1. Nothing wrong with that kind of language if you are making a point in the way I was and not using it ad hominem.
I agree there is nothing wrong with using the kind of language to make a point. In these two examples it wasn't that ad hominem.
However in these recent posts below, you will find that ad hominem thingy. I must say it is an ineffective method, it may satisfy your defense mechanism temporarily, but it is not productive in solving this problem.
Consider an attack on why his statement is wrong factually, for instance you could quote a clergy on why this original post by IF is not accurate. You could actually attack his interpretation of that actual bible verse, but more importantly you could include his entire post. A recent article I read had IF statement paraphrased down to "hell awaits gays". A tad misleading. He actually prefaces the statement with a Warning and ends it with a solution for those who may fear hell. i don't agree with him, but his argument is better than yours.
From a free speech standpoint his has actually turned out to be more productive to inclusion in rugby and that wasn't his intent.
1. He was fired
2. He coach was threatened (because of his inciting other, according to you)
3. Wigan announced pride day 20 minutes after his signing
4. a misleading response was reported at dragons game concerning confiscated flags
5. Dragons, his team, announce a pride day
IF put it out for everyone to talk about and solve it, and he was to stuck in "silly form of delusion" to know it.
They won't have to. I am fairly good at reading religious froot loops (on another forum I debate YEC's, and believe me, you will struggle to find another group that contains more bigotry, more religious nutjobbery and more outright Stupidity than that crowd)
If I read Folau correctly, he will not be able to shut up - he could shut up when his job was on the line in Australia, and I predict he won'tl be able to now. Did you see his vile statements about the victims of the Australian bushfires, in which he said they were suffering, "a little taste of God's judgement". This is while all the crap was still going on with Rugby Australia!
Folau is a very nasty man who is utterly insensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
The fact that I am an atheist, and think that those who believe in invisible sky deities are suffering from a silly form of self-delusion, does not mean I don't respect those people's rights to believe what they want to believe. If it comforts them to believe, then so be it.
.
He doesn't get a pass on that just because his homophobic church says so.
.
Now this below
3. What about Free Speech[SUP]TM :tongue:[/SUP]
This is a private website, so they mods are perfectly entitled to stop this or any thread. This is meant to be a support and answer center to promote better refs.
HOWEVER, I would argue that this topic of IF speech is very much rugby related. And ref related. WR and governing bodies have declared rugby as inclusive. (I find it as necessary as declaring oxygen as good) It should be inclusive without any statement or overture, but it may be necessary for those not keeping up evolutionarily. There are gay rugby clubs and I think even a governing body (I don't know its by laws and intent). So it is possible a ref will encounter some form of homophobia on the park.
And lastly, I do not know any devout homosexual Christians. But if I did, I'm pretty sure they have come to an understanding of this passage presented by IF. The "devout" thing is kind of a give away. and I'm pretty sure they would explain it to others. Kinda goes with being devout. and I'm pretty sure they know IF is incorrect. and I'm pretty sure they even pray for IF
and lastly lastly, free speech is working, hate speech is free speech, hate speech is countered by free speech, do not put limits on the mechanism that brought rights to those who deserve it.
