Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks

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

Page 5 of 10
  1. Syzygys

    Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The bottomline is, it isn't a moral issue, but a business one. Cracker barrel got the picture really fast, and backpedaled really fast, because they didn't want to anger their costumer base.

    The real loser here will be A & E, because if they are sticking to their guns, they will lose the show. The Robertsons will just move to another network, rename the show and keep going on. They had a TV show before DD, they will have one after that.

    They probably going to make a T-shirt saying: Duck off Atheists and Entertainers....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Syzygys, Dec 26, 2013
    #81

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syzygys

    Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Money talks, moral walks:

    "(Reuters) - Cable network A&E said on Friday it was bringing back family patriarch Phil Robertson to the hit reality show "Duck Dynasty" after fans protested his suspension over anti-gay remarks and big-name corporate sponsors stuck by the series."

    So the network backpedaled...
     
    Syzygys, Dec 28, 2013
    #82

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Who had Friday in the pool?
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #83

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru

    Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Well... that's just it. If we're going to crucify this person for saying this... then we need to crucify a host of others for doing the same; the WBC for spreading their hate and such. The Catholic Church for saying... well, pretty much the same thing this guy did. And the list goes on...

    It isn't that what he said was right... but at the same time, if we're going to throw a fit over what he said, ESPECIALLY knowing his background (because, come ON, it isn't like this kind of blunt force opinion is unexpected from someone like him!!!) we should do so equally and go after everyone else that is spouting such crap.

    That, or we could just accept that, oh no, this person has an opinion, and just let him have his opinion? *shrugs* Just seems like we're getting riled up over... well... an opinion, and one that I highly, highly doubt anyone is going to change, short of Christ himself coming down, kicking him in the balls, and saying "OI, you're wrong, fuggoff"
     
    Kittamaru, Dec 28, 2013
    #84
  8. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yep, no big deal. Just like denigrating a class of people for their particular beliefs (as delusional, ignorant, insane, superstitious, etc.). I guess the religious should not be so sensitive about being compared to the naive and psychopathic. Just a harmless, innocent opinion expressed through the megaphone of THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLETS. God forbid a single conservative view slip through. In a society that is just beginning to show vocal rejection of religious people for the first time in US history, should we take a moral stand against those who advance bigotry and intolerance? Should it not offend every human being that people are being actively bullied into groupthink ("Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)? I think it is time to take a stand against the rise of oligarchy.

    At issue was a warning from police and organizers that rules related to nudity and sexual behavior would be enforced more strictly than in past years. Police said anyone violating indecency laws in front of children could be charged with a felony.

    The warnings outraged some local activists, whose reactions swiftly echoed through gay-oriented social media nationwide.     - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/gay-pride-parade-debate-_n_3936596.html​

    So, are these activists promoting "indecency... in front of children"? If so, it seems Russia may not be so crazy after all. Give someone an inch...
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #85
  9. Capracus

    Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    If it walks like a duck…?

    So comrade Syne, what provocative displays of behavior at a gay pride parade do you find so egregious in regards to the welfare of children?
     
    Capracus, Dec 28, 2013
    #86
  10. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You know, I had been asking myself about your views on homosexuals and homosexuality for a few weeks now. And I think you just answered those questions.

    Lets have a look at your inch and your Conservative view of homosexuals, shall we?

    As we all know, Uganda recently pushed through legislation which could see homosexuals jailed for life for having homosexual sex and pretty much for simply being homosexual. Now, this ramp up in the legislation of homosexuals has been going on for several years in Uganda. Now, anyone with half a brain cell would see the laws in Uganda as being morally corrupt. At least one would hope so. A few years ago, the New York Times did an expose on American Christian Fundamentalists and their role in Uganda's new and increased hostility towards homosexuals and homosexuality. This was before the latest piece of legislation that disgusted the world, well most of the world. Clearly not Conservative Christians who are, you know, letting their Conservative views slip through. American Christian Conservatives at work:


    American fundamentalists operate in Africa both openly and covertly. They conduct public "crusades" to covert African Christians to their extremist views but also run a plethora of "charitable" projects operated "under the umbrella of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), which provides them with access to grant monies from various overseas agencies," according to "Globalizing the Culture Wars," a report by Political Research Associates (PRA). Because none of this is reported, PRA acknowledges that "it is difficult to quantify the exact amounts going to Africa," but all of it contributes to their influence.

    Churches in Africa have been lobbied by American fundamentalists to drop ties with mainstream Christian groups and promised funding if they do. PRA says that African leaders, especially "presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Sam Nujoma of Namibia have all used homosexuality to distract people from the issues facing their countries and churches by claiming that homosexuals are responsible for moral decay in Africa. They have linked homosexuality with child molestation, ritual child murder, corruption, opposition parties (in Uganda), pornography, and other social ills. Yet these same leaders are silent about human rights abuses and undemocratic tendencies in their countries." (Also see Zimbabwe: The Death of a Dream.)

    American fundamentalist Rev. Rick Warren, featured by President Obama at his inauguration, traveled to the region to meet with political leaders. His public message in Uganda was, "Homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right." Whether Warren cares to admit it or not, that statement expresses tacit approval of laws against LGBT people, because, by his theory, no violation of rights is involved.    ​


    Nor is it a human right.. My my. The damage of this push by American Christian Conservatives, you know, the very ones you are whining about being lambasted by the "LIBERAL MEDIA" for their constant obsession of where homosexuals stick their sexual bits, have been encouraging the Ugandans to wage a war on homosexuality in return for cash and other 'help'. The open hypocrisy of the Christian Conservatives is that in the US and in the West, they condemn such legislation, but at the same time, they are promising the countries who wage such wars on homosexuals money in exchange to do their bidding. While they cannot openly advocate the jailing and killing of homosexuals on Western soil, they will advocate for it on African soil. Talk about killing two birds with one stone.

    Back in 2012, the Ugandan Government were proposing a legislation, whereby homosexual acts would result in the death penalty and people would be able to report homosexuals to the police. The world reacted with disgust and diplomatic pressure was put on the Ugandan Government for letting their 'Conservative view slip through'. In fact, it slipped through so well, that at one point, a list of gay people was published and people were encouraged to "hang them".

    So where did this anti-homosexual sentiment come from in Uganda? How could it possibly have gotten so bad in such a short space of time? It goes back to 2010:

    Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

    The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

    For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

    [HR][/HR]

    One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.
    ​


    The article then goes on to explain that the organisers of the conference, where these 3 American Christian Conservatives spoke at, helped draft the legislation which asked for homosexuals to be hanged. One of the speakers even admitted to meeting with them to help draft it. You know, this is what happens when Christian Conservatives let their views slip through.

    Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.

    Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

    “Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”

    Despite such attacks, many gay men and lesbians here said things had been getting better for them before the bill, at least enough to hold news conferences and publicly advocate for their rights. Now they worry that the bill could encourage lynchings. Already, mobs beat people to death for infractions as minor as stealing shoes.

    “What these people have done is set the fire they can’t quench,” said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.     ​



    So you will excuse me if I do not take your whine about the hurt feelings of Christian Conservatives because people think they are delusional for believing in a great father figure in the sky. Because of their meddling, people are being lynched for being homosexual. So frankly, you can all stick your Conservative views where the sun don't shine.

    You bring up an interesting take. You took quotes out of that Huffington Post article, out of context, and appear to be portraying it as if homosexuals are promoting the committing indecent acts in front of children. Is this a reading comprehension issue on your part? Or are you so Conservative enough that this is the image you wish to portray? Much like your fellow Conservative shill who visited Uganda and encouraged legislation against homosexuals which could have seen them killed for being homosexual?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
    Bells, Dec 28, 2013
    #87
  11. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,780
    I do that already. I regularly take issue with homophobic comments made by Christians and the Catholic Church. Even my own conservative Catholic sister. And rest assured if some other biblethumper gets famous enough to spout his bigotry in the national media for all the world to hear, they will get the same treatment. So sure, why not expose bigotry EVERYWHERE it is expressed? Thanks for the reasonable suggestion.
     
    Magical Realist, Dec 28, 2013
    #88
  12. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,780
    I've been going to gay parades for about 10 years now. So what acts of indecency are activists promoting in front of children? Is it men holding hands? Transexuals dressed in sparkling ball gowns? Men in leather gear? This btw is a typical stunt performed by the homophobic right: accusing gay people of victimizing children. So what evidence do you have for these acts of indecency?
     
    Magical Realist, Dec 28, 2013
    #89
  13. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Robinson Crusoe?
     
    Captain Kremmen, Dec 28, 2013
    #90
  14. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The American Empire is crumbling.
    Signs of which.
    Bread for the Ducks and Circuses.
     
    Captain Kremmen, Dec 28, 2013
    #91
  15. Kittamaru

    Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Bells, I obviously cannot speak for all Christians... but honestly? One of the highest governing laws of Christianity, as given to us by God Himself, is to "Love Thy Neighbor"... not "Love Thy Neighbor So Long As He Or She Looks, Acts, and Thinks Like You"... not "Love Thy Neighbor But If They Are Different Then To Hell With Them"... just "Love Thy Neighbor"

    I don't know why so many supposed Christians think they have any right to judge others for being different... Christ alone sits at Gods right hand and THEY ALONE get to judge those who pass on from this world... we mere mortals cannot give or take away pardon or grace or blessing... we cannot absolve sin or avoid it. *shrugs* I don't know... it just blows my mind that people calling themselves "Christian" act so... well... UnChristian...
     
    Kittamaru, Dec 28, 2013
    #92
  16. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Without me, who will speak for the millions who know nothing about the show?
     
    Captain Kremmen, Dec 28, 2013
    #93
  17. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    The Marquis, Dec 28, 2013
    #94
  18. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The exact same excuse can be, and is, used to justify any other bigotry. If it looks like a pervert...
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

    At issue was a warning from police and organizers that rules related to nudity and sexual behavior would be enforced more strictly than in past years. Police said anyone violating indecency laws in front of children could be charged with a felony.

    The warnings outraged some local activists, whose reactions swiftly echoed through gay-oriented social media nationwide.     - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3936596.html​

    Wrong question. Why would any activists be outraged unless, by their own estimation, they expected "nudity and sexual behavior" that does indeed violate indecency laws?

    These are not capricious laws, made only to stifle gay activity. These are the standards that ALL people are held to in public, and existed before gay pride was an issue.

    The issue of flashing or indecent exposure can be traced back in the United States as early as the 1870s ...

    In most states of the United States, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct.     - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States​

    Are you saying that people should be allowed to "shock, arouse, or offend" children?
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #95
  19. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    ?? The conservative view he expressed (that homosexuality is similar to bestiality, that blacks were happier living under Jim Crow laws) came through loud and clear from the VAST MAJORITY OF LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLETS. They quoted him word for word. You can't get better exposure than that.

    We should - but he's probably just going to end up back on the air.

    I'm not being bullied into groupthink, If you feel you are, then your best option might be to make a decision to not be so easily swayed.

    Since this guy raised a controversial issue, one reported on by most major news outlets, looks like you have nothing to worry about with regards to groupthink.

    Now, do you think that the oligarchy should be allowed to apply enough "pressure to conform" to reinstate him over the network's objections?
     
    billvon, Dec 28, 2013
    #96
  20. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The network has already reinstated him. As I said before, I don't think this is the instance where liberals and those favoring gay rights want to hoist their petard upon. This is the kind of issue which created Rush Limbaugh. The nation doesn’t need more Rush Limbaughs. Going to war with a religion is usually not a good tactic.

    I think gay rights folks, of which I am one, are better served focusing on the merits of their cause and leave religion to others. Gay rights advocates have the high road and are going to eventually win this fight. It is just a matter of time as long as we stay on the high road. I think Martin Luther and Gandhi taught us that.
     
    joepistole, Dec 28, 2013
    #97
  21. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Maybe you would be better off just asking me directly, instead of making so many erroneous and obvious biased assumptions. Here, let me alleviate your confusion.

    I am all for civil unions that offer homosexual couples equal rights and benefits under the law as heterosexual marriage. I am against a minority arbitrarily redefining what marriage has always been defined to be. Homosexuals can have equal rights without trying to force others to acknowledge, accept, or recognized their status in opposition to any existing beliefs.

    This protects the equality rights of homosexuals AND the basic human freedom to believe as we choose without any undue coercion. I am for protecting the rights of EVERYONE.

    Not my views. Hasty generalizations in an attempt to silence dissenting voices through intimidation, i.e. hoping that epithets such as "homophobe", "bigot", etc. will bully people into silence. Not all conservatives are Christian and not all Christians share the views you are, here, using to stereotype them all. Can you really not see the hypocrisy in fighting against gay stereotypes with religious ones? Ultimately, this tactic only strengthens the resolve of the opposition, likely contributing to any "globalized culture war".

    Projective identification makes it likely that any opponent will take on some aspect of projected traits in response to projection. IOW, if you insist that all conservatives are homophobes, it is likely that their response will become more hostile to gays (simply due to the fact of be disparaged against) and you will inevitably take this as confirmation of your projection.

    Yes, many conservatives are antipathetic to gays, but to stereotype ALL conservatives as such only asks for more opposition than the cause would otherwise have. It is a self-defeating strategy, as witnessed by the vindication of Phil Robertson. Not only has he suffered no ill-consequence, his show received a huge amount of free publicity (which may have been the only real intent in suspending him in the first place) and become a lightning rod for the very views this thread sought to condemn.

    Oh, "THEY" are out to get you, huh? Hasty generalizations about a whole group are often used to justify prejudices against that group. Do you really think that ALL conservatives condone killing gays? If so, you are demonstrably delusional, as the acceptance of gays far outnumbers liberals, and necessarily includes many social conservatives.

    Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

    BTW, Uganda already disapproved of gays (largely unchanged since 2007). http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

    Chalk most of your post up to propaganda.

    If you think it is fair to characterize me as condoning killing gays then it is equally fair to characterize you as a potentially child-molesting pervert. How does that feel? Do you consider that a fair tactic in an ostensibly intellectual debate? Or do you consider that an ad hominem of the lowest order? Do you not see how your behavior tacitly condones the same behavior paid back in kind?

    Anyway, what context are you implying I missed? Why would the activists be outraged unless they, by their own estimation, thought that some expected behavior may violate indecency laws?
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #98
  22. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The issue of flashing or indecent exposure can be traced back in the United States as early as the 1870s ...

    In most states of the United States, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct.     - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States​

    I am guessing that Texas has indecency laws more in lines with "intent to shock, arouse, or offend", and anything other than the "normal" LGBT typically shown on TV (no doubt to promote public acceptance) would definitely seem to have that purpose. But I am curious. Why are LGBT not typically depicted as they appear in gay pride parades? Do buttless chaps not portray the image they desire? Why not? Does leather gear typically denote sexual fetishism, even among heterosexuals? Is it appropriate to expose children to any sort of sexual fetishism?

    Where is the line?
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #99
  23. Syne

    Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You miss the point. This is one instance, though the majority of views aired are typically quite liberal. And even here, it was used to propagate a liberal stereotype of their opposition.

    Seems you also missed the parody I was making of MR's post. If any opposing opinion is indiscriminately stereotyped as bigoted then it is being marginalized regardless of actual content (whether that opinion is of religion or gays).

    Sounds like you need to look up "oligarchy". Oligarchy is control by a minority which, whether we are talking about gays or liberals, is the case here. Conservative are still the largest ideological group in the US. Now obviously not all conservative agree with his views on homosexuality (as acceptance of gays is much larger than can be accounted for without conservative support), but most conservatives do agree with his right to both believe and speak as he does (as both are constitutional).
     
    Syne, Dec 28, 2013
    #100
Page 5 of 10

Share This Page