Ohio Chatter DEV

GoPens

Manhattan Buckeye;1556461 wrote:1) If like that agrees, with you, that pretty much makes you wrong automatically.

2) Apparently you missed the at my message, but it is still correct. Nothing Robertson said was homophobic. What he said about Black people was far worse, but they don't get butthurt the way certain gay people do if you don't give them a cookie for preferring men's butts over women's ladyparts. There is a reason why GLAAD is backing off. They realize they overplayed their hand on this.

1. So now I'm wrong, like that is wrong, IWP is wrong...who died and left you the almighty to say who's right and wrong?

2. Whether or not you have a cute little smiley face on your post there is one thing that is 100% indisputable and in which I'm 100% correct. You are an elitist fucktard.

HitsRus

True, assuming that one accepts that the situation isn't as contrived as the show itself.

Some truth to that, too. "Suspended indefinitely", instead of terminated.....it's quite possible it is contrived.

Con_Alma

I Wear Pants;1556364 wrote:Do you hold the same views when WBC is protesting soldiers funerals? What if he wasn't religious but held the same views regarding blacks and gays or whoever? Would it be okay to criticize him then? Why do we give free passes to people holding opinions we think are assholeish/offensive/not-okay-in some way simply because "well it's their religion and we need to respect that". ....

I do so long as they don't disrupt the ability of the people who are practicing religion or their particular activity.

For example Louis Farrakhan called for gays to be beheaded and stoned in accordance with Islamic teaching. Such a position is disgusting to me but I won't take away his voice to spew such garbage.

Manhattan Buckeye

"1. So now I'm wrong, like that is wrong, IWP is wrong"

Yes he is, unless gays want everything handed to them they have to live life like the rest of us. Is that a problem?

SportsAndLady

MB doing his thing...nothing to see here, folks.

I do want to add...it's hilarious to me that MB can't have a discussion without name dropping someone "important" Makes him feel good about himself, I guess.

Heretic

jmog;1556300 wrote:Lol, yeah, you just failed on about half a dozen logical failures with that leap.

That's probably true. As a religious dude, you'd probably prefer to spin the actual way things were phrased in that chapter into a way where God looks like a great guy who cared about people in general, as opposed to the "OBEY OR FUCKING DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!" sort of guy he was throughout the Old Testament.

queencitybuckeye

Con_Alma;1556517 wrote:
For example Louis Farrakhan called for gays to be beheaded and stoned in accordance with Islamic teaching. Such a position is disgusting to me but I won't take away his voice to spew such garbage.

I'm not sure I wouldn't, that's starting to get REALLY close to the "yelling fire in the theatre" example always given.

Manhattan Buckeye

SportsAndLady;1556539 wrote:MB doing his thing...nothing to see here, folks.

I do want to add...it's hilarious to me that MB can't have a discussion without name dropping someone "important" Makes him feel good about himself, I guess.

There isn't. There are the three assholes...you, like that and has been that can't post on a thread without ruining it.

Back to the point, is there anything he said that was homophobic?

GoPens

Manhattan Buckeye;1556526 wrote:"1. So now I'm wrong, like that is wrong, IWP is wrong"

Yes he is, unless gays want everything handed to them they have to live life like the rest of us. Is that a problem?

Yes it is a problem because the government won't let gays marry and receive the same benefits of marriage as the "rest of us".

Is everything "them" vs. "us" with you? God, what a pompous ass.

Manhattan Buckeye

Well that is news to me. I'm pretty sure my father in law got married to his husband in Santa Cruz. They have full benefits in California and even some in Texas. But I will fight him over special rights, including the right to not be offended by anything. Fail!

GoPens

Until it is legal and recognized in all 50 states it certainly is not equal. Nice try but you fail again. Keep looking for more failed responses in the big, thick books in your library while smoking your pipe in your silk robe Mr. Elitist. What a tool.

Manhattan Buckeye

Then take it to the political board. There will be better discussions there.

I Wear Pants

Manhattan Buckeye;1556552 wrote:Well that is news to me. I'm pretty sure my father in law got married to his husband in Santa Cruz. They have full benefits in California and even some in Texas. But I will fight him over special rights, including the right to not be offended by anything. Fail!

When did basically saying "I think this Phil guy has some asshole opinions" turn into me wanting special rights? You seem to be the one wanting to grant Phil special rights that include the ability to broadcast his opinions on private TV networks.

I Wear Pants

Con_Alma;1556517 wrote:I do so long as they don't disrupt the ability of the people who are practicing religion or their particular activity.

For example Louis Farrakhan called for gays to be beheaded and stoned in accordance with Islamic teaching. Such a position is disgusting to me but I won't take away his voice to spew such garbage.

Of course not, he has a right to say stupid hateful bullshit. However he doesn't have a right to not be called an asshole for it or a right to a TV show on a private network.

ts1227

Cracker Barrel decided not to pull the Duck Dynasty shit from their shelves, as their entire clientele is god fearing white trash and they might as well have just gone out of business

isadore

Phil Robertson is a racist, homophobe

Josh Barro in Business Insider
Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:
<dir> <dir> Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. " I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
</dir> </dir> Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "A ll you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
<dir> <dir> Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: " Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
</dir> </dir> This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful , inasmuch as they are full of hate.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/defend-phil-robertson-heres-youre-001248300.html

Heretic

Manhattan Buckeye;1556563 wrote:Then take it to the political board. There will be better discussions there.

There are never good discussions there.

queencitybuckeye

ts1227;1556585 wrote:Cracker Barrel decided not to pull the Duck Dynasty shit from their shelves, as their entire clientele is god fearing white trash and they might as well have just gone out of business

I get why a company doesn't want to offend either side in one of these debates. Instead of making an announcement, Cracker Barrel should have just stopped stocking the merchandise. No one notices, no harm, no foul.

queencitybuckeye

Heretic;1556592 wrote:There are never good discussions there.

Of course there is. The exact same one over and over.

iclfan2

ts1227;1556585 wrote:Cracker Barrel decided not to pull the Duck Dynasty shit from their shelves, as their entire clientele is god fearing white trash and they might as well have just gone out of business

You're a moron.

queencitybuckeye;1556595 wrote:I get why a company doesn't want to offend either side in one of these debates. Instead of making an announcement, Cracker Barrel should have just stopped stocking the merchandise. No one notices, no harm, no foul.

Why would a Company stop selling merchandise they make a profit on, for a comment about gays that the Company probably also believe in? News Flash, no one cares about his comments business wise except A&E, and they are going to be sorry for doing so when the cast leaves. They should have simply issued a statement saying Phil's views do not reflect their channel, and they do not condone what he said, and been done with it. They are going to screw themselves with this indefinite suspension.

Tiernan

Cracker Barrel food is for fat white people who will deep fry anything. In other words, dese is Phil's people.

hang_loose

Was everything Phil Robertson said legal? I'm thinking it was.... His opinions & rights... just like everyone else has the right to their own opinions and rights. He stepped on a few "toes" in his comments but that's probably how he was raised. And it is a pain in the a$$ sometimes to bite your tongue to hold your opinions back (like everyone does on this site):RpS_razz::laugh:.

I've never heard of this guy or "Duck Dynasty" until this thread, but I will search for more info on him. But I do like his "straight to the point" vocab.

Con_Alma

I Wear Pants;1556571 wrote:Of course not, he has a right to say stupid hateful bullshit. However he doesn't have a right to not be called an asshole for it or a right to a TV show on a private network.

I don't suggest any of that isn't appropriate at all.

My response was that I don't object any of the idiots making claims in the name of religion.

Con_Alma

queencitybuckeye;1556595 wrote:I get why a company doesn't want to offend either side in one of these debates. Instead of making an announcement, Cracker Barrel should have just stopped stocking the merchandise. No one notices, no harm, no foul.

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer: When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores. And, we apologize for offending you.We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family."
"

O-Trap

Dear lord, this topic is overwhelming.

Kind of like any social media outlet since this whole thing came up. Nearly unbearable.

1. Phil, his family, and all of us can say what we want. He isn't being imprisoned, fined, or censored. He hasn't been thus far, and he won't be. All this "Stand with Phil" stuff is fine if its purpose is to pressure A&E into reversing their decision (as happened with Cracker Barrel).

2. If, however, it's being used as a platform to claim his first amendment rights are being infringed, then stop it. You're bastardizing the amendment, and you're attempting to limit the rights of businesses to conduct themselves as they best see fit. A&E did nothing wrong. I would have probably handled it the same way they did. Suspend him, wait to see the public reaction, and determine from that whether or not it's best to keep him around until it all blows over.

3. He didn't equate homosexuality with the other things mentioned in the same sentence. He said that's where any of several other immoral activities/behaviors start (I disagree, but right now, IDGAF). In essence, he referred to homosexual activity/lifestyle as a "gateway drug" of sorts, much like the argument has been made of marijuana in the past. The implication can easily be seen to suggest that he thinks homosexuality may NOT be on the same plane as the rest of what he mentioned, but that it leads to the "harder drugs" of immoral behavior. Again, whether he's right or wrong on that fact can be discussed, but it doesn't require that they be seen as equal in all aspects ... merely that they have at least one thing in common, which wasn't even mentioned on a scale.

If I say, "Bestiality, homosexual intercourse, analingus, group sex, heterosexual intercourse, masturbation, hand jobs, and even kissing are all examples of sexual activities," am I not comparing them on some level? Sure. Not in degree, and not in any sense OTHER than the fact that they are all sexual activities, to some degree.

He was comparing them in saying they were all "sin." Did he say they were all equally egregious? Did he say anything other than the fact that they all qualify as immoral? Did he make any specification as to whether or not they were sins of the same degree? No.

If two people do a math problem, and one has an incorrect answer that is 0.2 off of the correct answer while the other is off by 216, can I call them both incorrect, or do I have to specify that one is further from the correct answer than the other? Am I equating them? Only in the sense that they're both incorrect.

If we're looking at "sin" as an imperfect action, can one call two of them sin without implying that they are equally immoral? I should hope so.

4. Even the comment regarding black people alongside whom he worked being happy seems to have been grossly sensationalized. He seemed to say they were happy "despite their circumstances," implying that their circumstances were, indeed, not the motivations for them being happy. Can I be happy amid bad circumstances? Sure. Is it possible for my brother, friend, or acquaintance to voice that fact without implying that I was okay with my circumstances? I should hope so.

A little critical thinking would go a long way toward how a lot of people seem to react to things like this, and that applies to people who "stand with" either side (so much that they'll share something about it on Facebook ... such passion ... LOL).

Everyone, on all sides, just needs to calm the hell down. Without the show, the business will do just fine. I just recently saw their wine and cigar lines showing up everywhere. The cigars aren't half bad, and I'm willing to bet they've branded themselves well enough that these two ventures will do well in addition to Duck Commander's and Buck Commander's flagship products. I'm sure they want to stay on the air, but I sincerely doubt they'll have to alter their lifestyles much if they don't (except what pertains to filming itself).

And A&E will do just fine, either way, as well. They've been successful enough without the Duck people, so I don't think they'll need them. If they need to, I'm sure they'll come up with something else that will fill in at least reasonably.

Archive

Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?