+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: General Discussions (/thread-4803.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-27-2022
A surprising article appeared on the news.com.au site in which the opposing coach talked good sense.
Quote:Sydney Roosters coach Trent Robinson condemns ‘unacceptable’ pride jersey boycott
Sydney Roosters coach Trent Robinson has weighed in on the Manly Sea Eagles pride jersey saga and sent a strong message to the players who stood down.
Robinson’s team will take on the decimated Sea Eagles squad on Thursday night after seven players stood down after the club unveiled a pride jerseyas a one-off for the round 20 clash.
Dealing with the player revolt fallout, the club scrambled to piece together a line-up for the first game of round 20.
Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley were reportedly opposed to wearing the jersey due to religious beliefs.
Manly coach Des Hasler fronted the media on Tuesday and said the intent behind the pride jersey was to “support the advocacy and human rights pertaining to gender, race culture, ability and LGBTQ movements”.
On Wednesday, Robinson weighed in on the scandal and conveyed his dismay this was an issue in 2022.
“It is great what the owners of Manly have decided to do and it is unfortunate that it has panned out this way because everyone is equal, no matter what race, gender, sexual preference, everyone is equal,” Robinson said.
“Let people make their choice and let’s not discriminate against those, and we are still doing that, and that is why it is unfortunate.
“We have got Gotcha4Life, that both teams [are supporting] … sponsors have given up their space for Gotcha4Life.
“We are really looking forward to representing, and talking about even just male suicide and the high rate that it is.
“But in the youth gay community it is five times the level of what normal society is, that is because they don’t feel included.
“And for us in 2022 to not be inclusive and not say it is OK to be who you are is unacceptable
“We need to move towards a better place … I want to say that we are inclusive, we do accept you for who you are and we care about you, and we need to move forward in that way.”
Robinson was asked if his own team would wear a pride jersey, he revealed he had spoken with his own playing group in depth about the matter.
“Definitely … because we need to move forward, that is my personal view,” he said.
“I have talked to my players about it, we have talked about it openly.
“Because we have a job to do, we want to play a Roosters style of footy and dominate tomorrow night, but whether we like it or not we do have sponsors on jerseys, we do have things on jerseys that we represent.
“And you know that is a decision for clubs and the game to make, but my personal opinion I am about equality, and I want people to feel like they are cared for, and loved, and have a place no matter what their sexual preference.”
Robinson compared the outrage this week to what might have occurred years ago with other minority groups that are now rightfully accepted.
“This is not about rugby league, this is a snapshot that highlighted a wider rugby league issue, this is a societal issue that has been highlighted by our sport and other sports around the world,” he said.
“It is still an issue.
“If someone said they weren’t going to wear the indigenous jersey, there would have been an outcry.
“40 years ago, that would have been the case, 80 years ago we wouldn’t have had Women in League round, we have moved on those front, we haven’t moved on this.
“We want to dominate a game tomorrow but we need to be inclusive as a human race, no one is better than anyone else.
“There is a lot of work to be done still.”
Re: General Discussions - Baggers - 07-28-2022
(07-27-2022, 11:00 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:I was asked if I wanted to wear a rainbow pin at work once.
I declined.
Not because I dont support gay rights (I dont support all of them equally and that is one of my gripes with it).
I also don't like the mentality of you are either with or against them.
I demand the right to live and let live without celebrating it. I dont want to, I dont have to. Why do I have to?
I totally understand (and respect) your view here, 3 Leos, but am 180 degrees differing, for 2 chief reasons. Neither of us is wrong or right. Personal choice.
1. I have two gay family members. When I publicly acknowledge their situation (lapel, wrist band, ribbon etc.,) it demonstrates something very important to them. They feel supported, which is important to both of us.
2. Having had and still having a number of lgbtqia+ clients I am very aware of how marginalized they feel and some of the traumatic things that they've been through, and still happen to them. If a sincere and authentic gesture on my part helps them to feel supported... yummy. Not much for me to wear a public acknowledgement of some kind.
Although this is not the same, the principle is similar. Being a returned serviceman from a war zone, on Anzac Day when I see folks wearing lapel badges / poppies, I do feel a sense of gratitude and acknowledgment. When folks refuse to acknowledge Anzac Day for their views on wars, or whatever, I get it and understand. Even agree to an extent. But it's just helpful for those of us living with PTSD (due to military trauma) to be acknowledged occasionally.
(to me the Anzac Day acknowledgement is not only about what we did/service, but what we live with... and believe me on return from service many of us were marginalized, and when some folks learn I have PTSD they do treat me differently, many very unkindly owing to their failure to understand what PTSD is like or just IS... and who could blame them? Many folks jump to all manner of assumptions as to how we got PTSD and what danger we might pose to the community... which is hurtful and ridiculous).
Re: General Discussions - LP - 07-28-2022
If you came in from the cold oblivious about the history and circumstance you could be forgiven for reading this debate and concluding there was a war going one between minority factions, that is how absurd, alarmist and extremist the debate has become and is portrayed!
In the internet age the extremism has also become a common tactic in efforts of social engineering enacted by both sides, they are equally guilty.
I believe there is no winning in this debate because it is circular, the simple way to move forward is to just to exhibit some basic respect and care for other people and do your very best not to impose your own beliefs and social practises on those around you.
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-28-2022
Thankfully, most of us haven’t just come in from the cold oblivious about the history and circumstance.
Re: General Discussions - LP - 07-28-2022
(07-28-2022, 01:37 AM)Mav date Wrote:Thankfully, most of us haven’t just come in from the cold oblivious about the history and circumstance.Also thankfully most of us are not melodramatic.
The sky is not falling, it's not the thin edge of the wedge, in a wider perspective it is almost inconsequential.
The freedom of choice being demanded by some is being exhibited by others, and the people taking / making that choice have imposed nothing on those around them!
They aren't trying to stop the event, they have just stated they do not want to participate.
Re: General Discussions - PaulP - 07-28-2022
The LGBT community does not discriminate against Pacific Islanders.
Like most modern Christians, these players have a very limited understanding of the Bible. I would bet London to a Brick that none of them have read more than 10%. If you read the Bible from start to finish, it has the character of a running debate. It is a postmodern anthology - many different authors over a 1000 year period, many different opinions, many different perspectives, quite often at odds with each other. When you hear someone say they live according to the Bible, what they really mean is that they focus on a very small selection of texts, usually spoon fed to them in Church or Sunday School, and typically focusing on "hot button issues", which are the same texts that are used year after year, a kind of Greatest Hits medley of verses which excludes by my estimation about 90% of scripture. It's a great tragedy that folks think they can just pick up a Bible and know what it means.
Slave owners in the antebellum south taught that slavery was the will of God, and they quoted the Bible to prove it. Others throughout history have taught that Jews were evil and quoted the Bible to prove it. Others have taught that gay people are either mentally ill or morally depraved, and quoted the Bible to prove it. You can also find Biblical quotations to show that women are inferior to men and must exist as second class citizens. People aren't born homophobic, or anti Semitic, or misogynistic, or pro slavery.
Re: General Discussions - LP - 07-28-2022
In my own perspective I can't say any of the bible is valid, but that's my own perspective and I do not impose it on others.
I'm not sure the debating of the how a belief is obtained invalidates the freedom of choice provided that choice doesn't harm others. As I've mentioned, there are no calls from those wishing to abstain for the event to be stopped, just a handful of people stating they would rather not participate.
As far as I can tell the accused people didn't even make their belief public, they are now being shamed for having it having been exposed by some 3rd party, maybe even or perhaps probably a disgruntled punter who's multi-bet has been mangled!
Do we roll out the stocks from now on whenever a personal and private belief offends?
Re: General Discussions - PaulP - 07-28-2022
They don't need to come out and say "we hate gays". Their behavior and actions speak louder then words.
When a belief caused clearly documented harm to others, it is completely appropriate to call that belief into question. Believers are not entitled to a "get out of jail" free card. It's not good enough to claim you are entitled to your beliefs. You can't have a harmful belief without blood on your hands.
The well being of others, especially minority, marginalized groups, trumps beliefs, all day every day.
Re: General Discussions - LP - 07-28-2022
(07-28-2022, 02:14 AM)PaulP date Wrote:They don't need to come out and say "we hate gays". Their behavior and actions speak louder then words.I'm not a fan of string beans or brussel sprouts and avoid them, but for someone to claim that because I'm not a bean / sprout booster I must be a bean / sprout hater would be a bit of a stretch.
I think your assertion is a good example of taking things to an extreme to impose a viewpoint or win a debate.
Catholics avoid red meat on Fridays but that doesn't mean they hate red meat, pork is avoided in some religions but it doesn't mean they hate pigs.
Re: General Discussions - PaulP - 07-28-2022
(07-28-2022, 02:23 AM)LP link Wrote:I'm not a fan of string beans or brussel sprouts and avoid them, but for someone to claim that because I'm not a booster I must be a hater would be a bit of a stretch.
I think your assertion is a good example of taking things to an extreme to impose a viewpoint or win a debate.
Catholics avoid red meat on Fridays, but that doesn't mean they hate red meat, pork is avoided in some religions but it doesn't mean they hate pigs.
This is the same line of argumentation used by slavery apologists - slavery wasn't that bad because it was really indentured servitude, the slave owners were very nice to the slaves and always greeted them with a smile and a warm hello, invited them into the house to eat etc. All of which is well and good, and better than the alternative, but it has nothing to do with the fact that by any recent standard, the idea of one human owning another, and the owned human being the literal property of the owner is completely wrong.
The fact that these players may only have a "mild" objection to gays is better than the alternative, but it's not the point.