• 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 .
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.

You are getting awfully excited about our difference of opinion. Is your bigotry toward my bigotry toward Phil a justifiable bigotry or not?
 
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:

Come now, that's a bit unfair. The point of my post is that his entire character is based around being what everyone can agree is a laughable stereotype for a backwoods, uneducated hick. You really can not debate that the appeal of the show is watching people who embody that stereotype do stupid ****.

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.
 
Come now, that's a bit unfair. The point of my post is that his entire character is based around being what everyone can agree is a laughable stereotype for a backwoods, uneducated hick. You really can not debate that the appeal of the show is watching people who embody that stereotype do stupid ****.

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.
He does embody the stereotype to a point. He is also a perfect example of why stereotypes can be very dangerous and misleading, and why stereotypes should be employed with caution. He only fits the stereotype on the surface, for those who don't know him any better. Dig deeper than merely scratch the surface and he's a quite intelligent, thoughtful, and complex man.

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.
 
He does embody the stereotype to a point. He is also a perfect example of why stereotypes can be very dangerous and misleading, and why stereotypes should be employed with caution. He only fits the stereotype on the surface, for those who don't know him any better. Dig deeper than merely scratch the surface and he's a quite intelligent, thoughtful, and complex man.

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.
"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.
 
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.
 
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
 
"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!


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.
 
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/180549-tom-hanks-turned-anti-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.
 
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.

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

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?

Leviticus 19 said:
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:
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.
 
BTW... my choice wasn't on the list:

"I don't give a damn."
 
"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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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

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