate profile. If Izzy is challenging that (and there is an association between what he says, RA and the sponsors) then quite rightly the sponsors will be reassessing their connection to RA. If they do that, RA will lose out. If RA consider it better value to cut Izzy (and I assume that they have a clause in the contract that allows them to do that) and retain the sponsors then so be it. Otherwise they might consider it better to cut the sponsor and keep Izzy. Given its a major sponsor, Id have my money on the former.

Izzy is more than welcome to say whatever he wants. But if he wants to get a paycheck from RA he needs to abide by their rules. One of those is inclusion. Its not blown out of proportion as it has hit the headlines in Australia and corporations might well be considering negative reputational risk through that.



Why interfere? Why not let Rugby Australia decide on what suits them ? Ticket sales will tell if theya are right ...

Too many SJWs around, imho.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37630
Location: in transit
No-one has impinged on Izzy's access to free speech.

It's not protected in law in Australia by the way so he and the rest of us have no right to free speech. Free speech is a label thrown around by right wing noflakes when common decency gets in the way of their preferred method of attack.

So no-one has actually limited Izzy's expression here. That hasn't happened. He's free to say what he wants.

There may be repercussions but he's perfectly free to say what he wants. Just so you know that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:01 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 6913
Location: Stockholm
.


Last edited by Mog The Almighty on Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:02 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 6913
Location: Stockholm
Farva wrote:
It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.

Obviously it doesn't.

Seems to be strawmen being erected on both sides here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
guy smiley wrote:
No-one has impinged on Izzy's access to free speech.

It's not protected in law in Australia by the way so he and the rest of us have no right to free speech. Free speech is a label thrown around by right wing noflakes when common decency gets in the way of their preferred method of attack.

So no-one has actually limited Izzy's expression here. That hasn't happened. He's free to say what he wants.

There may be repercussions but he's perfectly free to say what he wants. Just so you know that.



So common decency belongs to/is determined by left wing snowflakes ?
Wow ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37630
Location: in transit
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
No-one has impinged on Izzy's access to free speech.

It's not protected in law in Australia by the way so he and the rest of us have no right to free speech. Free speech is a label thrown around by right wing noflakes when common decency gets in the way of their preferred method of attack.

So no-one has actually limited Izzy's expression here. That hasn't happened. He's free to say what he wants.

There may be repercussions but he's perfectly free to say what he wants. Just so you know that.



So common decency belongs to/is determined by left wing snowflakes ?
Wow ...


No. Try again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:53 am
Posts: 1408
Location: LHI
guy smiley wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
No-one has impinged on Izzy's access to free speech.

It's not protected in law in Australia by the way so he and the rest of us have no right to free speech. Free speech is a label thrown around by right wing noflakes when common decency gets in the way of their preferred method of attack.

So no-one has actually limited Izzy's expression here. That hasn't happened. He's free to say what he wants.

There may be repercussions but he's perfectly free to say what he wants. Just so you know that.



So common decency belongs to/is determined by left wing snowflakes ?
Wow ...


No. Try again.


Do you really think he’ll do any better?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 5072
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37630
Location: in transit
rett wrote:

Do you really think he’ll do any better?


Nah, but it keeps him busy and someone, somewhere is grateful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..



So Folau have no right to express the truth as he sees it ? Only atheist or non-believers have ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..


Cathy!

Do you think it likely that he would say that all Nigg**s ( your expression) are going to Hell unless they repent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15462
He'd be very welcome at QUins as Mike Brown's replacement. We're a very Christian club although ironically we play very gay rugby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm
Posts: 218
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..



So Folau have no right to express the truth as he sees it ? Only atheist or non-believers have ?


He has the right to say that. But the same right applies to me calling him and his beliefs abhorrent and homophobic.

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean others have to listen or not say anything back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22235
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Farva wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:

It has been blown out all proportion IMO.

I think it different to racism, or several 'isms

Whatever one's views on religion, the concept of repenting is consistent with the form of Christianity that Folau adheres to.

"What is your view on Chinese people, Izzy?"
"They are going to Hell unless they stop being Chinese"


Izzy is free to have his views on sexuality. What he has said is certainly not inclusive though. It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.
What he has said publicly, is at direct odds with his employers values that are being pushed from a corporate level, and by the major sponsors of his corporation. These organisations believe that an inclusive message is important to their revenue and corporate profile. If Izzy is challenging that (and there is an association between what he says, RA and the sponsors) then quite rightly the sponsors will be reassessing their connection to RA. If they do that, RA will lose out. If RA consider it better value to cut Izzy (and I assume that they have a clause in the contract that allows them to do that) and retain the sponsors then so be it. Otherwise they might consider it better to cut the sponsor and keep Izzy. Given its a major sponsor, Id have my money on the former.

Izzy is more than welcome to say whatever he wants. But if he wants to get a paycheck from RA he needs to abide by their rules. One of those is inclusion. Its not blown out of proportion as it has hit the headlines in Australia and corporations might well be considering negative reputational risk through that.



Why interfere? Why not let Rugby Australia decide on what suits them ? Ticket sales will tell if theya are right ...

Too many SJWs around, imho.

Because RA relies on around $40m a year in sponsorship. Its vital to the game


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22235
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Farva wrote:
It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.

Obviously it doesn't.

Seems to be strawmen being erected on both sides here.

Not really. An argument being put forward is that as a christian he has a right to express that bexause of his religion (he does) and he then should not have the consequences of that comment because of his religion (he does not).
Its countering an argument


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 823
Location: NZ
Farva wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Farva wrote:
It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.

Obviously it doesn't.

Seems to be strawmen being erected on both sides here.

Not really. An argument being put forward is that as a christian he has a right to express that bexause of his religion (he does) and he then should not have the consequences of that comment because of his religion (he does not).
Its countering an argument



Keep seeing this claim, keep not seeing the example


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
Farva wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Farva wrote:
It might be that its his religion but why should that give him a free ride without criticism.

Obviously it doesn't.

Seems to be strawmen being erected on both sides here.

Not really. An argument being put forward is that as a christian he has a right to express that bexause of his religion (he does) and he then should not have the consequences of that comment because of his religion (he does not).
Its countering an argument


He should face the consequences.

I simply think that drawing a parallel with racism is false.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 5072
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..



So Folau have no right to express the truth as he sees it ? Only atheist or non-believers have ?


you probably don't understand the definition of "truth" ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
comets wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..



So Folau have no right to express the truth as he sees it ? Only atheist or non-believers have ?


you probably don't understand the definition of "truth" ..



Ad hominem ... Attack the argument, not me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
comets wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
comets wrote:
wonder if folau supporters here will stand by his side if he calls say a melanesian or aborigines player a Nigg** or an Ab* cause the same person you are defending is the same person defending a book which allows him to say those things without repercussions ..



So Folau have no right to express the truth as he sees it ? Only atheist or non-believers have ?


you probably don't understand the definition of "truth" ..


You probably don't understand "as he sees it"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23348
Location: Middle East
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Ad hominem ... Attack the argument, not me.


Meanwhile, in the space of half a page on another thread:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Comprehension problems ? Must be the shit you take to keep on fooling yourself ...


Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Half a brain ... but no, I do not think you even have that, at times...



Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Oomf.... Bokkom ... You've been tackled by a mouse.

Remember to grunt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14284
Location: XPAT CUNT
"Truth as he sees it" :lol:

That's called an opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23034
Zakar wrote:
"Truth as he sees it" :lol:

That's called an opinion.


Everyone seems to have one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 5072
Zakar wrote:
"Truth as he sees it" :lol:

That's called an opinion.


yeah he was mixing up 'truth' with 'opinions' :/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29568
Turbogoat wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Ad hominem ... Attack the argument, not me.


Meanwhile, in the space of half a page on another thread:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Comprehension problems ? Must be the shit you take to keep on fooling yourself ...


Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Half a brain ... but no, I do not think you even have that, at times...



Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Oomf.... Bokkom ... You've been tackled by a mouse.

Remember to grunt.



You don't have an argument. You just talk shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23348
Location: Middle East
:lol:

I wasn't going to ask for another example, but that's a good one.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 959 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 24  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, assfly, backrow, Bing [Bot], Conspicuous, danny_fitz, de_Selby, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, happyhooker, Homer, Insane_Homer, Jensrsa, KnuckleDragger, La soule, Liathroidigloine, Margin_Walker, Mog The Almighty, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, number 2, obelixtim, penguin, Petej, piquant, Rinkals, Rugby2023, sewa, Shrekles, The Sun God, unseenwork, youngsidd, ZappaMan, zippy and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group