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 25 of 28 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 274

Thread: Duck Dynasty

  1. #241
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    BTW... my choice wasn't on the list:

    "I don't give a damn."

  2. #242
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    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.
    And will you start watching it then?

  3. #243
    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 joko104 View Post
    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.
    Yeah. I agree. This show was never intended to last forever. However, that survivor show sure has had a long run of things.

  4. #244
    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 joko104 View Post
    BTW... my choice wasn't on the list:

    "I don't give a damn."
    I think the last choice was intended to catch people in the "I don't give a damn" category.

  5. #245
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    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?



    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.
    You're right -- it is not explicitly stated that wearing mixed fabrics is an abomination, though it is mentioned more than once that is strictly forbidden, both in the quote you highlighted, and in Deuteronomy 22:11 “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

    But, fair enough, perhaps not an abomination per se, though the Bible goes to pains to express how bad wearing these fabrics together is. But there are other abominations (and this time, I'm very sure they're exactly that) that are just as ridiculous:

    Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:12


    All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:20


    But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:23


    Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth ... are an abomination. Leviticus 11:42


    Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 17:1


    As well as plenty others.

    I'll grant you that my specific example, of homosexuality being as much of a sin as wearing woollen and linen together, was incorrect -- but I am correct in saying that homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating a shrimp.

    Fair?

  6. #246
    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 vasuderatorrent View Post
    I disagree.

    Talking like a sissy and walking like a girl isn't sinful. Even sucking **** isn't sinful. The abomination that is referred to in the scripture is sodomy.

    There are 17 crimes mentioned in the Old Testament that were punishable by death. Ancient Israel rarely excuted people for these crimes. Laws written in this matter just tell us what Israel valued as a society.

    The Israeli religion or Yahweh Worship (not Judaism which came along later) held life in the highest esteem. In Israel custom and literature it was shameful for sperm to be disseminated in any place outside of a female vagina. This was a metaphorical symbol in their literature that held life to the highest level of importance. When blood left the body, extreme measures were taken to clean the situation because blood was a serious thing. Blood was the source of all life. Extreme measures were taken to avoid women on her period. She was releasing an egg from her body that was a potential life that would never be born. Israeli women mourned over their loss. Their period was a sad time. It was not a time to be celebrating the joys of sex.

    People love to hate the book of Leviticus but it is a metaphorical work of literature that holds life to the highest esteem. It holds death as a tragedy, a shame and something to be avoided. The Israeli tradition is something wonderful. Very few sodomites were executed in ancient Israel. There have probably been more sodomites executed in the short 237 years in the United States than all 5,700+ years of Israeli history.

    I wish people could appreciate the book of Leviticus. It is the richest book in the entire Bible but people get too easily offended by it. This book is highly misunderstood.

    vasuderatorrent
    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    I'll grant you that my specific example, of homosexuality being as much of a sin as wearing woollen and linen together, was incorrect -- but I am correct in saying that homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating a shrimp.
    You would be correct in saying eating shrimp and sodomy are both abominations. You would be incorrect in saying that both sodomy and eating shrimp were punishable by death.
    Last edited by vasuderatorrent; 12-26-13 at 06:16 PM.

  7. #247
    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
    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.



    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.
    I will only say I think it is amusing that you think you have corrected me, and that I have somehow become upset by that. I have just described to you how there is disagreement among lexicographers about the specific meaning of bigotry, and you have blithely gone on as if your chosen definition is the "correct" one, and that you have somehow "corrected" me by insisting upon it. I don't even think you have 'corrected' me in the first place, so I can assure you, I am not upset by it.

    As I said before (in different words): Common usage establishes word connotation, and your lack of inclusion of the word's implication of fairness ignores that common usage fact. Some definitions actually include the concept of fairness, and so move the connotation into the primary definition. Again, it is disingenuous to exclude this notion of fairness, whether that ultimately introduces subjectivity or not. I am not conceding that there is subjectivity within the notion of fairness, but even if it is there, word definitions are not invalidated by inclusion of such subjectivity. There are countless words whose definitions are such that determining what falls within their scope is a subjective excercise.

    You are an intelligent guy, and as a consequence, your pretensions combined with launching a pointless semantic attack here smack of intellectual dishonesty. I am not the one focusing on arguing about word definitions, here.

    This matter is not a one of semantics (so few really are), and it is ridiculous for you to make it so. The fact is that I obviously object to "Unfair intolerance of other's opinions" rather than merely "intolerance of other's opinions". It is irrelevant whether you want to use my definition for bigotry or your own, or who is right about the 'correct' definition. Furthermore, this really wasn't that hard to figure out at the get go. You could actually be focusing on whether fairness is indeed subjective or objective; and if subjective then how and when intolerance of other's opinions is justified (if ever). You could focus on that, because that is clearly where the meat of our disagreement actually lies. But, instead, you are too busy being semantically pedantic (in the worst sense of being 'narrow').

    This, in an apparent attempt to make me seem foolish? Hardly. I think it is backfiring on you.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  8. #248
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    You would be correct in saying eating shrimp and sodomy are both abominations. You would be incorrect in saying that both sodomy and eating shrimp were punishable by death.
    I don't need to say they're both punishable by death to be right: My original point was, don't go around hating homosexuality because you believe Scripture says it's abominable.

    If you do so, you're either A) Taking the Bible out of context and using it to fit your homophobic worldview, or B) An extremist who believes eating shrimp is a huge affront to God because the Bible says so.

    The person who believes this is thus either a homophobic liar, or an extremist.

    Both are bad.

  9. #249
    User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    04-17-16 @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    62

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    He should have done the same exact thing he said because it is his right and he is right.

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    And will you start watching it then?
    Interesting question.
    I watched the show for the first and only time just last week. I'm pretty sure it was a re-run. I got a few chuckles from watching uncle Si and the brothers were at times mildly amusing, but nothing there that I would go out of my way to watch.
    Perhaps if they got into the mechanics of what makes their duck calls better than anyone else's or the psychology of the ducks they hunt the show may have something that could pass as content. As it is though, what I saw was a family joking around without cause or purpose with a very low entertainment value. The goal of the episode I saw seemed to be to get out of cleaning up the warehouse, playing ping pong, taking the reluctant wives deer hunting and getting uncle Si new glasses. The rest of the show was Phil berating and belittling everyone he had contact with.
    To answer your question ...No... I'm sure I could do better than that.
    The Kardashians are about on the same entertainment par and I have only watched one full episode of that as well.
    Duck Dynasty seems to be just another, let's laugh at the stupid hillbillys, kind of a show, of which there are many these days, with the twist that these guys run a successful business and are wealthy... It's kind of like a modern version of the Beverly Hillbillys without the benefit of a decent screenplay, script or professionally trained actors.

Page 25 of 28 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •