View Poll Results: Select what represents your view?

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.

    5 3.62%
  • I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.

    54 39.13%
  • I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.

    41 29.71%
  • A&E had no right to suspend Phil.

    3 2.17%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.

    51 36.96%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.

    32 23.19%
  • It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.

    22 15.94%
  • Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.

    12 8.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 274

Thread: Duck Dynasty

  1. #231
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    So what the heck did this actor say for fame this time? The links only hint at anti gay remarks but what was it specifically?

    I need to know this before I vote.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  2. #232
    Banned Steve Ja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,092
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    What do you think Phil Robertson should have done different, if anything?
    If those are his views, then nothing. Also A&E was within its rights to suspend him for making the comments. This is not an attack on freedom of speech, it is saying you are free to say what you want, but if you say something that the company you work for finds offensive in a public setting, you can be terminated and it is perfectly legal for the company to do. Has anyone read his contract BTW? I'm sure there is some writing in there about watching what he says in interviews and such, because I'm fairly certain A&E was aware of his positions on the issues. I read that somewhere in another thread that they had prior knowledge

  3. #233
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz0hIno2lFg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eHLXtc8yM4

    Uh-huh. So it is the case that the actor speaks of his own opinion, why is this such a big issue?
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  4. #234
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,417

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck Ewer View Post
    "A hard assed prick"? Most people would call that an asshole and that is precisely why A&E wants to get rid of him. He detracts from the broader appeal of the show and creates unnecessary controversy.
    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.
    I don't disagree with your assessment of Phil, but I do disagree that the show will go on without him. Beyond any current contractual obligations, I mean. I believe the entire family would stand behind Phil and refuse to renew. Only possible exception might be Willie, as he's more money/publicity-oriented than the rest of them.

    If they do leave A&E, expect it to be picked up by another network... with Phil. Bottom line: There's money to be made in them there swamps!


    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    Uh-huh. So it is the case that the actor speaks of his own opinion, why is this such a big issue?
    Especially when he's always been honest regarding his opinions. Anybody who has been paying attention already knew his convictions. In fact, I believe that A&E would never have said a peep if not for the protest by the well-organized special interest group. Then, they had to do something to save face for themselves.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #235
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Especially when he's always been honest regarding his opinions. Anybody who has been paying attention already knew his convictions. In fact, I believe that A&E would never have said a peep if not for the protest by the well-organized special interest group. Then, they had to do something to save face for themselves.
    Right. So Tom Hanks suddenly made incorrect and anti-Albanian remarks. He practiced expressing his own opinion.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...-albanian.html

    Now I like the actor (Just watched Captain Philip or so) and I think he may have been misguided bad about history. I also think that this may be a temporary career move that may change after the movie ends and he gets payed in Israel.

    But do I freaking flood the forums with this and echo the worthless time that the media engages and calls "news" these days? No! I do not see how Robertson measures more than Hanks and thus opinions should be of more value to be practiced echoing around here.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  6. #236
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    You are getting awfully excited about our difference of opinion. Is your bigotry toward my bigotry toward Phil a justifiable bigotry or not?
    See, here's where you keep having your problem. you apparently refuse to pick up a dictionary and actually underestand the words you use.

    Here's what bigotry means:
    big•ot•rynoun, plural big•ot•ries.
    1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
    (SOURCE)
    You’re welcome to indicate what post of mine you’re stating suggests that I have an intolerance to your belief or opinion. Mind you, check the definition of intolerance before you do. Disagreement is synonymous with intolerance. I think you'll have a hard time though, because I've not suggested your bigotry towards Phil, or more to the point people who hold views like him, is "bad" or wrong. All I've done is suggest it is bigotry. It is you whose been claiming in this thread that bigotry is "demonstrably wrong", but I've been arguing against that the whole time. So me calling your views "bigotry" is not an indication of me calling your views "wrong" or "bad". But please, if you think I've been bigoted highlight the posts for me. It's very easy for me to point out the posts of yours on this thread that demonstrate why I say you've been engaging in bigotry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Trying to force others to accept the correct view is never easy, but it is to right thing to do.
    Note your support to FORCEFULLY change people’s views that you disagree with. That’s intolerance. You go a step beyond disagreement to actively encouraging force as a means of stopping that which you disagree with.

    Later you seem to revel in the fact that such “force” has been going on with views and beliefs you disagree with

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    It's been a long, slow slog to rip right and wrong out from under the auspices of religion, but slowly and relentlessly, reason is prevailing. Religion is being dragged, kicking and screaming the whole way, toward reasonable positions.
    You even proclaim your desire to “shame” those who hold views that disagree with yours

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I do, however, want to shame people who are bigoted.
    Just as “shaming” homosexuals for their actions or feelings is bigoted, so too is “Shaming” those whose beliefs or feelings you disagree with.

    That’s bigotry, plain and simple by its definition.

    If you can point me out which post of mine you thinks qualifies, I’ll be happy to look at it and if it’s bigoted then I’ll happily claim its bigoted…because unlike what you claimed, I don’t believe bigotry should “never be socially acceptable” or that it is “demonstrably wrong”.

    That’s been my point this whole time. Your POSTS counter act your argument. Your POSTS are chock full of bigotry but also chock full of attempts by you to JUSTIFY that bigotry as being demonstrably right. You claim that bigotry should never be socially acceptable, and then you proceed to advocate for social bigotry to be the norm.

    I, unlike you, have not weighed in with a stance that bigotry is uniformly “Good” or “Bad”. I, unlike you, have not weighed in claiming whether or not any particular persons bigotry is “justified” or not. I have not, despite your false claims to the contrary, made any such claims that one type of bigotry is worse, equivalent, or better than another.

    All I have said is that I disagree that bigotry is “demonstrably wrong” , that by the definition of the word your own views in this thread demonstrate bigotry, and that together together your actions in this thread counter the very argument you’ve tried to make.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    See, here's where you keep having your problem. you apparently refuse to pick up a dictionary and actually underestand the words you use.

    Here's what bigotry means:


    You’re welcome to indicate what post of mine you’re stating suggests that I have an intolerance to your belief or opinion. Mind you, check the definition of intolerance before you do. Disagreement is synonymous with intolerance. I think you'll have a hard time though, because I've not suggested your bigotry towards Phil, or more to the point people who hold views like him, is "bad" or wrong. All I've done is suggest it is bigotry. It is you whose been claiming in this thread that bigotry is "demonstrably wrong", but I've been arguing against that the whole time. So me calling your views "bigotry" is not an indication of me calling your views "wrong" or "bad". But please, if you think I've been bigoted highlight the posts for me. It's very easy for me to point out the posts of yours on this thread that demonstrate why I say you've been engaging in bigotry.



    Note your support to FORCEFULLY change people’s views that you disagree with. That’s intolerance. You go a step beyond disagreement to actively encouraging force as a means of stopping that which you disagree with.

    Later you seem to revel in the fact that such “force” has been going on with views and beliefs you disagree with



    You even proclaim your desire to “shame” those who hold views that disagree with yours



    Just as “shaming” homosexuals for their actions or feelings is bigoted, so too is “Shaming” those whose beliefs or feelings you disagree with.

    That’s bigotry, plain and simple by its definition.

    If you can point me out which post of mine you thinks qualifies, I’ll be happy to look at it and if it’s bigoted then I’ll happily claim its bigoted…because unlike what you claimed, I don’t believe bigotry should “never be socially acceptable” or that it is “demonstrably wrong”.

    That’s been my point this whole time. Your POSTS counter act your argument. Your POSTS are chock full of bigotry but also chock full of attempts by you to JUSTIFY that bigotry as being demonstrably right. You claim that bigotry should never be socially acceptable, and then you proceed to advocate for social bigotry to be the norm.

    I, unlike you, have not weighed in with a stance that bigotry is uniformly “Good” or “Bad”. I, unlike you, have not weighed in claiming whether or not any particular persons bigotry is “justified” or not. I have not, despite your false claims to the contrary, made any such claims that one type of bigotry is worse, equivalent, or better than another.

    All I have said is that I disagree that bigotry is “demonstrably wrong” , that by the definition of the word your own views in this thread demonstrate bigotry, and that together together your actions in this thread counter the very argument you’ve tried to make.

    See this is where you got yourself all in a lather, and completely unnecessarily. Not everyone agrees that the definition is quite as simple as your choice of source makes it out. Other sources add the notion of "unfairly" to the whole shebang, as in "unfairly intolerant". This definition has more common sense, in my view, since it is obviously how people actually use the word. Very few would agree to your manner of using the word in regard to racism. The only reason anyone would agree to your definition would be when they sympathise with the real bigots, and usually few do in the case of racists. There are a lot of disingenuous people flocking to your definition at the moment on account of Robertson, indeed. I think it displays ignorance of word connotation at best, and complete dishonesty at worst. Your chosen definition of bigotry treats all ideas equally, and that is just dumb in any regard.

    I am not being unfair to the dumbasses at duck dynasty, and thereby am not being bigoted. They deserve my intolerance because their intolerance is so very damaging (specifically in its unfairness), and mine is motivated to end theirs in the long term. Not in them personally, as they are unlikely to be persuaded, but in society in general.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  8. #238
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Other sources add the notion of "unfairly" to the whole shebang, as in "unfairly intolerant".
    All interjecting Fairness into the equation does is basically admit it's a subjective thing, as there is no universal notion of what is or isn't "fair" but rather that is again a personal judgement decision. There is no test for fairness, there is no method to determine hte "fairness" of an issue, it is an entirely subjective thing. It goes back to my point about you JUSTIFYING your bigotry, just like religious people JUSTIFY theirs. Do you believe that a heavily christian person proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin and rong believes they are being "unfair"? Absolutely not, it's entirely within the rules and standards of their belief, the society they likely exist within, and their own thoughts. YOU may find it unfair, but that brings us back to the subjective nature.

    Which is why even when adding that word into the definition it doesn't change my suggestion...you simply find your bigotry justified and thus it's okay, or in this case you find your bigotry "Fair".

    I'm sorry people correcting you makes you think they get themselves "in a lather", but it's really not much to get riled up about. People say stupid things, and misuse words routinely and they also often excuse their own actions when it suits them. Nothing to get "lathered up" over at all.

    Your chosen definition of bigotry treats all ideas equally, and that is just dumb in any regard.
    My chosen definition defines bigotry as bigotry. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form "treat" them in any fashion negatively or positively. It simply declares bigotry bigotry, i know...how HORRIBLE! If we treat bigotry as bigotry then we actually have to address the SUBJECT MATTER that's being said rather than just going "HAHA! BigotrY! I win!"

    Let me do something for the first time in this thread, despite you erroniously accusing me of it previously: I think the bigotry towards homosexuals is often far worse and far more eggregious than the bigotry shown towards those who are demonstrating that bigotry.

    That doesn't mean that either of those things AREN'T bigotry: they absolutely are. Your actions absolutely are an example of bigotry. But unlike you I don't dact like all bigotry is bad, and then proceed to ignore bigotry that I think is good and classify it as something else. Bigotry is bigotry. How it's JUDGED in terms of good or bad depends on the judging individuals subjective view of the situation.

    But please, continue to justify and excuse your bigotry while laughably acting like all bigotry is bad; it's transparent and truly begs the question of why you are seemingly so incapable of making the argument against bigotry you dislike that you have to rely singularly on emotionally villifying hte notion of bigotry while hypocritically ignoring your own.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    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 challenge your claim that mixing linens and cotton is an abomination. You have a strong argument. Why would you screw it up by saying something this stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leviticus 19
    1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

    2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.

    3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.

    4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God.

    5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will.

    6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.

    7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

    8 Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

    9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

    10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

    11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

    12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

    13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

    14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.

    15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

    16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the Lord.

    17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

    18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

    19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

    21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

    22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

    23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.

    24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal.

    25 And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.

    26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

    27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

    28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

    29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

    30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.

    31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.

    32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.

    33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

    34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

    35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

    36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

    37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.
    Show me where it refers to mixing fabric as an abomination or where mixing fabrics is punishable by death. You are not limited to using Chapter 19 of Leviticus. You are free to use any Biblical text. There was a reason that God gave them these restrictions. We can talk about that if you wish. However, if you refuse to admit that you lied either intentionally or through ignorance about mixing threads as being an abomination then I will refuse to talk to you because I'd be wasting my time talking to someone who doesn't want to be honest. I know Leviticus very well. If I lie about what the book of Leviticus says I will admit it. I just expect you to extend the same courtesy.

    You are free to argue with whether the Bible is dumb or not. You are not free to create scriptures in order to make the Bible appear dumber than it really is. You can't be a liar because that makes everything you say irrelevant. Don't be irrelevant. Instead just admit your bold face lies and tell us why you feel the necessity to lie when you already have a strong argument.
    Last edited by vasuderatorrent; 12-26-13 at 05:45 PM.

  10. #240
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    It's just one of endless cheaply made stupid reality shows with stupid people slogans for stupid people to watch. Such shows are a dime a dozen. Just cancel it and put another one in it's place. Hunting gators or running thru swamps, fixing cars or hunting deer, making candles or cakes or black powder rifles - doesn't matter. Just replace it with a small business that makes animal traps or fishing lures. Same thing. Most people who watch such "reality" shows won't notice the difference.

Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •