Reasons to be offended

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Results 426 to 450 of 479

  1. Post
    Why the hell is anyone treating goddamn rugby players like they're thought leaders?

  2. Post
    Privoxy wrote:
    Not the same thing pal.
    From your same source:
    In particular, freedom of expression is preserved in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that:

    "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."[79]
    Seems pretty clear to me, is the no "freedom of speech" just murican semantics?

  3. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Why are people here so dumb? I mean that with respect, but you all have the brain capacity of a leaking toilet bowl. It's like trying to engage with a wet rag.

    Firstly, NZ certainly does have a freedom of speech law. Not that it is relevant at all for an Australian. Secondly, his freedom of speech was not impinged in any way because he was not censured by a government owned entity but by a private company. If the Australian govt had harassed him in anyway, then yes, it would have been illegal. Not so from privately owned companies.

    I understand this may be a bit hard to grasp for mouth breathing feebleminded cretins but at least try and attach two neurons together from time to time.
    You can't talk to us mouth breathing, feeble minded cretins like that and get away with it.

    I'm going to get a mod to perma ban you.

  4. Post
    stacrafty wrote:
    Tim-dickhead have a lift plus
    I have not resorted to name calling so maybe grow up and leave it out.

    Attack the point of view not the person.

  5. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Why are people here so dumb? I mean that with respect, but you all have the brain capacity of a leaking toilet bowl. It's like trying to engage with a wet rag.

    Firstly, NZ certainly does have a freedom of speech law. Not that it is relevant at all for an Australian. Secondly, his freedom of speech was not impinged in any way because he was not censured by a government owned entity but by a private company. If the Australian govt had harassed him in anyway, then yes, it would have been illegal. Not so from privately owned companies.

    I understand this may be a bit hard to grasp for mouth breathing feebleminded cretins but at least try and attach two neurons together from time to time.
    I like how you abuse people for being simple then tell us that unless the government did it, then it isn't illegal.

    Nice one bro!

  6. Post
    What did the rugby player even say again?

  7. Post
    I think it was "gays bad", but I could be mistaken.

  8. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Not at all, but freedom of religious expression is a fundamental human right, this human right has been taken away from him, end of story.
    .
    No it hasn't, it's only the end of the story if you were brain-damaged as a child. He willingly contracted away his right to be a dickhead on the company dime, and apparently forgot that. No-one took away his freedom of speech, he siged them away to his employer, there were no jack-boots kicking down the door to suppress him. However, he forgot that there for every freedom there is a corresponding responsibility - to take the consequences.

    In this case, his using his free speech despite the contract he'd signed saying he'd be a bit more circumspect about being a fundie dickhead, means he now has to take the consequences of what happens when you break a contract - you don't get the sweet moneyz.

  9. Post
    obviously what he said was hurtful to others but I'm not sure if his motivation was to hurt others or a fear of hell or something else.

    regardless I don't think he should lose his job. His belief that homosexuality is a choice and a bad one, should not mean that he is unable to work.

    the ramifications for banning certain opinions for employment is pretty dangerous.

  10. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    obviously what he said was hurtful to others but I'm not sure if his motivation was to hurt others or a fear of hell or something else.

    regardless I don't think he should lose his job. His belief that homosexuality is a choice and a bad one, should not mean that he is unable to work.

    the ramifications for banning certain opinions for employment is pretty dangerous.
    If you're the most high profile player for a sport that has a very bad history of homophobia, and that sport would perhaps like to get onto the right side of 1985, being homophobic on social media is very much an employment matter.

    No-one banned him for his opinion, he's obviously always believed that the gays were going to burn, and no-one gave a shit what he thought until he brought his employer into disrepute by sharing his homophobia on a very public platform with millions.

    Simon Barnett probably believes that same thing given his God bothering, but as he's never shared it on a morning show or drivetime show or goddamned Twitter, no-one is firing him for being a homophobic Christian. See how it works?

  11. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    No it hasn't, it's only the end of the story if you were brain-damaged as a child. He willingly contracted away his right to be a dickhead on the company dime, and apparently forgot that. No-one took away his freedom of speech, he siged them away to his employer, there were no jack-boots kicking down the door to suppress him. However, he forgot that there for every freedom there is a corresponding responsibility - to take the consequences.

    In this case, his using his free speech despite the contract he'd signed saying he'd be a bit more circumspect about being a fundie dickhead, means he now has to take the consequences of what happens when you break a contract - you don't get the sweet moneyz.
    It was actually not in his contract as he had it removed. I am not talking about free speech, I am talking about the freedom of religious expression, again another forum user who has to resort to name calling,

  12. Post
    Anyway, as some of you can't rebut without resorting to name calling, I have nothing else to say on this matter.

  13. Post
    The fact that he's still spouting his homophobic bullshit seems to indicate his "religious freedom" hasn't been violated either.

  14. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    It was actually not in his contract as he had it removed. I am not talking about free speech, I am talking about the freedom of religious expression
    Still not seeing the jackboots kicking down his door. So show me where the government has violated his right to religious expression?

    - - - Updated - - -

    dickytim wrote:
    Anyway, as some of you can't rebut without resorting to name calling, I have nothing else to say on this matter.
    That's a good way to withdraw from an argument you're losing.

  15. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    If you're the most high profile player for a sport that has a very bad history of homophobia, and that sport would perhaps like to get onto the right side of 1985, being homophobic on social media is very much an employment matter.

    No-one banned him for his opinion, he's obviously always believed that the gays were going to burn, and no-one gave a shit what he thought until he brought his employer into disrepute by sharing his homophobia on a very public platform with millions.

    Simon Barnett probably believes that same thing given his God bothering, but as he's never shared it on a morning show or drivetime show or goddamned Twitter, no-one is firing him for being a homophobic Christian. See how it works?
    It sounds like what you're arguing is different positions = different employment law/human rights.

    was he given a written warning for the conduct? I doubt it given the contract was only 2 months old. Did the rugby union follow proper procedure? These are the objective criteria required to enforce a subjective decision on behavior.

    There's a responsibility to uphold the law even if certain cases that aren't popular because there are bigger detriments from moving the line in the sand. We wouldn't want CEOs to be able to fire people willy nilly because they have 'beliefs different to the company'

  16. Post
    Frederick James wrote:
    ...... and the Lord taketh away!

  17. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    It sounds like what you're arguing is different positions = different employment law/human rights.

    was he given a written warning for the conduct? I doubt it given the contract was only 2 months old. Did the rugby union follow proper procedure? These are the objective criteria required to enforce a subjective decision on behavior.

    There's a responsibility to uphold the law even if certain cases that aren't popular because there are bigger detriments from moving the line in the sand. We wouldn't want CEOs to be able to fire people willy nilly because they have 'beliefs different to the company'
    Yes, he was. He's done this before and been given warnings and some leeway, but he's responded to that by doubling down.

  18. Post
    Folau is a ****ing idiot. a bigot and a greedy hypocrite. He posed on the cover of a gay magazine a few years ago, owns multi million dollar properties( but begs for donations), said he would walk away from rugby if he was hurting the sport in anyway. Hope he never gets a cent and never gets another sporting contract

  19. Post
    The response to his nonsense has been overwhelmingly negative how does he not get it lol

  20. Post
    800k or however much he managed to raise before it got shut down doesn't look too negative to me

  21. Post
    Yeah but it's just religious right wing conservative wank-stains who are contributing. What did Zarkov say a while back? It stuck with me, was something like religion being the refuge of the deluded and weak minded.

  22. Post
    honestly 800k in a few days isn't that much in a country with a population the size of Australia. Something that was actually widely supported would have heaps more support heaps faster. Like FJ said it's just that the religious wackos rally themselves internally quickly and they're easy to dupe out of their money.

    Why else would Folau be claiming he wants to become a pastor?

  23. Post
    Frederick James wrote:
    Yeah but it's just religious right wing conservative wank-stains who are contributing. What did Zarkov say a while back? It stuck with me, was something like religion being the refuge of the deluded and weak minded.
    Lmao what a privileged thing to say

  24. Post
    surprised how many pro-homosexual individuals there are that are anti religion.

    science is pretty close to solving the immune condition which is the leading hypothesis for what causes homosexuality.

    If the solution is successful, game theory doesn't have a positive outlook on homosexuality.. I'd find it pretty ****ed up to watch a kind of human head towards extinction because of logic and I'd guess it would cause even more torment if it was your own kind.

    so while I think religious dogma is stupid, subjective belief is one of the best tools we have to fight against the machine.

  25. Post
    Dafuq? The "solution" to the "homosexual condition" eh?

    Mr Folau, is that you?