Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

recedite · 08-05-2019 9:01am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

BTW - would it be ok to sack him if he was only mediocre?

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 9:20am

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

Oh stop.

If it had been a 'thought crime' no one would have known he thought it.

Folau deliberately and publicly repeated an action he had previously been warned was in breach of the Code of Conduct he agreed to uphold when he signed his lucrative contract. The first time he escaped with a warning.
Perhaps he thought he was 'too good' to be held accountable.
Turns out he was wrong and his pride cometh before his fall.

Being religious or being 'very good' does not give an individual the right to willfully and knowingly break faith with the contract they have willingly signed.
It is ironic that it appears Folau can't keep his word.

Cabaal · 08-05-2019 9:37am

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

If it was thoughtcrime we wouldn't know it occurred.
:rolleyes:

Instead he posted his views on a public place for potentially billions to see.
If somebody posted that all black people should burn in hell we simply would not be having this conversation,we'd rightly expect action to be taken against him.

His comment directed at gay people is no different,

To claim its thoughtcrime is 100% inaccurate, it also shows you don't understand the difference between thinking something and actually expressing something outside your head.

Mark Hamill · 08-05-2019 10:27am

recedite wrote: »

Kind of ironic though, when you use an inclusion policy to judge Folau (on the basis of his "outdated" religious beliefs) and then exclude him from playing the game he loves and is so good at.

It's not ironic if you are trying to avoid the paradox of tolerance.

recedite · 08-05-2019 2:14pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not ironic if you are trying to avoid the paradox of tolerance.

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 2:20pm

recedite wrote: »

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

He hasn't been charged with anything by anybody.
He lost his job for being in breach of the Code of Conduct set out in the terms and conditions of his employment.
The first time he received a warning.
The second time his employers sacked him.

If an atheist player under contract to the ARFU posted on their social media that all religious people were deluded fools they should also be dismissed. Although it must be noted that being religious is a choice - being homosexual isn't.

recedite · 08-05-2019 2:26pm

Cabaal wrote: »

To claim its thoughtcrime is 100% inaccurate, it also shows you don't understand the difference between thinking something and actually expressing something outside your head.

Its not as simple as that. For one thing you can express opinions in a private group that might constitute incitement to hatred if expressed standing on a soap box in the street.

For another thing, you can believe that gays, atheists, drunks etc.. are on the road to hell, and say in public that you believe it, without it actually being hate speech. Because you are not inciting other people to go out and burn them. You are just stating your belief. If it was hate speech, then your typical imam and christian preacher would be jailed for it.

Its a bit different in places like Pakistan, where some people do actually incite the crowd to go out and harm other people, without waiting for judgement day.

recedite · 08-05-2019 2:30pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He hasn't been charged with anything by anybody.
He lost his job for being in breach of the Code of Conduct set out in the terms and conditions of his employment.

Exactly, which is why I posted the text of said player Code of Conduct yesterday, as a discussion point. Which of the 10 points do you think he is in breach of? (we would just be guessing obviously, but just for the purposes of the discussion)

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 2:37pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to have missed these:

They are part of the code under Inclusion.

1.5 Sometimes these consequences mean that individuals who want to play Rugby or be involved in our game, feel excluded and as a result cease their involvement or even hide their sexuality. In some cases, individuals who continue playing may be subjected to homophobic language or actions and are needlessly and wrongfully subjected to discrimination, thus reducing their enjoyment of Rugby. These outcomes are unacceptable and unwelcome in our game.

1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

https://www.rugbyau.com/about/codes-and-policies/all-codes-and-policies

recedite wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I posted the text of said player Code of Conduct yesterday, as a discussion point. Which of the 10 points do you think he is in breach of? (we would just be guessing obviously, but just for the purposes of the discussion)

I'm getting a distinct feeling of deja poo about this...

You posted part of the code of conduct yesterday.

I pointed out that you missed a whole significant part of that code.

You agreed you had missed it.

Here we are today with you asking which bit he was in breach of... it's the bit that says:

1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

Telling people that unless they repent the way they were born they will burn in Hell for eternity is homophobic. You might not want to accept that but it is.

recedite · 08-05-2019 2:48pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I pointed out that you missed a whole significant part of that code.
You agreed you had missed it.

Not quite. I pointed out that the player's code of conduct is a separate document to the inclusion policy.

This might seem pedantic, but it has been reported that he is in breach of the player's code of conduct, whereas you are citing a paragraph in the inclusion policy (as a reason for excluding him). To my mind, that would be a paradox and an abuse of the inclusion policy. I'm guessing that's why RA have cited the former document and not the latter.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 2:52pm

recedite wrote: »

Not quite. I pointed out that the player's code of conduct is a separate document to the inclusion policy.

This might seem pedantic, but it has been reported that he is in breach of the player's code of conduct, whereas you are citing a paragraph in the inclusion policy (as a reason for excluding him). To my mind, that would be a paradox and an abuse of the inclusion policy. I'm guessing that's why RA have cited the former document and not the latter.

It's part of All Codes and Policies.

recedite · 08-05-2019 2:55pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's part of All Codes and Policies.

But they didn't say he was in breach of all codes and policies, they specifically cited the players code of conduct.

Instead of thinking solely in the abstract, why not give your opinion on my two practical questions;

1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.

2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 3:24pm

recedite wrote: »

But they didn't say he was in breach of all codes and policies, they specifically cited the players code of conduct.

Instead of thinking solely in the abstract, why not give your opinion on my two practical questions;

1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.

2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.

My opinion is that you are bending over backwards to excuse Folau's beheaviour.

1. Telling people they are going to burn unless they repent is harassment. IF the ARFU had not sanctioned Folau then they may as well have torn up their inclusion policy which would have certainly discouraged LGBT people from both playing and supporting the game.

2. You have zero evidence of this. Folau was not sanctioned for his religious views. He was sanctioned for a social media post that infringed this policy which is part of the code for the second time:
1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

recedite · 08-05-2019 3:53pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

batgoat · 08-05-2019 4:04pm

recedite wrote: »

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

Ya, I strongly suspect the average teenager who's coming to terms with their sexuality would view his tweets as inclusive...

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 4:07pm

recedite wrote: »

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

Why is it unreasonable for an employer to wish that an employee in a very public position refrain from publicly broadcasting views that are in contravention of the published policies of that employer?

The fact that his target was LG (h said homosexuals - not Bisexuals or Transgender) people is actually immaterial. He deliberately issued a public statement (this was not a quiet conversation between friends or a slip of the tongue to a wily journalist) that contravened his employers anti-discrimination policies. He was warned. He did it again. If he had targeted Native Australians his "crime" would have been the same. Or women.

Folau is not the victim here as much as you wish him to be. He was a highly paid public figure who felt the rules set down by his employers didn't apply to him.
As a private individual he is free to post what he wants.

recedite · 08-05-2019 4:19pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Folau is not the victim here as much as you wish him to be.

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

He was a highly paid public figure who felt the rules set down by his employers didn't apply to him.
As a private individual he is free to post what he wants.

Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 4:27pm

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

Can you name another person who twice posted what he did?

Look - he signed the contract of his own free will. There were terms and conditions. He chose to break them, got a warning, then chose to break them again.
It was his choice to be a public figure. His choice to have his profile photo of himself in the uniform associated with his employment. His choice to go on social media.

Seems you want a return to the days when if you were 'important' enough then the rules don't apply.

robindch · 08-05-2019 7:30pm

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

He's as much a victim as the immensely foolish Gerald Ratner was when he decided to announce in public what he really should have kept to himself.

SoundsRight · 08-05-2019 8:11pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you name another person who twice posted what he did?

Look - he signed the contract of his own free will. There were terms and conditions. He chose to break them, got a warning, then chose to break them again.
It was his choice to be a public figure. His choice to have his profile photo of himself in the uniform associated with his employment. His choice to go on social media.

Seems you want a return to the days when if you were 'important' enough then the rules don't apply.

Can you point out where in his contract it says he's forbidden from expressing his religious beliefs?

batgoat · 08-05-2019 8:44pm

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

By your above logic, David Irving was the ultimate victim of holocaust denial as you can't directly attribute a victim even though it's a wide ranging impact. Plus it destroyed his reputation.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 9:54pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Can you point out where in his contract it says he's forbidden from expressing his religious beliefs?

Can you point out where it says his religious beliefs allow him to ignore the Code of Conduct?

Because that is what you are saying he should be allowed.

Now, do you apply that logic to fundamentalist Muslims? Are they not simply expressing their religious beliefs all over other people's rights?

SoundsRight · 08-05-2019 10:12pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you point out where it says his religious beliefs allow him to ignore the Code of Conduct?

Because that is what you are saying he should be allowed.

Now, do you apply that logic to fundamentalist Muslims? Are they not simply expressing their religious beliefs all over other people's rights?

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2019 10:15pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

He got the slap on the wrist last year.
This year he got the sack.

Odhinn · 08-05-2019 10:15pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

"Israel Folau’s future in Australian rugby is looking increasingly grim after a independent panel determined that the Wallabies superstar committed a “high level” breach of his contract."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day

SoundsRight · 08-05-2019 11:55pm

Odhinn wrote: »

"Israel Folau’s future in Australian rugby is looking increasingly grim after a independent panel determined that the Wallabies superstar committed a “high level” breach of his contract."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day

Well I'm just going by what Rugby Australia said in the actual press release.

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/05/07/code-of-conduct-hearing-for-israel-folau-concludes

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract, and he hasn't been sacked. Whatever the outcome, he'll have his honour intact. Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

splinter65 · 09-05-2019 1:03am

SoundsRight wrote: »

Well I'm just going by what Rugby Australia said in the actual press release.

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/05/07/code-of-conduct-hearing-for-israel-folau-concludes

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract, and he hasn't been sacked. Whatever the outcome, he'll have his honour intact. Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

One mans “professional code of conduct” is The Guardians “professional contract” I see.

robindch · 09-05-2019 1:05am

SoundsRight wrote: »

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract [...]

Professional contracts usually require the signatory to abide by the appropriate professional code of conduct, so if a signatory breaks one, he breaks the other.

It's fairly straighforward.

robindch · 09-05-2019 1:07am

Mod:

SoundsRight wrote: »

Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

I'm going to be generous and assume that "the crybabies" you're referring to here are not your fellow-posters. If I thought they were, you would be carded for this juvenile slur. Regardless, please improve your tone.

batgoat · 09-05-2019 5:42am

robindch wrote: »

Professional contracts usually require the signatory to abide by the appropriate professional code of conduct, so if a signatory breaks one, he breaks the other.

It's fairly straighforward.

Yep if I violated my workplace code of conduct than that would be an automatic breach of my contract. Similar for a load of other documents.

SoundsRight · 09-05-2019 7:25am

batgoat wrote: »

Yep if I violated my workplace code of conduct than that would be an automatic breach of my contract. Similar for a load of other documents.

Your contract and a code of conduct are two separate, distinct things. Had he broken his contract he'd be gone already.

batgoat · 09-05-2019 7:42am

SoundsRight wrote: »

Your contract and a code of conduct are two separate, distinct things. Had he broken his contract he'd be gone already.

You can break your contract as a result of breaching the code of conduct...

Mark Hamill · 09-05-2019 8:51am

recedite wrote: »

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

Another link you seem to have trouble reading :rolleyes:.
Try again: paradox of tolerance.
Pay attention to the bit that says:

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

The paradox is actually of your creation, by way of your logical strawman (changing something tolerant into something tolerant without limit).

Mark Hamill · 09-05-2019 8:56am

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

recedite · 09-05-2019 9:59am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

Guilty of what exactly?
That's what I was trying to exstablish. Which specific clause, in which specific contract, or inclusion policy, or player code of conduct?
Because waving your fist and shouting "homophobia" is not good enough.

Mark Hamill · 09-05-2019 11:45am

recedite wrote: »

Guilty of what exactly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2019 8:14pm

recedite wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

Guilty of what exactly?
That's what I was trying to exstablish. Which specific clause, in which specific contract, or inclusion policy, or player code of conduct?
Because waving your fist and shouting "homophobia" is not good enough.

Precisely.

At the very least you have a stalemate: inclusion for LGBT (which presumably permits expressions of beliefs associated with same, say marching in a Pride parade). And inclusion for religion (whose beliefs aren't exactly an unknown quantity)

The governing body objection to Folau's expression is making a judgement call on a core element of Christianity: unrepentant sinners go to Hell. That judgement is that the core element isn't true (a Dawkins 7). I mean, if you believed that God existed and is all knowing and good, you can hardly call his decrees homophobic anymore than you can call his decree on adultery 'behind the times'

A Dawkins 7 is hardly inclusionary.

I can understand whats happened though. Inclusion policies aren't thought through and no more reflect reality than do corporate mission statements.

Once the rubber meets the road (with e.g. Folau throwing a spanner in) the 'inclusion policy' is thrown overboard and there's a reversion to mood of the times.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2019 8:25pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

Guilty of what exactly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

.

He issued a warning based on his belief of God's view. Since the jury is out on Gods existence (your personal view isn't particularily relevant) we can't say that the view expressed is homophobic.

Before you wheel out ISIS, let it be known that the problem for free speech is figuring out how to assess whether the root of the claim is true or not.

Deciding based on the mood of the times ("this is hate because the mood of the times says the root isn't true") is problematic.

It means the mood of the times is as right now as the mood of the times was when LGBT was views far more negatively)

Please don't revert to 'society has moved on, its ever onwards and upwards'. That canard is firmly D.O.A.

Mark Hamill · 10-05-2019 9:22am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely.

At the very least you have a stalemate: inclusion for LGBT (which presumably permits expressions of beliefs associated with same, say marching in a Pride parade). And inclusion for religion (whose beliefs aren't exactly an unknown quantity)

The governing body objection to Folau's expression is making a judgement call on a core element of Christianity: unrepentant sinners go to Hell. That judgement is that the core element isn't true (a Dawkins 7). I mean, if you believed that God existed and is all knowing and good, you can hardly call his decrees homophobic anymore than you can call his decree on adultery 'behind the times'

A Dawkins 7 is hardly inclusionary.

I can understand whats happened though. Inclusion policies aren't thought through and no more reflect reality than do corporate mission statements.

Once the rubber meets the road (with e.g. Folau throwing a spanner in) the 'inclusion policy' is thrown overboard and there's a reversion to mood of the times.

You seem to need to read this too:
paradox of tolerance

Mark Hamill · 10-05-2019 9:36am

antiskeptic wrote: »

He issued a warning based on his belief of God's view. Since the jury is out on Gods existence (your personal view isn't particularily relevant) we can't say that the view expressed is homophobic

Its homophobic regardless of god's existence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Deciding based on the mood of the times ("this is hate because the mood of the times says the root isn't true") is problematic.

I seem to remember it was pointed out to you in this thread how Christianity has changed wholesale with the mood of the times (slavery, capital punishment for disrespectful children etc.). Did you ignore forget?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It means the mood of the times is as right now as the mood of the times was when LGBT was views far more negatively

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms, then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse. We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2019 10:08am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms, then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse. We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

This whole 'mood of the times' suggests some kind of linear timeline where societies moved from intolerant to tolerant as some kind of (presumably 'liberal') secular agenda took hold.

What it ignores is much of the root cause of societal homophobia - in the case of Ireland (and England/Wales) it was Henry VIII. We can actually date it exactly. 1533 The Buggery Act outlawed anal sex. As English rule expanded in Ireland under the later Tudors and the Stuarts such laws began to be enforced.

Previously in Ireland there were only 2 mentions of male homosexuality in the Brehon Laws - i) If a man was unable to sexually satisfy his wife due to his being homosexual she could divorce him, ii) If the man knew prior to marrying that he would be unable to sexually satisfy his wife upon divorce she could keep the house. That's it. That was pre-conquest Ireland's legal stance on male homosexuality. There are no mentions of lesbians as that didn't interfere with property rights/marriage alliances (and perhaps they thought women could 'fake it' better then men

).
English rule brought a lessening of human rights in an Irish context.

A similar situation existed in other British colonies such as India. Societies with no prohibitions against homosexuality had them imposed under colonial British rule.

Institutional homophobia was rooted in fundamentalist and intolerant religious beliefs. As Christianity gained control in Europe - and by extension it's overseas colonies - it brought this homophobia with it.

The argument can be made that when a fundamentalist religious (or political) ideology dominates it enforces intolerance and rather than it being a societal 'norm' it is, in fact, the result of a societal 'ab-norm' where a totalitarian regime has seized control.

smacl · 10-05-2019 10:46am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What it ignores is much of the root cause of societal homophobia - in the case of Ireland (and England/Wales) it was Henry VIII. We can actually date it exactly. 1533 The Buggery Act outlawed anal sex. As English rule expanded in Ireland under the later Tudors and the Stuarts such laws began to be enforced.

Reminds me of a little ditty by Brendan Behan

Don't speak of your Protestant minister,
Nor of his church without meaning or faith,
For the foundation stone of his temple
Was the bollocks of Henry VIII

I don't believe the Catholic church would have been any more tolerant than Henry for all that. If the stated goal of a religion is to grow the number via 'go forth and multiple', and one of your mechanisms for controlling the flock is saying who and when you can have sex with, these pesky homosexuals are a nuisance. Best to consign them to the pit and get the rest of the rabble riled up against them.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2019 2:50pm

smacl wrote: »

I don't believe the Catholic church would have been any more tolerant than Henry for all that. If the stated goal of a religion is to grow the number via 'go forth and multiple', and one of your mechanisms for controlling the flock is saying who and when you can have sex with, these pesky homosexuals are a nuisance. Best to consign them to the pit and get the rest of the rabble riled up against them.

Fat Hal was still in the RCC camp in 1533 - and tbh apart from the whole 'The Pope ain't the Boss of me' groove after 1536 when he broke with Rome he remained a Catholic in his beliefs his whole life.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2019 6:27pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its homophobic regardless of god's existence.

Is it?

How are you defining homophobia (it seems to be a bit of a moveable feast)? Let's say its a fear or hatred of homosexuals? An irrational fear perhaps?

Now, God wouldn't fear homosexuals, would he? Nor does he hate them. He loves sinners (so much so that he goes to extraordinary lengths in the attempt to save them. Heck even Hitler might be saved)

But if a sinner doesn't want God then the sinner goes to a place where God isn't. That's all Hell is: the complete absence of God. It's not nice, but then again, it's the Godly which are the nice things: love, joy, peace, humour, self-sacrifice, bravery, humility, etc.

Could you clarify why you think homophobia in the event God exists. Perhaps occupy the place of a believer for the purposes.

I seem to remember it was pointed out to you in this thread how Christianity has changed wholesale with the mood of the times (slavery, capital punishment for disrespectful children etc.). Did you ignore forget?

So what? The problem is with the changing mood of the times, whoever is changing.

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms

Since societal norms are ever changing, you might call them the societal norms of the times. I don't mind.

then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse

I didn't intend to mean it was a unconsidered impulse. But it is subject to influence by whoever happens to successfully mobilise. We had a sexual revolution in the sixties, for example and that would be a platform on which to widen the revolution. The present LBGT movement couldn't probably, have taken off if there hadn't been the original sexual revolution.

We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Which raises the question of whether our being freer is a good or bad thing. A very subjective thing that. You're not going to manage to float such a large claim like the one you've just made on a subjective assumption.

11 year olds able to access hard core porn in a few clicks. There's ever advancing human rights for you.

I'd call it societal abnorms myself.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2019 6:37pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You seem to need to read this too:
paradox of tolerance

Karl Popper wrote:

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument

Clarification sought.

It would be the general stance on this forum that a belief in God is an irrational thing. Is Karl, in one swooping statement, excluding the religious view from his scheme because they don't place rationalism in place of primacy as he does?

Perhaps not. He seems to a bit equivocal on the matter of God. To his credit, he does say:

In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."

You know what that sounds like? Yup, like an Australian Rugby Comite "inclusion" policy. Respect, tolerance ... until the moment when you actually start expressing your beliefs.

Something "we should show" ... as if the "we" ought to be the arbitrators. Now you know I'm not one for the majority view makes it right, but the non religious view is am minority in the world. Yet Popper makes it sound as if the religious view needs to come begging bowl in hand to the seat of whichever philosophical faith system Popper has arrived at.

Paradox. But only if you assume your position is correct from the outset: that your version of rational be assumed boss.

smacl · 10-05-2019 6:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know what that sounds like? Yup, like an Australian Rugby Comite "inclusion" policy. Respect, tolerance ... until the moment when you actually start expressing your beliefs. Something "we should show" ... as if the "we" ought to be the arbitrators.

Respect for someone's right to hold a religious belief is not the same as having to respect the belief. Similarly, respecting someone's right to express their religious belief does not give carte blanche to that person to trample over anyone else's rights or freedoms, nor for that matter to ignore an employers code of conduct and remain in their employ.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2019 6:54pm

smacl wrote: »

Respect for someone's right to hold a religious belief is not the same as having to respect the belief.

Of course: I respect your right to hold the philosophical beliefs you hold, even though I don't respect them (in the sense of assigning them the value you assign them).

Similarly, respecting someone's right to express their religious belief does not give carte blanche to that person to trample over anyone else's rights or freedoms

Which is a problem for free speech. Someone is doing the adjudicating and their belief expression (by deciding what their subjects can and cannot say) somehow holds sway.

They have trouble pointing to why they've ascended to the throne however.

nor for that matter to ignore an employers code of conduct and remain in their employ.

The question arises as to whether an employer ought be allowed have such a code: given it discriminates against someone expressing their beliefs. The ever changing mood of the times / societal norms seems to be about it. So long as your surfing the crest of the societal norm wave you're "right".

You can dress it up in flowery, padded language. And you can speak with undertones of self-evidency (ill disguised undertones) But all you have, in terms of hard essence.... is a pair of two's.

Leave aside the problem that saying unrepentant sinners (including some in the inclusion policy) will go to hell isn't expressing either a fear or hatred of homosexuals.

Mark Hamill · 11-05-2019 12:39am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it?

How are you defining homophobia (it seems to be a bit of a moveable feast)? Let's say its a fear or hatred of homosexuals? An irrational fear perhaps?

Now, God wouldn't fear homosexuals, would he? Nor does he hate them. He loves sinners (so much so that he goes to extraordinary lengths in the attempt to save them. Heck even Hitler might be saved)

But if a sinner doesn't want God then the sinner goes to a place where God isn't. That's all Hell is: the complete absence of God. It's not nice, but then again, it's the Godly which are the nice things: love, joy, peace, humour, self-sacrifice, bravery, humility, etc.

Could you clarify why you think homophobia in the event God exists. Perhaps occupy the place of a believer for the purposes.

Google definition of homophobia. Applies regardless of gods existence. People who dislike or are prejudiced against homosexuals are homophobic. If god dislikes or is prejudiced against them, then god is homophobic. Presumably why many theists don't believe god has a problem with them and dont themselves have a problem with them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what? The problem is with the changing mood of the times, whoever is changing.

So you accept that christianity changes with the times?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which raises the question of whether our being freer is a good or bad thing. A very subjective thing that. You're not going to manage to float such a large claim like the one you've just made on a subjective assumption.

11 year olds able to access hard core porn in a few clicks. There's ever advancing human rights for you.

I'd call it societal abnorms myself.

Mark Hamill wrote:

We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Well done. In your ridiculous strawmanning, you managed to turn the Golden Rule (repeated throughout the bible by Jesus and others) into children watching porn.

Mark Hamill · 11-05-2019 12:49am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clarification sought.

If you read the argument instead of quote-mining for semantic disagreement then it's pretty clear:

Karl Popper wrote:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Inclusion policies are not meant to be absolute, because they can't be. In simple terms, you can't include everybody when some people don't want others included. If you must exclude somebody then those people, the intollerant, should be excluded.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2019 7:34am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clarification sought.

If you read the argument instead of quote-mining for semantic disagreement then it's pretty clear:

Karl Popper wrote:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Inclusion policies are not meant to be absolute, because they can't be. In simple terms, you can't include everybody when some people don't want others included. If you must exclude somebody then those people, the intollerant, should be excluded.

What isn't clear is whose being intolerant. And who is the 'we' doing the adjudicating on what is intolerant.

The inclusion policy can be argued to be intolerant about someone expressing their belief.

The expression wasn't intolerant: it didn't say homosexuals should be excluded. It didnt say homosexual expression shouldn't be allowed or should be made illegal.

It said what the belief held about unrepentant homosexuals coming before God. Just like the expression of the belief that smokers, though tolerated, face a nasty end.

The beliefs above are arrived at via different means. To suppose the one means valid (empirical evidence about the effects of smoking) and the other (religious belief) invalid is to stake a claim to the supremacy of faith in empiricalism over faith in spiritualism.

A judgement is being made on the veracity of Folaus belief (namely, that it isn't true). Not exactly tolerant. You will find that rationalism and empiricism sit at the root of the judgment. Which brings us back to Popper. His paradox rests on the assumption his philosophical groundings are true / more valid.

Was the view at the time when it was held that homosexuality was not true (i.e. unnatural) tolerant? A judgement was being made on the veracity of the homosexual claim.

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments