[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[Melburnian1]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

...Supporters of gay marriage do their cause little good by gross over-reach. It was a pie in the face, for heaven's sake - see drron's post for other examples.

And that's a key reason why the idea would be defeated were the public allowed to have their say, apart from any issues of morality, or adverse effect on children.

A very noisy minority diametrically opposed to core beliefs that have survived through the centuries - for very good reasons.

So of course, we are not being allowed to have an indicative vote because of the noisy left wing in Australia that is full of vitriol and intolerance, reserving particular hatred for Christianity.

Very good that many other CEOs are silent on this manufactured 'issue' and concentrating on running their businesses.

 

[Berlin]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

anti marriage equality does not equal anti gay, or homophobia.

This is very much like claiming you're not necessarily a racist 'only' because you're 'anti-front seats on buses for black people'.

Seriously, how can anyone of a sane mind claim that denying a certain group of people the same rights as others have, in this case to marry, is not being directed against this very group of people? That's a matter of basic logic if you ask me.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Sounds like the Republic debate all over again ... if you were against it, you are 'stupid' according to prominent republic supporters. Same with Brexit - 'stupid' to be for it, was the cry.

Absolutely no margin for imagining that some people had, and have very sound reasons for their own for their own, well considered opinion in these issues.

But I reckon the mods will be well and truly frowning by now ... back to the pie in the face

 

[Pushka]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Supporters of gay marriage do their cause little good by gross over-reach. It was a pie in the face, for heaven's sake - see drron's post for other examples.

And that works both ways

Are you also suggesting that corporate bosses should be quiet on matters of social importance?

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

A pie in the face is pretty common.Many have suffered that fate including George W Bush and Rupert Murdoch.Even Kim Beazley and Steve Bracks.

With all due respect drron - does multiple occurrences justify such actions? Should we all have a crack at it?

Murder is pretty common in Chicago also - so ............... ?

 

[njba]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I think corporate activism is a really interesting concept: consumers seem to like the idea that they can choose which company they support based on a mutual alignment with values.

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

With all due respect drron - does multiple occurrences justify such actions? Should we all have a crack at it?

Murder is pretty common in Chicago also - so ............... ?

CE I was just reporting the facts.no comment.
But pie in the face is equivalent to murder?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

And that works both ways

Are you also suggesting that corporate bosses should be quiet on matters of social importance?

Well, two things. What is 'socially important' to some, isn't so important to others.

And no, I don't think corporate bosses should use their company platforms to take 'social' positions. They should stick to running their companies and not court controversy for their company by being outspoken on 'hot' issues'.# No controversy is in their shareholder's interests, and those are the ONLY interests they should be concerned with.

I wonder how those who think this sort of thing is OK would react to a phalanx of corporate CEOs coming out in support of mining in National Parks? Supporting Trumps' position on Muslim immigration?

Yes, it does work both ways, but if someone here thinks its OK for Joyce to use his Qantas platform in support of gay marriage, then you'd have no problem in another CEO coming out in favour of any of the above issues. Right?

# I hated it when Hugh Morgan, Managing Director of Western Mining Corporation spoke out on issues. I worked for that company and it sometimes made life difficult for us doing our job. Just run the bloody company! Who gives a toss, HM or AJ what you think on social issues?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

CE I was just reporting the facts.no comment.
But pie in the face is equivalent to murder?

More over-reach.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

This is very much like claiming you're not necessarily a racist 'only' because you're 'anti-front seats on buses for black people'.

Seriously, how can anyone of a sane mind claim that denying a certain group of people the same rights as others have, in this case to marry, is not being directed against this very group of people? That's a matter of basic logic if you ask me.

It's the same that someone can argue against 457 visas and not be racist. Or can argue for a Palestinian state without being anti-Semitic.

Plenty of religious folk don't hate gay people, but at the same time they don't want SSM.

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

It's clear there are members here who have clearly defined "sides" of the SSM issue. That's fine. in our society there should be no problem with respectful and constructive(?!) debate with opposing views on any particular issue.

Is a pie in the face, which technically is personal assault, of a business leader in hit capacity as CEO of a major business at a business event (as opposed to making personal comments on the issue at hand) a respectful and peaceful activity? Is it appropriate?

Yes, he's certainly got noticed and now we're all aware of his agenda.. from that point of view yes he got what he wanted (I presume) from the effort.

I personally don't agree with the action taken and I'd say that if it was a pro-SSM(or whatever) person.

I think AJ handled it with class and appropriately.

 

[Denali]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

....
I wonder how those who think this sort of thing is OK would react to a phalanx of corporate CEOs coming out in support of mining in National Parks? Supporting Trumps' position on Muslim immigration?
...

Heres the thing, you can decide with your wallet who not to give your money and custom to and actively spend your days trying to convince others to do the same.

You dont get to assault the CEO because you dont like what he or she said.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

CE I was just reporting the facts.no comment.
But pie in the face is equivalent to murder?

More over-reach.

Do both you learned gentlemen seriously think I was equating a 'pie in the face' to 'murder' in degree of criminality? Seriously?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Heres the thing, you can decide with your wallet who not to give your money and custom to and actively spend your days trying to convince others to do the same.

You dont get to assault the CEO because you dont like what he or she said.

I've described what was done as assault, in posts above, so please don't lecture me on that point.

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

Well, two things. What is 'socially important' to some, isn't so important to others.
........

Yes, it does work both ways, but if someone here thinks its OK for Joyce to use his Qantas platform in support of gay marriage, then you'd have no problem in another CEO coming out in favour of any of the above issues. Right?

First point. That kind of rationale is dangerous.

Second point. Correct. And I wouldn't expect a pie in the face to be ok if they did.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Do both you learned gentlemen seriously think I was equating a 'pie in the face' to 'murder' in degree of criminality? Seriously?

I don't believe you think that, but re-read your post and you might see why we wondered at it. What was the purpose of the second sentence, having laid out the first?

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Do both you learned gentlemen seriously think I was equating a 'pie in the face' to 'murder' in degree of criminality? Seriously?

Then why put the 2 in the same post?
But here is the Steve Bracks pie in the face.Note his reaction and the non apology of the pie thrower-
[video=youtube_share;i74l5vjmWPY]https://youtu.be/i74l5vjmWPY[/video]

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I don't believe you think that, but re-read your post and you might see why we wondered at it. What was the purpose of the second sentence, having laid out the first?

I thought it was pretty clear but my apologies if it wasn't.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Originally Posted by RooFlyer Well, two things. What is 'socially important' to some, isn't so important to others.
........

Yes, it does work both ways, but if someone here thinks its OK for Joyce to use his Qantas platform in support of gay marriage, then you'd have no problem in another CEO coming out in favour of any of the above issues. Right?

First point. That kind of rationale is dangerous.

Second point. Correct. And I wouldn't expect a pie in the face to be ok if they did.

Sorry? To say that not everyone has the same opinion on what is important socially is 'dangerous rationale'? Oh, good grief.

Second point. Neither would I - as I have opined above.

I think many people here would be really surprised on my attitude to gay marriage. Yet because I call out silly and exaggerated arguments, some conclusions are drawn.

When we have a pie in the face being called the definition of a hate crime, and mentioning that not everyone has the same opinion as to what is socially important is called dangerous rationale, its time to fold my tent (and to board my flight LAX-MEL).

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

No rooflyer. That isn't what I meant about social importance. (Can't quote as your post looked a bit weird to quote).

Rather - It's too easy to ignore real social injustice in this world by dismissing it as saying it isn't important (to me.) Which is quite likely unless you are directly impacted by it. But that never means you should ignore it.