• 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

Select what represents your view?

  • I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 41 39.4%
  • I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%
  • A&E had no right to suspend Phil.

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.

    Votes: 44 42.3%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%
  • It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.

    Votes: 13 12.5%
  • Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.

    Votes: 12 11.5%

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
The reality is that everyone is tolerant of bigotry, it just depends on their moral belief of whether or not that bigotry is justified. You demonstrate this wonderfully here. You demonstrate a clear cut intolerance of those that share a different opinion than yourself, as have others on this thread. However, you morally feel your bigotry is justified because you feel the target of your bigotry is morally bad...thus it justifies your bigotry to you.

Which is frankly no different than the staunch christians who justify their bigotry towards homosexuality. They too, just like you, base it off their own moral view and code and judge the situation based on that.

That's the funy thing when people throw out words like bigotry or discrimination or other such things as some kind of universal "bad" word. They're not inherently bad, it largely depends on the context and view point of the individual doing them and how they justify it in their own minds.

No, bigotry is not "demonstrably wrong"....your clear, unquestioned, indisputable bigotry on display currently that you've defended and proclaimed as just is a shining example of a contradiction between what you said above and what you've said earlier in this thread.

You are acting completely and utterly bigotted...and you've declared that bigotry to be completely okay because it's aimed at something you find to be "demonstrably wrong". Therefore showing that you DON'T believe bigotry, in and of itself, is demonstrably wrong.

Very intuitive to pick up the double standard. It's a common practice for extremists to justify their condemnation of something with the same methods, not noting the hypocrisy.
 
Of course the conservative/religious viewpoint "feels suppressed." A rampant persecution complex is a hallmark of modern American "conservatism."


Both sides like to condemn each other in some attempt to appear more righteous than the other.
 
You're on track with what it means and how it's being played out. But the Robertson's are representative of a conservative/religious view point that feels suppressed and afraid to speak out due to the politically charged nature of the issue. Some say it's pure social bigotry, while others believe it's only an expression about commending positive concepts. The less credence the opponents give to the comments the less effect they have.

Everyone is constrained by the consumer habits of all of us. And if someone says something, people are free to protest and not buy a product, the company will likely listen to consumer demand. It's not that one should be afraid to speak, but we should know that actions have consequences and if your job is tied to consumer demand and consumption, if you piss them off or make them uncomfortable than you may experience some negative repercussions.
 
You're on track with what it means and how it's being played out. But the Robertson's are representative of a conservative/religious view point that feels suppressed and afraid to speak out due to the politically charged nature of the issue. Some say it's pure social bigotry, while others believe it's only an expression about commending positive concepts. The less credence the opponents give to the comments the less effect they have.

Add to the mix a rejection of religious fundamentalism that feels important. Fundamentalists are looking less like entertaining loons and more like potential problems- Elmer Gantry meets the Order. True or not, the potential for religious nuts to turn violent is unsettling these days.
 
Everyone is constrained by the consumer habits of all of us. And if someone says something, people are free to protest and not buy a product, the company will likely listen to consumer demand. It's not that one should be afraid to speak, but we should know that actions have consequences and if your job is tied to consumer demand and consumption, if you piss them off or make them uncomfortable than you may experience some negative repercussions.

There seems to be a fairly equal amount of positive and negative feedback from Robertson's comments. It's not going to hurt his core base of supporters or overall level of comfortable wealth.

I'm not that surprised of what an intense response from both sides of the issue took on. The obvious part seems to be that 'he had a right to say it and A&E had a right to respond', though I am shocked with how many from the poll actually agree with what he said. I believed the conservative base supported his right to expression but necessarily the tone of his message.
 
There seems to be a fairly equal amount of positive and negative feedback from Robertson's comments. It's not going to hurt his core base of supporters or overall level of comfortable wealth.

I'm not that surprised of what an intense response from both sides of the issue took on. The obvious part seems to be that 'he had a right to say it and A&E had a right to respond', though I am shocked with how many from the poll actually agree with what he said. I believed the conservative base supported his right to expression but necessarily the tone of his message.

I'm a cynic, and as such, I think this was mostly a ploy to drum up controversy and viewership. A&E won't drop Robertson if it will cost them money.
 
Add to the mix a rejection of religious fundamentalism that feels important. Fundamentalists are looking less like entertaining loons and more like potential problems- Elmer Gantry meets the Order. True or not, the potential for religious nuts to turn violent is unsettling these days.

There's definitely a confusing of political points being more important than the humanity they're created to serve. Both sides seem to forget that underneath it all the priority is a peaceful form of social order and respect for the rule of law.

I'm a cynic, and as such, I think this was mostly a ploy to drum up controversy and viewership. A&E won't drop Robertson if it will cost them money.

I don't believe it was an organized corporate plot as much as a TV personality losing perspective. He doesn't seem to care as much about the show as espousing his fundamentalist views or didn't believe there would be much of a response.

I agree though that A&E won't drop him because they suspect that by next filming season in mid 2014 the whole thing will blow over.
 
Last edited:
What do you think Phil Robertson should have done different, if anything?

I say nothing. A&E knew what they were getting into when they got the Robertson family for their show. It wasn't like they got some San Francisco family and they said what Robertson said about homosexuality. I do agree with his comments regarding homosexuality. At the same time I think its hypocritical of those who were demanding that Martin Bashir be fired when they are defending Roberton's right to say what he said or vice versa. Also its stupid to worry about what someone said in a show when you do not watch that show and or not that show's target audience. If A&E wants to throw away money by essentially getting rid of their Duck Dynasty show then let them, I am sure someone else will pick them up.
 
What do you think Phil Robertson should have done different, if anything?

1) I don't give a **** about Duck Dynasty or reality TV in general because it's an oxymoron.

2) Disagree with what Phil Robertson said because it's moronic, agree he has the right to say it.

3) Also agree that Robertson has the right to deal with the consequences of his actions and A&E has the right to do whatever they want with him - if those comments were made in any other setting or at a normal workplace he'd face some kind of discipline. If those comments had been made about race or sex instead of homosexuality mostly everyone would be outraged. That being said DD is a ratings machine and I think he'll return to the show sooner rather than later. It's always about the money.
 
The reality is that everyone is tolerant of bigotry, it just depends on their moral belief of whether or not that bigotry is justified. You demonstrate this wonderfully here. You demonstrate a clear cut intolerance of those that share a different opinion than yourself, as have others on this thread. However, you morally feel your bigotry is justified because you feel the target of your bigotry is morally bad...thus it justifies your bigotry to you.

Which is frankly no different than the staunch christians who justify their bigotry towards homosexuality. They too, just like you, base it off their own moral view and code and judge the situation based on that.

That's the funy thing when people throw out words like bigotry or discrimination or other such things as some kind of universal "bad" word. They're not inherently bad, it largely depends on the context and view point of the individual doing them and how they justify it in their own minds.

There you go again, with your false equivalence. So, I can say "Niggers oughta be rounded up and put back on the plantation, like god wants them to be", and anyone who calls me an asshole is equivalently as bigotted as I am?
 
Last edited:
"Trying to force others to accept the correct view is never easy, but it is to right thing to do"

Based on the context in which you used it I would believe you'd be using the definition of either:

- coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence.

or

- make (someone) do something against their will.

Since the sentence wouldn't make sense if you were meaning "use strength or energy as an attribute of physical action" or "make a way through or into by physical strength"

Since YOU used the word and you seem to be acting as if the actual definitions aren't what you meant, perhaps YOU can provide what you meant by "force"?

I used the word in the same sense it was used in the article I was responding to. Accept it.
 
I say nothing. A&E knew what they were getting into when they got the Robertson family for their show. It wasn't like they got some San Francisco family and they said what Robertson said about homosexuality. I do agree with his comments regarding homosexuality. At the same time I think its hypocritical of those who were demanding that Martin Bashir be fired when they are defending Roberton's right to say what he said or vice versa. Also its stupid to worry about what someone said in a show when you do not watch that show and or not that show's target audience. If A&E wants to throw away money by essentially getting rid of their Duck Dynasty show then let them, I am sure someone else will pick them up.

I agree that Bashir didn't do anything much different but he was also dismissed. A&E most likely won't throw away the show over this incident.


1) I don't give a **** about Duck Dynasty or reality TV in general because it's an oxymoron.

2) Disagree with what Phil Robertson said because it's moronic, agree he has the right to say it.

3) Also agree that Robertson has the right to deal with the consequences of his actions and A&E has the right to do whatever they want with him - if those comments were made in any other setting or at a normal workplace he'd face some kind of discipline. If those comments had been made about race or sex instead of homosexuality mostly everyone would be outraged. That being said DD is a ratings machine and I think he'll return to the show sooner rather than later. It's always about the money.

Pretty much agree with this statement, except I do watch some reality TV though not the Ducks.
 
There you go again, with your false equivalence. So, I can say "Niggers oughta be rounded up and put back on the plantation, like god wants them to be", and anyone who calls me an asshole is equivalently as bigotted as I am?

There you go again, creating strawmen and making assumptions.

Someone saying "Niggers oughta be rounded up and put back on the plantation, like god wants them to be" is being bigoted.

Soemone saying "People who believe Blacks should be rounded up and put on plantations because they believe god wants them there need to be forced out of existence in our society" is ALSO being bigoted.

The levels of bigotry, which you are talking about in this particular post, is entirely subjective based upon the individual and their own individual moral views. Additionally, whether or not the either individuals bigotry is "justified" bigotry or "reasonable" bigotry or "good" bigotry is also completely based upon the individual moral views of the person making such a judgement.

But yes, both people are absolutely acting bigoted. I'm sorry you want to have a hissy fit over someone actually using the definition of a word instead of just accepting your own biased, emotional based, attempted implied usage that is nothing but a clear cut attempt to excuse and rationalize your own bigotry to try and make it jive with your ridiculous black and white view that all bigotry = bad.

Now, do you want to discuss what I actually said or do you want to go after a straw man again?
 
I just don't understand why this is a thing.

It's some backwoods hick with the guns and beard to prove it, and anyone is surprised that he says ignorant and backward things?

It's just preposterous. He has the right to any opinion he likes, even if he is an offensive, uneducated idiot, and we all have the right to think he's such. Where is the scandal?
 
I just don't understand why this is a thing.

It's some backwoods hick with the guns and beard to prove it, and anyone is surprised that he says ignorant and backward things?

It's just preposterous. He has the right to any opinion he likes, even if he is an offensive, uneducated idiot, and we all have the right to think he's such. Where is the scandal?
Stereotype much?

Oh, we're not close-minded, are we? Not one bit. Never mind the fact that he was a top class athlete in college. Yes, college, not a one-room grade school. Never mind that he has patents to his name. Never mind that he has been a successful businessman apart from the television show. No, because he says things we don't like, and grooms himself in a manner we do not approve, he's an "uneducated idiot".

Spare me. :roll:
 
What do you think Phil Robertson should have done different, if anything?

Maybe I grew up deep in the Bible Belt. I see nothing shocking about Phil's position. I also see nothing shocking about an organization firing somebody. :neutral:
 
Maybe I grew up deep in the Bible Belt. I see nothing shocking about Phil's position. I also see nothing shocking about an organization firing somebody. :neutral:

Would you say that you're not "shocked" easily or that you can't "see" because of misplaced eyeglasses? Because I find your whole statement shocking.... ;)
 
There you go again, creating strawmen and making assumptions.

Someone saying "Niggers oughta be rounded up and put back on the plantation, like god wants them to be" is being bigoted.

Soemone saying "People who believe Blacks should be rounded up and put on plantations because they believe god wants them there need to be forced out of existence in our society" is ALSO being bigoted.

The levels of bigotry, which you are talking about in this particular post, is entirely subjective based upon the individual and their own individual moral views. Additionally, whether or not the either individuals bigotry is "justified" bigotry or "reasonable" bigotry or "good" bigotry is also completely based upon the individual moral views of the person making such a judgement.

But yes, both people are absolutely acting bigoted. I'm sorry you want to have a hissy fit over someone actually using the definition of a word instead of just accepting your own biased, emotional based, attempted implied usage that is nothing but a clear cut attempt to excuse and rationalize your own bigotry to try and make it jive with your ridiculous black and white view that all bigotry = bad.

Now, do you want to discuss what I actually said or do you want to go after a straw man again?

And there you are, justifying supposed bigotry on the part of the people who would be offended at the racism I gave as an example, and yet denying that justification to me when I am offended at the homophobia shown by our modern day folks. Why is that?
 
Maybe I grew up deep in the Bible Belt. I see nothing shocking about Phil's position. I also see nothing shocking about an organization firing somebody. :neutral:

Nobody was fired. Phil was rumored to to have been "suspended" (for an indefinite time) and that set off media fireworks getting massive free publicity for the A&E Duck Dynasty Christmas marathon. A brilliant, huge, free advertising campaign for the benefit of A&E and the DD folks. They played GLAAD and the MSM beautifully.
 
Would you say that you're not "shocked" easily or that you can't "see" because of misplaced eyeglasses? Because I find your whole statement shocking.... ;)

'Duck Dynasty' star on hiatus for anti-gay comments

USA Today article said:
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

He goes on to say, "It seems like, to me," a woman "would be more desirable ...*That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

"I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

* “It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus.”

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:
'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.”

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.


I hope some waiting rooms, office magazines don't include the Jan issue of GQ. It's inappropriate and *shocking* subject material for certain ages.
 
'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.”

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.

It's a ludicrous, dismissive misrepresentation of what homosexuality is. The implication is that sexual orientation is simply a matter of holes. Which is blisteringly ignorant.
 
And there you are, justifying supposed bigotry on the part of the people who would be offended at the racism I gave as an example, and yet denying that justification to me when I am offended at the homophobia shown by our modern day folks. Why is that?

Look at you, again having issues with the definition of words you're using.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom