Vern Cotter

[Which Tyler]

Absolutely, I thought the idea of team building was that it was meant to be fun and made the players interact and build relationships. I fail to see where making the players kill animals that they don't want to kill comes into that.

Without engaging in the meat of this discussion (pun intended) as, quite honestly, it's already had far more attention than it warrants; but... you thought wrong.

Many forms of team bonding are arduous as hell, bringing the team together against a "common enemy" type. Then there are plenty which are educational; all in it together learning new skills (eg how to survive in the wild).
Team bonding exercises aren't meant to be fun, they're meant to help promote teamwork, and bring members of the team closer together. Of course, several are based around having fun together; but they're more aimed at getting corporate nobodies to have a good time together and find out more about the person in the cubicle next you than an approximation of their name. If those ones aren't fun, then the business soon goes bust.
Trust me, the marines use a different type of team building exercise.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yes I did, I quite clearly explained that morals don't need a logical base

You saying so doesn't make it so.

Morals can be arbitrary; based on some sort of ambiguous sense of "right" and "wrong".
However, they are more commonly (and IMO, legitimately) based on some sort of quantifiable reasoning - this does not mean that they have to be scientific, which is what it seems you think I mean.

There is no way, however that you can suggest that the players in this scenario (unless, as I say, they are vegetarian) can say that they don't want to do it because they believe killing things is wrong - as they partake in the slaughter of animals every day.
Their issue is that they have to confront the process - the question I keep asking you, and you refuse to answer, is - what legitimate reason do you think they could have for not doing it, given that they already condone the killing itself?

People can do what they like, but if they are not prepared to justify actions which other people reasonably criticise, then they cannot be expected to be understood or respected.

And, as WT says, you clearly don't understand the fundamental processes behind team building exercises.
Saracens' team holidays to NYC or Oktoberfest for drinks and burgers aren't directly related to rugby, but if you asked the players and staff they would all tell you how crucial they were to their success.

 

[ncurd]

however that you can suggest that the players in this scenario (unless, as I say, they are vegetarian) can say that they don't want to do it because they believe killing things is wrong

I don't think any meat eater would object on moral grounds on the act of killing the animal. That still doesn't mean they willing to do it.

I condone the act the act of soldiers killing other human beings but I certainly don't ever want to do it myself.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

You saying so doesn't make it so.

Morals can be arbitrary; based on some sort of ambiguous sense of "right" and "wrong".
However, they are more commonly (and IMO, legitimately) based on some sort of reasoning - this does not mean that they have to be scientific, which is what it seems you think I mean.

There is no way, however that you can suggest that the players in this scenario (unless, as I say, they are vegetarian) can say that they don't want to do it because they believe killing things is wrong - as they partake in the slaughter of animals every day.
Their issue is that they have to confront the process - the question I keep asking you, and you refuse to answer, is - what legitimate reason do you think they could have for not doing it, given that they already condone the killing itself?

People can do what they like, but if they are not prepared to justify actions which other people reasonably criticise, then they cannot be expected to be understood or respected.

And, as WT says, you clearly don't understand the fundamental processes behind team building exercises.

Condoning the killing of something doesn't mean that you are prepared to unsuspectingly be faced with a rabbit and kill it with your bare hands. What gets me is that there only 4 rabbits and 49 players. Cotter decided to choose the 4 players who didn't want to kill the rabbits and chose them to do it, when any of the 40 players could've done. Unnecessarily making the 4 that didn't want to do it do it is IMO bullying.

For the bit about it being team bonding, the team could've bonded without Cotter bullying the unwilling players into killing rabbits. I seriously doubt that the killing of the rabbits did much towards team bonding. The whole experience of the survival camp, yes, but the players who wanted to could easily have been left out of that activity and it would've made no difference to anyone.

 

[ncurd]

Condoning the killing of something doesn't mean that you are prepared to unsuspectingly be faced with a rabbit and kill it with your bare hands. What gets me is that there only 4 rabbits and 49 players. Cotter decided to choose the 4 players who didn't want to kill the rabbits and chose them to do it, when any of the 40 players could've done. Unnecessarily making the 4 that didn't want to do it do it is IMO bullying.

For the bit about it being team bonding, if only 4 players took part

Seriously mate you making this argument worse on yourself all that is speculation and completely contrary to what is being reported and said as Hamilton has admitted to exaggerating and said nobody was forced.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Seriously mate you making this argument worse on yourself all that is speculation and completely contrary to what is being reported and said as Hamilton has admitted to exaggerating and said nobody was forced.

Okay, I should make it clear that what I'm saying is only referring to if what Hamilton said in the first place is the truth. If not then i will retract everything I've said and I'm fine with what happened, but I'm arguing off of the basis that what was reported in the first article is true. But it still isn't clear yet to what extent Cotter pushed the players to do it or to what extent Hamilton exaggerated. So until that is made clear in going to go off of what was said in Hamilton's first story.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

We clearly disagree and aren't going to convince each other of anything so seeing as ultimately this discussion doesn't matter, it may just be time to put it to bed.

 

[McTallshort]

on a side note...A Greek chap who used to go fishing with my dad decided to take his family back to Greece to visit relatives etc. His wife was English and his 2 daughters had never been to Greece so he planned roughly a month for the whole visit. While visiting an Aunt on a small holding in the hills somewhere his kids noticed a couple of hutches with rabbits in. Obviously the kids started to fuss over the cute rabbits and the old auntie came over and asked what they were doing. One of the daughters turned to her dad and said tell Auntie SoandSo these look like nice rabbits. Now whether the comms failed at this point is unclear but the Auntie on hearing what the dad said smiled, picked one of the rabbits up......broke its neck and proceeded to gut and skin it ready for the pot. The daughters were tearful wrecks for a couple of days and the Aunt couldn't understand why a couple of English kids were crying over the death of a member of her livestock.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Yay, Jackanory time! Talking of rabbits, a friend of mine who has a smallholding shot a couple on his field, skinned them and hung them up in his kitchen. He walked in an hour or two later to find his four or five year old daughter looking at them crying. He asked "are you upset because daddy killed those rabbits?", "no" the reply came, "I wanted to play with the fur, but you've thrown it away!" A farmer's wife in the making!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Should have made her some boots.

 

[nickdnz]

Many forms of team bonding are arduous as hell, bringing the team together against a "common enemy" type. Then there are plenty which are educational; all in it together learning new skills (eg how to survive in the wild).
Team bonding exercises aren't meant to be fun, they're meant to help promote teamwork, and bring members of the team closer together. Of course, several are based around having fun together; but they're more aimed at getting corporate nobodies to have a good time together and find out more about the person in the cubicle next you than an approximation of their name. If those ones aren't fun, then the business soon goes bust.
Trust me, the marines use a different type of team building exercise.

I remember going on a hike with the team up a mountain in the Tararua's for three hours, in which we had to in pairs, take turns in carrying one another up the mountain. There was nothing fun about it, it was frankly horrible and at times bloody scary (as the climb wasn't all flat paths) - but definitely gained respect for your teammates doing it, and that season there were few guys who wouldn't try that little bit harder for each other.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I remember going on a hike with the team up a mountain in the Tararua's for three hours, in which we had to in pairs, take turns in carrying one another up the mountain. There was nothing fun about it, it was frankly horrible and at times bloody scary (as the climb wasn't all flat paths) - but definitely gained respect for your teammates doing it, and that season there were few guys who wouldn't try that little bit harder for each other.

but no one on your team was forced to do something against their will, it probably sucked (like lots of parts of training do), but that seemed like something that makes sense for training

 

[ratsapprentice]

The whole point of the exercise is that you aren't forced to do it!

You have the option to not do the hard thing, but for not wanting to put your teammates in a less comfortable position, you do the hard thing!

That way, next time you are faced with a challenge as a team, you are more confident in your teammates willingness to push hard, and knowing that, you in turn push yourself harder.

 

[nickdnz]

but no one on your team was forced to do something against their will, it probably sucked (like lots of parts of training do), but that seemed like something that makes sense for training

It was a physical and emotional challenge in which every member had to overcome something that they didn't want to do. If as part of the exercise we had to catch, kill and prepare our own food (providing none of us were vegetarians) - then that is also a team building exercise.

Again I think if players really objected to killing the animals - despite the hypocrisy - then they shouldn't have been forced to do it. But realistically it was a Podcast in which Hamilton exaggerated something for the sake of making it a good/gory story, which the media extrapolated out of the original context to get the biggest story out of it as possible, and people who love moral outrage decided to take as gospel.

But anyone who has ever played years of rugby can attest to (which at a guess I would say is no one who is negating this has played any rugby at senior level), often team exercises have less to do with the practical skills of rugby, and more to do with getting familiar, or comfortable or to strengthen the unity of the team. How that is achieved can depend on the coaches methods - and if a coach asked me to do something which I morally object to I wouldn't do it, but the reality is that what was asked of players was to partake in an outdoor survival course - and part of surviving outdoors is catching, killing, preparing and eating your own food. I think if people don't buy into the ridiculous levels of hyperbole involved in the article, there is nothing there which isn't unreasonable. Again, does anyone actually believe that if this was a fishing trip - there would be any objections?!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Fine they were coerced into doing it, happy now?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Fine they were coerced into doing it, happy now?

By that definition they are also coerced into waking up early and training really hard in pre-season.

Even worse, they might actually lose their job over it.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

no they are not, they had food withheld from them if they didn't complete the task of killing the rabbit. nothing was withheld from them if they didn't wake up other than their spot on the team, not something you need to survive

these are elite level athletes, they don't need to be forced to wake up early and train

 

[ratsapprentice]

I genuinely cannot believe the stance some people are taking on this.

I'm actually quite shocked.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I genuinely cannot believe the stance some people are taking on this.

I'm actually quite shocked.

Because it's not your own? Ok.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I genuinely cannot believe the stance some people are taking on this.

I'm actually quite shocked.

I think the crux is you point that a carnivore should be prepared to kill their own meat. Other than fishing, I've never killed anything for the pot and it's not a task that I would relish, but as long as I was able to do so as humanely as a qualified professional, I would consider myself a hypocrite if I refused to do so. It appears that other people disagree. Based on my moral compass and any way I try to rationalise it, I can't understand why. IMO the reason that the thread isn't progressing is that nobody is willing or able to explain to people with out opinion why you're not a hypocrite if you are prepared to eat meat but not to kill it yourself.