Grahamy:"If this is the first time in this thread when there has been a link to the actual article you all ought to ask yourselves why."

I disagree. My concern in raising the issue was the response to what he had said, including, as I said in my first post or so the comments made by Vicki Wilson and others.

I'm not a follower of the AFL, so it was only because the subject was discussed on 4MMM's Saturday sports coverage that I happened to hear about it and the comments that were made piqued my interest.

The article itself is pretty benign. all he is saying is that coming out is unnecessarily disruptive in the context of a football team in the middle of a comp, so please don't do it.

I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning. He's saying that it is OK to coerce someone "in a good cause", which he defines in this case as a gay man coming out. I say that's bunkum, and contradicts his own position.

Just so long as you don't hold your breath, Antiseptic.

>>I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning. He's saying that it is OK to coerce someone "in a good cause", which he defines in this case as a gay man coming out. I say that's bunkum, and contradicts his own position.<<

You can call it what you will, because the statement that you kindly made on my behalf is your own invention.

Where did I suggest that "it is OK to coerce someone"?

Where did I mention "a good cause"?

You further announce that I define this good cause "in this case as a gay man coming out".

It would appear that you have invented everything - the special pleading with no ethical or logical underpinning, the coercion, the good cause...

Does it not occur to you that putting words into someone else's mouth, and then arguing against them, is a fairly stupid approach? If you wish to illustrate a point, at least have the nous to use my own words - otherwise it just seems that you are arguing with yourself.

With this level of understanding, your introductory apology, "as far as you can see", sums it all up quite beautifully.

In your own words, to boot.

Pericles,I'm merely stating the rather frightening general case that arises from your position.

If it is OK to prevent Akermanis from speaking his mind through the use of a coercive threat such as that of being sacked and you approve of that, which you have done, then you approve of coercion.

With me?

You say that the reason it is OK to coerce him is that in commenting on his knowledge of football clubs and his own discomfort he is potentially influencing the choice of a hypothetical AFL player who may be thinking of coming out as gay, which may imfluence the choice of that gay player to come out. Presumably you see the protection of the choice of this hypothetical gay player as a "good cause".

Still there?

It isn't hard to see, then, that you approve of coercion in the employ of a "good cause", wouldn't you agree?

And since this particular "good cause" is the choice of the gay player to come out, then despite my rather clumsy phraseology this morning (thanks for pointing that out, BTW), my point stands.

Far from putting words in anyone's mouth, I'm simply clarifying the essential points as I understand them. As I said originally, I'm seeking your guidance to understand your position.

The special pleading is in the claim that the discomfort or damage caused to your hypothetical gay player by having his choice to come out influenced by Akermanis's rather mild comments is so serious that it justifies the threat to sack Akermanis. Presumably you don't regard Akermanis's welfare as seriously as the hypothetical gay player's?

Now, let's look at the threat that you claim is implied...erm...I can't actually seem to find it anywhere, would you mind pointing it out?

Antiseptic....

you observed about Pericles as follows:

//I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning.//

At which point I almost had a seriously religious moment :)

Check this out from 'logical/ethical' Pericles.

//I have absolutely no interest in discovering the origin of your fear and loathing,//

But it get's better.

//for the gazillionth time, I have absolutely no interest in discussing comparative religion with you, or anyone else.//

//I am an atheist, and as such I have no sympathy for anyone who uses their religion as a weapon against others.//

For 'atheist' above. we can insert bigot.. on the basis of his own confession.

"Bigot" a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race(Dict)

In other words.. "Play by my rules or getout"..hmmm I've heard that before.

Pericles..the bottom line is this..

Any person who has been provided information about the basis for another persons point of view.. has an ethical duty to at least examine that information and make an assessment. "Rubbish".."True" or something in between.

But, Antiseptic, in his 'fear and loathing' comment he indicates his intolerant prejudice up front.. good that he is honest on that front at least.

He assumes that criticism of Islam equates to 'fear' and 'loathing' but in Pericles surreal mind.. he also engages in transference, and projects his own fear and loathing onto another person he has never met.

In a mad scramble of self justification..he scurries around like a frantic chipmunk with the onset of winter..gathering every acorn of spin he can...and in each case again demonstrating his own intolerant bigotry and prejudice. He presents his own prejudicial spin as 'fact' but the only 'fact' he presents is his own intolerant prejudice.

Antiseptic...for the record...only a prejudiced person would NOT see a group of superheavyweight administrators coming down to 'confront' them as anything BUT Coercion/threat/intimidation.

You are spot on mate.

Minor correction to my post above, to ensure nitpickers remain satisfied.

Replace "which may imfluence the choice of that gay player to come out"

with "which may negatively influence the choice of that gay player to come out"

Thanks.