Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Magical Realist, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    I don't watch this show and have no intention of starting. Seems to me AE network has the total right to can someone with homophobic opinions. Oh yeah..freedom of speech. Yahoo.. Well there's consequences to that too. Just like Paula Dean's racists comments got her fired. America does not give a platform to hatred and bigotry anymore.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't watch it either.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. siledre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    487
    yea that freedom of speech thing, they should get rid of it, I mean, come on, one mans opinion of a subject is okay as long as it doesn't insult someone else's way of life. I'd like to add that if you take a side on an issue but fail to check the reason for it, you end up being just as ignorant as the person you have no tolerance for.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,370
    Nobody is violating this fool's freedom of speech. He has not been put in jail.

    OTOH, his employers have the right to fire him.
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    It's one of the amendments, you can't get rid of it.
    Next thing you'll want to stop people from shooting each other.
    Then where will America be?
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,603
    Not at all! Phil Robertson should say whatever he wants. A+E should fire whoever they want. See how that works?

    No, it's not "okay." If a 50 year old guy had the opinion that 50 year old men should have sex with 12 year old girls that would not be OK. However, he is free to say it. Their company is also free to fire him for it, and his friends are free to seek other friends. Again, see how that works?
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    I never had the opinion that this TV reality star's sex life is like bestiality or that his love for his wife is "just wrong". And I sure as hell wouldn't announce that on national TV if I did. Now who's the ignorant and intolerant one again?
     
  11. siledre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    487
    well if you had bothered to check it out, he didn't just come out and say it, it was a question by a magazine and he answered how he felt, he didn't say he hated gays but that's fine, people will only look for what they need to make a decision. I didn't say anyone was right or wrong in the decision of both parties, I'm more interested in the backlash about him saying his opinion and people being upset over it, his opinion only hurt his career, because A&E does have the right to can him but other than him and A&E, it's really nothing anyone needs to get this angry over.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well he didn't say homosexuality was like bestiality. He said they were both sins along with a few other sins like fortification. This really shouldn't be news. Christians have viewed homosexuality as sinful for thousands of years now. And I honestly don't think you can equate what Robertson said to what Dean said. Robertson was just voicing his Christian beliefs. It shouldn't be shocking or particularly upsetting. I didn't hear any hate in Robertson's commentary.

    Robertson has a TV show which pokes fun at the ignorance and simplistic thinking of rednecks. And we should really be surprised when Robertson makes comments like that? I don't think so. Everyone needs to calm down. This is a tempest in a tea pot. Liberals are not going to change thousands of years of Christian dogma by acting like fools. I don't agree with Robertson's statements. I think our puritan belief system causes much more harm than good. But I think a little tolerance is required here on both sides. And hopefully over time we can develop a much more tolerant society and won't get our panties in a wad over issues like homosexuality and premarital sex.
     
  13. siledre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    487
    oh, and I apologize for using the word ignorant in my post it wasn't necessarily aimed at you, it was more of trying to chide you into checking out what the facts of it were.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    Well yes he did. Here's what he said:

    "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph from there," Robertson, 67, said when asked what is sinful. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

    I drink fortified milk. Does that mean I'm goin to hell?

    The homophobic hatred found in the Bible and spread by Christianity is no better than racism. Not only does the Bible command the stoning of homosexuals but Paul talks about how the effeminate are going to hell. If you believe this way you are a bigot. Simple as that. Calling it a religious belief doesn't excuse it or make it more noble.

    Yeah, we should all just laugh at the lovable old bigot. Who cares if it offends 4% of the human race? What do they matter?


    There's only two sides to be on here: protolerance or probigotry. There really isn't an in-between here. And considering gay bashing is still the number 1 hatecrime in America, along with bullying of gay teens, do you really want to be on THAT side?
     
  15. siledre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    487
    you're a funny little human.
     
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I'm going to find a picture of Duck Dynasty.
    I bet it's got fat stupid people in bad clothes in it.


    Added later:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Not quite what I expected, but essentially I was right. They look like survivalists.
    That one third from left looks really stinky. I bet he hasn't changed his underwear for 30 years.
    The one one the left is an impressive specimen. Pure testosterone. Great face. Looks Biblical.
    If he's the one that's gone, the show is finished.
    They all look like people who would steal your car engine while you were at the supermarket.
    Where are the Ducks? Are they in Number two's pants?
    Something is making him squirm. Number four. Closet gay?
     
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I bet there's a really dim but cute woman in it called something like Maisie Lou.

    I'll look for a picture.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No. Off-track on that one.
     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    You were never on track. Your preconceived notions, and your stating/Posting of them, are a rut that you are in -no tracks there but your own foot prints.
     
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't have any pre-conceived notions.
    I've never seen the programme, and I don't know anything about it.
    I am probably the person in the world who knows the least about Duck Dynasty.

    If they aren't some kind of mechanics, I give up completely.
    They're one-time Bikers aren't they? I've got to be right about that at least.
    I could be completely wrong.
    Maybe they are Botany teachers.
    Are you a big fan of Duck Dynasty dmoe?
     
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Mr. Magical Realist, regardless of (or possibly because of/due to) your chosen choices of lifestyle/religious beliefs you should at least be able to use basic common sense when considering another persons honest feelings about any given subject.

    You fully expect (or is it demand?) that others practice basic common sense when considering your own statements, do you not?

    In the GQ article : - http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1 - (3 pages)

    The article states :
    Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:
    “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
    And also :
    “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

    He is then ASKED by the interviewer (page 2) :
    What, in your mind, is sinful?

    WHEN ASKED that, he replies :
    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

    Mr. Magical Realist, you have every right to your opinion, as does Mr. Robertson. He was honestly relating his thoughts, after being ASKED about them!

    Mr. Magical Realist, you could at least be just as honest in quoting his exact words, and the CONTEXT IN WHICH THOSE WORDS WERE SPOKEN - when you, WITHOUT BEING ASKED, voluntarily choose to attack/take umbrage at Mr. Robertson"s words.

    No, Mr. Magical Realist, there is, in actually, only THE side of basic common sense! Your volunteered statements/comments only exhibit a lack of realizing/perceiving THAT side.

    It is your own INTOLERANCE - it is your own BIGOTRY - it is your own lack of exhibiting THE side of basic common sense - that allows/causes/forces you to see it as bashing, bullying or a hate crime.

    Mr. Magical Realist, could not any one practicing/exhibiting THAT basic common sense, not possibly consider what you, Mr.Magical Realist, are doing/Posting as just bashing, bullying or a hate crime, in and of itself?

    Mr. Magical Realist, I'll use your own words, when I ask you : "do you really want to be on THAT side?"
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The interview was performed by a liberal media group who was trying to bait the guy so they could stab him in the back. Instead of lying for the liberals he told the truth. Since truth is poison to liberals it caused an uproar.

    The question i have is, why isn't it called hate speech when the speech is against religion, no matter how much hates back it up? And why is just saying words, even without malice or hate called hate speech? Is this dual standard a liberal tactic?

    Homosexual behavior is not natural since it is not self sustaining. It needs artificial means, like the dual standard within hate speech to sustain itself. With a level playing field the illusion would become obvious.

    In my opinion, the entire liberal movement is similar to Hollywood creating a star. It is all about programming public perception by manipulating subjectivity and prestige. One bad press is enough to burst such a bubble, since it is not real. The liberal dual standard is needed to inflate the bubble of illusion and to prevent others from walking around with safety pins. A level playing field will pop bubbles.

    This guy was being punished was an example of someone who dare challenge the dual standard. There was no hate in his speech, but the safety pin was shown and this created a defensive reaction since it could spoil a good illusion.

    Art often expresses life with some art anticipating the future. One form of art, that is popular, especially among the young people are zombies. These are mindless half alive creatures who feed off others. They appear due to virus or slogan memes; liberals. These zombies constantly chase the living and self reliant, who have to defend themselves agains the blood suckers. You can't reason with the zombies, since the zombies can't sustain themselves without victims. Liberalism is all about victims and parasites.

    Most young people who like zombie media, do not relate to the zombies but to the self reliant. This is the future expressing itself with the future hunting down the zombies instead of just trying to stay alive in a defensive mode. The Duck guy started to engage the zombies but they started to swarmed him driving him out back on the road.
     
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    No, Captain Kremmen, I am not a fan, of any size, of "Duck Dynasty".

    And, prior to you asking, I will tell you that your statements (quoted below) do seem to be somewhat contradictory! (capitalization added for emphasis)
    Captain Kremmen, are you somehow not aware/unsure of what a pre-conceived(sic) or preconceived notion actually is?
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Here's a photo of some old Bikers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think that the Ducks have some features in common with stereotypical bikers.
    The middle-class looking wives are a problem though.
    If they aren't bikers, my guessing is so bad, I'll have to give up.
    What are they then?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013

Share This Page