Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 05/09/2006
Offline
6100 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013
First amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 photo newforumsig_zps5ec69817.png
Message 221 of 236 (143 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 01/27/2012
Offline
3436 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

Yes, Mr. Robertson does indeed have First Amendment rights. That means the Govt. can't throw him in jail, deny him a duck hunting license, or pull A&E's license to broadcast because of those comments.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no free speech in corporate America.

gta5 photo: GTAV banner gta5_banner.jpg
Message 222 of 236 (142 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/08/2009
Offline
4918 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

Winscar_Shinobi wrote:
It isnt. First amendment protect from goverment censorship.

People just think free speech means you can say whatever you want and not be reprimanded for it.

Well said.

 

It is amazing how many people believe that free speech means you can just say whatever you want without consequence.

Message 223 of 236 (139 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

Winscar_Shinobi wrote:
It isnt. First amendment protect from goverment censorship.

People just think free speech means you can say whatever you want and not be reprimanded for it.

Well said.

 

It is amazing how many people believe that free speech means you can just say whatever you want without consequence.


I agree with this viewpoint, but I still cannot see why people would defend the initial action taken by A&E. If it was a warning, it would have been no big deal. They do not understand that this was a man who honestly answered a question after being baited by a magazine. Or they do understand and are fine with a stupid punishment because his viewpoints do not coincide with theirs'


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 224 of 236 (135 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 05/09/2006
Offline
6100 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013
Morally speaking it was wrong to punish him for his statement because it was his opinion and he can have one. I may disagree with it but that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be allowed to have it.

Business has no time for morals. Its all about the money.

That being said leviticus says homosexuality is wrong as is shaving your beard and treating foreigners differently than you would a lifelong neighbor etc so I honestly just LOL. If youre gonna follow a religion follow it. Dont pick and choose what you follow/dont follow.

I personally believe that no organized religion is right but they all may have parts that are true and false. Just that no one knows what the truth is. Religion has caused wars and many horrible things but its also given people hope. So its much like a human. It does good and bad.

Except the westboro Baptist Church. I am quite sure whatever I say about them will get modded and possibly get me a warning so im just going to say No I dont like them. At. All.
 photo newforumsig_zps5ec69817.png
Message 225 of 236 (130 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[ Edited ]
Dec 31, 2013

Winscar_Shinobi wrote:
Morally speaking it was wrong to punish him for his statement because it was his opinion and he can have one. I may disagree with it but that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be allowed to have it.

Business has no time for morals. Its all about the money.

That being said leviticus says homosexuality is wrong as is shaving your beard and treating foreigners differently than you would a lifelong neighbor etc so I honestly just LOL. If youre gonna follow a religion follow it. Dont pick and choose what you follow/dont follow.

I personally believe that no organized religion is right but they all may have parts that are true and false. Just that no one knows what the truth is. Religion has caused wars and many horrible things but its also given people hope. So its much like a human. It does good and bad.

Except the westboro Baptist Church. I am quite sure whatever I say about them will get modded and possibly get me a warning so im just going to say No I dont like them. At. All.

The Old Testament has several types of law and you need to differentiate them. The difference between beards, eating pork, and sex with a man (it does not say homosexuality because that is an attraction...it talks about the sex) is the purpose. Beards and dietary laws are symbolic and ritual. They stress several different things (for example, not wearing clothing made of two fabrics is a reminder of keeping the Israelites from mixing their culture with the ones around them). Not allowing murder, theft, or sex with the same sex is under the moral law. That is something that is to continue regardless of progressive revelation revealed later on where Jesus says the ritual law is fulfilled (hence why Christians can eat pork or wear clothing of two fabrics). The moral law still stands. It would be something if Jesus fulfilling the law allowed murder! But he did not do that. The different laws have different purposes and must be looked at with the historical and theological context.

 

And I totally agree on the Westboro Baptists. They are terrible. 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 226 of 236 (120 Views)
Gaming Beast
Registered: 11/04/2012
Offline
1581 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

docshady wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

docshady wrote:

And remember kids, the only thing that trumps the moral decision is money and ratings!  Congrats A&E


Ah but which morals?   This is what I get a kick out of on this topic.

 

"Tolerance".   People want to say they are tolerant yet wont tolerate anyone whom disagrees with their position.   (you can apply this to the duck dynasty guy's comments about the gay people or you can apply this to people's reaction to his expression of religion, hence my "kick")

 

So is it tolerance if you silence someone's opinion because you feel it is intolerant of something you support?   Whoa watch out for hypocricy Smiley Tongue

 

 

 

 


Robertsons comments constitute hate speech.  Had he said that he simply doesn't agree with the LGBT lifestyle, that would have been fine, lots of people don't agree with it.  But he took it to another level and likened it to having sex with an animal which is where he went wrong.  

 

He took the gays and compared their lifestyle to a dirty and illegal act.  That was not needed.  There's a line in the sand between opinion and hate speech and Phil crossed it.  Any religion that considers this moral doesn't deserve me as a member of their church.  Religion needs to pull their heads out of their dark age **bleep** and realize that the world is changing, with or without them.  A&E's decision was based off ratings and money.

 

Would I be a hypocrite if it was 1939 and I support the Jews?  Would I be a hypocrite if it was the 50's and I supported the African Americans in the civil rights movement?  I would have been then but not now.  Hopefully we'll look back at this period of time 50 years from now and be glad that hate and intolerance such as demonstrated by Phil Robertson is a thing of the past just like him.


I assume you are referring to bestiality?

 

You should probably be aware that by your definition, you just committed "hate speech". Bestiality (or zoophilia, which is apparently the more accurate term) is actually perfectly legal in a (disturbingly) decent amount of states and merely a misdemeanors in most others. There is also no federal law that prohibits it. Yet you seem to be declaring zoophiles "dirty and illegal" despite the fact that the former is slander and the latter is inaccurate. Now, you condemn Robertson for "hate speech" against  gays, yet you okay with doing the same to those who engage in this activity. Is this "hate speech" okay so long as it is socially acceptable to hate on that group? 

 

Please don't think I'm advocating bestiality. In my opinion it is wrong and there should be a federal law against it. I write this only to illustrate a point. Where is the line drawn and who decides it? Deciding merely on the knee jerk reaction of the general public is dangerous as the public is often misinformed. In this case, I'd be willing to wager a large sum that most of the offended people have not read the entire article and have only read out out of context quotes if anything at all. We should also use caution when dealing with the group in question, as they can hardly be considered unbiased and may take things harder than the accused intended.

 

I think the solution lies in tolerance. Not the modern, tolerate everyone but the intolerant, tolerance, but actually, mind your own darn business, tolerance. By definition, in order to tolerate something, you must first not like/agree with it. In a situation like this one, where a man was asked his opinion and gave it honestly, I believe we must all practice a bit of this tolerance. When you get right down to it, Robertson wasn't actually advocating any sort of action that would be harmful to the LGBT community. He wasn't suggesting passing laws against them or putting them into death camps. He merely stated his opinion when solicited.


I see the point you are making, taker, you make some valid points but by your definition, GQ committed hate speech by reporting what Phil Robertson said.  And slander?  Really?  Find me one person out there who is a proud zoophiliist (is that even a word?  lol) and willing to sue me for slander for calling them dirty?  You are grasping at straws here.  Do they have zoophilia pride parades once a year?  Do they have zoophilia clubs in your town?  How can you compare the two?  And how in the holy green hell is zoophilia not illegal everywhere?

 

But we are way off track here, why?  I donno.

 

Tolerance is all fine and good but those who don't show it don't deserve it.  

doc shady signature
Message 227 of 236 (107 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

docshady wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

docshady wrote:

And remember kids, the only thing that trumps the moral decision is money and ratings!  Congrats A&E


Ah but which morals?   This is what I get a kick out of on this topic.

 

"Tolerance".   People want to say they are tolerant yet wont tolerate anyone whom disagrees with their position.   (you can apply this to the duck dynasty guy's comments about the gay people or you can apply this to people's reaction to his expression of religion, hence my "kick")

 

So is it tolerance if you silence someone's opinion because you feel it is intolerant of something you support?   Whoa watch out for hypocricy Smiley Tongue

 

 

 

 


Robertsons comments constitute hate speech.  Had he said that he simply doesn't agree with the LGBT lifestyle, that would have been fine, lots of people don't agree with it.  But he took it to another level and likened it to having sex with an animal which is where he went wrong.  

 

He took the gays and compared their lifestyle to a dirty and illegal act.  That was not needed.  There's a line in the sand between opinion and hate speech and Phil crossed it.  Any religion that considers this moral doesn't deserve me as a member of their church.  Religion needs to pull their heads out of their dark age **bleep** and realize that the world is changing, with or without them.  A&E's decision was based off ratings and money.

 

Would I be a hypocrite if it was 1939 and I support the Jews?  Would I be a hypocrite if it was the 50's and I supported the African Americans in the civil rights movement?  I would have been then but not now.  Hopefully we'll look back at this period of time 50 years from now and be glad that hate and intolerance such as demonstrated by Phil Robertson is a thing of the past just like him.


2 things

 

1)  He didn't compare it to beastiality.  He stated that performing gay sex is a sin and those whom do so will not get into the kingdom of heaven.  He stated gay sex, animal sex, unwed sex, and sex with multiple partners all as things around sex that will get you denied entry into the kingdom of heaven in his religion.     Re-read his comments without the spin.

 

2)  Your post, in itself, could be considered hate speech against beastiality as you are essentially saying it is "bad" by stating that his comparing being gay to that as hate speech.  You, in doing so, are not behaving any differently than Phil Robertson was.  

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

Message 228 of 236 (106 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[ Edited ]
Dec 31, 2013

Winscar_Shinobi wrote:
Morally speaking it was wrong to punish him for his statement because it was his opinion and he can have one. I may disagree with it but that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be allowed to have it.

Business has no time for morals. Its all about the money.

That being said leviticus says homosexuality is wrong as is shaving your beard and treating foreigners differently than you would a lifelong neighbor etc so I honestly just LOL. If youre gonna follow a religion follow it. Dont pick and choose what you follow/dont follow.

I personally believe that no organized religion is right but they all may have parts that are true and false. Just that no one knows what the truth is. Religion has caused wars and many horrible things but its also given people hope. So its much like a human. It does good and bad.

Except the westboro Baptist Church. I am quite sure whatever I say about them will get modded and possibly get me a warning so im just going to say No I dont like them. At. All.

I don't think it was morally wrong for them to punish him if he spoke out against their values.  It is A&Es right to express their dislike of his statements as much as it was his right to state them and A&E's customer's right to chime in on it too Smiley Wink.

 

Like you said it is about the money and A&E misread their base badly on this one, hence their reversal of the decision to suspend the man over it.  

 

And you also realize why I dont personally follow any religions I think.

 

Westboro Baptists.................can't type any of my opinion either for fear of being on a watchlist or getting a warning Smiley Very Happy

Message 229 of 236 (105 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/08/2009
Offline
4918 posts
 

Re: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Dec 31, 2013

docshady wrote:

I see the point you are making, taker, you make some valid points but by your definition, GQ committed hate speech by reporting what Phil Robertson said.  And slander?  Really?  Find me one person out there who is a proud zoophiliist (is that even a word?  lol) and willing to sue me for slander for calling them dirty?  You are grasping at straws here.  Do they have zoophilia pride parades once a year?  Do they have zoophilia clubs in your town?  How can you compare the two?  And how in the holy green hell is zoophilia not illegal everywhere?

 

But we are way off track here, why?  I donno.

 

Tolerance is all fine and good but those who don't show it don't deserve it.  


Actually, I believe we are right on point.
I'm am not going to debate the potential merits of zoophila. As I said, it was used only as an example of how easily this "hate speech" accusation can get out of hand.
Keep in mind that there are advocacy groups for almost everything these days and that includes zoophiles.
And as to comparing the LGBT community to Zoophiles, there are actually a decent amount of similarities. Both are considered immoral by many. Both have their form of sexual expression outlawed in many states. Both are fighting to have their way of life accepted by the mainstream. The main difference is that the LGBT community is larger, better organized and more generally accepted.
That is a paradox. If you do not tolerate the intolerant, then you yourself are intolerant of intolerance.
Message 230 of 236 (99 Views)