AFL Overkill

[The_Dud]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

It's ok by me sunsaint if you want to stay ignorant and uniformed.

He has every right to post what he wants, and he had posted numerous quotes in the past relating to his faith and the bible without an issue, however when his postings veered into hate speech and contravening a code of conduct that he agreed to by signing a contract, there are consequences.

They talk about a slippery slope if Rugby Australia is allowed to do this kind of thing, what about the opposite. Say Folau wins his case, Can another athlete who comes along and practices extreme Satanism expect to be able to post what ever he wants about ritual abuse without any consequence? To sack them would violate their free speech wouldn't it?

He quoted from the bible. How the f*** can that be called hate speech?

Uh, because the bible and Christianity (like most religions) is full of hate speech...

[sunsaint]

Anyway the looney left wouldn't be getting their knickers all twisted over someone quoting from the Koran.

ummm they wouldnt even get a chance to open their mouths before you would be attacking the looney left at the lack of protest

ok I have another contradiction for you - I have no doubt that those screaming about Folaus' rights will fall very quiet when during this term of govt even more anti union, work choices style reforms get introduced into law
- you know the type of changes that make it even easier to sack people

PS if you are worried about me putting words in your mouth - try closing it

[SaintPav]

“Self-exculpation, self-justification and special pleading are nothing new in human psychology. But never have these rather unattractive human traits had so much material upon which to work”. Theodore Dalrymple

[sunsaint]

was Theodore writing a critics review of the bible?

[SaintPav]

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

[bigcarl]

If he’d quoted the Quran rather than the Christian Bible, Rugby Australia would have been called out for religious vilification.

That’s how ridiculous things have become

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

I find it more funny and weird that some races are basically allowed to be racist against other races pubically but others can't. Strange world.

[Enrico_Misso]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

[bigcarl]

This thread has legs. It may go down as one of Sainsational’s all-time greats, up there with with “Barks4eva is a sacred cow” etc.

[SaintPav]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

It’s for the good of the brand so it's like other faux issues that corporations pretend they care about like ’sustainability’ and other groovy words that make people feel good about themselves; but it's mostly meaningless and hypocritical. But the ideological drones who just repeat and don't think haven't realised that enforced speech is a form of mind control. I recall the joke which says that “a totalitarian regime is one that commands you to “shut up!” whereas a liberal democracy says “keep talking!“

You also can’t be free working in a hierarchical corporate structure either. They are like mini totalitarian regimes. Australia is not a free society and is a democracy in name only. Australia is an authoritarian plutocracy made up of thousands of mini totalitarian regimes. ”It’s ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They’re totalitarian institutions – you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There’s about as much freedom as under Stalinism.”

[BarryGrogan]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

It’s for the good of the brand so it's like other faux issues that corporations pretend they care about like ’sustainability’ and other groovy words that make people feel good about themselves; but it's mostly meaningless and hypocritical. But the ideological drones who just repeat and don't think haven't realised that enforced speech is a form of mind control. I recall the joke which says that “a totalitarian regime is one that commands you to “shut up!” whereas a liberal democracy says “keep talking!“

You also can’t be free working in a hierarchical corporate structure either. They are like mini totalitarian regimes. Australia is not a free society and is a democracy in name only. Australia is an authoritarian plutocracy made up of thousands of mini totalitarian regimes. ”It’s ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They’re totalitarian institutions – you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There’s about as much freedom as under Stalinism.”

?

So the people controlling the actions of governments and corporations is a bad thing?

[SaintPav]

When was the last time you directly changed a government policy?

[The_Dud]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

Since when is deciding not to treat a section of society as sub-humans a ‘political’ view?

Just like climate change isn’t a ‘political’ issue, it’s scientific consensus, treating homosexuals equally is just the right thing to do as a human being, ‘politics’ doesn’t even come in to it.

[The_Dud]

When was the last time you directly changed a government policy?

Marriage equality vote.

And how embarrassing that it even had to come to that.

[skeptic]

When was the last time you directly changed a government policy?

One of the big reasons why a lot of ppl feel democracy is coming under fire in the modern world...

Can't quite remember who said it but it was words to the effect of: democracy allows the right for individuals to accept or reject the ideas of the people in charge

[skeptic]

Really interesting discussion, especially the racial stuff

I remember somebody posted some pretty hateful things about Muslims on this site a while ago... always really upset me

[Dis Believer]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

Since when is deciding not to treat a section of society as sub-humans a ‘political’ view?

Just like climate change isn’t a ‘political’ issue, it’s scientific consensus, treating homosexuals equally is just the right thing to do as a human being, ‘politics’ doesn’t even come in to it.

What shrieking SJW blather!! Where or when in this debate was anyone treated as "sub-human".....talk about over-reach. And consensus has nothing to do with science. Science is about data, and whether or not is supports the hypothesis. And for the record the "97% consensus" that gets trotted out has been debunked so many times it laughable. The facts of that "survey" are freely available on-line, maybe read up and stop making a dill of yourself......

If you want to go on a crusade to stop innocents being treated as sub-human, maybe have a crack at the Chinese authorities running a massive human organ harvesting racket on political prisoners.....you might struggle a bit though, the Chinese blokes don't give a crap about hashtags and "likes" on facebook, so you'll need a new skillset.....

[SaintPav]

When was the last time you directly changed a government policy?

Marriage equality vote.

And how embarrassing that it even had to come to that.

I was happy to vote yes but identify politics is a useful distraction (divide and conquer).

[The_Dud]

What is really wrong with all this is the failure to separate the individual from the corporation/body that employs them.

It is fair enough that your employer should expect you to obey the laws of the land.
But no employer should insist on you complying with their "political" views.
More particularly why should corporations have political views in the first place?
They should stick to their knitting and focus on delivering their "product" rather than imposing political restraints on their staff in order to "look good" with the PC crowd.

The logical extension is in a communist country where everyone works for the government EVERY one must comply with EVERY view of the state.
And that means the END of ALL personal freedoms.

So the real issue is Rugby Aust, Banks, Insurance companies etc. should have NO RIGHT to impose political views on there staff.
Such contracts should be declared invalid in the name of human rights and personal freedom.

Since when is deciding not to treat a section of society as sub-humans a ‘political’ view?

Just like climate change isn’t a ‘political’ issue, it’s scientific consensus, treating homosexuals equally is just the right thing to do as a human being, ‘politics’ doesn’t even come in to it.

What shrieking SJW blather!! Where or when in this debate was anyone treated as "sub-human".....talk about over-reach. And consensus has nothing to do with science. Science is about data, and whether or not is supports the hypothesis. And for the record the "97% consensus" that gets trotted out has been debunked so many times it laughable. The facts of that "survey" are freely available on-line, maybe read up and stop making a dill of yourself......

If you want to go on a crusade to stop innocents being treated as sub-human, maybe have a crack at the Chinese authorities running a massive human organ harvesting racket on political prisoners.....you might struggle a bit though, the Chinese blokes don't give a crap about hashtags and "likes" on facebook, so you'll need a new skillset.....

Do you get all your science info straight from Andrew Bolt?

Telling people they’re “going to hell” (inset any derogatory term) purely because of the way they were born, and they need to “fix themselves” to be deemed worthy of yourself and your imaginary god sounds like you’re not quite placing them on the same level as yourself.

And interesting (not surprising though) how you went straight to China (dang Asians and they’re funny eyes, eh) when referencing “innocents being treated as sub-human” when you could have stayed much closer to home and brought up refugee children being indefinitely locked up by the Australian Government. But hey, I suppose thats just white on brown crime, so move along, nothing to see here!

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Seriously Dudley...you're comparing Australia's policies on some refugees compared to what happens to people in bad parts of the world?

[SaintPav]

Seriously Dudley...you're comparing Australia's policies on some refugees compared to what happens to people in bad parts of the world?

Indefinite detention must be fun but at least you called them refugees.

[The_Dud]

Seriously Dudley...you're comparing Australia's policies on some refugees compared to what happens to people in bad parts of the world?

I don’t think you’ll find a government that exists that isn’t corrupt and hasn’t done shitty things to people.

Just says a lot that his default was to go straight to the ACA-loving crowd’s favourite scapegoat, China, when there are plenty more close to home and relevant examples to reference.

[SaintPav]

Some might call it the social contract but all states view and treat the people it rules as riff-raff and lesser beings to be manipulated, coerced, and exploited. We are all expendable for reasons of state.

[Dis Believer]

Seriously Dudley...you're comparing Australia's policies on some refugees compared to what happens to people in bad parts of the world?

I don’t think you’ll find a government that exists that isn’t corrupt and hasn’t done shitty things to people.

Just says a lot that his default was to go straight to the ACA-loving crowd’s favourite scapegoat, China, when there are plenty more close to home and relevant examples to reference.

You're kidding right!! You don't consider state run organ harvesting for profit on a massive scale to be one of the most abhorrent acts imaginable??!! Literally hundreds of thousands of people, a large portion of whom are "political prisoners" because of their religious beliefs, are being murdered for profit, in a scheme that is not only state-sanctioned, it's state run !! And you reckon I'm picking on them because of your misguided political leanings, because naturally anyone who doesn't agree with you, must be in thrall to Andrew Bolt.

For what it's worth, I have no political allegiances, although I tend to be right of centre, due largely to a belief that the smaller the state mechanism, the better for those that are under it's governance. I have also been around long enough to know that reading original documents extensively, rather than media "abridged" versions is far more informative than simply swallowing whatever distorted crap is spewed from the get-up website. I am also smart enough to know that the truth of most things can be found by following the money. In the case of climate change it's actually the rivers of gold that lead straight to the UN and into the pockets of it's various preachers such as Flannery, who whilst having failed to actually determine (or even prove) the extent of man's influence on climate change, was busily building an expensive waterfront property whilst blustering that sea level rises would be to catastrophic levels beyond imagination. Not only that, whilst in the employ of the Australian Taxpayer, he managed to secure government grant worth tens of millions of dollars for an experimental power project that went belly up - and took all of our money with it! Fancy that......

[SaintPav]

Seriously Dudley...you're comparing Australia's policies on some refugees compared to what happens to people in bad parts of the world?

I don’t think you’ll find a government that exists that isn’t corrupt and hasn’t done shitty things to people.

Just says a lot that his default was to go straight to the ACA-loving crowd’s favourite scapegoat, China, when there are plenty more close to home and relevant examples to reference.

You're kidding right!! You don't consider state run organ harvesting for profit on a massive scale to be one of the most abhorrent acts imaginable??!! Literally hundreds of thousands of people, a large portion of whom are "political prisoners" because of their religious beliefs, are being murdered for profit, in a scheme that is not only state-sanctioned, it's state run !! And you reckon I'm picking on them because of your misguided political leanings, because naturally anyone who doesn't agree with you, must be in thrall to Andrew Bolt.

For what it's worth, I have no political allegiances, although I tend to be right of centre, due largely to a belief that the smaller the state mechanism, the better for those that are under it's governance. I have also been around long enough to know that reading original documents extensively, rather than media "abridged" versions is far more informative than simply swallowing whatever distorted crap is spewed from the get-up website. I am also smart enough to know that the truth of most things can be found by following the money. In the case of climate change it's actually the rivers of gold that lead straight to the UN and into the pockets of it's various preachers such as Flannery, who whilst having failed to actually determine (or even prove) the extent of man's influence on climate change, was busily building an expensive waterfront property whilst blustering that sea level rises would be to catastrophic levels beyond imagination. Not only that, whilst in the employ of the Australian Taxpayer, he managed to secure government grant worth tens of millions of dollars for an experimental power project that went belly up - and took all of our money with it! Fancy that......

So you don’t believe the climate science? Interesting.
I agree with your principal of following the money but I would have thought that big business and the fossil fuel industry has a greater incentive and capacity to delay, mislead and lie about the massive readjustment required.

Anyway, Government and media typically present the problem as a false choice between two options. The third choice is that we’re totally screwed and it’s probably too late.

Climate science forecasts have undershot actual outcomes and err on the “side of least drama”.

The scientific method isn’t perfect but it’s all we have. Anyway, I trust NASA and the Royal Society more than I trust idiots like Tony Abbott and Maurice Newman.

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Keynyn Brysse a,*, Naomi Oreskes b, Jessica O’Reilly c, Michael Oppenheimer d
a Program in Science, Technology and Society, Office of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Alberta, Canada
b History and Science Studies, University of California, San Diego, United States
c Department of Sociology, College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University, United States
d Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, United States
ABSTRACT
Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of ‘‘alarmism’’: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency ‘‘erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).’’ We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to identify and explore ESLD.