Post: #51

Please let the religious can of worms be opened. That box means all religions will be fair game. Including Islam, Satanism, and Judaism. That is going to be fun thing to watch in the double standard olympics.

Post: #52

@Paracelsus

Another way of looking at it: is it odd that we're unlikely to see any celebrations of the courage of Westboro Baptist protesters from yourself or others?

Post: #53

I'm not a believer, through I have had close relationships with "Bible-believing" Christians and understand where they are coming from.

When you see a motorist hurtling towards an abyss, it'd be wrong NOT TO warn them.
Folau was sincerely acting out of love, abet not in the most tactful manner.

There is a world of difference between helping inform them about Hell, and threatening to send them to Hell. Most gay people don't believe in Christian Hell, if a soyboy told me I'd be sent to Hogwarts or Narnia, it wouldn't affect me one jot. The ragestorm is over Folau daring to have a different outlook and set of values to them, it's blasphemy against LGBTDARFHAI orthodoxy.

Anyway, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it, here is his post.


As for Raelene Castle, in this case she's actually pretty qualified being CEO of Rugby Australia, she was the former Netball NZ CEO, and was CEO of a successful elite rugby team. The problems may come from the gay CEO of national team's biggest sponsor, QANTAS abusing his position as CEO to use company resources push his own political views like he did with SameSex Marriage.

Post: #54

Following on from what I wrote yesterday...

(04-16-2019 08:36 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  If you look at His Children, every sin seems to stem from variations of Pride. They are their own Gods, which means, if you reject their behaviour, you are rejecting their belief in status as God.

... I just returned to a book I was reading last December - 'Spiritual Childhood' by Vernon Johnson (1953), but was interrupted by troubles with my Stalker, whom I consider under Demonic Influence. Flicking ahead in it today, I noticed this:

Quote:It is the most difficult thing in the world to become humble. It must be so, for to practice humility is to cut at the very roots of sin; it is to undo the results of the Devil's supreme achievement, The Fall. He will do anything to stop us being humble, and he is very subtle. His great aim is to deceive us so we do not see things are they really are.

First, he blinds us to the fact that Pride is the greatest of all sins. He leads us to think the other sins are more important, and so the most deadly one slips through unnoticed.

Secondly, when we do realise the importance of pride in general, he blinds us to the reality of pride in our own case.

Finally, even when we recognise our own pride, he so plays upon our self-love that we cannot face the conversion necessary - that conversion which alone can deliver us out of the bonds of pride into the freedom of humility.

Humility is the logical putting into practice of the teachings of the Gospel.

Post: #55

(04-16-2019 12:00 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  I've seen a few Kiwi/Australian apologists for Rugby Australia on facebook and their best argument is that he voluntarily signed a contract to not say things the employer doesn't like on social media. Is there possibly an argument that he shouldn't have signed the contract with such an unreasonable demand in the first place?

Contracts or "code of conducts" cannot override fundamental rights. He has a clear cut case of discrimination against his religious belief here. He'll win big if he takes them to court, and it appears that he is going to.

One of the most disappointing things I've seen regarding this case (but doesn't really surprise me) is that our current PM, Scott Morrison, who is branded "far right Christian" by so many lefties, immediately folded and disavowed Israel Folau. That coward put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath for taking the office of PM, yet he dared to condemn Folau for quoting from the very same Bible? If the Bible has so much "hate speech", why are our politicians and our court swear on it all the time? I hope Folau's lawyers bring it up and destroy these fuckers. And I hope he throws some racism charge their way too for good measure.

Post: #56

(04-17-2019 12:27 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 12:16 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That is to take a real risk. That's only possible if he has the virtue of being courageous.

A "real" risk as opposed to what? Surely you wouldn't call someone who exercises "courageous," though it stresses the body?

To avoid the obfuscation charge: both your post and Roosh's OP point towards a lack of "courage" being responsible for some bad thing you see in the world and that a new found courage would "fix" some things.

Someone who exercises is only benefiting himself, not the wider group. That's the difference. Courage is when you sacrifice your own well-being for the sake of the survival of a layer higher than yours: tribe, self-defined extended tribe, humanity, the ecosystem. That is the ideal passed down to us by Aristotle, from Homer, conveyed by Solon, Pericles, and Thucydides. You can only sacrifice your own well-being when you have skin in the game, hence why courage is the one virtue that can't be faked.

The form of Folau's expressing his belief is on behalf of the wider group: humanity. Specifically, the miserable sinners he believes will burn if they don't accept Christ into their lives.

(04-17-2019 02:10 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  @Paracelsus

Another way of looking at it: is it odd that we're unlikely to see any celebrations of the courage of Westboro Baptist protesters from yourself or others?

It's not odd at all. By definition what they the WBC does isn't courageous; and is actually cheap virtue signalling.

Consider: what skin in the game does an individual Westboro Baptist protester actually bear?

None, at least until their protests at funerals are banned or outlawed. Importantly, note that almost without exception, when a law is passed in a community forbidding protesting at funerals, WBC doesn't continue its protests there. The US Constitution attaches a high degree of protection for the exercise of free speech, which is part of the reason they're able to get around doing what they do.

Notice they also don't protest alone. Always in packs, always in public, always loud and aggressive. That's significant because it's a lot easier to bully as part of a crowd, as anyone who's been on social media knows. It reduces the risk of any individual member being identified or receiving an erudite theological argument through the medium of a few knuckles. Your average WBC member takes no appreciable personal risks; quite the contrary, they hide in the virtual armour of the mob. Individual members of the WBC are not sued, it's always the church as a group, and the sanction is loss of collective money, not anyone's personal property or personal hurt. That is: no one individual of the WBC has skin in the game.

Notice also that their actions are not expressed for the good of the wider community. They're primarily publicity stunts in order to grow only the WBC.

Folau's action is different. He hasn't hid behind a church or an anonymous handle. And he bears a considerable personal consequence for so speaking: the destruction of his career.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #57

(04-17-2019 09:27 PM)Hephaestus Wrote:  I'm not a believer, through I have had close relationships with "Bible-believing" Christians and understand where they are coming from.

When you see a motorist hurtling towards an abyss, it'd be wrong NOT TO warn them.
Folau was sincerely acting out of love, abet not in the most tactful manner.

There is a world of difference between helping inform them about Hell, and threatening to send them to Hell. Most gay people don't believe in Christian Hell, if a soyboy told me I'd be sent to Hogwarts or Narnia, it wouldn't affect me one jot. The ragestorm is over Folau daring to have a different outlook and set of values to them, it's blasphemy against LGBTDARFHAI orthodoxy.

Anyway, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it, here is his post.


As for Raelene Castle, in this case she's actually pretty qualified being CEO of Rugby Australia, she was the former Netball NZ CEO, and was CEO of a successful elite rugby team. The problems may come from the gay CEO of national team's biggest sponsor, QANTAS abusing his position as CEO to use company resources push his own political views like he did with SameSex Marriage.

This is where faggot, when used to describe a gay headed to hell, rather than the literal bundle of twigs secured by twine and tossed into a fire, comes from.

Post: #58

(04-18-2019 06:07 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That is: no one individual of the WBC has skin in the game.

Ah, it isn't about having "courage" as a good; it's about blaming people lacking "skin in the game."

Veeeeery clever.

Post: #59

Don’t take WBC at face value.

What they’re trying to do is provoke towns to commit first amendment violations so they can then sue for a big payday. The the equivalent of dudes who throw themselves on car hoods as an insurance scam.

Post: #60

(04-18-2019 06:40 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  Don’t take WBC at face value.

What they’re trying to do is provoke towns to commit first amendment violations so they can then sue for a big payday.

Source?

Why do they keep coming to the same places where the muni's know the deal?

Post: #61

From https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ho...ney-2015-6

Quote:None, at least until their protests at funerals are banned or outlawed. Importantly, note that almost without exception, when a law is passed in a community forbidding protesting at funerals, WBC doesn't continue its protests there.

False.

Quote: Individual members of the WBC are not sued, it's always the church as a group, and the sanction is loss of collective money, not anyone's personal property or personal hurt. That is: no one individual of the WBC has skin in the game.

Per the article, members give 30% of their income to the church.

Quote: They're primarily publicity stunts in order to grow only the WBC.

They protest all over the country and have a single church in the midwest with ~70 members who're mostly related to Fred Phelps.

Quote:What they’re trying to do is provoke towns to commit first amendment violations so they can then sue for a big payday.

The article cites revenues of around ~$160k over 20 years, with some amount being awarded as legal fees and not civil damages. The group claims to spend over $200k PER YEAR on travel expense. Additionally, other articles appear to reference lawsuits brought against muni's simply to have the laws ruled unconstitutional and not seeking civil damages.

Post: #62

(04-18-2019 06:39 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 06:07 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That is: no one individual of the WBC has skin in the game.

Ah, it isn't about having "courage" as a good; it's about blaming people lacking "skin in the game."

Veeeeery clever.

Read it again. This time I'll lay it out in a nice list for you. Courage is:

(1) risking
(2) one's own
(3) well-being
(4) in support of or in defence of
(5) a layer higher than your own, e.g. tribe, people, humanity, entire ecosystem.

If you don't risk your own well-being, you are not being courageous. Classical virtue was built on that formula, just in case you missed the fact that Aristotle through Solon as philosophers and Pericles through Thucydides as thinkers all took precisely the same line in that respect. Courage is only apparent when one's own skin in the game is being risked, and for that reason it is the only virtue that can't be faked.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #63

(04-18-2019 07:21 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  False.

Why, are you one of them?

(04-18-2019 07:21 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  Per the article, members give 30% of their income to the church.

And therefore none of them actually have the link of risking their own resources, their own personal resources, in pursuit of a principle - no more than you do when you pay your taxes. That's an entry fee, not a wager.

Quote: They're primarily publicity stunts in order to grow only the WBC.

They protest all over the country and have a single church in the midwest with ~70 members who're mostly related to Fred Phelps.[/quote]

As said: publicity stunts. And as said, not courageous since it's in defence of themselves, not in defence of a higher layer.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #64

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Why, are you one of them?

No. Your statement, however, is empirically false.

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That's an entry fee, not a wager.

That's a weak reframe.

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said: publicity stunts.

You actually claimed they were publicity stunts in order to grow only the WBC.

Quote:And as said, not courageous since it's in defence of themselves, not in defence of a higher layer.

So WBC says "Fags go to Hell" and it's only "defence of themselves." Folau says "Homosexuals: Hell awaits, Repent" and it's defence of a higher layer.


Is any of this odd yet?

Post: #65

(04-18-2019 07:23 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Read it again. This time I'll lay it out in a nice list for you.

I've read it multiple times.

Since you apparently like lists, here is a list of claims regarding "courage" from your original statement:

1) takes a personal and financial risk that he wears directly for what he says.
2) He bears the direct consequences of what he says.
3) said is an open statement of his beliefs
4) knowing it's going to be unpopular
5) knowing how powerful the homosexual lobby is
6) knowing he could or will lose money or work as a result.

All that you've done is put "courage" up as good but make the definition of "courage" dependent on something called "having skin in the game," which you then demonstrably define basically as "people I agree with."

Again, kudos. Clever argument.

Post: #66

(04-18-2019 07:33 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Why, are you one of them?

No. Your statement, however, is empirically false.

It isn't. Show me that WBC continues to protest in areas where laws are inducted against their specific behaviour. I can show you instances where they've turned tail and run when it's pointed out to them that it's illegal for them to protest in a given place.

(04-18-2019 07:33 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That's an entry fee, not a wager.

That's a weak reframe.

Fact, not reframe. Again, show me where an individual WBC member has been sued and has actually suffered an individual loss as a result of their actions rather than the church. No risk of being sued = no skin in the game.

(04-18-2019 07:33 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 07:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said: publicity stunts.

You actually claimed they were publicity stunts in order to grow only the WBC.

Correct. Publicity stunts nonetheless - and not courageous.

(04-18-2019 07:33 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Quote:And as said, not courageous since it's in defence of themselves, not in defence of a higher layer.

So WBC says "Fags go to Hell" and it's only "defence of themselves." Folau says "Homosexuals: Hell awaits, Repent" and it's defence of a higher layer.

Is any of this odd yet?

Nope. Folau's exhortation is imperative: repair yourself. WBC's exhortation is declarative: you are unrepairable.

Quote:All that you've done is put "courage" up as good but make the definition of "courage" dependent on something called "having skin in the game," which you then demonstrably define basically as "people I agree with."

Wrong again, most specifically around the "people I agree with" part. I am pointing out courage as a virtue and how it is demonstrated, not that it necessarily accords with my beliefs. Virtues are virtues, they aren't dependent on the beliefs of the person who puts them forward. What matters is what the person risks in propounding his beliefs, and whether the purpose of that action is in defence of a layer greater than himself.

Take kamikaze pilots, for example. Whatever else you can say about them, they had the virtue of courage. They literally sacrificed their lives for the good of their own tribe. That is the simplest form of literal skin in the game. And before you jump to the IQ-90 riposte, no, suicide bombers are not in the same category: the motivation there is immediate projection to paradise, not defence of anything greater.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #67

Quote:I can show you instances where they've turned tail and run when it's pointed out to them that it's illegal for them to protest in a given place.

You mean they abided by the law and moved to a place in the community where protesting was allowed?

Is it odd that you're now implicitly claiming "courage" requires breaking the law? Did Folau do that?

Quote:No risk of being sued = no skin in the game.

Is it odd that you're explicitly claiming a person must risk being individually sued to have "courage?" Did Folau do that?

Quote:Nope. Folau's exhortation is imperative: repair yourself. WBC's exhortation is declarative: you are unrepairable.

LOL, you sure you want to go down that road?

Quote:What matters is what the person risks in propounding his beliefs, and whether the purpose of that action is in defence of a layer greater than himself.

Again, you claim to define what "the person risks in propounding his beliefs" and you claim to judge "whether the purpose of that action is in defence of a layer greater than himself."

Again, clever argument.

cleverbot.com

Post: #68

(04-17-2019 05:35 AM)Kona Wrote:  

Quote:The row has also engulfed England's Billy Vunipola, who 'liked' the post on Instagram and later defended the Australian player, remarking that 'man was made for woman to procreate'.

Nope.

I'm not buying it from Vunipola or Folau or any Tongan.

Google Fakaleiti. Its a Tongan tradition. They defend it like it's their constitution. These guys are going around saying gays should be damned, but then their own culture supports faggotry in its own little way. Bullshit.

Tongans are all about family and patriarchy and religion and all things conservative. OOOPS, They always forget about the mahu in the family though!

Basically, the family raises one of their sons as a girl. That girl blows all its brothers. I'm not joking. The mahu brother or sister or whatever you call it becomes like the third in command of the family. It's fucked up.

I've lived around Tongans my whole life. It's a hypermasculine culture. Fakaleiti is the dirty little secret. I know some, and every other word out of their mouths is fag. In back of my head I think "brah, your brother sucked your dick when you were ten and your mom showed him how" but I don't say it.

These guys need to look at themselves before they go around running their mouths. Stupid they going to lose money over it.

Aloha!

You also say: "^^ I'm not lying.

Samoans, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Maori, etc. don't do it anymore. You still get mahus, but its not celebrated, and most of them are also the drug addict in the family.

Tongans are all about it.

Aloha!"

personally I don't know about that. Just in Vunipola's England team they have one Samoan Migrant in their squad - Manu Tuilagi. His third brother Henry/'Julia' is a transgender in keeping with Samoan tradition.

In a BBC interview "Manu and Alesana discuss their cross dressing brother, Julie, and how other cultures could learn a thing or two about acceptance for the transgender community from Samoan culture."

Daily Mail article in there women dedicated 'Femail' section.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic...Julie.html

""In the UK, Julie would be described as a transvestite and her striking looks would command significant attention. But in Samoa, she attracts barely a second glance because of the deep-rooted Polynesian culture of the fa’afafine, or third gender, which defies Western sexual conventions.

Known for their hard work and dedication to the family, the fa’afafine – which translates simply as ‘in the manner of woman’ – are ubiquitous in the South Pacific nation. Born male, they are said to embody both genders and can have relationships with both men and, less commonly, women.

Julie remains silent on her relationships and will only bashfully describe them as ‘confidential’. But she resolved from a very young age to live as a woman, apparently without difficulty.
Julie grew up knowing she was different in a well-respected family. Her father, Tuilagi Vavae, was a former politician and the high chief of the village council, while her mother, Aliitasi, ran the local food shop. ‘I was born a fa’afafine,’ Julie explains, simply. ‘I realised I was a fa’afafine when I was really young. It’s natural.

‘When I grew up, I did lots of girly things. I wore a girl’s dress and my parents let my hair grow long, even when I was at primary school.’

It is inconceivable to most parents in Britain that their son could happily attend school dressed as a girl. But in Samoa, Julie says, it was unremarkable. ‘I always played with girls and I always hung around with them. There were lots of my fa’afafine friends who used to go to school together.

‘My parents understand the life of fa’afafine, they understand and accept me – the boys do too.

‘I feel sorry for those people who discriminate against us. We do not have a problem – they are the ones with the problem.’

In a recent interview, Manu said of Julie: ‘It’s just the way he is. He was born like that and he wants to dress up as a woman. But not just dress up, he lives the life of a woman – he has the eyelashes, eyebrows, has make-up done and wears a bra. It doesn’t matter. He’s our brother and a great guy. He is just different.’""

Seems the tradition is alive and well outside Tonga. In another interview Alesana Tuilagi said once: 'he lamented "it's a pity really, he could be an awesome flanker".'

So Alan J--- of Qantas who was involved in this reaction and heavily involved in the Yes/No Gay Marriage referendum of a year or so ago seems to think there is only one acceptable opinion..?

I mean seriously Folau was warned for tweeting that as a Mormon Homosexuality was inconsistent with his Christian beliefs and he would be voting no. He was castigated for that but he doubled down that it was a sin.
He got a warning... You have a binary choice in a national referendum but if a well known sportsman explains that he is voting one way and not the other he gets a 'warning'. Well, it its that cut and dried then why have a referendum at all?

Well Alan J.. whoever you are.. Meet Alan Jones. The first coach to turn Australias fortunes around in the mid-1980s .. singlehandedly almost.
Rumours abounded that he was known to hang around Sydney's Central train station trying to pick up men.

The only Gay international Rugby Coach I have ever heard of, in a time when it really wouldn't have been that accepted.

Do you think he is joining the battle cry?
Do you think that he is joining every other media and Rugby personality in denouncing Israel?
Do you think that he agrees with RA's "Integrity Unit" that "a High Level Breach" has taken place? (Is Folau a fucking computer?)
Or mr Alan Joyce of Qantas?
Or Ms Netball NewZealand bitch?
Do you think that these waspish old Queens who took a lot more shit than any imaginary "17 year old boy!" like this fella Alan Jones actually like political Lesbians or think very highly of this snowflake generation?





No. He doesn't.





An old Gay Queen who actually knew how to win Rugby matches seems to be the only one in Australia who knows how to come out and put a younger Gay Business Globalist in his place?

Welcome to Clown World brothers..

Post: #69

(04-16-2019 04:52 PM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 04:44 PM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  How does this beast become chief executive of rugby australia

I posted this in the Inversion Agenda thread yesterday..

(04-15-2019 07:35 PM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 06:12 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Rugby Australia's CEO. Reeks of Death. Note the standard Subversive hair, that's a guaranteed sign of Satanic Influence in an organisation.

Every time I open this thread and see that thing, the Inversion seems so clear.

What I picture when I hear the words "Rugby CEO":







What I picture when I hear the words "Transgender feminist blogger and food critic":

Aussies,you must all hold this L for eternity! Yes,I know the forces behind this manwoman are powerful but what the actual fuck!? We non Westerners have never understood the homo agenda-Obama tried to push it on us as expected during his 2015 visit but Kenyans weren't having it,despite our collective love for him.

Quote:In a joint press conference with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on Saturday, following what appeared to have been a warm and productive meeting behind closed doors, Obama made it clear that the issue of gay rights in Kenya remained unresolved.

http://http://time.com/3972445/obama-ken...ay-rights/

Post: #70

(04-18-2019 08:59 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Quote:I can show you instances where they've turned tail and run when it's pointed out to them that it's illegal for them to protest in a given place.

You mean they abided by the law and moved to a place in the community where protesting was allowed?

Is it odd that you're now implicitly claiming "courage" requires breaking the law? Did Folau do that?

For the third time: courage requires that you take a personal risk. It may involve physical risk; it may involve removal of one's own property or resources. The absence of taking any personal risks is a very strong indicator that you are not courageous.

This observation seems to be getting you rather upset. I wonder why?

Quote:

Quote:Nope. Folau's exhortation is imperative: repair yourself. WBC's exhortation is declarative: you are unrepairable.

LOL, you sure you want to go down that road?

You are free to find a webpage where WBC proclaims the principle of universal love or the need to love one's enemies.

Quote:

Quote:What matters is what the person risks in propounding his beliefs, and whether the purpose of that action is in defence of a layer greater than himself.

Again, you claim to define what "the person risks in propounding his beliefs" and you claim to judge "whether the purpose of that action is in defence of a layer greater than himself."

Again, clever argument.

cleverbot.com

No, you have that wrong again.

I am saying the absence of any risk taken in advancing one's beliefs is an indicator that the person is not possessed of actual courage. And as we have already have defined and which you seem to have accepted since you haven't advanced a valid counterargument to the same, courage in advancing one's own interests is, on every ancient definition of virtue, not courageous.

GreekPhilosophy101.com

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #71

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  For the third time: courage requires that you take a personal risk. It may involve physical risk; it may involve removal of one's own property or resources. The absence of taking any personal risks is a very strong indicator that you are not courageous.

And again, you are simply defining away any risk on the part of the WBC protestors to uphold your judgement.

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  This observation seems to be getting you rather upset. I wonder why?

Discovering that your interlocutor is this self-delusional is disappointing, not upsetting.

Quote:You are free to find a webpage where WBC proclaims the principle of universal love or the need to love one's enemies.

Na, looks like you want to go down that road. Fine.

Quote:I am saying the absence of any risk taken in advancing one's beliefs is an indicator that the person is not possessed of actual courage.

Again, you've simply defined away those you disagree with as not having any "skin in the game" and therefore lacking courage.

Quote:courage in advancing one's own interests is, on every ancient definition of virtue, not courageous.

Again, you're simply claiming WBC interests are "their own" and not "for a higher layer" based on your judgement.

But don't fret. I get it. You think your Western Liberal government is going to protect you. Fine.

Post: #72

To avoid the obfuscation charge regarding how this exchange with Paracelsus relates to this thread:

The initial and most liked response to this OP was that it's "scary" that Folau's "religious beliefs" are being censored. There is no indication that members understand this reframe or what it does. The closest is:

Quote:Please let the religious can of worms be opened. That box means all religions will be fair game. Including Islam, Satanism, and Judaism. That is going to be fun thing to watch in the double standard olympics.

though the alternative perspective is: you're being trained to compartmentalize Folau's claims in the same box as all of the others. And to thank your Liberal government for the privilege. Also, in contradiction to Roosh's claim that Folau will be "harshly punished," it's more likely that he will get paid than any additional "punishments" are doled out. Which is all to say that this whole "courage" bullshit completely obfuscates that the West is full of rebels that realize their own defenselessness, that they make themselves indefensible, and are literally retarded denialists.

Post: #73

Right, so what you're saying is that it's more likely he gets paid and restored to his career than any additional punishments.

If that is the case - and let's bear in mind that you haven't advanced a scintilla of evidence to support that proposition - then neither could he be said to be courageous, because he isn't actually taking any personal risk. His posting becomes cheap virtue signalling, a publicity stunt just like the WBC carries out. If you're saying that he's not courageous because he realises he'll benefit and actually end up getting paid imore in the long run as a result of his stance, then I would certainly agree with you his stance is not a courageous act and certainly not virtuous - whether because he isn't actually taking a risk or because he's doing it wholly out of self-interest.

The point I have been trying to make here is that you can only validly claim to be courageous if you put yourself out there at personal risk for a belief in that you are likely to suffer some form of harm for doing so and if that belief is in the service of something larger than yourself. You can even see elements of this exhortation, this virtue, in the Bible: he that declares himself for me in the sight of men, I shall declare myself for before God. Religion - Christianity certainly, if not others - does not care for cheap virtue signalling. It demands a sacrifice.

The rest of your posting about Western liberal governments I really just don't get. Feels like you're going to break into smooth psyop language any time now.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #74

(04-18-2019 10:35 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Right, so what you're saying is...

hamster wheel spinning sounds

To be clear, I see no reason to doubt the account Falou himself has given of his actions:

Quote:When asked if the fallout has made him reconsider his comments, Folau, a devout Christian, replied: 'Absolutely not. I'll stand on what the Bible says. I share it with love.

'I can see the other side of the coin where people's reactions are the total opposite to how I'm sharing it.

'First and foremost, I live for God now. Whatever He wants me to do, I believe His plans for me are better than whatever I can think. If that's not to continue on playing, so be it.

'In saying that, obviously I love playing footy and if it goes down that path I'll definitely miss it. But my faith in Jesus Christ is what comes first.'

Post: #75

I don't think you're making yourself any more clear, to be honest.

Would you mind providing an exegesis on the metagame you apparently are the only one able to see happening here, for the sake of the rest of us poor inferior mortals who clearly have not been blessed with your superior intelligence?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm