Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688838
JoeC wrote:
eltonioni wrote: there's suddenly


Nope. I'm 48. As long as I can remember I've held these views and made these points. As have my friends and family. I guess social media now makes it easier to transmit them and hear the views of others.

Not being racist, not being homophobic, not being mysogonistic (and I recognise my own bias- a child of the 70s was surrounded by it and brought up with it)

It’s not virtue signalling. And my 'skin in the game' is that I simply do not want to be surrounded by racist, homophobia misogynists or put up with their language or the creeping acceptance of it. That’s enough for me.

I could leave the 'room', ignore it or - as has been mentioned on this thread - try and argue my point and convince others.

But I won’t accept someone telling me that because they do not care that I shouldn’t.


That's great, I agree. But you aren't outraged are you, so you you'll not be in favour of censoring the people with those views as per the thread title.
By riverrock
#1688848
Miscellaneous wrote:What I object to is the preaching, the telling others they are wrong, not only are they wrong but that they will be punished for not abiding by someone else's doctrine.

You've just preached, you've told others they are wrong, and you've said they should be punished.
You really don't see the irony?

We are all informed by our experiences, but some of us are also informed by history, millenia of study and a personal connection to something higher. The same texts have been used for millenia to provide a constant, informing and improving people's lives as society has developed. Dismissing all religion also dismisses or distorts all history and much of human experience.

I'd argue that you have a right to argue your intolerances, but please don't think that yours is the only view. You're better than that.

Christianity is about love our God and love our neighbours - whoever they are with whatever label they want to have, with every individual loved. Noone is perfect (other than JC) so that is covered, so long as you have faith (note Easter). It isn't about condeming people but if you don't recognise you need help, you wont ask for it.

The church I'm part of take the bible as truth, but in the 12 years I've been going to this church, homosexuality was mentioned in a sermon once. We have a number of members who are gay - they know what the bible says, so thats between them and God.
eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1688857
riverrock wrote:You've just preached, you've told others they are wrong, and you've said they should be punished.
You really don't see the irony?

I honestly don't see the irony, rr. We may have our wires crossed? I don't see that I have preached.

Where I do see irony is that you use the bible to justify the rugby payer's actions. The significance of what is written in the bible is irrelevant today.

riverrock wrote:We are all informed by our experiences, but some of us are also informed by history, millenia of study and a personal connection to something higher.

I almost agree. The irony here is that those who question something higher are seen as deserving of punishment for being born the way they were. That's the irony. And for you to support than stance is surprising. To use your words; I thought you were better than that.

riverrock wrote:The same texts have been used for millenia to provide a constant, informing and improving people's lives as society has developed.

Absolutely, it's an old habit that dies hard. As with alcohol, if it was 'born' today it would be immediately outlawed.

After millennia it's time for a change, it's way outdated with nothing other than habit acting as life support.

And let's not overlook the harm it's done through the millennia.

riverrock wrote:Dismissing all religion also dismisses or distorts all history and much of human experience.

No, history is written. What is not in stone is that it is fact. Why do you object to written history being challenged and if found to be inaccurate (as is more often the case than not) it being corrected?

riverrock wrote:I'd argue that you have a right to argue your intolerances, but please don't think that yours is the only view. You're better than that.

I don't see that I am arguing an intolerance. I see that I am objecting to an unwarranted (beyond the bible) attack on people simply trying to live their own lives without being persecuted by someone unknown to them…in the name of God.

riverrock wrote:...but if you don't recognise you need help, you wont ask for it.

Now that does take the biscuit for irony! :wink:

riverrock wrote:The church I'm part of take the bible as truth, but in the 12 years I've been going to this church, homosexuality was mentioned in a sermon once. We have a number of members who are gay - they know what the bible says, so thats between them and God.

I commend you, your fellow parishioners and the church for the good work you do. :thumleft:
JoeC liked this
User avatar
By Newfy
#1688865
Many contributors to this thread have missed the point. This is an employment discipline matter, not a free speech issue. Mr Folau was dismissed by Rugby Australia and the New South Wales team for repeated violations of their social media policies and for failure to respond to attempts by his employers to contact him about the issue.

The rugby organisations concerned established a policy of opposing homophobia in the game. If a highly visible employee then makes very public statements that are contrary to the organisations’ published corporate values, those organisations must take disciplinary action against the employee. Folau knew the rules and chose to violate them. He was free to hold his views, but he was not free to bring his employers’ reputations on the issue into question by very publicly throwing his views out into the world.
PaulB, kanga, JoeC and 2 others liked this
By riverrock
#1688875
kanga wrote:I therefore have little sympathy for this lady. I do not doubt her sincerity, but her judgement in making the reported postings seems questionable:

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... er-2763994

Do you not worry that a person felt unable to bring an employer's policy confidentiality into question, and that when she made others aware of a campaign to ask government to look at it, she was accused of being discriminatory and sacked? She tried hard to make sure she didn't represent her employer but someone saw through her pseudonym and reported her. To me this is a scary place we are getting into.

There are well founded concerns about the pushing of trans activism. Rather than deal with science, activists are shouting down and threatening anyone who challenges them ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... dysphoria/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/17/mo ... ssues/amp/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fami ... -5fddvml8r https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... s-puberty/ ).

Teaching respect in a school is a good thing, adding ideas to impressionable kids which can harm to them is not.

For example, one of the "no outsider" lessons / resources introduces the concept of gender dysphoria to Key Stage 1 (5 to 7 year olds).
Essentially Boy teddy thinks they want to be a girl teddy but are worried about friends disowning them. https://equalitiesplans.blogspot.com/20 ... 1.html?m=1
In itself it appears inoculus but evidence shows that kids are more likely to have gender dysphoria when they get exposed to it (link to peer reviewed study above) . It is something that effects 0.03% of the population so why does it need to be used as an example to all kids at that age? There are many more reasons that kids don't respect and bully each other!
Studies show the vast majority of pre-pubescent kids treated decide to remain their own gender.

Currently activists are way beyond the science, which is part of the reason there is push back. However teachers, using scientific arguments, will get sacked if they air them, so they wont.

Scary times.
flybymike, Katamarino liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1688883
kanga wrote:Of course, the likelihood of the 'private context' and the 'obscure or tenuous' becoming 'public' is much greater with modern social media. Furthermore, exculpatory context can easily be lost.

I therefore have little sympathy for this lady. I do not doubt her sincerity, but her judgement in making the reported postings seems questionable:

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... er-2763994


Im sorry, but I dont think this is the same as the Rugby Player's situation, because it appears from the link provided that this teacher was not using her fame or position to further her concerns. I doubt that she has a contract specifying social media in the same way as the Rugby player - she is even using a different name, so this case smacks of "outing someone" and I dont see why she was sacked from an ironically "Christian Faith" primary school for those particular comments about the governments proposed mandatory lessons. The word "brainwashing" is perhaps a bit strong, but nothing that hasnt probably been published in the Daily Wail.

However, my sympathy is limited as this was Facebook/Twitter after all... :roll:
User avatar
By OCB
#1688961
Riverrock, the statistics are relatively clear on gender dysphoria. It does appear in DSM-5. It isn’t defined as a psychiatric condition, but one that psychiatry has to deal with.

Evidence suggest it affects between 0.03 and 0.5 of the population.

The genetics are clear. The individuals have no choice in that matter, as do none of us. That point is long lost and why you have XX chromosome athletes kicking off.

Agree completely that the “pc” reaction to this subject appears to have gone above and beyond the science.

Personally I’d prefer the media and politicians spent their time on highest value subjects first , like overall young adult suicide. Then again, I’m just a dumb engineer/scientist/manager who figured out how to sort in Excel(Lotus123) far too long ago.
kanga liked this
By cockney steve
#1689085
The overlooked basic fact:- there are homosexual professional rugby -players. many are now open and public. The "religious" player who has hostile views on the subject, obviously cannot control and subjugate his negative feelings (otherwise he'd have held his own counsel) Therefore, he would not be able to use his full capabilities when performing against an openly gay opponent.
on those grounds alone, an erratic and inconsistent fit in a team-situation.....OUT

What if another member of the side in which he was employed, admitted he was gay?
By riverrock
#1689100
There may also be rugby players who drink, or partake in the other things listed. Why single out homosexuality? He is one of the best players in Australia. His skills and abilities aren't being questioned.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1689110
Really?

Sexuality is one of the protected characteristics and discrimination based on one of those is illegal in most Western jurisdictions and apart from that, poor form.

Why can that Christian not put a bit more emphasis on the positive behaviours which are promoted in the bible?

We are all created equally, love your neighbour - but don't sleep with their spouse, he will always forgive you etc etc?
User avatar
By stevelup
#1689113
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the guy is a complete nut job.

There simply isn’t a place for that sort of bile in modern society.

Maybe we can get Doc Brown to take him for a ride in his Delorian and leave him a thousand years or so ago...
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1689123
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Really?

Sexuality is one of the protected characteristics and discrimination based on one of those is illegal in most Western jurisdictions and apart from that, poor form.

Why can that Christian not put a bit more emphasis on the positive behaviours which are promoted in the bible?

We are all created equally, love your neighbour - but don't sleep with their spouse, he will always forgive you etc etc?


In a thread about "thought crime" the very essence is the illegality of having thoughts. He committed no crime.

We'll all no doubt agree that people can't be prevented from having thoughts, no matter how bilious they are. We need to be very careful about what is criminalised, because hurt feelings are a fact of life and very open to interpretation and vexatious intent. Hurt feelings are being used to close down speech and ideas that very small numbers of people think inconvenient to their own agenda, which seems a very dangerous road to travel down as society.

Persecution is another thing altogether, as is incitement. This rugby player did neither. Neither did he break any laws but he lost his job for bringing his organisation into disrepute. That seems a decent outcome in his specific circumstances, but there's no reason to go on to persecute him globally for his beliefs.

Neither is that individual case a pro-forma for closing down anybody else's speech, or thoughts, or for them losing their livelihood.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7