- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reaction score
- 354
- Location
- Jordan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But over here you can try to murder us to please the lord and you will not be discriminated against, that would be cool no?
-
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!
'boycott a&e' facebook support page for phil robertson gets over 1m likes
- Thread starter Ahlevah
- Start date
But over here you can try to murder us to please the lord and you will not be discriminated against, that would be cool no?
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,914
- Reaction score
- 3,673
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Then here's some real data for you.
Walmart Sells Out of 'Duck Dynasty' Merch in Show of Support
So, you guys going after WallMart next? I think your side has already tried that. How has that worked out for you?
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,061
- Reaction score
- 5,128
- Location
- USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If I recall the entire statement, he compared, if you want to use that word, homosexuality, bestiality and even men sleeping around with different women and women sleeping around with different men. All are sins according to the bible, and all are comparable sins. So, it seems to me that the ones complaining really are complaining about what the bible says and his religious beliefs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:doh
Wrong.
And saying something is a sin, when it is, is not anti-gay.
It is factual.
And we know you are wrong. Get over it.
Doesn't matter what you think. It was a personal experience and can neither be stupid or ludicrous.
But your opinion about it is absurd.
And again.
Doesn't matter what you think. It was a personal experience and can neither be stupid or ludicrous.
But your opinion about it is absurd.
Who you think it is coming from is irrelevant. Support for him is overshadowing any gay supporters.
If it is based on false information as reported, they can not support what they did.
:lamo
Way out of scope. No one said any thing of the sort.
Wtf?
It is a religious belief that was handed down supposedly from G_d. I can proof that is what is believed.
He spoke about what was sinful under such belief.
The point is that you can not prove it untrue which means you can not say it is bigoted.
Especially as saying something is a sin is not a bigoted comment.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, it is not a fact. It is your belief that it is a sin. Also, it is not up to Phil Robertson to judge other people IMHO.
No, you are of the opinion that I am wrong, I do not think that at all. And I will not get over it.
You are right, it does not matter what I think except of course to me. Claiming what he did about blacks is very stupid and ludicrous. If someone did not see the suffering of the blacks in the South they were not trying very hard or were totally blind to the situation but claiming that the blacks in the US were happier before they got human rights is incredibly stupid.
No, and it does matter what you think? It is ludicrous if he claims that the singing blacks were happier before civil rightss and again, that is not only dumb but also very wrong.
Just because some dumb facebook action is getting a lot of likes does not mean support for him is overshadowing any gay supporters. According to a poll from Pew, 45% agree with Phil Robertson and 45% do not. So please don't say support for him is overshadowing any gay supporters because the "thinking it is a sin" is a draw at best.
60% said that homosexuality should be accepted by society.
Section 3: Religious Belief and Views of Homosexuality | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
I think what he said in GQ about both racial issues and gay issues is plenty enough for A&E to decide what they did, they too are free in their opinions and actions.
No, but it can be the consequence if A&E follows it's heart and stops filming new episodes with Phil Robertson.
No, it is his/your/some people's opinion that it is a sin based on what he/you/some people believe. You may see proof but I do not.
He spoke about his views about sin, even though it is not up to him to judge others.
I can perfectly think he that he has made bigoted statements, that it is also the opinion of a lot of other Americans does not change that.
You may think that I am bigoted, that is your right to do so but please don't expect me to agree with that because you will have to wait forever for that to happen.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,203
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Would it not be more effective to boycott Disney, owner of A&E.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 2,932
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Wal-Mart offers benefits for same-sex spouses, even if they live in a state where gay marriage is banned.Μολὼν λαβέ;1062695140 said:
Disney is a corporate juggernaut. I doubt the anti-gay side could make a dent. Also, Disney has already faced criticism from them for their longtime supporters of LGBT rights.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You are not paying attention.
Most likely it is on purpose.
It is a fact, that in the bible homosexuality is a sin and that info come s from G_d.
YOu can not change that.
Belief in that religion, and stating that it is a sin, does not make one a bigot
He was asked what he thought was sinful. Stating what is sinful is not passing judgement on anybody.
Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
You have no ****en clue to even speak such about his personal experience.
His personal experience can neither be stupid or ludicrous.
Those are your own biased, bigoted, ridiculous thoughts.
And again, you have no ****en clue to even speak such about his personal experience.
Wow! you limit your self to a facebook posting?
How absurd. It isn't just facebook, or the replies made at the published articles, or the drop in viewers, but the total combined.
The support for him is overshadowing any gay supporters.
No it isn't enough if it is based on false information as reported. They can not support what they did under such false pretense.
They just don't get to flip the script and say we didn't suspend you for this as we said, but it was actually for something else. :doh
That would put them even more into the wrong.
Holy ****!
Follows it heart?
If it was following any heart, it would be doing the right thing and not suspending him of a false allegation.
Not that a network has a heart to begin with.
Your inability to follow is ...
"It is a religious belief that was handed down supposedly from G_d. I can proof that is what is believed."
Which continues with the following.
He spoke about what was sinful under such belief.
The point is that you can not prove it untrue which means you can not say it is bigoted.
Especially as saying something is a sin is not a bigoted comment.
The point is that you can not prove it untrue which means you can not say it is bigoted.
Especially as saying something is a sin is not a bigoted comment.
Do you really not understand that?
Stating what are sins is not judging anybody.
Do you really not know the difference?
I would never expect a bigot to agree with me.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I am paying attention, I just disagree with you.
That some books writes that something is a sin is not my problem. That people believe in it is their right, my right is to not believe what is said in this book.
Just pointing to the bible and claiming it is gospel just because somebody believes in it is not my problem.
And yes, the statements he made (here and in the past and about racism) do make him having bigoted opinions. There is no law against that, but claiming someone cannot have bigoted opinions because his opinions are based on a book he beliefs in does not mean that he is not a bigot.
Pretty sure that proclaiming something is a sin is passing judgement on someone.
Well, you can repeat that until you are blue in the face but all you are doing is repeat yourself and all I am going to do is repeat myself. You are of the opinion that I am wrong and I am of the opinion that I am right. The problem is that you think your opinion is fact and my opinion is not factual and that is not correct IMHO.
I think it is time to agree to disagree that we will never see eye to eye on this issue.
Well, all I am saying is that he is either very unaware of reality (because it is proven that the reality of the blacks is incredibly different from his fantasy view of how happy blacks were singing in the fields etc.) or that he is looking at the plight of the black people in the Southern United States through rose colored glasses with really thick glasses.
You can find me bigoted but the only thing I find ridiculous and biased are his recollections about blacks in the South.
I am sorry, but:
I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. may be his personal experience but one would hope that in the decades after that he might have realized that this was not the reality of how blacks lived in the South.
They’re singing and happy. really? They were singing and thus happy. We know for a fact that blacks were not happy in the South. How out of touch with reality do you have to be to make such a comment.
I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Really? Do you think a lot of black people disrespected whites in front of other whites or to the face of other whites? They knew the consequences of disrespecting the whites in the South. In that day in age you were presumed guilty when you were black and virtually convicted when arrested. Again, he might remember it like that but his reality and the actual reality seem to be at odds with one another.
Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” Again, really? No blues in the good old South? Where do you think blues comes from.
Again, he might remember it like that but it is very very very much at odds with the plight of blacks in the Southern United States.
Yes, you have a very strong opinion but as said, only 45% agree with his statements to begin with. I also am of the opinion he is legally allowed to make his statement and to think it is a sin, but it is the right of A&E to disagree with that. It is also the right of A&E to act on their dislike of Robertson's words in GQ.
The support for him is not overshadowing any gay supporters because not even half of the US agrees with him that it is a sin.
You can have that opinion, A&E has another opinion and once again, you can repeat your opinion and I can repeat my opinion and it will lead to nothing.
I think agreeing to disagree is the most logical step forward IMHO.
It is the point of view of A&E that it cannot accept his comments in GQ than that is up to them and only them.
I follow you fine, I just disagree with you. It seems you are unwilling or unable to understand that.
Again, you have your opinion and I have mine.
Yeah, pretty sure you would say that but I know I am not a bigot. I just disagree with Robertson and am not afraid to voice that opinion.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,203
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Disney is a media company that probably does not want to get embroiled in a public dispute with a large segment of America. All they have to do is miss a quarterly earnings report by a couple of pennies and it will cost execs there to lose millions on their options.
How much deprivation would it be to buy one less Disney DVD or go to a movie.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 2,932
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Disney offers the same sex couples weddings at their resorts, and has gay-themed events and cruises and publicly supported the repeal of DOMA. They aren't afraid to be loud about their support. After all this large segment of America is a group that is primarily made up of people who are mostly 65+. Even in states like Alabama and Mississippi the youth whole-heatedly support letting LGBTs have rights and freedoms, and in ten years both states will become majorly supportive simply due to the passing on of their elders.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,203
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I am not sure that this is about whether what he said was right or wrong. More about does someone have the right to say it. I guess for me he would cross the line if what he said is interpreted as hate speech against any group. Might just be that the group that called for this went a bit overboard in their sensitivity.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,809
- Reaction score
- 5,129
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What the other guy said in Post #182.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,203
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
So you think it has more impact to boycott A&E?
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,809
- Reaction score
- 5,129
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Wait you are speaking in tongues. First you tut-tut the execs of A&E to do their duty to mammon, then claim a set of virtues trump money.
No reason to be confused here. The executives at A&E are supposed to be bound by their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to preserve and enhance the value of A&E. If they can do that by throwing their most successful program ever into the toilet then they've pulled off an amazing feat. The Robertsons, on the other hand, are under no such constraint, so, honestly, who has more to lose here? They guys who (are supposed to) value money, or the guys who value their religion and their family? I think the other Robertsons see that they have more to lose if they chuck Phil overboard.
Well, that's true, but I would be surprised if they don't fire or demote some people. Maybe not right away, but quietly over the next several months.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,809
- Reaction score
- 5,129
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A targeted boycott would probably be more effective, because, as the poster said, Disney's tentacles reach everywhere. A&E is where the conflict is centered.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,809
- Reaction score
- 5,129
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
On this topic again, does anyone recall the incident at NPR in which Juan Williams was summarily fired for saying on The O'Reilly Factor that he got nervous when he saw people in "Muslim garb" getting on an airplane? Ellen Weiss, the Peabody Award-winning journalist who fired Williams, was forced to resign within a couple of months even though she'd been with NPR for twenty-eight years. Meanwhile, Williams rose from the ashes and is now a full-time Fox analyst. Assuming Duck Dynasty is finished, I can see the Robertsons reinventing a show somewhere else.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Muslim garb makes me feel safer, they are never an issue on the plane
csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm curious, what difference does it make if their decision was a "moral one" or sheerly based on business? I happen to agree with you by the way, I think A&E was aware of his opinions and thought they could contain it (by editing parts out of the show they thought they viewers would find offensive). Do I think A&E would have fired him if he had made the comments on the show, comments that they could easily edit out?
Nope. They were doing what businesses do. Make money and without a doubt DD is a cash cow. I think A&E weighed the backlash of suspending him with doing nothing and thought it was in their best business interest to suspend him. I think they have a team of cracked spin doctors consulting on how to deal with this in a way that is best for them in light of the decision they made. Am I upset that their not being honest and are framing this in a way that creates a positive perception of them....Come on, please. Don't be naive.
Do I think A&E is a good wholesome company? Nope.
Do I think they may be guilty of hypocrisy, yup....
Does any of that have any bearing on how I feel about them suspending him, nope.
Let's say I had a special set of skills and found myself in the employ of a large Christian congregation. Something with national reach. Then let's say I spent my weekends creating anti-Christian videos on YouTube and they went viral and were suddenly being watched by millions. Would the Church refusing to employ me be considered censorship? Of course not. Would the church be lambasted for their decision to fire an atheist that worked for them, yup. Would other atheists whine and scream and kick and make false accusations? Yep. Does any of that really matter, nope. The church would be within it's rights, just like A&E was.
You have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to say whatever you want wherever you want without there sometimes being consequences. I applaud Phil, not for his comments, but having the courage to say what he thinks, even if I disagree with it. More power to him.
Was Phil's Free speech violated? Well unless someone has threatened to use force against him to make him stop saying what he wants to say and the threat comes from some entity that can make him stop, then I'd say no. He is still free to say whatever he wants, just not anywhere and everywhere he wants consequence free.
csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
All one has to do is consider who likes their decision and who dislikes it. Then create shows that appeal to that that agree with what they did. Obviously they've received a ton of free press and are being lauded by those in the LGBT community and those sympathetic to their cause.
Charlie Sheen is proof that you can do almost anything and find a target audience. There is more than one way to spin this and unless A&E's management is inept, they will come out of this just fine.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 72,228
- Reaction score
- 44,002
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Has the Cracker Barrel boycott begun? I'll be curious about its sales today. Cracker Barrel pulls 'Duck Dynasty' merchandise | Fox News
BMCM
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,052
- Reaction score
- 380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I read somewhere the other day that eight of the new episodes have already been shot. They will shoot more starting in March, that's when we'll see if Phil is still there.
