Thanks for the explanation.
I guess you couldn’t help yourself when presented with an opportunity to write a parody of Mel’s post, Faz, but while Mel’s obviously related to the Folau case, yours is a lot more vague.
It is a kind of parody, I guess, and it uses similar logic. It holds up a mirror, as it were.
For instance, just who has been beaten into silence by secret emails?
Good point! The whole idea of anyone getting 'beaten into silence' is absurd on both counts. But that's the point of the 'parody'.
Whoever you are indicating has been proclaimed a heretic, it has not been by psychoanalysis. One doesn’t need to be proclaimed a heretic; one proclaims oneself a heretic by what one writes or says. You don’t become a heretic by proclamation from on high. Any Catholic with a good knowledge of the Faith can tell heresy when they hear or read it.
The thing about parody, John, is not to take it too literally ...
And who is it you are referring to as whining about having hurt feelings?
These were Mel's gems, John.
Only the leftist peddlers of political correctness do that, but I’m sure you would not be calling out anyone from that camp. So who?
Another of your famous open-ended questions, John?
In the context of the parody, the whiners are those expressing all sorts of righteous indignation about Folau's right to free speech.
And you continue to harp on Folau’s wealth, along with my comment about his being stripped of his livelihood because of his religious views.
Yes. It's particularly relevant when a wealthy man, of principle apparently, gets other people to pay for what he can clearly afford himself. Not a good look.
The fact is that Rugby Union, up until recently, was his livelihood, and he was absolutely entitled to use his talents to that end.
No question. That's why he signed a contract; that's why they paid him the big bucks. He's an amazing talent. It's also why the 'livelihood' he earned as a player, was more than supplemented by his commercial endorsements.
Commercial endorsements are pretty superficial things (alluding to Mel's remarks) and allow a company to 'trade off' the reputation of public figure to enhance their brand. Clearly they have a right to withdraw from that relationship if they believe the individual is having a negative effect on the brand.
It is superficial, but Folau's no babe in the wood. He signed up for those endorsements, took the money, then took the risk of biting the hand that fed him.
Same with Rugby Australia. Folau signed the contract, took the money, then ignored the warning and now, by his actions has jeopardised his livelihood.
Although, let's not kid ourselves, he won't be out on the streets anytime soon. More than likely he'll go overseas and get even more.
Only those afflicted with a large dose of the politics of envy would comment unfavourably on the fact that it has been a very lucrative means of livelihood.
And only those afflicted with a large dose of delusion would assert that his 'livelihood' is an issue.
As for his asking for support, if you had bothered to read the subscriber comments on every newspaper article regarding the matter, you would clearly see that many people were eagerly searching for an opportunity to show their support for Folau because, free of the mists of envy and bias, they could see the clear and present threat to freedom of speech and religion it represents.
Of course. Poor man needs to protect his 'livelihood'!
If they can get away with it with Folau, they can get away with it with others. No one placed any pressure on those who contributed to GoFundMe , just as no one is placing any pressure to contribute to the ACL endeavour.
Just as no one placed any pressure on Folau to sign up with RA and his sponsors.
But he did.
Then he breached his contract.
And, just because some people agree with what he said, it's become a freedom of speech issue.
If people as high profile as Folau want to say things in public and if members of the public want to make them even richer, by all means feel free!
But if you are presented with a lucrative contract and that contract has provisions about your conduct that you flout, don't hide behind free speech so you can get others to pay for your transgressions.
Responses « Back to index | View thread »