Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[Foxfyre]

Personal responsibility ? For what ? Phil did no wrong, even though you all are trying desperately to assign wrong to him. The GQ interviewer and possibly A&E are the ones who did wrong, so what is Phil the easier target in all of this maybe ? Oh yes that is it, and so I see now what is going on here, where as this is what you all were thinking when attacked Phil (he is the dumb hic eh?) instead of attacking the big dogs that stirred it all up, and so you go after what yall figured was the softer target instead. Got it now... Pathetic!

Did A&E and GQ force Phil to utter his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, murder and other grievous sins?

I am also a Southern Redneck of aprox. Mr. Robinson's age. I was more than a full grown adult before I knew of any church anywhere that didn't make that same comparison. He was merely stating his religious beliefs in answer to a question.

Well said.

And I feel compelled to keep correcting the assigned talking points here--not yours but those you quoted to respond to:

Phil Robertson did NOT compare homosexuality to bestiality, murder, and other grevious sins. In that interview he listed quite a few things that he believes the Bible considers to be sin. Homosexuality was among those things.

That is no different than me saying that I don't like jellied eels, boiled okra, or butter beans. When I say that, I am not comparing those things with each other.

 

[koshergrl]

I can think of no better way to control women than to encourage them to engage in extra marital sex, so they are burdened with children and dependent upon a progressive entitlement system that pays them to continue to have children with losers...all the while telling them it is their right to have irresponsible sex, and their duty to support statist government and abortion.

It all but guarantees they will never advance in life, that they won't get an education, and they will continue to faithfully vote the leftist ticket.

 

[Spoonman]

I can think of no better way to control women than to encourage them to engage in extra marital sex, so they are burdened with children and dependent upon a progressive entitlement system that pays them to continue to have children with losers...all the while telling them it is their right to have irresponsible sex, and their duty to support statist government and abortion.

It all but guarantees they will never advance in life, that they won't get an education, and they will continue to faithfully vote the leftist ticket.

and libs claim republicans don't respect womens rights and want them barefoot and pregnant. looks more like it is the other way around

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it is.

They want them barefoot, pregnant, and completely dependent upon the state.

 

[Spoonman]

Of course it is.

They want them barefoot, pregnant, and completely dependent upon the state.

welcome to the new company store - Barak Obama CEO. That is exactly where they are taking the country. beholding to the company store. with the company being the government.

 

[beagle9]

Did A&E and GQ force Phil to utter his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, murder and other grievous sins?

I am also a Southern Redneck of aprox. Mr. Robinson's age. I was more than a full grown adult before I knew of any church anywhere that didn't make that same comparison. He was merely stating his religious beliefs in answer to a question.

He was making a statement about all sexual sin.

Boo hoo for everyone. Their favorite depravity is a sin. Too bad, they should take it up with God, since God is the one who's going to judge them for it. Phil just stated a truth about the nature of sexual sin.

And don't forget (only after he was asked ).

 

[Foxfyre]

I am also a Southern Redneck of aprox. Mr. Robinson's age. I was more than a full grown adult before I knew of any church anywhere that didn't make that same comparison. He was merely stating his religious beliefs in answer to a question.

He was making a statement about all sexual sin.

Boo hoo for everyone. Their favorite depravity is a sin. Too bad, they should take it up with God, since God is the one who's going to judge them for it. Phil just stated a truth about the nature of sexual sin.

And don't forget (only after he was asked ).

But it is each of our right to our own beliefs is it not? Or should it not be?

Some here think there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
Some here think there should be some restrictions on abortion.
Some here think there should be a lot of restrictions on abortion.
Some here think that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape and incest.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal except in a medical emergency.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal.

How we vote on abortion can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate on that rages on. But who among us has never sinned? Who among us has the right to throw the first stone at the adultress? Who among us has a right to burn down the abortion clinic or the church that preaches against abortion? Who among us has the right to shut up another engaged in the debate on abortion or anything else?

And again, how we vote on gay rights can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate rages on. But who among us has the moral authority to dictate what somebody else can believe?

It is not a matter of free speech. It is not a constitutional or legal matter. And the OP is right that we are wrong when we try to make it that.

The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Back to reality here:
1. No one forced Robertson to do anything and no one silenced him and no one violated ANY of his rights.
That was Myth #1.
2. A & E can do whatever they want to as this has never been and never will be a free speech issue.
3. Just like I said Robertson is back at work. A & E never fired him
4. This is not and never has been anything to do with violating religious rights of anyone
5. Robertson can say what he wants to, always has, no one has ever stopped him and no one ever will. Accordingly, all this Christian victim nonsense is for show only.
6. Robertson has every right to claim homosexuality is the same as beastiality and his uninformed followers can believe what they want.
7. Duck Dynasty has every right to fabricate their TV show all they want to as most everything in the show is staged. Everyone knows that anyway so the Robertson family did nothing wrong playing make believe with their lives.
8. People can use religious beliefs in any way they want to without having to prove they are true. Happens all the time, this is Exhibit A of that.
9. People do not have religious freedom to say what they want to and seek protections from government for actions taken by the employers of those people. No where in the law is that in any shape or fashion.
10. People can and are disciplined for any speech, religious included, and employers have and should be able to do so and keep that right.

Everything else here is just nonsense made up from internet chit chat.

 

[Gadawg73]

He was making a statement about all sexual sin.

Boo hoo for everyone. Their favorite depravity is a sin. Too bad, they should take it up with God, since God is the one who's going to judge them for it. Phil just stated a truth about the nature of sexual sin.

And don't forget (only after he was asked ).

But it is each of our right to our own beliefs is it not? Or should it not be?

Some here think there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
Some here think there should be some restrictions on abortion.
Some here think there should be a lot of restrictions on abortion.
Some here think that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape and incest.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal except in a medical emergency.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal.

How we vote on abortion can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate on that rages on. But who among us has never sinned? Who among us has the right to throw the first stone at the adultress? Who among us has a right to burn down the abortion clinic or the church that preaches against abortion? Who among us has the right to shut up another engaged in the debate on abortion or anything else?

And again, how we vote on gay rights can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate rages on. But who among us has the moral authority to dictate what somebody else can believe?

It is not a matter of free speech. It is not a constitutional or legal matter. And the OP is right that we are wrong when we try to make it that.

The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions.

You do not have a right to not be offended if someone else disagrees with your thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions and beliefs.

 

[Dragonlady]

You do not have a right to not be offended if someone else disagrees with your thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions and beliefs.

Yeah, you do. If someone says that blacks shouldn't have equal rights to whites, I have the right to be offended. If someone says that women should be married off when they're 15 or 16, because by the time they're 20, it's too late, I have the right to be offended. And if one of my employees were to say this in a public forum, where my largely customers were able to read his comments, I have the right to fire him.

 

[beagle9]

Did A&E and GQ force Phil to utter his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, murder and other grievous sins?

I am also a Southern Redneck of aprox. Mr. Robinson's age. I was more than a full grown adult before I knew of any church anywhere that didn't make that same comparison. He was merely stating his religious beliefs in answer to a question.

Well said.

And I feel compelled to keep correcting the assigned talking points here--not yours but those you quoted to respond to:

Phil Robertson did NOT compare homosexuality to bestiality, murder, and other grevious sins. In that interview he listed quite a few things that he believes the Bible considers to be sin. Homosexuality was among those things.

That is no different than me saying that I don't like jellied eels, boiled okra, or butter beans. When I say that, I am not comparing those things with each other.

Right, and you would only say this if someone were to ask you such things or maybe you would just say them to your own family or friends outside of being asked. One usually ask his or her family, and their friends, and even their preacher in life many things, just to see what they think about certain things in life also. So What !

So it is that they are all different just as you spoke about in your illustration that was used above, and yes of course they are, and even though they are all different these things in which you speak, you can't seem to get yourself to agree with the taste of either one of them can you ?

Otherwise even though they are all known to be different, you find that you really don't agree with either of them or worse that they don't agree with you therefore gaining you a huge belly ache or headache afterwards. This usually happens as you keep trying something in which you just don't like or agree with, but you did it anyway just to make someone else happy by trying to agree with them.

Now you also may dislike one over another to a deeper degree, and you may let someone know that also, I mean if asked of you (or) you may just keep that one to yourself in life, unless it causes you or your family and friends problems somehow, then you may have to speak up, especially when someone is shoving something down your throat that you or your family and friends don't like.

So it all comes down to preferences in life, and individual choices in life, and if people don't want to know what you think, then they sure as hell better not ask you. And if they do ask you, and you feel compelled to lie, then you have lost your liberty and your freedoms in life as you have known them.

 

[Meathead]

You do not have a right to not be offended if someone else disagrees with your thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions and beliefs.

Yeah, you do. If someone says that blacks shouldn't have equal rights to whites, I have the right to be offended. If someone says that women should be married off when they're 15 or 16, because by the time they're 20, it's too late, I have the right to be offended. And if one of my employees were to say this in a public forum, where my largely customers were able to read his comments, I have the right to fire him.

You have the right to be offended, but you don't have the right not to be offended.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[beagle9]

You do not have a right to not be offended if someone else disagrees with your thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions and beliefs.

Yeah, you do. If someone says that blacks shouldn't have equal rights to whites, I have the right to be offended.

Yes offended maybe, but it's not for you to decide afterwards upon what is right and what is wrong for that person in their thinking or opinion as is given, and this by you trying to take action outside of what is law against that person because you are offended, especially when only an opinion was given when asked, and therefore no laws were broken.

If someone says that women should be married off when they're 15 or 16, because by the time they're 20, it's too late, I have the right to be offended.

So your offended because you may disagree, but who cares about it but you maybe ? See what I mean ? There may be hundreds of thousands who see it differently than you do, but I think you would want in such a case, and wildly from a minority stand point or view (to then control their minds in order to get what you think is the best results for you), now wouldn't you ?

And if one of my employees were to say this in a public forum, where largely my customers were able to read his comments, I have the right to fire him.

Not if you asked your employee in a public forum his or her thoughts on such matters, and you knew that it would draw controversy but did it anyway, then you are held liable by your devious actions in life, and especially if any harm were to come to the person you asked such things, and this as a result of what you had done to the person in which you had done such a thing too. Now do you see what I mean ?

This stuff is just to easy yall.

 

[Knightfall]

Back to reality here:
1. No one forced Robertson to do anything and no one silenced him and no one violated ANY of his rights.
That was Myth #1.
2. A & E can do whatever they want to as this has never been and never will be a free speech issue.
3. Just like I said Robertson is back at work. A & E never fired him
4. This is not and never has been anything to do with violating religious rights of anyone
5. Robertson can say what he wants to, always has, no one has ever stopped him and no one ever will. Accordingly, all this Christian victim nonsense is for show only.
6. Robertson has every right to claim homosexuality is the same as beastiality and his uninformed followers can believe what they want.
7. Duck Dynasty has every right to fabricate their TV show all they want to as most everything in the show is staged. Everyone knows that anyway so the Robertson family did nothing wrong playing make believe with their lives.
8. People can use religious beliefs in any way they want to without having to prove they are true. Happens all the time, this is Exhibit A of that.
9. People do not have religious freedom to say what they want to and seek protections from government for actions taken by the employers of those people. No where in the law is that in any shape or fashion.
10. People can and are disciplined for any speech, religious included, and employers have and should be able to do so and keep that right.

Everything else here is just nonsense made up from internet chit chat.

I agree with you on all but point six. He didn't say that beastialty was the same as homosexuality unless you mean that he identified them both as sins. If that is what you mean, then it would seem you are not representing the situation fairly.

A sin is just a moral error. To get perspective, let's take it out of the realm of the religious to remove any potential bias. Most atheists would probably agree that spitting your gum on the sidewalk is a moral error. Most atheists would also agree that cutting of your baby's head, scooping out the innards and using the baby head as a handbag would also be a moral error. However if an atheist held that both these things were morally wrong, nobody reasonable would say that the atheist believes spitting gum on the ground is the same as using a baby head as a handbag. Such a statement is misleading at best in this context, and it is equally misleading when applied to Phil Roberson's statements.

 

[9thIDdoc]

He was making a statement about all sexual sin.

Boo hoo for everyone. Their favorite depravity is a sin. Too bad, they should take it up with God, since God is the one who's going to judge them for it. Phil just stated a truth about the nature of sexual sin.

And don't forget (only after he was asked ).

But it is each of our right to our own beliefs is it not? Or should it not be?

Some here think there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
Some here think there should be some restrictions on abortion.
Some here think there should be a lot of restrictions on abortion.
Some here think that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape and incest.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal except in a medical emergency.
Some here think that abortion should never be legal.

How we vote on abortion can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate on that rages on. But who among us has never sinned? Who among us has the right to throw the first stone at the adultress? Who among us has a right to burn down the abortion clinic or the church that preaches against abortion? Who among us has the right to shut up another engaged in the debate on abortion or anything else?

And again, how we vote on gay rights can and does have some impact on others which is why the national debate rages on. But who among us has the moral authority to dictate what somebody else can believe?

It is not a matter of free speech. It is not a constitutional or legal matter. And the OP is right that we are wrong when we try to make it that.

The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions.

I agree completely except that I believe free speech and the law are in fact part of the issue because of the liable directed at the Robinsons. It is the same issue as trying to get someone fired because that person is gay when he is not.

 

[beagle9]

No comparison was made. Read below and educate yourself on the meaning of "comparison".


com·par·i·son
noun \kəm-ˈper-ə-sən, -ˈpa-rə-\

: the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different

: the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category

EasyBib

Full Definition of COMPARISON

1: the act or process of comparing: as

a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another

b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities <his faults seem minor by comparison>

2: identity of features : similarity <several points of comparison between the two>


3: the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation

One could say that a comparison was being made when the question was asked of Phil about these things, but it wasn't specific in what a complete comparison would be really, where as Phil just named sins as being in comparison to what he see's or knows sins to be in his understanding of these things, and so his opinion on the homosexual part of it was, is that according to the Bible it is also a sin just as well as all other sins are in which are spoken about in the book.

So it falls into the category of all sins in which the bible speaks about, but to what degree this specific sin is, wasn't asked nor was it answered.

Yes, so what he did not say was to what degree he thought the sin was, and this as in relation to the others he mentioned as sins in which he knows about in the Bible also.

Perfect name (beagle) for the pile you just left...everyone watch where you're walking...LOL

Childish.

 

[koshergrl]

Exactly.

No, he was not fired or even truly suspended. Therefore his rights weren't violated.

HOWEVER there were a LOT of people screaming that he should be, and that A&E had the right to do so.

Which of course would have been true discrimination.

And they said that he should have been fired BECAUSE he used HATE SPEECH...and the hate speech they said he used was SCRIPTURAL.

In other words, they pushed for the words of the bible to be deemed *illegal*.

That's where we come up against religious liberty. It's not what actually happened...it's what people SAID happened, and what they believed happened, and what they thought should happen.

 

[koshergrl]

One could say that a comparison was being made when the question was asked of Phil about these things, but it wasn't specific in what a complete comparison would be really, where as Phil just named sins as being in comparison to what he see's or knows sins to be in his understanding of these things, and so his opinion on the homosexual part of it was, is that according to the Bible it is also a sin just as well as all other sins are in which are spoken about in the book.

So it falls into the category of all sins in which the bible speaks about, but to what degree this specific sin is, wasn't asked nor was it answered.

Yes, so what he did not say was to what degree he thought the sin was, and this as in relation to the others he mentioned as sins in which he knows about in the Bible also.

Perfect name (beagle) for the pile you just left...everyone watch where you're walking...LOL

Childish.

Also a violation of the forum rules.
Report him.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions"

Exactly. Mr. Robinson had every right have his opinions without being maliciously liabled because of them.

 

[beagle9]

Perfect name (beagle) for the pile you just left...everyone watch where you're walking...LOL

Childish.

Also a violation of the forum rules.
Report him.

I got thick enough skin, but thanks anway.