Aussie Pro Rugby
-
It's a little unfair that he says Castle misrepresented him via the comments on the news - TV interviews are whatever sound grabs the editor thinks will make a story.
I've sat through solid fifteen minute interviews about the Powerwall thing that got cut to shreds, understandably due to time considerations. In several cases they left out what both I, and the interviewer, felt were the most interesting parts.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Israel sets the record straight. An interesting article with a shot fired at the ARU.
https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/#bcED1vVU6hSHRc5e.97
It is certainly interesting in that he doesn't understand the picture that what he sees as 'the truth' is not the truth, it is just his opinion.
THE Truth and THE Bible are subjective.Many employees have to put aside personal views in their jobs and many also have to keep the broadcasting of their personal views to a minimum to show awareness of bias accusations. It isn't an unusual situation. While they keep the 'right' to hold personal views they manage the public view.
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is certainly interesting in that he doesn't understand the picture that what he sees as 'the truth' is not the truth, it is just his opinion.
THE Truth and THE Bible are subjective.I didn't get that from it at all. I thought he was rather clear that this is what he believes.
-
It's a little unfair that he says Castle misrepresented him via the comments on the news - TV interviews are whatever sound grabs the editor thinks will make a story.
I've sat through solid fifteen minute interviews about the Powerwall thing that got cut to shreds, understandably due to time considerations. In several cases they left out what both I, and the interviewer, felt were the most interesting parts.
@nta said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's a little unfair that he says Castle misrepresented him via the comments on the news - TV interviews are whatever sound grabs the editor thinks will make a story.
I've sat through solid fifteen minute interviews about the Powerwall thing that got cut to shreds, understandably due to time considerations. In several cases they left out what both I, and the interviewer, felt were the most interesting parts.
Don't try and hijack this thread.
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is certainly interesting in that he doesn't understand the picture that what he sees as 'the truth' is not the truth, it is just his opinion.
THE Truth and THE Bible are subjective.I didn't get that from it at all. I thought he was rather clear that this is what he believes.
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is certainly interesting in that he doesn't understand the picture that what he sees as 'the truth' is not the truth, it is just his opinion.
THE Truth and THE Bible are subjective.I didn't get that from it at all. I thought he was rather clear that this is what he believes.
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I'm not too fussed about that, it was just my observation.
More pertinent is that he is not unusual in having a job that requires some personal views to not be aired.
-
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is certainly interesting in that he doesn't understand the picture that what he sees as 'the truth' is not the truth, it is just his opinion.
THE Truth and THE Bible are subjective.I didn't get that from it at all. I thought he was rather clear that this is what he believes.
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I'm not too fussed about that, it was just my observation.
More pertinent is that he is not unusual in having a job that requires some personal views to not be aired.
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I think what he's pointing out is it's the truth for him. As such, that's what guides his behaviour and interactions.
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I think what he's pointing out is it's the truth for him. As such, that's what guides his behaviour and interactions.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I think what he's pointing out is it's the truth for him. As such, that's what guides his behaviour and interactions.
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
He is arguing that part of his belief is to point others to his views.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
He was, but he also falls into the trap of stating that what he believes is the truth and others don't recognise that.
I think what he's pointing out is it's the truth for him. As such, that's what guides his behaviour and interactions.
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
He is arguing that part of his belief is to point others to his views.
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
-
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
-
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
@pukunui said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
He's in the power seat though - rugby is struggling in Australia, and he's (arguably) their best player and biggest star. He's also said publically, that he's happy to walk away from it if he can't be what he views as himself.
So although I agree with your sentiments, the ARU does have a tough decison on what is 'the greater good'
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job. -
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
@bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
Yeah, not even sure how I did that.
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
Really not sure I agree with this. I am a big believer in freedom of speech - not freedom from consequences, but freedom of speech. The bar that an employer should have to clear to fire someone for expressing a view in their personal life is (in my opinion) very high. Expressing an opinion on the morality and religious implications of others activities doesn't get near that for me.
Otherwise where do you stop? Don't like the Mana party - so fire people for being active in there. Or Act - too extreme, push them out the door. It's a bloody slippery slope.
Finally, 38% of the voters didn't think that gay marriage should be legal. Isn't that also a form of hate speech by these metrics?
Disclaimer: I strongly disagree with Izzy
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
@bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
:astonished_face:
-
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
@pukunui said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
-
@pukunui said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
@booboo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
I have a mate who's a minister in the anglican church. They have been struggling with how to deal with homosexuality for decades. There's apparently a reading of scripture that says it's fine, and another that says it's not fine. So both opinions are likely to be acceptable.
It's also a bit of a 'hot button' topic, but it's not as important to me as other issues in the world.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
