Squidge

[Oldschoolsocks]

I find him very entertaining AND educational check him out.

Latest offering:

https://youtu.be/2-NqFscRWsg

[wixfjord]

I find his videos brilliant, but only when watched at 0.75 speed.

The whole quick cut, fast talking style can wear a bit thin over time!

[Keith]

He makes good videos and brings some much needed exposure to tier 2 rugby. Ive been following the MLR since its inception and its really exciting to see where its going. His comments around Folau however are embarrassing.

[wixfjord]

He makes good videos and brings some much needed exposure to tier 2 rugby. Ive been following the MLR since its inception and its really exciting to see where its going. His comments around Folau however are embarrassing.

What's this about? Have only seen him calling out Folau for his bullshit? What do you mean?

[Oldschoolsocks]

He makes good videos and brings some much needed exposure to tier 2 rugby. Ive been following the MLR since its inception and its really exciting to see where its going. His comments around Folau however are embarrassing.

What's this about? Have only seen him calling out Folau for his bullshit? What do you mean?

Yup, nothing wrong with calling Izzy on his bullshit.

[neiliog93]

There's also nothing wrong with not bowing before any person or movement (however good or justified) because your religious beliefs don't allow it.

[wixfjord]

There's also nothing wrong with not bowing before any person or movement (however good or justified) because your religious beliefs don't allow it.

That is a very weird take I must say.

[Oldschoolsocks]

There's also nothing wrong with not bowing before any person or movement (however good or justified) because your religious beliefs don't allow it.

the man himself has a video on it, give it a watch... or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHUMvie ... g&index=32

[leinsterforever]

He makes good videos and brings some much needed exposure to tier 2 rugby. Ive been following the MLR since its inception and its really exciting to see where its going. His comments around Folau however are embarrassing.

It annoys me to see sports administrators - people who wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the actual competitors out in the arena - deciding what sportspeople can and can't do. Who are they to sack Folau? As far as I'm aware, he didn't break any laws. Sport should be about the sportspeople.

There was that shameful episode at the last Olympics where Mekhissi-Benabbad was disqualified for taking his top off while he was running down the home straight to win the steeplechase. Who are they to disqualify him? His show of individuality had no impact on the outcome of the race. How self important can you get, thinking the Games are all about them rather than the actual competitors. He should get an apology and his medal returned and the administrators who disqualified him should be sacked.

As for squidge, I think a lot of people, maybe most people, have trouble seeing things from other people's point of view. Folau's coming from a different starting point than secular people. As an atheist, I think his beliefs are a load of nonsense, but it says in his book that men who "commit" homosexual acts will go to Hell. That might sound like a flippant remark to non-religious people, but fundamentalists understand it to mean someone will spend an eternity in horrendous pain. If someone actually believes that, is it not the better course of action by far to try to stop it from occurring? What kind of person would he be if he believed people were going to have the worst possible thing happen to them but didn't do anything to try to warn them? I think you have to try to pare an argument back to first principles, get to the root of it, and that's fundamentalist belief. Critics of Folau have implied that he's not really a believer and is just using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry. They say he's picking and choosing what parts he believes because he has tattoos when his religion forbids it. I believe he has addressed that apparent contradiction, saying he wouldn't get the tattoos now. I don't see any reason to think he doesn't truly believe in the Bible and Jesus. I think his views are logical enough - if you take literal belief in the King James VI Bible as your starting point.

I know people have said Folau using his platform (as if he's just been given his platform rather than earning it with hard work and talent) to say potentially harmful things is a problem but I would say the media is more to blame in that regard. Folau's message got an exponentially wider audience with the media reporting it - spreading it for more potentially vulnerable people to hear it while at the same time criticising him. Hypocrites. Even the first question on social media back in 2017 looks like a set up. Someone asked him for his views knowing what the answer was likely to be. These views are out there if people go looking for them, but no-one's forcing anyone to look at Folau's instagram page.

I suppose I'm on the side of the individual having rights, basically. If people want to kneel or give the black power salute good luck to them. I wouldn't like to see anyone browbeaten into complying, though. Making a stand isn't really brave if everyone's doing it. That's just following the herd. What Kaepernick did took bravery. If Folau doesn't want to kneel that's his business. He shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone, which Brian Carney seemed to be implying.

He scored a good try at the weekend anyway.

[Oldschoolsocks]

He makes good videos and brings some much needed exposure to tier 2 rugby. Ive been following the MLR since its inception and its really exciting to see where its going. His comments around Folau however are embarrassing.

It annoys me to see sports administrators - people who wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the actual competitors out in the arena - deciding what sportspeople can and can't do. Who are they to sack Folau? As far as I'm aware, he didn't break any laws. Sport should be about the sportspeople.

There was that shameful episode at the last Olympics where Mekhissi-Benabbad was disqualified for taking his top off while he was running down the home straight to win the steeplechase. Who are they to disqualify him? His show of individuality had no impact on the outcome of the race. How self important can you get, thinking the Games are all about them rather than the actual competitors. He should get an apology and his medal returned and the administrators who disqualified him should be sacked.

As for squidge, I think a lot of people, maybe most people, have trouble seeing things from other people's point of view. Folau's coming from a different starting point than secular people. As an atheist, I think his beliefs are a load of nonsense, but it says in his book that men who "commit" homosexual acts will go to Hell. That might sound like a flippant remark to non-religious people, but fundamentalists understand it to mean someone will spend an eternity in horrendous pain. If someone actually believes that, is it not the better course of action by far to try to stop it from occurring? What kind of person would he be if he believed people were going to have the worst possible thing happen to them but didn't do anything to try to warn them? I think you have to try to pare an argument back to first principles, get to the root of it, and that's fundamentalist belief. Critics of Folau have implied that he's not really a believer and is just using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry. They say he's picking and choosing what parts he believes because he has tattoos when his religion forbids it. I believe he has addressed that apparent contradiction, saying he wouldn't get the tattoos now. I don't see any reason to think he doesn't truly believe in the Bible and Jesus. I think his views are logical enough - if you take literal belief in the King James VI Bible as your starting point.

I know people have said Folau using his platform (as if he's just been given his platform rather than earning it with hard work and talent) to say potentially harmful things is a problem but I would say the media is more to blame in that regard. Folau's message got an exponentially wider audience with the media reporting it - spreading it for more potentially vulnerable people to hear it while at the same time criticising him. Hypocrites. Even the first question on social media back in 2017 looks like a set up. Someone asked him for his views knowing what the answer was likely to be. These views are out there if people go looking for them, but no-one's forcing anyone to look at Folau's instagram page.

I suppose I'm on the side of the individual having rights, basically. If people want to kneel or give the black power salute good luck to them. I wouldn't like to see anyone browbeaten into complying, though. Making a stand isn't really brave if everyone's doing it. That's just following the herd. What Kaepernick did took bravery. If Folau doesn't want to kneel that's his business. He shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone, which Brian Carney seemed to be implying.

He scored a good try at the weekend anyway.

so you'd agree that anyone is entitled to make fun of Izzy Foleau for being a homophobic tw@t then?

[neiliog93]

There's something very authoritarian about demanding everyone 'bow' for a particular cause or movement, and trying to get anyone who does not comply fired/ruin their career. It seems more about power and control/coercion than anything else.

However odd it might be to take a literal interpretation of the bible in the 20th century, it clearly says not to bow before anyone, anything or any man-made cause, with such shows of submission reserved for God. In Daniel, one of the Persian or Babylonian Emperors demands that his Israelite subjects bow before a giant statue of him, but they refuse and are sentenced to death. You don't have to tell me that extrapolating a moral message from that in 2020 is dubious, but is it really such a problem if one pro rugby player feels he can't bow before a movement? Why the authoritarian impulse to make everyone comply even if they have religious objections (and in an environment where the vast majority of sportspeople are taking the knee)?

[Morf]

The Folau stuff is complicated in that freedom of expression should be protected to a degree. At the same time expressing stuff that will p1$$ off large sections of society and sponsors has to have consequence too. I'm not one for locking away all problematic and difficult speech but I do think there should be responsibility for what you communicate.

Squidge isn't for me. Refreshing to begin with but the political and social messaging within his content was outweighing the interesting rugby insight. That and a habit of literally screaming about Juan Rombys during the RWC was too much.

[Oldschoolsocks]

There's something very authoritarian about demanding everyone 'bow' for a particular cause or movement, and trying to get anyone who does not comply fired/ruin their career. It seems more about power and control/coercion than anything else.

However odd it might be to take a literal interpretation of the bible in the 20th century, it clearly says not to bow before anyone, anything or any man-made cause, with such shows of submission reserved for God. In Daniel, one of the Persian or Babylonian Emperors demands that his Israelite subjects bow before a giant statue of him, but they refuse and are sentenced to death. You don't have to tell me that extrapolating a moral message from that in 2020 is dubious, but is it really such a problem if one pro rugby player feels he can't bow before a movement? Why the authoritarian impulse to make everyone comply even if they have religious objections (and in an environment where the vast majority of sportspeople are taking the knee)?

well he's being very, very convenient about which bits to take literally. He has no problem with breaking the Sabbath, no issue with eating shellfish, no objection to wearing blended fabrics, not an apology in sight for being excessively wealthy.

[leinsterforever]

so you'd agree that anyone is entitled to make fun of Izzy Foleau for being a homophobic tw@t then?

Yeah?

[Oldschoolsocks]

so you'd agree that anyone is entitled to make fun of Izzy Foleau for being a homophobic tw@t then?

Yeah?

grand job?

[neiliog93]

There's something very authoritarian about demanding everyone 'bow' for a particular cause or movement, and trying to get anyone who does not comply fired/ruin their career. It seems more about power and control/coercion than anything else.

However odd it might be to take a literal interpretation of the bible in the 20th century, it clearly says not to bow before anyone, anything or any man-made cause, with such shows of submission reserved for God. In Daniel, one of the Persian or Babylonian Emperors demands that his Israelite subjects bow before a giant statue of him, but they refuse and are sentenced to death. You don't have to tell me that extrapolating a moral message from that in 2020 is dubious, but is it really such a problem if one pro rugby player feels he can't bow before a movement? Why the authoritarian impulse to make everyone comply even if they have religious objections (and in an environment where the vast majority of sportspeople are taking the knee)?

well he's being very, very convenient about which bits to take literally. He has no problem with breaking the Sabbath, no issue with eating shellfish, no objection to wearing blended fabrics, not an apology in sight for being excessively wealthy.

Yeah except all those parts are made redundant in the New Testament (except maybe the wealth one).

[Dave Cahill]

Yeah except all those parts are made redundant in the New Testament (except maybe the wealth one).

Supersessionism is not longer part of Christian orthodoxy

[Oldschoolsocks]

There's something very authoritarian about demanding everyone 'bow' for a particular cause or movement, and trying to get anyone who does not comply fired/ruin their career. It seems more about power and control/coercion than anything else.

However odd it might be to take a literal interpretation of the bible in the 20th century, it clearly says not to bow before anyone, anything or any man-made cause, with such shows of submission reserved for God. In Daniel, one of the Persian or Babylonian Emperors demands that his Israelite subjects bow before a giant statue of him, but they refuse and are sentenced to death. You don't have to tell me that extrapolating a moral message from that in 2020 is dubious, but is it really such a problem if one pro rugby player feels he can't bow before a movement? Why the authoritarian impulse to make everyone comply even if they have religious objections (and in an environment where the vast majority of sportspeople are taking the knee)?

well he's being very, very convenient about which bits to take literally. He has no problem with breaking the Sabbath, no issue with eating shellfish, no objection to wearing blended fabrics, not an apology in sight for being excessively wealthy.

Yeah except all those parts are made redundant in the New Testament (except maybe the wealth one).

Yeah but you’re using the Old Testament to justify his stance. Which makes my points exactly as pertinent as yours...

[neiliog93]

No it doesn't, because for most Christians the Old Testament in general still stands. There are aspects of the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament - how to wash, clothing, tattoos, what to eat (e.g. ban on shellfish, pork), other Israelite cultural rules etc. which are explicitly 'fulfilled' in Jesus in the New Testament, after which there is a new law/covenant for everyone in the world, e.g. Matthew 5:17, Galatians 3:23-25, 6:2, Romans 3:21-24, 8:1-4.

But there's also much more to the Old Testament than just the parts on Mosaic Law, e.g. the story in Daniel of the Israelites refusing to bow in Babylon. That has nothing to do with Mosaic Law. And in any case, there are martyrs in similar situations in the New Testament.

This basic theology of why most Christians don't follow Mosaic Law is something that is very frustrating to watch both highly conservative Christians and vituperative atheists like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens etc. get consistently wrong all the time, both usually in a smug, condescending manner.

[neiliog93]

Anyway, that's probably enough theology for a rugby forum