Aussie Pro Rugby
-
I have three more things to add to this thread:
Firstly, one of my issues with the over the top reaction to Folau's comments are the power that people have given his words, and the message that sends to the younger generation.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
That's an old saying, and I've heard people recently claiming it's not true and that words do hurt, even going as far as claiming words can be violence.
That is patently ridiculous. We seem to be raising a generation of kids in cotton wool, and denying them the chance to develop the tools they will need to survive in the real world, notably a bit of resilience. We've got to stop this bullshit victim-hood culture.
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
If you disagree with someone, attempting to just silence them is the worst possible response. People should be able to openly debate any idea or belief - that is absolutely fundamental to society - and I am getting sick of attempts to silence dissenting views.
And lastly, @Tim alluded to this in the Politics thread. All of the media and activists that are so appalled by what Folau posted because of the hurt it will cause gay people, have ensured that every single person in NZ, Australia and many abroad have seen it by plastering it all over media and social media platforms. For people that claim to care about the "hurt" these words can cause, they sure did a great job of spreading his message to the ends of the earth.
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious. -
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious.@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious.I think facts can arguably be more controversial than beliefs.
What if Israel was a social scientist and put a post up evidencing the differences in iq between racial groups?
Suddenly everyone would be wishing he was just a crazy christian
-
Rob NIcol was interviewed yesterday and rather than use Role Model, he used 'Influencer'
BUt in better news, Hone Harawira has waded in on the debate...his comments might surprise a few
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=12035525
-
Rob NIcol was interviewed yesterday and rather than use Role Model, he used 'Influencer'
BUt in better news, Hone Harawira has waded in on the debate...his comments might surprise a few
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=12035525
@taniwharugby said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Rob NIcol was interviewed yesterday and rather than use Role Model, he used 'Influencer'
BUt in better news, Hone Harawira has waded in on the debate...his comments might surprise a few
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=12035525
That did shock me....apprently TJ is a former All Black.
-
@taniwharugby said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Rob NIcol was interviewed yesterday and rather than use Role Model, he used 'Influencer'
BUt in better news, Hone Harawira has waded in on the debate...his comments might surprise a few
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=12035525
That did shock me....apprently TJ is a former All Black.
@magpie_in_aus said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@taniwharugby said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Rob NIcol was interviewed yesterday and rather than use Role Model, he used 'Influencer'
BUt in better news, Hone Harawira has waded in on the debate...his comments might surprise a few
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=12035525
That did shock me....apprently TJ is a former All Black.
good!
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious.I think facts can arguably be more controversial than beliefs.
What if Israel was a social scientist and put a post up evidencing the differences in iq between racial groups?
Suddenly everyone would be wishing he was just a crazy christian
@rembrandt said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious.I think facts can arguably be more controversial than beliefs.
What if Israel was a social scientist and put a post up evidencing the differences in iq between racial groups?
Suddenly everyone would be wishing he was just a crazy christian
I think that is a very different situation.
For a start that's not a hypothetical question because it has happened. In 1994 a social scientist released a book called The Bell Curve which said that different races do have different IQ's which are caused by differences in genetics. Other social scientists criticised the book and the methodology employed in the book by arguing that the (undeniable) differences in results on IQ tests between "races "are a result of cultural, educational and economic factors. In other words the argument boiled down to whether the differences that can be seen are caused by genetics, or are merely a correlation which is better explained by other factors. I understand that there isn't really a consensus on the question.
The bigger point though, is that your scenario represents a question that is in principle answerable by arguments based on empirical findings. Folau saying that gay people will go to hell is not something that is knowable to be true or false by any possible means. The only way possible way of knowing whether it is true or not is by dying and finding out. It cannot be refuted or argued against using arguments based on any knowledge that a human can have.
I should add as an interesting aside that I was taught at uni by Professor Flynn who was one of the chief proponents of the idea (amongst other things) that differences in IQ test results showed a correlative rather than a causative effect (The Flynn Effect). He admitted in class that had his research indicated the opposite result he did not know if he would have published his findings due to the harm it would have caused. Therefore, a cynic might question whether we can take his findings seriously - he effectively admitted that he might well be lying about what he found. He says he isn't lying, but then that is what he would say even if he was lying!
-
@rembrandt said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Secondly, another issue I have is people are making the argument that just because Folau may hold some unpopular beliefs, he should self-police himself and not express them. I just could not disagree with that more. People being free to express their unpopular ideas is what has led to some of the biggest social changes.
There is a big difference between expressing a belief based on fact and a belief based on belief.
I could not agree more with your last sentence but the lead up to it is fallacious.I think facts can arguably be more controversial than beliefs.
What if Israel was a social scientist and put a post up evidencing the differences in iq between racial groups?
Suddenly everyone would be wishing he was just a crazy christian
I think that is a very different situation.
For a start that's not a hypothetical question because it has happened. In 1994 a social scientist released a book called The Bell Curve which said that different races do have different IQ's which are caused by differences in genetics. Other social scientists criticised the book and the methodology employed in the book by arguing that the (undeniable) differences in results on IQ tests between "races "are a result of cultural, educational and economic factors. In other words the argument boiled down to whether the differences that can be seen are caused by genetics, or are merely a correlation which is better explained by other factors. I understand that there isn't really a consensus on the question.
The bigger point though, is that your scenario represents a question that is in principle answerable by arguments based on empirical findings. Folau saying that gay people will go to hell is not something that is knowable to be true or false by any possible means. The only way possible way of knowing whether it is true or not is by dying and finding out. It cannot be refuted or argued against using arguments based on any knowledge that a human can have.
I should add as an interesting aside that I was taught at uni by Professor Flynn who was one of the chief proponents of the idea (amongst other things) that differences in IQ test results showed a correlative rather than a causative effect (The Flynn Effect). He admitted in class that had his research indicated the opposite result he did not know if he would have published his findings due to the harm it would have caused. Therefore, a cynic might question whether we can take his findings seriously - he effectively admitted that he might well be lying about what he found. He says he isn't lying, but then that is what he would say even if he was lying!
-
@siam said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@damo Sam Harrris battling through this at the moment eh Damo?
Is he? I haven't read any Sam Harris for years. What is he saying these days?
I felt he went off the deep end a few years ago with some of his anti-islamic rhetoric so I stopped paying attention to him. I think he was the weakest of the four horsemen.
-
@siam said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@damo Sam Harrris battling through this at the moment eh Damo?
Is he? I haven't read any Sam Harris for years. What is he saying these days?
I felt he went off the deep end a few years ago with some of his anti-islamic rhetoric so I stopped paying attention to him. I think he was the weakest of the four horsemen.
@damo podcasting about his and Charles Murray reputations being besmirched. Mostly sticking up for objective and fact based discourse.
I do like his tenacity in exposing identity politics, and his religion denouncement can become staid but he generally talks good sense -
@damo Thats interesting, I'll gave to look into the Flynn effect. I'm only partially aware of the bell curve mainly through Harris's recent interactions with Murray as well as through some of Stefan Molyneux's videos. Plan to read Murray's book at some point this year, the violent reaction to academic research however does concern me especially when people go down the 'facts are racist' route.
My point here is similar but from a different point of view. As Folau can't prove he is correct, especially to those who don't believe in heaven/hell it is then far easier to ignore him and claim he is just another 'crazy' christian just as you would a screaming homeless man with a 'hail the apocalypse' sign. Facts, figures and analysis are much harder to deal with.... but anyway I think we've trailed waaaaay off the aussie rugby subject..
Tah's going well, where's that bloke who used to always say 'this is our year' before disappearing from the forum at the later stages of the comp?
-
@damo Thats interesting, I'll gave to look into the Flynn effect. I'm only partially aware of the bell curve mainly through Harris's recent interactions with Murray as well as through some of Stefan Molyneux's videos. Plan to read Murray's book at some point this year, the violent reaction to academic research however does concern me especially when people go down the 'facts are racist' route.
My point here is similar but from a different point of view. As Folau can't prove he is correct, especially to those who don't believe in heaven/hell it is then far easier to ignore him and claim he is just another 'crazy' christian just as you would a screaming homeless man with a 'hail the apocalypse' sign. Facts, figures and analysis are much harder to deal with.... but anyway I think we've trailed waaaaay off the aussie rugby subject..
Tah's going well, where's that bloke who used to always say 'this is our year' before disappearing from the forum at the later stages of the comp?
@rembrandt said in Aussie Rugby in general:
As Folau can't prove he is correct,especially to those who don't believe in heaven/hellto anyone, in the same way as he can't prove the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter BunnyFixed
-
-
@damo Thats interesting, I'll gave to look into the Flynn effect. I'm only partially aware of the bell curve mainly through Harris's recent interactions with Murray as well as through some of Stefan Molyneux's videos. Plan to read Murray's book at some point this year, the violent reaction to academic research however does concern me especially when people go down the 'facts are racist' route.
My point here is similar but from a different point of view. As Folau can't prove he is correct, especially to those who don't believe in heaven/hell it is then far easier to ignore him and claim he is just another 'crazy' christian just as you would a screaming homeless man with a 'hail the apocalypse' sign. Facts, figures and analysis are much harder to deal with.... but anyway I think we've trailed waaaaay off the aussie rugby subject..
Tah's going well, where's that bloke who used to always say 'this is our year' before disappearing from the forum at the later stages of the comp?
@rembrandt said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@damo Thats interesting, I'll gave to look into the Flynn effect. I'm only partially aware of the bell curve mainly through Harris's recent interactions with Murray as well as through some of Stefan Molyneux's videos. Plan to read Murray's book at some point this year, the violent reaction to academic research however does concern me especially when people go down the 'facts are racist' route.
My point here is similar but from a different point of view. As Folau can't prove he is correct, especially to those who don't believe in heaven/hell it is then far easier to ignore him and claim he is just another 'crazy' christian just as you would a screaming homeless man with a 'hail the apocalypse' sign. Facts, figures and analysis are much harder to deal with.... but anyway I think we've trailed waaaaay off the aussie rugby subject..
Tah's going well, where's that bloke who used to always say 'this is our year' before disappearing from the forum at the later stages of the comp?
We might be off topic, but surely it's better than discussing the actual state of Aussie rugby. That's just too depressing a subject at the moment.
