Rubbish. You were the one who quoted the rules. Abuse can only be abuse if you are the victim. Hardaker did not aim that comment at you, at his team mate, at a fan, at the tv, or anyone else except the opposition player who is not homosexual. Just hearing something can not be abuse of you. You saying you were affected by it, says more about you than the player saying it.

Abuse is abuse is abuse. Whether i am the victim or not.

The fact you argue so vehemently that Hardaker should be allowed to use homophobic slurs, and that no-one is allowed to criticise or be offended by it, says quite a lot about you. Nothing we didnt already know, but still quite a lot.

I want to know where you stand on other forms of abuse.

Evading questions because you can't answer them is an even worse debating technique.

The Definition of abuse is:

"Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person".

As said Hardaker aimed his comment at a player, that player is not homosexual, and at no time has he come out and said he was hurt by it. The only intention of Hardaker was to comment at that player.

I repeat, you were not a victim. You are completely irrelevant as far as the player is concerned. He did not intentionally in anyway look to harm you. So why do you feel abused by the comment?

I am not just arguing that Hardaker should be allowed to use those comments against a player who is not homosexual. My view is there is a right for all. Unless those comments are made to abuse someone because of who they are, then I do not see the problem, and nor should they be a problem. That is not homophobic, racist, or sexist. The point is not abusing someone.

I repeat.

"Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person".

That is what abuse is.

Why? its just simply whataboutery

You can repeat it. You will still be wrong.

According to the oxforddictionaries.com, there are three definitions of abuse (as a noun)

1.The improper use of something:

2.and violent treatment of a person or animal:

3.Insulting and offensive language:

according to the freedictionary. there are 5

1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or co language: verbal abuse.

according to dictionary.com

1.wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
2.harshly or coly insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
3.bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
4.a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
5.rape or sexual assault.

no mention of specific intent to harm specifically and only the listener.

Get a grip.

It's a combative sport, what do you want them to say each other?

People are are forgeting the context. this is rugby, the most physically testing of all (probably). One where they are competing and trying to hurt each other. If this stuff happened down at the queue for the post office eye lids would be raised. it's all about the context of the environment you are in.

Should be punished? How the hell are you going to police that?

This is where you further trip yourself up.

Who's to judge what offends? it's a subjective thing.

The example you gave works the other way round for me. I would be far more insulted if someone declared my toddler to be ugly over any insult someone could throw at me.

But, you say that from a position of privilege. As someone not a victim subjected to that form of discrimination and abuse.

You arent discriminated against for having an ugly child, people dont get beaten up or murdered for having ugly children. Ugly children's parents can get married, they can adopt, they can foster without discrimination. You dont have religious types telling you your ugly child is an affront to God and you will rot in hell because of it. You dont suffer the same injustices for having that ugly child.

They can say anything to each other other than to discriminate and abuse on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin, colour, gender or sexual preference. Its hardly a really long list and its not really a burden is it.

Those analogies are extreme are no-one would argue with them. As that is abuse in its purest form.

But back on topic in rugby terms, i dont see that occurring.

You missed my point. Worlds Apart was talking about outlawing slurs in general, on any topic. good luck policing that.

And yet we dont have any openly gay players. None at all. Or coaches.

The last time we did, he was abused by fans.

Maybe there are people who would like to be involved or more involved in our game but are put off because of the casual attitude to things like this.

Maybe the abuse and discrimination we see is a little more insidious, doesnt mean its not there.