Izzy Folau

[Umaga's Witness]

You guys make it impossible NOT to comment......with lots of respect, if this is the type of argument that will be used to fight Folau and what he stands for, he's gonna win.....Who said those organisations(or private people) that gave him money does NOT contribute to poor and homeless/sick people? Keep emotion out of it.

No one said That, they said that the millions would be better served to sick and homeless than Israel folau

 

[Umaga's Witness]

You guys make it impossible NOT to comment......with lots of respect, if this is the type of argument that will be used to fight Folau and what he stands for, he's gonna win.....Who said those organisations(or private people) that gave him money does NOT contribute to poor and homeless/sick people? Keep emotion out of it.

No one said That, they said that the millions would be better served to sick and homeless than Israel folau

I agree 100%. How far that argument will get you fighting Izzy is another matter.

No-one is using that argument to fight Izzy, it was just a slightly off topic remark.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

This argument falls on its face pretty quickly, philanthropic organisations whether they be charities or religious organisations don't just throw money at causes as soon as it comes in, that's totally unsustainable. It's the same with "hoarding" wealth, take the Vatican city as an example, it literally has multiple priceless artworks but it's proven to be better served charging people who want to see it to see it and then to use that money for various good causes around the world rather than selling certain pieces and using the proceeds immediately. A sustainable and constant income will be more beneficial to everyone.

Without researching it I'd guess this organisation is doing more than most to help homelessness and sick people in their community, and there is only so much throwing money at these issues can do, some homeless don't want helped, some sick people can't be cured and a precedent of throwing six figures at one child who needs an operation can't really be set because it'll only attract criticism the next time when they can't pay. Helping Folau is objectively absolutely deplorable but it's not something that can be made look worse because it should be used to help x, y or z when in all likelihood they already are doing enough in those areas and they were waiting to use this money for a cause when it arose, they just chose an awful one.

Obviously if they do nothing to help the vulnerable in their community this post is more or less moot, I don't care to look into much to be honest.

Man that's a lot of straws being clutched at, sounds a bit delusional to be honest, like a brainwashed person's argument. Even if they were a church doing good things there are still lots of better causes they can give to.

But sorry you felt attacked as a sympathizer of the church.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Man that's a lot of straws being clutched at, sounds a bit delusional to be honest, like a brainwashed person's argument. Even if they were a church doing good things there are still lots of better causes they can give to.

But sorry you felt attacked as a sympathizer of the church.

Did you read avoid every part of that post which counters all that just for the craic?

Edit: @themole25 yeah I put the caveat in because I was skeptical but I responded as it was being portrayed as your average church.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Did you read avoid every part of that post which counters all that just for the craic?

Edit: @themole25 yeah I put the caveat in because I was skeptical but I responded as it was being portrayed as your average church.

I read it all, did you? It counters nothing. It's desperate straw clutching to justify something that is obviously wrong. All tempered rationality had flown out the window.

 

[Icemn]

Folau stood up for his beliefs and that of the church...
basically destroying his career in the process...
he then turns to the church for help by means of financial aid...
Church says, they will pray for him...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I read it all, did you? It counters nothing. It's desperate straw clutching to justify something that is obviously wrong. All tempered rationality had flown out the window.

... helping Folau is objectively absolutely deplorable but it's not something that can be made look worse because it should be used to help x, y or z ... and they were waiting to use this money for a cause when it arose, they just chose an awful one.

Obviously if they do nothing to help the vulnerable in their community this post is more or less moot,

I'd suggest you stop pal.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

View attachment 7220

I'd suggest you stop pal.

Oh man I am shaking my head with sadness here. the desperate always resort to the irrelevant schoolyard bully stabs like "haw haw koip dugging pal" when they have no valid rebuttal . you should read your whole post, not just look at it with one eyed tunnel vision of a poor brainwashed soul. If that's possible. I assure you if you, as a typically rational person, can somehow look at it objectively you will see what I see.

But I fear I have put you too far in the defensive now. I didn't intend you to be insulted, rather to take a step back and try and see it with new eyes.

P.s I like how in that little video the digging is constant but the hole doesn't get any deeper. Ironic huh.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Oh man I am shaking my head with sadness here. the desperate always resort to the irrelevant schoolyard bully stabs like "haw haw koip dugging pal" when they have no valid rebuttal . you should read your whole post, not just look at it with one eyed tunnel vision of a poor brainwashed soul. If that's possible. I assure you if you, as a typically rational person, can somehow look at it objectively you will see what I see.

But I fear I have put you too far in the defensive now. I didn't intend you to be insulted, rather to take a step back and try and see it with new eyes.

P.s I like how in that little video the digging is constant but the hole doesn't get any deeper. Ironic huh.

Thick as pig ****.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Keep it civil guys...

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Thick as pig ****.

Oh good, you reread your post. No need to be so hard on yourself though, you are only human. You can be redeemed

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Why is this argument even happening when it's been established that it's a lobby group.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

there is only so much throwing money at these issues can do, some homeless don't want helped, some sick people can't be cured and a precedent of throwing six figures at one child who needs an operation can't really be set because it'll only attract criticism the next time when they can't pay. Helping Folau is objectively absolutely deplorable but it's not something that can be made look worse because it should be used to help x, y or z.

Better not give money to the homeless because clearly all of the homeless left in the world won't appreciate any help. Sorry homeless people but you dont really want the money, just go on and freeze to death as you wish.

Ooh and hey sorry sick kid I'm not going to help you because let's be honest that won't be fair on the others we don't help. Just gotta accept your luck mate, because it's really annoying when those sick kids keep whining at me when trying to watch coronation street.

Oh and you other sick people that are terminal, soz but we can't help you, that's why they call it terminal. Yeeeaaah, nothing we can do. If you are going to die you might as well do it in misery because the rest of us who will live forever might as well live in luxury.

Oh and it's not so bad that all of you sick and homeless aren't getting help while we are supporting the rich kids Nintendo fund instead of helping you. The fact that you guys are sick doesn't make it any worse that we are supporting the Nintendo fund, it would be just as bad if you were all well and not whinging all the time about being sick. I mean I'm a great institution that gives you guys a dollar every now and then, but rich kids Need Nintendo's no matter what.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Why is this argument even happening when it's been established that it's a lobby group.

Because on the assumption it was a church the justification was delusional and outright offensive.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Why is this argument even happening when it's been established that it's a lobby group.

There's actually no argument, or at least no point or points being argued. Here's the synopsis:

In response to Olyy's claim that "If they give already then give more, there is no justification for having that much wealth when you claim to want to help people." I replied with:

This argument falls on its face pretty quickly, philanthropic organisations whether they be charities or religious organisations don't just throw money at causes as soon as it comes in, that's totally unsustainable. It's the same with "hoarding" wealth, take the Vatican city as an example, it literally has multiple priceless artworks but it's proven to be better served charging people who want to see it to see it and then to use that money for various good causes around the world rather than selling certain pieces and using the proceeds immediately. A sustainable and constant income will be more beneficial to everyone.

Without researching it I'd guess this organisation is doing more than most to help homelessness and sick people in their community, and there is only so much throwing money at these issues can do, some homeless don't want helped, some sick people can't be cured and a precedent of throwing six figures at one child who needs an operation can't really be set because it'll only attract criticism the next time when they can't pay. Helping Folau is objectively absolutely deplorable but it's not something that can be made look worse because it should be used to help x, y or z when in all likelihood they already are doing enough in those areas and they were waiting to use this money for a cause when it arose, they just chose an awful one.

Obviously if they do nothing to help the vulnerable in their community this post is more or less moot, I don't care to look into much to be honest.

A simple, clear and non controversial point that any charitable organisation/agency/etc... will always keep a reserve to protect themselves and be able to respond to certain emergencies, I also gave a fair example that can be backed up by figures but I didn't and don't feel like I need to go into that detail. (another current example is how quickly agencies across the world were able to increase aid to help the humanitarian crisis in Yemen right now albeit insufficient due to the scale of it) Ultimately my point is that simply having assets isn't something that one can criticise any organisation for and that this organisation, assumed to be charitable at that stage, can't be said to be worse than they already are simply for having money. Importantly, anyone with basic reading comprehension will notice that I twice condemned backing Folau and finished by stating if they aren't a charitable organisation then there is no need to reply to this post.

Following this post Old Hooker and Themole provided information that they are a disgusting lobby group. That should have been the end of this really.

However, having presumably been asleep and missed these clarifications Rip Van Winkle responded with the following:

Man that's a lot of straws being clutched at, sounds a bit delusional to be honest, like a brainwashed person's argument. Even if they were a church doing good things there are still lots of better causes they can give to.

But sorry you felt attacked as a sympathizer of the church.

It's actually impossible to determine what's being referred to in the first sentence, it's merely two personal attacks and a poor comprehension of what "clutching at straws" means, it's also bizarrely Trump-esque for someone who believes he's taking a stance against the right. The second sentence is where it becomes clear that he never read my post or, perhaps more encouragingly, doesn't know what the words "deplorable" and "awful" which I used to describe Folau's cause in my post mean.

My reply was simply telling him he entirely missed the crux of my argument while also replying to themole saying that my original post is now moot.

Again you'd think this was a good place to end this tangent but Stanley Yelnats continues with:

I read it all, did you? It counters nothing. It's desperate straw clutching to justify something that is obviously wrong. All tempered rationality had flown out the window.

This again is without substance, misses everything I wrote and resembles Trump insofar as it mirrors the structure of a POTUS tweet.

At this point I've lost patience and I respond with a gif suggesting he's digging himself into a hole and advise him to stop but unfortunately he doesn't and comes out with the following masterpiece:

Oh man I am shaking my head with sadness here. the desperate always resort to the irrelevant schoolyard bully stabs like "haw haw koip dugging pal" when they have no valid rebuttal . you should read your whole post, not just look at it with one eyed tunnel vision of a poor brainwashed soul. If that's possible. I assure you if you, as a typically rational person, can somehow look at it objectively you will see what I see.

But I fear I have put you too far in the defensive now. I didn't intend you to be insulted, rather to take a step back and try and see it with new eyes.

P.s I like how in that little video the digging is constant but the hole doesn't get any deeper. Ironic huh.

This is a beaut, it starts with the claim I've resorted to ad hominem when in actual fact this more or less started with his personal attacks on me. The following phrases, if you can call them that, are interesting: "shaking my head with sadness" would again remind one of the Don. Then there is just a load of ****** that he thinks reads as intelligent but in reality the phrases "one eyed tunnel vision", "poor brainwashed soul", "typically rational person" etc... makes me think I could be arguing with a kid in his early years of secondary school with a thesaurus. Asking me to look at it with "new eyes" is interesting, it doesn't mean anything but yeah I wish I could, astigmatism is a *****.

Then I called him thick as pig ****, I'd like to take this opportunity to change that to thick as two short planks in order to keep it civil so as to follow the polite instruction of Heineken. Oscar Wilde responded with the following, thinking it was witty:

Oh good, you reread your post. No need to be so hard on yourself though, you are only human. You can be redeemed

It was not witty.

Since I have started writing this post in reply to you he's responded with the following:

Better not give money to the homeless because clearly all of the homeless left in the world won't appreciate any help. Sorry homeless people but you dont really want the money, just go on and freeze to death as you wish.

Ooh and hey sorry sick kid I'm not going to help you because let's be honest that won't be fair on the others we don't help. Just gotta accept your luck mate, because it's really annoying when those sick kids keep whining at me when trying to watch coronation street.

Oh and you other sick people that are terminal, soz but we can't help you, that's why they call it terminal. Yeeeaaah, nothing we can do. If you are going to die you might as well do it in misery because the rest of us who will live forever might as well live in luxury.

Oh and it's not so bad that all of you sick and homeless aren't getting help while we are supporting the rich kids Nintendo fund instead of helping you. The fact that you guys are sick doesn't make it any worse that we are supporting the Nintendo fund, it would be just as bad if you were all well and not whinging all the time about being sick. I mean I'm a great institution that gives you guys a dollar every now and then, but rich kids Need Nintendo's no matter what.

So firstly this confirms he doesn't understand what "deplorable" means and secondly confirms he totally misunderstood the base of my entire argument. It's also an absolute car crash, and shows that he has no comprehension of any socio-economic landscape or economics in general and it also appears that he doesn't quite grasp that money is finite, at least not for churches.

It's also worth noting that this post ignores that what I wrote also applies to non-religious charities and was based on the assumption that the organisations with a reserve were already contributing to an array of social problems within their community.

At least Saint Batman's most recent post shows us he was doing it all for the greater good:

Because on the assumption it was a church the justification was delusional and outright offensive.

So you'd expect that with this post of mine we can park this particular tangent and move on with our lives.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

There's actually no argument, or at least no point or points being argued. Here's the synopsis:

In response to Olyy's claim that "If they give already then give more, there is no justification for having that much wealth when you claim to want to help people." I replied with:

A simple, clear and non controversial point that any charitable organisation/agency/etc... will always keep a reserve to protect themselves and be able to respond to certain emergencies, I also gave a fair example that can be backed up by figures but I didn't and don't feel like I need to go into that detail. (another current example is how quickly agencies across the world were able to increase aid to help the humanitarian crisis in Yemen right now albeit insufficient due to the scale of it) Ultimately my point is that simply having assets isn't something that one can criticise any organisation for and that this organisation, assumed to be charitable at that stage, can't be said to be worse than they already are simply for having money. Importantly, anyone with basic reading comprehension will notice that I twice condemned backing Folau and finished by stating if they aren't a charitable organisation then there is no need to reply to this post.

Following this post Old Hooker and Themole provided information that they are a disgusting lobby group. That should have been the end of this really.

However, having presumably been asleep and missed these clarifications Rip Van Winkle responded with the following:

It's actually impossible to determine what's being referred to in the first sentence, it's merely two personal attacks and a poor comprehension of what "clutching at straws" means, it's also bizarrely Trump-esque for someone who believes he's taking a stance against the right. The second sentence is where it becomes clear that he never read my post or, perhaps more encouragingly, doesn't know what the words "deplorable" and "awful" which I used to describe Folau's cause in my post mean.

My reply was simply telling him he entirely missed the crux of my argument while also replying to themole saying that my original post is now moot.

Again you'd think this was a good place to end this tangent but Stanley Yelnats continues with:

This again is without substance, misses everything I wrote and resembles Trump insofar as it mirrors the structure of a POTUS tweet.

At this point I've lost patience and I respond with a gif suggesting he's digging himself into a hole and advise him to stop but unfortunately he doesn't and comes out with the following masterpiece:

This is a beaut, it starts with the claim I've resorted to ad hominem when in actual fact this more or less started with his personal attacks on me. The following phrases, if you can call them that, are interesting: "shaking my head with sadness" would again remind one of the Don. Then there is just a load of ****** that he thinks reads as intelligent but in reality the phrases "one eyed tunnel vision", "poor brainwashed soul", "typically rational person" etc... makes me think I could be arguing with a kid in his early years of secondary school with a thesaurus. Asking me to look at it with "new eyes" is interesting, it doesn't mean anything but yeah I wish I could, astigmatism is a *****.

Then I called him thick as pig ****, I'd like to take this opportunity to change that to thick as two short planks in order to keep it civil so as to follow the polite instruction of Heineken. Oscar Wilde responded with the following, thinking it was witty:

It was not witty.

Since I have started writing this post in reply to you he's responded with the following:

So firstly this confirms he doesn't understand what "deplorable" means and secondly confirms he totally misunderstood the base of my entire argument. It's also an absolute car crash, and shows that he has no comprehension of any socio-economic landscape or economics in general and it also appears that he doesn't quite grasp that money is finite, at least not for churches.

It's also worth noting that this post ignores that what I wrote also applies to non-religious charities and was based on the assumption that the organisations with a reserve were already contributing to an array of social problems within their community.

At least Saint Batman's most recent post shows us he was doing it all for the greater good:


So you'd expect that with this post of mine we can park this particular tangent and move on with our lives.

And so another 39 warnings to alpha here which puts him way past a ban. Was nice knowing him.

Alpha had posted as he had shown with an incredibly insulting attack on the homeless and sick as justification for purportedly philanthropic organisations hoarding money. He was trying to make a point that Hoarding money can be a good thing because it can be put to better use but the examples he used were insulting and completely irrational. It was abundantly clear that he was clutching at straws to defend these organisations because he fundamentally believed such organisations were worthy of defending. An opinion borne out of rationale looks different to a rationale borne out of opinion; in particular the former is rational. It was mind blowingly irrational and cold, as any unbiased reader would attest.

So I pointed this out, because it is not ok to be that offensive, and it is not of anyone's benefit including his. As he had shown some rationality in the past I hoped he might see past it.

Of course he then went on to suggest I wasn't understanding what he was saying. How could I point out irrationality? You can only point out floors in logic, but when there is little logic to begin with there is nothing to point out. Plus the burden of proof, for lack of an analogous term,,in my view was on the one who had attacked homeless people and sick kids.

then you saw the next bit...

To which I responded that he might want to have another read of his post; here I am desperately hoping he can see the light.

Then you saw the next one....

At this point I thought maybe I should try explain, as we were obviously talking across purposes and he was angry with of course no right to be.

And then this most recent one, had to be post of the year, and no way will we ever see him again which I would have said was a bit of a pity but people say that about people who were nice people until their killing spree.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Stop this bickering immediately.

There are levels of offensiveness, to each and every post in this thread. It doesn't necessarily breach the level of being warned/banned, and should complaints be reported we will address each issue on an individual basis.

Now this is the second warning, should anyone continue to be attacking towards one another and not the matter at hand. I will gladly close this thread and attend to the members in private.

All good??

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Stop this bickering immediately.

There are levels of offensiveness, to each and every post in this thread. It doesn't necessarily breach the level of being warned/banned, and should complaints be reported we will address each issue on an individual basis.

Now this is the second warning, should anyone continue to be attacking towards one another and not the matter at hand. I will gladly close this thread and attend to the members in private.

All good??

Yeah sure, I don't really think this has gone beyond what should be/has been allowed on this forum, since the first warning calmed tempers anyway, but I'm done with it and don't care to take that further in contention with a mod. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't attacking or insulting any vulnerable people in society (and there is a subculture of voluntary homeless which I was referring to), that's blatantly obvious but here we are.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

On my part, I'll be more careful with how I come across, and more respectful even when I don't think someone deserves it at that time. Probably saying someone appeared "delusional" was never going to be a good start to a conversation. It was deplorable even.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Never has so much crying happened over so little milk being split!