I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.
I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.
I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.
A&E had no right to suspend Phil.
A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.
A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.
It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.
Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
'Duck Dynasty' star on hiatus for anti-gay comments
* “It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus.”Originally Posted by USA Today article
Which part is shocking? or were there other comments that aren't in this article? The Bible is believed to be 100% true word of God by a lot of people in the United States. Over 99% of the male population prefers a female's vagina to a male anus. I don't get it. How is this so shocking? Please point it out to me. Have you never met a fundamental Christian? If not, you must live in Oregon or something.
Last edited by vasuderatorrent; 12-25-13 at 02:34 PM.
I've made no suggesting what so ever that the bigotry of EITHER group is "right or reasonable". There was no "justification" in any way, shape, or form of your bigotry or other peoples bigotry. Both are bigotry. I suggested that ultimately each individual person acting like a bigot, and each individual that see's the bigotry, ultimately makes a personal decision whether or not they feel the bigotry is justified based on their own personal moral codes. But those individual justifications doesn't change the fact that both ARE bigotry.
You JUSTIFY your bigotry, which is your right.
People who claim homosexuality is a sin ALSO attempt to justify THEIR bigotry, which is their right.
Ultimately, each person viewing those acts of bigotry and hearing those justifications make their own personal choice whether or not the bigotry is indeed justified in their mind. But it doesn't change the fact that it IS bigotry.
Your bigotry may be "justified" bigotry, or "acceptable" bigotry, or "reasonable" bigotry, or "necessary" bigotry...but it's bigotry none the less.
Which was my point. You were trying to claim that bigotry, no matter it's form, is ALWAYS a bad thing. I was pointing out that your style of argument conflicts with your actual words, because you're demonstrating bigotry at the same time as you claim that it's always a bad thing.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
He may, in actuality, be an intelligent, well-educated and polite guy, but the character he portrays is certainly an uneducated idiot. How close those two persons are related, I couldn't say.
Anyway, whether he is or he isn't an idiot, I'll stand by the statement that believing homosexuality is a sin is idiotic. We can get into a theological debate, but you'll know if you've read the Bible, it's about as much of a sin as mixing your linens and your cottons, which is also an Abomination, capital A.
I'm not repentant at all that I think people who believe backwards, dogmatic religious doctrines are idiotic.
My objection to your post was in you relying too much on the blind stereotype, not any specific individual flaws he may or may not have. Having watched much of the show, my own personal opinion is that he is all I have mentioned... intelligent, thoughtful, etc... but he also something of a hard-ass prick. I think he is interesting from afar, in an intellectual observational sense, but I don't think I would like him in person.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
I believe that A&E have been planning on getting rid of the asshole for quite a while and that they used the G.Q. interview as the excuse more than the reason.
The brothers and uncle Si are generally pleasant people with and entertaining dry sense of humor. They tend to kid each other in a familiar loving way.
The asshole Phil however is a mean spirited antagonistic jerk who belittles and berates everyone he encounters within the story-line including his grand-kids, his brother, his sons and his wife.
The show will improve without him.