• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Removable Mind said:
uh huh....so is the hypocrisy, racism and bigot that Phil Robertson expresses such sorrow for saying publicly...knowing full well that he said bigoted and racist comments in his GQ interview...because he is actually all of those things.
Click to expand...

[h=2]big·ot[/h] /ˈbɪg
thinsp.png
ət/ Show Spelled [big-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
t] Show IPA noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.




[h=2]rac·ist[/h] /ˈreɪ
thinsp.png
sɪst/ Show Spelled [rey-sist] Show IPA noun 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.





Nothing Phil Robertson falls into either of these categories.

Do you have anything else?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Mason66 said:
[h=2]big·ot[/h] /ˈbɪg
thinsp.png
ət/ Show Spelled [big-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
t] Show IPA noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.




[h=2]rac·ist[/h] /ˈreɪ
thinsp.png
sɪst/ Show Spelled [rey-sist] Show IPA noun 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.





Nothing Phil Robertson falls into either of these categories.

Do you have anything else?
Click to expand...

Mason...man, you believe what you will.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Removable Mind said:
Mason...nawwwwwwwwwwh....now your being silly. What are you...like 12?
Click to expand...

Your point is that a picture of the sons without beards make them Yuppies.

I don't have a beard so I must be a yuppie too.

Do you know what Yuppie means?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Removable Mind said:
Look, these guys...the Robertsons you see in the pictures that I posted...that is the genuine Robertsons. Don't accept it...that's up to you. You wanna believe that they Duck Dynasty look is the true Robertsons...go for it.
Click to expand...

Who are you to decide what is the real them and what is not.

How long ago were those pictures taken?

What is the point you are trying to make here?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

AGENT J said:
no bait but please feel free to continue to make up what ever you like :shrug:
but yes it is making a comparison, this fact will never change.

would you like proof that your post is 100% wrong and it is a comparison?
lets simply look at what you said and the definition of the word comparison.
you claim he simply stated they are sins right? sins being a singular definition of many things would in fact be a label or category of things.

now lets look at the definition of comparison.


Comparison
: the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category
Comparison - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the fact is it was and is a comparison no amount of opinion will change that fact.

Facts and links proof your statement wrong, your mistake.
Click to expand...
Your mistake.

You are late to the game.
First of all I already said he stated they were sins. I do not need to say that is the only comparison made.
Which is also not the dispute being discussed. Which I am sure you know, which would make your assertion of that which is not being argued, dishonest.
So get up to date or push on.

He did not make any direct comparison, as in equate, homosexual behavior to the behavior of bestiality.
Any such assertion of such a comparison is false and not in accord with the facts.
Which is what is being argued.
Which is not simply putting them in the same category of sin.

So it is you who are proven wrong in your assumption of what was being said, and you would also be wrong if you are asserting that he equated the two behaviors. Is that what you are asserting?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

jmotivator said:
It's her choice as to her calling in life. I'm not sure what level of education Kay Robertson achieved, but helping her husband run a $400 million business empire makes that point seem rater silly.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh, a 15-year old can make her own decisions. GOt it.

Oh, and on what planet are all the young girls who get married at 15 and 16 helping to run $400M business empires? . On that note though, is it OK for rich old men to marry 15-year olds?



Hah, you are sooooo stupid and hate filled. By your mind bogglingly idiotic interpretation of what an ephebophile means every teenager is an ephebophile. I mean seriously, why do you insist of making such idiotic statements? Step away from the keyboard. You are letting your hatred steer your brain into some astoundingly brainless attacks.

An ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to adolescent girls. An ephebophile remains perpetually attracted to adolescent girls. Marrying young and remaining sexually attracted to that one woman for her entire life is not ephebophilia.
Click to expand...
You are honestly arguing Phil meant 16 year old boys marrying 16 year old girls while he's lecturing to middle aged men?

Is spin to the point of being disingenuous a sin to Christians?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Mason66 said:
Really, you have replied to the same posts over and over again trying to convince calamity she is wrong. If she would just learn to read and comprehend, yes life would be much simpler.
Click to expand...
Really. There would just be something else that needed explaining.
Which may or may not be easy.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Lovebug said:
They should have pulled the Christmas marathon if they did not want to be associated with Phil. All damage is by their own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

A & E has distanced the network from his comments by suspending him. Keeping him in the show without penalty, would be a continuing association.

All the damage? There would be no damage but for the comments of Phil.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Gina said:
A & E has distanced the network from his comments by suspending him. Keeping him in the show without penalty, would be a continuing association.

All the damage? There would be no damage but for the comments of Phil.
Click to expand...

He is still in the show. He will be in the show in the next season.

If less viewers is the damage it is directly a result of A&E suspending him.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Removable Mind said:
Calamity...I've been following along with your posts. Phil Robertson is a bigot and racist. And he's all of the other things that you've described with regard to his religious fanaticism. If what Phil Robertson is claiming to represent his beliefs are based on tenet in his religion...and other within his religion aren't speaking out against his comments...then they are as bigoted and racist as he is.
Click to expand...
That's about as true as it gets.

And as I posted, the whole family imagine of being "swamp hicks" is a sham. The whole "cotton pickin -poor white trash" gig is a sham.

The REALITY SHOW isn't a reality...it's about a made up set of characters, which aren't in fact swamp hicks, that attract a lot of viewers, which makes the network a lot of money.

Phil pissed in his peanut butter. Now the network is pissed and rightfully so. The network pays a lot of money to the Robertson to pretend to be as they're portrayed on the show.
Click to expand...
yep...just like a lot of other "characters" whose projected images are designed to appeal to the Far Right.

Larry the Cable Guy

Before:
277_Dan_Whitney.jpg


after
Daniel+Whitney+2011+E+Television+Networks+HK2_t0dOMjSl.jpg
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Gina said:
A & E has distanced the network from his comments by suspending him. Keeping him in the show without penalty, would be a continuing association.

All the damage? There would be no damage but for the comments of Phil.
Click to expand...
A&E has had more negative backlash to their decision than positive. Glaad has had much too.

Do you honestly think A&E is not going to reverse itself on this like the Cracker Barrel did??
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Mason66 said:
These are the very important words you are ignoring "with my eyes"

You cannot call him a liar for what he saw or didn't see at 8 years of age.
Click to expand...

Uh, Phil not adjusting his thoughts from age-8 to include the reality of life as a Black person under Jim Crow, something I am sure was shown to him repeatedly during the 50 years since he was picking cotton as "white trash", sure is hard to explain away. No?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Excon said:
1.)Your mistake.
2.)You are late to the game.
3.) First of all I already said he stated they were sins. I do not need to say that is the only comparison made.
4.) hich is also not the dispute being discussed. Which I am sure you know, which would make your assertion of that which is not being argued, dishonest.
So get up to date or push on.
5.) He did not make any direct comparison, as in equate, homosexual behavior to the behavior of bestiality.
6.) Any such assertion of such a comparison is false and not in accord with the facts.
7.)Which is what is being argued.
8.) Which is not simply putting them in the same category of sin.

9.)So it is you who are proven wrong in your assumption of what was being said
10.), and you would also be wrong if you are asserting that he equated the two behaviors. Is that what you are asserting?
Click to expand...

your post changed nothing
your statment was and is still 100% factually wrong and you add a new 100% factually wrong statement in your quoted post above.

1.) nope the only mistake was yours and facts and links prove that
2.) meaningless to the accuracy of my statements and the proven wrong falsehood of yours.
3.) see #2
4.) see #2
5.) see #2
6.) see #2
7.) see #2
8.) see #2

9.) nothing i said was proven wrong, not one thing, nor did i make any assumptions what so ever that was you
10.) he did in fact equate them, again the definition of the word equate factually proves that
11.) no i was not i simply said he made a compassion between the two which he factually did but as you can see in 10 even though i didnt assert that he factually did equate them.

equate
: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable
Equate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

he did treat them, represent them and regard them as comparable sins

once again FACTS and a LINK prove your statement wrong, your mistake AGAIN

let me know when you have ANY FACTS at all even ONE fact that proves he did not make a compassion between them and equate them because the fact remains he did.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
That's about as true as it gets.


yep...just like a lot of other "characters" whose projected images are designed to appeal to the Far Right.

Larry the Cable Guy

Before:
277_Dan_Whitney.jpg


after
Daniel+Whitney+2011+E+Television+Networks+HK2_t0dOMjSl.jpg
Click to expand...

He also appeals to kids.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Uh, Phil not adjusting his thoughts from age-8 to include the reality of life as a Black person under Jim Crow, something I am sure was shown to him repeatedly during the 50 years since he was picking cotton as "white trash", sure is hard to explain away. No?
Click to expand...

He explained what he SAW. How can 50 years change what he SAW.

Is this a hard concept for you. Think back to when you were 8, did you see everything for how it was or how you understood it?

You can't take away his memories from him nor can you call him a liar for what he remembers.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

scatt said:
He is still in the show. He will be in the show in the next season.

If less viewers is the damage it is directly a result of A&E suspending him.
Click to expand...

Their concern is for their entire brand. If the network didn't suspend him, that is tacit endorsement of his comments and could cause a loss of overall viewership, to programs unrelated to Duck Dynasty. The loss of viewers to that show, would be limited since they have an audience and viewers will still tune in.

Again, none of this would be an issue if not for Phil.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Gina said:
Their concern is for their entire brand. If the network didn't suspend him, that is tacit endorsement of his comments and could cause a loss of overall viewership, to programs unrelated to Duck Dynasty. The loss of viewers to that show, would be limited since they have an audience and viewers will still tune in.

Again, none of this would be an issue if not for Phil.
Click to expand...


100% correct again and also not to mention, only A&E gets to decide what is damaging

if there ratings drop 80% they can still fill its damaging if people associate them with bigoted comments :shrug:

its all about what the contract says and what clause they are working off of
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Mason66 said:
He explained what he SAW. How can 50 years change what he SAW.

Is this a hard concept for you. Think back to when you were 8, did you see everything for how it was or how you understood it?

You can't take away his memories from him nor can you call him a liar for what he remembers.
Click to expand...
He didn't adjust his comments in any way to reflect even the remotest indication that what he saw was not reality. Instead he basically said that what he saw and heard was contrary to the reality, spinning it as if the reality was just liberal hogwash and that blacks, as far as he could see, were happy picking cotton and singing during Jim Crow.

It's crap. It's like a German Holocaust denier saying that from what he could see in his small village, the Jews were treated nicely.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Mason66 said:
He also appeals to kids.
Click to expand...
It's a clever schtick. Hats off to him
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

AGENT J said:
your post changed nothing
your statment was and is still 100% factually wrong and you add a new 100% factually wrong statement in your quoted post above.

1.) nope the only mistake was yours and facts and links prove that
2.) meaningless to the accuracy of my statements and the proven wrong falsehood of yours.
3.) see #2
4.) see #2
5.) see #2
6.) see #2
7.) see #2
8.) see #2

9.) nothing i said was proven wrong, not one thing, nor did i make any assumptions what so ever that was you
10.) he did in fact equate them, again the definition of the word equate factually proves that
11.) no i was not i simply said he made a compassion between the two which he factually did but as you can see in 10 even though i didnt assert that he factually did equate them.

equate
: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable
Equate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

he did treat them, represent them and regard them as comparable sins

once again FACTS and a LINK prove your statement wrong, your mistake AGAIN

let me know when you have ANY FACTS at all even ONE fact that proves he did not make a compassion between them and equate them because the fact remains he did.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Nothing I said was wrong, as I knew what was being argued. You showed you didn't know.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

AGENT J said:
he did treat them, represent them and regard them as comparable sins
Click to expand...

Are sins are comparable, because they are grouped together as being sins.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Uh-huh, a 15-year old can make her own decisions. GOt it.

Oh, and on what planet are all the young girls who get married at 15 and 16 helping to run $400M business empires?
Click to expand...

Who said all? We are discussing Phil Robertson here. But it isn't uncommon knowledge that married households make more money in general then unmarried households, and an intact family of any income strata is better off than one that isn't.

The whole absurd idea of marrying only after you have discovered yourself is in part leading to the instability of marriage, and certainly hasn't helped with the rise of single parent households:

1369941253973.jpg

Also, sorry, I should have been more clear: I am speaking to you from Earth. I sometimes forget you aren't from around here.

On that note though, is it OK for rich old men to marry 15-year olds?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is healthy, no. For one I think you would be getting into ephebophilia territory, but also raising children is a job for the young and vibrant. You need to be able to chase your gleefully laughing child around the house. Old men marrying young women lead to even older men raising children. Nothing about such a union would be as it should be.

You are honestly arguing Phil meant 16 year old boys marrying 16 year old girls while he's lecturing to middle aged men?

Is spin to the point of being disingenuous a sin to Christians?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, since Phil and his wife met when they were teenagers and that is what he was talking about.

You are simply engaging in projection here it seems.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Excon said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...
your are free to have the factually proven false opinion but facts and links prove your statements 100% wrong.
By all means though if you disagree simply feel free to post any facts or links that make your two false statements true, we'd love to read them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom