• 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.
By J ~ FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't​
:lamo

I came back to check to see if any new or relevant had been said.
Apparently not.
Just the same bs.

The facts have not changed and they have already proved your assertions wrong.
Your thinking otherwise is quite hilarious.




Fact: You were already told that they both being sins was not the comparison being discussed or the alleged comparison that has folks in an uproar.
You assumed and were wrong because of the assumption
He did not equate homosexuality to bestiality. Saying so is a lie. He made no such comparison.
He said they were sins. That is all.​



Just give it up.

Though I am right and you are wrong, neither of us is going to back down.

This isn't going anywhere. Just give it up.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
By J ~ FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't​
:lamo

I came back to check to see if any new or relevant had been said.
Apparently not.
Just the same bs.

The facts have not changed and they have already proved your assertions wrong.
Your thinking otherwise is quite hilarious.




Fact: You were already told that they both being sins was not the comparison being discussed or the alleged comparison that has folks in an uproar.
You assumed and were wrong because of the assumption
He did not equate homosexuality to bestiality. Saying so is a lie. He made no such comparison.
He said they were sins. That is all.​



Just give it up.

Though I am right and you are wrong, neither of us is going to back down.

This isn't going anywhere. Just give it up.
Click to expand...

FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't
 
By J ~ FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't​
:lamo
Like I said J. Give it up.
You are wrong and were shown to be wrong.

This isn't going to change and neither of us is going to change our positions.
Just give it up. This isn't going anywhere.
 
Excon said:
By J ~ FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't​
:lamo
Like I said J. Give it up.
You are wrong and were shown to be wrong.

This isn't going to change and neither of us is going to change our positions.
Just give it up. This isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't
 
Excon said:
:doh
Worship?
:lamo

You are dreaming.

I don't even watch the show. Never have.

Nor is there reason to change on this position.
He said nothing wrong.
You have to twist what has been said to come to such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
No need to twist. Phil showed his ignorance and bigotry quite clearly.
 
Mason66 said:
Why not say that because I bet that not one of them cares what you think, nor do they care what Phil Robertson thinks, who they probably didn't know until this.

Why are you so upset when they are not?
Click to expand...
Because I'm smart enough to know that what two or more consenting adults do that harms no one is not sin. Sin is a childish concept, and I'm stunned so many adults cling to it like they are still 12 freaking years old.
 
scatt said:
Bigotry?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. He can't get homosexuals off his mind. Thats just weird.

Why would any grown up be obsessed with what consenting adults do in private? Are you all freaked because some hetero couple is having oral sex--do you preach about it, does Phil?

He's either latently gay (very possible) or a bigot.
 
calamity said:
Not all Christians...just hose who like to hurl the word "sin" around while pointing their finger at a sexual orientation minority.
Click to expand...


So you like Christians that don't discuss what is actually in the Bible?


No it wasn't. But, spin away, Maestro.
Click to expand...


Pro-Tip: Your lack of an argument since that was posted is the give away.
 
jmotivator said:
So you like Christians that don't discuss what is actually in the Bible?
Click to expand...

I believe real Chrisitans would not call other people sinners. Just my opinions.


Pro-Tip: Your lack of an argument since that was posted is the give away.
Click to expand...
What's to argue? He said 15 and 16 year old girls make better wives than 20 year old ones. Thats just assinine.

You're the who put his credibility out there to defend that stupid comment. The rest of us just shake our heads at the stupidity of it.
 
calamity said:
Absolutely. He can't get homosexuals off his mind. Thats just weird.

Why would any grown up be obsessed with what consenting adults do in private? Are you all freaked because some hetero couple is having oral sex--do you preach about it, does Phil?

He's either latently gay (very possible) or a bigot.
Click to expand...

He was asked what is sinful, and responded. The truly obsessed with homosexuals are the ones that say you cannot reference something saying homosexuality is a sin.

As long as regulating what I can eat is also bigotry (which it is not), your argument makes no sense.
 
calamity said:
I believe real Chrisitans would not call other people sinners. Just my opinions.
Click to expand...

If I name a sin according to the Bible I can't help but call the people who engage in that act sinners according to the Bible. The difference is that in the case of Phil Robertson he named a litany of sins and admitted that he is a sinner like everyone else.

Anyway, when you decide to stop telling people you think they are wrong feel free to fault others for doing so.

What's to argue? He said 15 and 16 year old girls make better wives than 20 year old ones. Thats just assinine.
Click to expand...

No, your initial argument was that he was telling middle aged men to marry 15 and 16 year olds and you called it ephedopilia. You were wrong and you made the mistake of trying to fill in the gaps left by the shortened quote.

This isn't surprising since you also show a propensity to fill in your knowledge gaps of other people with wholly ignorant bullsh** straight from your imagination.

You're the who put his credibility out there to defend that stupid comment. The rest of us just shake our heads at the stupidity of it.
Click to expand...

I defend the comment against your ignorant and false characterizatiion of it. I already said I don't think 15 or 16 is a good age to get married, but your characterization of his comment as ephebophilia was over the top stupidity and needed to be challenged.
 
jmotivator said:
If I name a sin according to the Bible I can't help but call the people who engage in that act sinners according to the Bible. The difference is that in the case of Phil Robertson he named a litany of sins and admitted that he is a sinner like everyone else.

Anyway, when you decide to stop telling people you think they are wrong feel free to fault others for doing so.



No, your initial argument was that he was telling middle aged men to marry 15 and 16 year olds and you called it ephedopilia. You were wrong and you made the mistake of trying to fill in the gaps left by the shortened quote.

This isn't surprising since you also show a propensity to fill in your knowledge gaps of other people with wholly ignorant bullsh** straight from your imagination.



I defend the comment against your ignorant and false characterizatiion of it. I already said I don't think 15 or 16 is a good age to get married, but your characterization of his comment as ephebophilia was over the top stupidity and needed to be challenged.
Click to expand...
This post is such crap. Look. You either agree with Robertaon that marrying 15 and 16 year old girls is better than 20 year olds or not. Ok? Which is it?

You have no right to call others sinners. None. You can't hide behind your bible and point. It's cowardly.
 
jmotivator said:
If I name a sin according to the Bible I can't help but call the people who engage in that act sinners according to the Bible. The difference is that in the case of Phil Robertson he named a litany of sins and admitted that he is a sinner like everyone else.

Anyway, when you decide to stop telling people you think they are wrong feel free to fault others for doing so.



No, your initial argument was that he was telling middle aged men to marry 15 and 16 year olds and you called it ephedopilia. You were wrong and you made the mistake of trying to fill in the gaps left by the shortened quote.

This isn't surprising since you also show a propensity to fill in your knowledge gaps of other people with wholly ignorant bullsh** straight from your imagination.



I defend the comment against your ignorant and false characterizatiion of it. I already said I don't think 15 or 16 is a good age to get married, but your characterization of his comment as ephebophilia was over the top stupidity and needed to be challenged.
Click to expand...
You don't find it ironic that someone thi is marrying off minor children is OK but sex between consenting adults is a sin?

What century do you live in?
 
calamity said:
I believe real Chrisitans would not call other people sinners. Just my opinions.



What's to argue? He said 15 and 16 year old girls make better wives than 20 year old ones. Thats just assinine.

You're the who put his credibility out there to defend that stupid comment. The rest of us just shake our heads at the stupidity of it.
Click to expand...

And according to Phil your opinion "sucks"
 
calamity said:
You don't find it ironic that someone thi is marrying off minor children is OK but sex between consenting adults is a sin?

What century do you live in?
Click to expand...

You do realize that marrying off minors has just recently (like just in the 20th century) been considered a social taboo while homosexuality has always been?
 
Slyhunter said:
Keeping silent about my personal disgust and disapproval of gays is forcing me to deny who I am. I believe in telling the truth even if it hurts your feelings and even if it's in public.
Click to expand...

No problem. But if you get fired, or get nasty emails, or get someone telling you you're an idiot - you need to be willing to accept those consequences.

Say what you want; but accept consequences.
 
calamity said:
Absolutely. He can't get homosexuals off his mind. Thats just weird.

Why would any grown up be obsessed with what consenting adults do in private? Are you all freaked because some hetero couple is having oral sex--do you preach about it, does Phil?

He's either latently gay (very possible) or a bigot.
Click to expand...

Whose fault is that. They are on every network TV show mow. It is mandatory to have an interracial couple as well as at least on gay character on every show.

Even if you wanted to avoid gays, there is no way to if you turn on a TV.
 
Excon said:
Stop being silly.
No it wasn't.
He was not asked to compare anything. He was not asked to compare then to now, or then to the days of slavery or any other absurd thing you assert.

He was asked about his personal experience of a specific time period.


As was said, that is your assumption. I do not dispute that,

But that is not what was asked for.
Again. Provide the clause.
Click to expand...

Of course it did. Pre means before; therefore it can be nothing but a comparison.

You may want to read the second part again. You're selectively misunderstanding it.
 
Mason66 said:
Whose fault is that. They are on every network TV show mow.


It is mandatory to have an interracial couple as well as at least on gay character on every show.

Even if you wanted to avoid gays, there is no way to if you turn on a TV.
Click to expand...
Funny. Gays don't seem to cross my path much, unless we're talking about distant relatives of mine or the wife. Maybe it's because we don't watch TV much and rarely do anything except ride bikes and take our dog to the park.

My wife occasionally watches Real Housewives, and I hear a gay guy hosts that show. He is an obnoxious PITA, from what I can tell, but so is the show. I don't blame that on Gays...unless you blame Reality TV on them. Maybe that is why Phil is so obsessed with them.
 
calamity said:
My wife occasionally watches Real Housewives, and I hear a gay guy hosts that show. He is an obnoxious PITA, from what I can tell, but so is the show. I don't blame that on Gays...unless you blame Reality TV on them. Maybe that is why Phil is so obsessed with them.
Click to expand...

‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film

The producer and creator of the A&E show “Duck Dynasty” once starred in a dark, homoerotic indie film about the gay porn industry called “The Fluffer.”

BuzzFeed reported Friday that in 2001, Scott Gurney played a “gay-for-pay” meth addict who acts in erotic videos. The film premiered that year at the Toronto Film Festival.

“The Fluffer” revolved around the destructive relationship between Gurney’s character and a gay college student — played by Michael Cunio — employed to keep Gurney aroused on set during filming.

‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film | The Raw Story
 
winston53660 said:
‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film
Click to expand...
No ****?

The producer and creator of the A&E show “Duck Dynasty” once starred in a dark, homoerotic indie film about the gay porn industry called “The Fluffer.”

BuzzFeed reported Friday that in 2001, Scott Gurney played a “gay-for-pay” meth addict who acts in erotic videos. The film premiered that year at the Toronto Film Festival.

“The Fluffer” revolved around the destructive relationship between Gurney’s character and a gay college student — played by Michael Cunio — employed to keep Gurney aroused on set during filming.

‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film | The Raw Story
Click to expand...
Man, I sure could have gone through life without knowing that. :lol:
 
Excon said:
By J ~ FACTS:
no content was ignored by ME
no assumption were made by ME
no assertions were made by ME
YOUR two statements were factually wrong

As usual facts, links and definitions destroy your posts and prove them wrong

as always, I ASK AGAIN, if you disagree simply stay on topic, stay civil and post any facts/links/quotes you have that prove otherwise, you can't and you won't​
:lamo

I came back to check to see if any new or relevant had been said.
Apparently not.
Just the same bs.

The facts have not changed and they have already proved your assertions wrong.
Your thinking otherwise is quite hilarious.




Fact: You were already told that they both being sins was not the comparison being discussed or the alleged comparison that has folks in an uproar.
You assumed and were wrong because of the assumption
He did not equate homosexuality to bestiality. Saying so is a lie. He made no such comparison.
He said they were sins. That is all.​



Just give it up.

Though I am right and you are wrong, neither of us is going to back down.

This isn't going anywhere. Just give it up.
Click to expand...
Why don't you try actually quoting where he said what you claimed he said instead of constantly bickering back and forth about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom