Israel Folau

135678

Comments

  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion

    He said they were bullshit views and in this context we're talking about Christianity.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    Not to mispresent me but to ignore the part about Christianity being a proselytizing religion.

    I ignored it because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
    nickice wrote:
    You're claiming the following quote describes you?

    am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually true.... There may be people who wish to live their lives under cradle-to-grave divine supervision, a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque

    That's pretty much my take on things, yes.
    nickice wrote:
    You claimed the MCB statement regarding the Danish cartoons wasn't extreme. A true anti-theist would simply not have said that. And I didn't accuse you of defending Islam.

    The MCB statement (which I posted in response to someone claiming that UK muslims had not condemned the attack, when they clearly had) was not extreme in any way, IMO. Please point out the parts of it which you regard as 'extreme'.
    nickice wrote:
    You are calling out Christianity, though.The very fact of claiming you meet the anti-theist definition from Christopher Hitchens is in essence calling out all religion. And comments like this are calling out Christianity-
    Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?

    Indirectly, I suppose I am 'calling out' christianity in this case - simply because christianity is the religion of topic in this thread. For the sake of balance, I hope you will be able to take comfort in the knowledge that I would call out any other religion in the same way.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion

    He said they were bullshit views and in this context we're talking about Christianity.

    Correct on both counts. So what?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    I ignored it because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
    It's not at all. Part of Christianity is spreading the word of God (or whatever) so to expect them to keep their views to themselves is just unrealistic.
    The MCB statement (which I posted in response to someone claiming that UK muslims had not condemned the attack, when they clearly had) was not extreme in any way, IMO. Please point out the parts of it which you regard as 'extreme'.

    Nice try. Not that MCB statement. I'll post it here in full with what I'd consider extreme in bold.


    MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) Statement on Insulting Cartoons

    Danish Cartoons Depicting the Prophet Muhammad Abuse Our Freedoms

    The Muslim Council of Britain strongly deplores the continuing refusal of newspapers in Denmark and Norway to apologise for printing a series of sacrilegious cartoons vilifying the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

    "These newspapers have printed extremely offensive caricatures of the beloved Prophet of Islam and this case, worryingly, reflects the emergence of an increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted towards Muslims in parts of the Western media. Newspaper editors must exercise due care and restraint when dealing with issues like this.

    Muslims respect and love the Prophet as being dearer to them than their own families. We should not allow our valued freedoms in Europe to be abused by those deliberately seeking to provoke hatred and division between communities," said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

    At the same time, the MCB regards the violent threats made against Danish and EU citizens by some groups in the Muslim world as completely unacceptable and displaying an utter disregard of basic Islamic injunctions on how to resolve disagreements and differences.

    A delegation from the Muslim Council of Britain is shortly due to meet with the Danish Ambassador to the UK to convey the concerns of British Muslims.

    nickice wrote:
    You are calling out Christianity, though.The very fact of claiming you meet the anti-theist definition from Christopher Hitchens is in essence calling out all religion. And comments like this are calling out Christianity-
    Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?
    Indirectly, I suppose I am 'calling out' christianity in this case - simply because christianity is the religion of topic in this thread. For the sake of balance, I hope you will be able to take comfort in the knowledge that I would call out any other religion in the same way.


    That's doubtful. See above.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion

    He said they were bullshit views and in this context we're talking about Christianity.

    Correct on both counts. So what?

    So what is that you claimed you weren't calling out Christianity when you were. Of couse, you're free to do so but why claim otherwise?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    Nice try. Not that MCB statement. I'll post it here in full with what I'd consider extreme in bold.

    So you were referring to a completely different statement, which I didn't post and hadn't seen until now (two years later)? Nice try indeed.. :lol:

    In case you ask though, referring to the other statement, I don't think any apology is due for publishing those images. The statement is unreasonable, but still not 'extreme' in the sense that it doesn't call for violence or attempt to justify it.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion

    He said they were bullshit views and in this context we're talking about Christianity.

    Correct on both counts. So what?

    So what is that you claimed you weren't calling out Christianity when you were. Of couse, you're free to do so but why claim otherwise?

    Not calling out christianity 'specifically', no. But we were obviously talking about christianity in the context of this thread. If a muslim/hindu/jedi/etc had said something similar, I would have made the same/similar comment I don't see why that's such a difficult point to grasp...
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Nice try. Not that MCB statement. I'll post it here in full with what I'd consider extreme in bold.

    So you were referring to a completely different statement, which I didn't post and hadn't seen until now (two years later)? Nice try indeed.. :lol:

    In case you ask though, referring to the other statement, I don't think any apology is due for publishing those images. The statement is unreasonable, but still not 'extreme' in the sense that it doesn't call for violence or attempt to justify it.



    You're simply lying now.
    nickice wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    They might not be violent but the MCB is pretty extreme

    I don't see anything 'extreme' in that statement. Both statements are simply defences and/or clarifications of their religious beliefs.


    Demanding that newspapers respect Islamic blasphemy laws is extreme.

    Asking for respect isn't 'extreme'...

    No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.


    You don't consider expecting the media to follow Islamic blasphemy laws as an extreme stance? Yet you think a rugby player should keep his religious views on homosexuality to himself?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think his last comment is against anyone who prolytyses religion

    He said they were bullshit views and in this context we're talking about Christianity.

    Correct on both counts. So what?

    So what is that you claimed you weren't calling out Christianity when you were. Of couse, you're free to do so but why claim otherwise?

    Not calling out christianity 'specifically', no. But we were obviously talking about christianity in the context of this thread. If a muslim/hindu/jedi/etc had said something similar, I would have made the same/similar comment I don't see why that's such a difficult point to grasp...


    Yes, you were. He's a Christian who made a statement based on the teachings of Chrisitianity. You called it a 'bullshit view' so you were calling out Christianity (something which you'd earlier claimed you weren't doing).
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    You don't consider expecting the media to follow Islamic blasphemy laws as an extreme stance? Yet you think a rugby player should keep his religious views on homosexuality to himself?

    I think you should read what I said without your blinkers on. Asking for 'respect' is not an 'extreme' position. If you think it is, then please explain why. Whether they are due respect is another matter entirely. Islamic leaders are perfectly entitled to ask for papers not to publish images of their prophet - I'd be surprised if they didn't. But they also didn't say that hell awaited anyone who didn't comply - and they didn't incite anyone to violence (which would have been extreme). Papers are also free to ignore these requests - as they are entitled to do in a free society, ideally free of any violent recriminations from religious fascists. Long may that continue.

    But going back to the current topic - anyone who chooses to cherry-pick biblical quotes in order to fit in with their own prejudices (which is generally quite easy to do with religious texts) deserves not to be taken seriously, IMO. Vunipola is such a devout christian, then he even plays rugby on a Sunday, ffs...
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    You don't consider expecting the media to follow Islamic blasphemy laws as an extreme stance? Yet you think a rugby player should keep his religious views on homosexuality to himself?

    I think you should read what I said without your blinkers on. Asking for 'respect' is not an 'extreme' position. If you think it is, then please explain why. Whether they are due respect is another matter entirely. Islamic leaders are perfectly entitled to ask for papers not to publish images of their prophet - I'd be surprised if they didn't. But they also didn't say that hell awaited anyone who didn't comply - and they didn't incite anyone to violence (which would have been extreme). Papers are also free to ignore these requests - as they are entitled to do in a free society, ideally free of any violent recriminations from religious fascists. Long may that continue.

    But going back to the current topic - anyone who chooses to cherry-pick biblical quotes in order to fit in with their own prejudices (which is generally quite easy to do with religious texts) deserves not to be taken seriously, IMO. Vunipola is such a devout christian, then he even plays rugby on a Sunday, ffs...


    I'm quite impressed that you've been caught shamelessly lying yet just choose to ignore it and carry on. But back to the topic, I did explain why. Two years ago (remember that conversation we had that you claimed never happened) and it's quoted above. Asking for the media not to depict Mohammed is an extreme position. You're the one who made it about 'asking for respect' not me. And if your defintion of extreme is incitement to violence then you need to seriuosly reconsider that.

    If the MCB called for Islamic law to be the law of the land would that be extreme in your opinion?

    If I called for all women to be banned from working would that be extreme?



    And Vunipola is not cherry picking. You'd be hard pushed to find a Christian who doesn't think it's a sin but the most liberal ones think it's up to God to decide on.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    edited April 2019
    nickice wrote:
    I'm quite impressed that you've been caught shamelessly lying yet just choose to ignore it and carry on.

    You're a charmer, aren't you? Point out the 'lie' and I'll have another go at explaining it to you.
    nickice wrote:
    Asking for the media not to depict Mohammed is an extreme position.

    'Asking' for anything is not an extreme position. 'Demanding' or 'demanding with threats of recrimination' would be extreme, in my view. We obviously have different views on what constitutes 'extreme' in this context.
    nickice wrote:
    If the MCB called for Islamic law to be the law of the land would that be extreme in your opinion?

    It would certainly be an extreme position for them to take, given that muslims only make up about 5% of the UK population - although there is nothing to stop them from actually 'asking' for it. That's absolutely their right in a free society. They're not actually asking for it though - and I doubt if they ever would. But if they did, they could shove it up their ar5e, IMO.
    nickice wrote:
    If I called for all women to be banned from working would that be extreme?

    You can call for whatever you want, within the confines of the law. Lots of people would disagree with you though, me included.
    nickice wrote:
    And Vunipola is not cherry picking. You'd be hard pushed to find a Christian who doesn't think it's a sin but the most liberal ones think it's up to God to decide on.

    He is cherry picking. He is such a 'devout christian', he plays rugby on Sundays. Think about it.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    The claim that you had never seen the MCB statement on the Danish cartoons until this evening. That was a lie.

    My definition of extreme is that it's far from the centre of commonly accepted view. The dictionary agrees. The MCB's view on depicting Mohammed fits this definition perfectly.


    So, to be clear, in youdlr opinion, the MCB calling for UK wide sharia law is an extreme position but asking for anything is not an extreme position?

    I bet you think saying that practising homosexuals will go to hell is an extreme position but you can't say that now.


    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,487
    nickice wrote:
    You'd be hard pushed to find a Christian who doesn't think it's a sin but the most liberal ones think it's up to God to decide on.

    Rev Richard Coles is quite well known. ;)
    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.
    Tell that to hardline Protestants.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    The claim that you had never seen the MCB statement on the Danish cartoons until this evening. That was a lie.

    No, ffs. Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. The version you posted earlier is new to me. The one I posted (two years ago) was significantly different. You only need to compare the two in order to see that.
    nickice wrote:
    My definition of extreme is that it's far from the centre of commonly accepted view. The dictionary agrees. The MCB's view on depicting Mohammed fits this definition perfectly.

    Islam teaches that depicting the prophet is forbidden. In that sense, you can hardly blame the MCB for reiterating that view in a reasonable manner - which is what they did. They're perfectly-entitled to do that. Anyone/everyone else is perfectly entitled to disregard it, if they wish.
    nickice wrote:
    So, to be clear, in youdlr opinion, the MCB calling for UK wide sharia law is an extreme position but asking for anything is not an extreme position?

    Nobody has called for it - but they're welcome to ask for it within the confines of the human rights act. The Daily Mail once called for Britain to become a fascist state under the blackshirts. That didn't happen either. Free speech n all that. But while the DM still has fascist tendencies, MCB has never actually asked for sharia, as far as I'm aware, so it's a moot point.
    nickice wrote:
    I bet you think saying that practising homosexuals will go to hell is an extreme position but you can't say that now.

    I wouldn't say it's extreme, because extreme positions usually need to have some grounding in reality - but it is certainly fking idiotic.
    nickice wrote:
    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.

    Thanks - you're making my point for me about how selectively interpretive this all is. Tell that to Dan Walker - or Eric Liddell, of 'chariots of fire' fame. Dan still takes Sundays off. Eric probably would too, if he was still alive...
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    You'd be hard pushed to find a Christian who doesn't think it's a sin but the most liberal ones think it's up to God to decide on.

    Rev Richard Coles is quite well known. ;)

    Not to mention a significant number of catholic priests. Not that I would put Rev Coles in the same category, obviously...
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    No, ffs. Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. The version you posted earlier is new to me. The one I posted (two years ago) was significantly different. You only need to compare the two in order to see that.


    No I'm calling you a liar because you're lying. At first I thought it was an honest mistake but I see now you're thorougly disingenuous. Follow the link I posted earlier (and below). I even posted the conversation we had about the MCB statement on the Danish cartoons. You refer to 'both statements' in the conversation I posted...Anyone who wants to see you're lying just has to follow this link.


    viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13081072&hilit=MCB&start=20
    Islam teaches that depicting the prophet is forbidden. In that sense, you can hardly blame the MCB for reiterating that view in a reasonable manner - which is what they did. They're perfectly-entitled to do that. Anyone/everyone else is perfectly entitled to disregard it, if they wish.

    So what? It's still an extreme position. There is also a literal interpretation of Islam that results in gays being thrown off buildings or a literal interpretation of Christianity that results in the Spanish inquisition.Are they extreme?
    Nobody has called for it - but they're welcome to ask for it within the confines of the human rights act. The Daily Mail once called for Britain to become a fascist state under the blackshirts. That didn't happen either. Free speech n all that. But while the DM still has fascist tendencies, MCB has never actually asked for sharia, as far as I'm aware, so it's a moot point

    And I'm not calling for women to be banned from working. It was hypothetical. You have admitted in an earlier post that the MCB calling for Islamic law would be extreme, but you've also said that 'asking for something is not extreme'. Can't you see the contradiction?
    nickice wrote:
    I bet you think saying that practising homosexuals will go to hell is an extreme position but you can't say that now.

    I wouldn't say it's extreme, because extreme positions usually need to have some grounding in reality - but it is certainly fking idiotic.

    No they don't. Since when? Are jihadists extremists? From your above argument, they're not.
    nickice wrote:
    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.
    Thanks - you're making my point for me about how selectively interpretive this all is. Tell that to Dan Walker - or Eric Liddell, of 'chariots of fire' fame. Dan still takes Sundays off. Eric probably would too, if he was still alive

    No, I'm not. I know plenty of Christians who do or have worked on Sunday. It's largely a personal decision to take the Sunday as the day of rest. But as rjsterry says, there are some hardline sects that apply Sunday as the sabbath strictly. We have no idea if this player belongs to one of them. You're also misunderstanding the teachings of Christianity in that everyone is a sinner and we all have to repent. If he were telling homosexuals they were going to hell and that they must repent whie at the same time having homosexual relations, that would make him a hypocrite. Working on a Sunday doesn't.

    And even if it is a sin, it's not viewed in the same way as homosexuality. But, of course, you're right that the bible is contradictory. That's one of the many reasons I don't believe in it.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Rev Richard Coles is quite well known. ;)

    He's celibate. Or at least he claims to be...
    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.
    Tell that to hardline Protestants.[/quote]

    I know, my grandmother was one. My grandfather had to work on Sundays.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    nickice wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

    If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

    I don't know what has been said, and I don't care about rugby.

    Religious views do not transcend the law. If it is an offence it's punishable by law.

    It wouldn't have been a huge effort to read it... If we really applied hate speech laws equally, many religions would be in big trouble. Not that I agree with hate speech laws.

    I don't use Facebook or Twitter, so I was assuming I wouldn't be able to read it, rather than not putting in the effort.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Do you read the news? It was covered in the press, including BBC.

    Also it was posted on Instagram ;)
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Do you read the news? It was covered in the press, including BBC.

    Also it was posted on Instagram ;)

    No, I try and stay away from the news. Especially BBC.

    I do have Instagram though, as I am keen amateur photographer. We digress...
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:


    No I'm calling you a liar because you're lying. At first I thought it was an honest mistake but I see now you're thorougly disingenuous. Follow the link I posted earlier (and below). I even posted the conversation we had about the MCB statement on the Danish cartoons. You refer to 'both statements' in the conversation I posted...Anyone who wants to see you're lying just has to follow this link.

    https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewto ... B&start=20

    Right - I see what you mean now. I've re-read that old thread properly now - for some reason, I've never clicked that you posted a different statement right underneath in that thread (two years ago). Either way, my response now is the same as it was then. I don't see it as being extreme. For reasons I've already outlined. Nothing further really to add to what I said at the time.
    nickice wrote:
    So what? It's still an extreme position. There is also a literal interpretation of Islam that results in gays being thrown off buildings or a literal interpretation of Christianity that results in the Spanish inquisition.Are they extreme?

    Politely asking for people to respect Islam's laws (even though I personally wouldn't in this case) is not 'extreme'. Throwing people off buildings for being gay is self-evidently extreme. I'm baffled why you can't see the differences here - they're not even that subtle.

    nickice wrote:
    And I'm not calling for women to be banned from working. It was hypothetical. You have admitted in an earlier post that the MCB calling for Islamic law would be extreme, but you've also said that 'asking for something is not extreme'. Can't you see the contradiction?

    No, because you are deliberately misconstruing what I wrote in order to make a cheap point. There is a big difference between 'suggestion' (which is not extreme) and imposition (which is extreme). Again, I'm baffled that you keep failing to get this point - which again is not a particularly subtle one.
    nickice wrote:
    No they don't. Since when? Are jihadists extremists? From your above argument, they're not.

    In my view, for something to be extreme, it usually has to be feasible or achievable. So in that sense, someone going to a place that doesn't exist (ie heaven or hell, in this case) is patently absurd. In other words, saying that 'gays are going to hell' is both stupid and idiotic, not to mention physically impossible. It doesn't qualify as 'extreme' for that reason, IMO. Calling something like that 'extreme' only serves to legitimise it, IMO, when in reality it should be utterly derided. You view may be different.
    nickice wrote:
    No, I'm not. I know plenty of Christians who do or have worked on Sunday. It's largely a personal decision to take the Sunday as the day of rest. But as rjsterry says, there are some hardline sects that apply Sunday as the sabbath strictly. We have no idea if this player belongs to one of them. You're also misunderstanding the teachings of Christianity in that everyone is a sinner and we all have to repent. If he were telling homosexuals they were going to hell and that they must repent whie at the same time having homosexual relations, that would make him a hypocrite. Working on a Sunday doesn't.

    And even if it is a sin, it's not viewed in the same way as homosexuality. But, of course, you're right that the bible is contradictory. That's one of the many reasons I don't believe in it.

    Well, perhaps we can agree on that. You are also making the point that there are lots of literal interpretations of the bible (and/or other religious texts) - which reiterates my point that it is open to 'cherry-picking' to those who would seek to use it to their own advantage, or to support their own bigotry or prejudice. Where does most bigotry or prejudice originate, if not from religious teaching?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,487
    nickice wrote:
    Rev Richard Coles is quite well known. ;)

    He's celibate. Or at least he claims to be...
    And not working on sabbath is largely an old testament idea and it was a Saturday.
    Tell that to hardline Protestants.

    I know, my grandmother was one. My grandfather had to work on Sundays.

    On Coles, I know; which then begs the question whether it is homosexuality or any form of 'non-reproductive' sex* that Folau believes is sinful. I doubt he's thought about the distinction.

    *which is possibly closer to the 'official' interpretation(s).

    Your example just illustrates that even apparently devout believers can make accommodations when needed. I assume you don't think that disqualified your grandparents from being Christian.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    I'm no biblical scholar but I don't believe keeping the sabbath is mentioned in the new testament whereas homosexuality is. Like I said, I'm not a Christian but I think they see a difference between working on a Sunday because you have to and doing anything else on a Sunday.

    I don't think anyone is disqualified from being Christian. I was always taught that everyone is a sinner.
  • narbs
    narbs Posts: 593
    nickice wrote:
    I'm no biblical scholar but I don't believe keeping the sabbath is mentioned in the new testament whereas homosexuality is. Like I said, I'm not a Christian but I think they see a difference between working on a Sunday because you have to and doing anything else on a Sunday.

    I don't think anyone is disqualified from being Christian. I was always taught that everyone is a sinner.

    Euan Murray missed out on a fair few Scottish caps because his Christianity prohibited him from playing on Sunday. And of course there's Eric Liddell.

    Folau got what he deserved and Vunipola can count himself lucky he's integral to England's world cup plans.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    narbs wrote:

    Folau got what he deserved and Vunipola can count himself lucky he's integral to England's world cup plans.

    Is it the fact that he is of that opinion or that he shared it? Diversity surely includes diversity of thought and opinion and his views are common in all three Abrahamic religions? He didn't call for any kind of violence against homosexuals, and though I disagree with him but who is actually affected by it? I mean at some point in my life I've been at least six things on his list.





    He's written about it here-


    https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel- ... jfQvyYv.97
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Let me guess.

    Someone is doing something which disadvantages well known minorities with a history of being discriminated against and NickIce is defending the discriminator, right?


    The usual free speech when it suits to be discriminatory.

    FWIW my take is he can say what he wants save for inciting stuff but if his job requires him to keep a lid on it then either says it and loses his job or he shuts up about it.

    If I said the same in my job I’d lose it since it’d hurt my ability to do my job properly.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Let me guess.

    Someone is doing something which disadvantages well known minorities with a history of being discriminated against and NickIce is defending the discriminator, right?


    The usual free speech when it suits to be discriminatory.

    FWIW my take is he can say what he wants save for inciting stuff but if his job requires him to keep a lid on it then either says it and loses his job or he shuts up about it.

    If I said the same in my job I’d lose it since it’d hurt my ability to do my job properly.

    Close - he is linking it to Islam
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Ah of course. Should have figured.

    He jazzes it all up to obscure the simple behaviour.