Israel Folau begins court action against Rugby AU and Waratahs

Thanks Chivas, Just another reason I want to put forward why I believe in expressing my opinion. If the silent majority stay silent because they can't be bothered, or it's all too hard expressing their thoughts, then they will end up no longer the majority. You look at our society today & so many things are being lumbered on us & we wonder how it all happened. The politically correct police of expression are a perfect example. They snuck up on us & took control of the debate while the silent majority "couldn't be bothered". In the recent Folau saga, those attacking Folau wanted him sacked because he used offensive language. Hello, you don't get through life with out offending or being offended. It's all part of the thrust & cut of life. No different to getting scrapes on your knees. The most unpolitically correct & offensive arena in our society is politics. Why don't we get rid of politics, or reduce it to just one party, so no-one can be offended? Oh wait, that's already been done. The world's most populous country, China, already has just one political party, Communism. Everyone's happy. Anyone who disagrees with "the party" is quietly made to disappear. Is this how Australia wants to end up? I've got no doubt there are people in Australia who would love to rid us all of offensive language. Offensive to their own narrow ideals, that is.

Makes sense GH, thanks.

In relation to the code of conduct being a seperate document - the reason is as follows: The content of the code of conduct is agreed to between Rugby Australia and RUPA. It can change year to year depending on what they agree to. The contract between the player and RA and their super franchise refer to the code of conduct and require the player to adhere to its provisions what ever those may be in the future. Doing it that way means that a new contract doesn’t have to be signed every single time the code of conduct is updated. It also means that every player is subject to the exact same conditions as every other player - unless the player, Rugby Australia and RUPA agree otherwise. This approach means that the player has to have faith in RUPA to make sure that the code of conduct isn’t amended in a way that significantly harms their interests. A lot of large organisations, including sporting organisations, work that way. It’s not like RA can just change the code of conduct at whim. Given the less than vigorous support that Folau has received from RUPA, it would appear that they are also of the view that Folau seriously breeched the code of conduct too.

Oh, zing. Rough burn. Don't forget to continue engaging in that delightful home grown hypocrisy. Looking forward to your next contradictory remarks....

spruce moose, Don't forget to keep massaging that chip on your shoulder.

I am asking you to prove the claim YOU made that religion was the cause. Posting descriptions of genocide fail to do that. You post no proofs for your claims and your rationals are flawed.

It’s disgusting that you would try to relativise what the Ottoman Turks did. This is an account by Dostoyevsky of their atrocities. Religious righteousness can cause humans to demonise other humans this way “They burn villages, murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them- all sorts of things you can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, -too; cutting the unborn child from the mothers womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it?”

This is uncorrelated nonsense. You are taking a single attribute of a society and arbitrarily assigning sole blame, with out any evidence, that this particular attribute is causal. Ottomans certainly rode horses as well but that doesn't prove horses are a cause. Using your formula I can equally state that in every listed case of genocide in history there were people in that society who did not believe in any deity. Therefore atheism is responsible for the mass murders. As for the 100% of Canaanites being wiped out, I do wonder how they managed to be alive in Jesus time when they were all dead. Quite the achievement.

I miss-read your initial accusation, you pointed it out, I admitted my mistake, and re-stated my position in as unambiguous terms as I could. This is what grown ups do Peter. You seem to be reveling in catching me out in a mistake. I have no issue saying I did miss-read your initial post, which was... “Also many experts are bought if it is paid research. Also many experts in these fields have immense bias and can’t be seen as objective” To clarify, as you are a little ambiguous in your accusations. Are you suggesting the researchers deliberately miss-report, conduct bad research, or falsify results to support the point of view of the funding party? If you are, this is what I challenge, as I accept it may happen, but VERY rarely. If you are suggesting, the funding parties control the release of results through non-disclosure agreements, conduct multiple studies to get the result they want, publications actively select the more note-worthy results to publish, inconclusive results don't get much air time, samples are deliberately restrictive (outside of researchers control) to manipulate results, or any other of numerous outcomes that do not relate to the researcher themselves. Then I would agree, as this is outside of the researchers control, and more to do with the funding party. You have however, specifically referenced the researcher in both your statements. Anecdotally, I know a number of researchers in a wide range of fields and not a single one of them would risk their ethics, morals, career, or academic credibility, to falsify results. This doesn't prove my point, but I mention it only as a point of view of why what you suggest, on an individual researcher level, doesn't actually make sense. You also accuse me of miss-construing what you wrote, aside from the mistake I openly and freely admitted too, I don't see how "Also many experts are bought if it is paid research" can be read any other way than "inherently biased when paid for". If that isn't what you meant, then I apologize, and ask if you could then please clarify? Otherwise, feel free to show me the evidence of professional misconduct when research is paid for. Not Reporting or publication bias, but actual misconduct by researchers on a scale that would support your 'many' claim. And I feel I need to spell this out again as you and Jocko have referenced it. Yes, tobacco is dodgey, yes health trials report bias results. I have not said this doesn't happen, but the mechanics of how it happens is what I challenge. Your suggesting it is the researcher, I say it isn't. I think it is more down to selective reporting by the funding party mainly, and/or due to other factors outside the individual researchers control. I can link a Wiki page that supports this position, but feel that wont be enough for you, and fair enough too, it is just a wiki page, but it is indicative the general consensus.

I would suggest society is divided on this issue because we’ve lost the art of meaningful debate. There are people who aren’t interested in debating issues. - Sheek. Forget it. We’re on different wavelengths, & to be honest, I don’t care what you think. - Sheek Well done Sheek. Good meaningful debate right there. The man practices what he preaches...

As I have said in other posts. It is difficult to seperate the leader from the religion itself. What the leader gains by using religion is righteousness. The sense that god is on our side and not on the others’ side. This heightens the demonisation of any enemy, and leads to bloodier wars and genocides. “They’re going to hell anyway” mentality takes over

The graph you used was in total deaths. Of which the top 5 were religious but have a myth that they were atheist. The Ottomans were certainly religious. Not 100% on the others, but from what I see they all had religious involvement. If you look at other evidence. Such as adjusted for human population at the time of the atrocities, then you see different data. All most all of them with religious involvement. With the only acception I saw being Mao Zedong. https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-most-devastating-war-in-human-lives-adjusted-for-world-population There’s also the mass killings of the Amelakites and Canaanites that wiped the entire population out. 100%. Great Flood....close enough to 100%. Religion doesn’t do well on any metric you use

Hmmm, Ralph, you appear to have a real comprehension problem. My 'willful' comment was aimed directly at you. I chose to give you the credit that you did in fact understand the reasons very clearly given for Folau's dismissal by RA, and in doing so would know the fictional nature of his references are simply not relevant here. I therefore assumed your willfulness was you choosing to ignore the actual reasons for his sacking just to be argumentative. Seems I over estimated you.

Why would the actions of being gay have consequences if they aren’t inferior or wrong?

It's ridiculous to sack someone for quoting a 'childish fiction'. Whether the fiction was wilful or not is irrelevant. The salient fact will always be that it was a fiction.

You have fallen into the trap of accepting what people claim about themselves without any critical analysis at all. Just because someone says something in a speech does not make it automatically true. Show me how, in actions, how Hitler followed (or lived out) ANY significant teaching of Jesus Christ. If he didn't (he didn't), by what measure can you say he is a follower of Christ, the core meaning of the label 'Christian'?

Nobody on this web site suggested genocides were cool Gray-Hand. I did suggest blaming groups who were not responsible for those genocides was not cool.

"You claimed they were atheist atrocities" No, you said, 'The sense that a deity is on our side, and not on the other’s side has caused some of the bloodiest wars and genocides in history' I just pointed out that was factually not true. I didn't make any comment on atheists.

Promoting the view that actions have consequences. And yes, it is right and proper to stop murdering and an apology is a good thing. Both for you and the victims relatives. It absolutely not a narrative that teaches some are inferior. It specifically teaches all are equal in their failings, thus grouping all equally. The bible teaches marriage is a particular relationship that creates a structure for the protection of children. That why it's saying marriage is 'any loving consensual relationship' doesn't make much sense to many christians, who ask - what about the children?

I might suggest that in politics nothing is certain TJP.