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

• SportsAndLady

  

  isadore, lmao
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1555079 wrote:I will be glad to explain to you what Jim Crow and white hoods refer to you, since you obviously do not understand.

  Since those were staples of the Democrats, you should be the expert.
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1555084 wrote:Since those were staples of the Democrats, you should be the expert.

  gosh a ruddies then the Republican Party violating its founders principles invited the supporters of Jim Crow in. Nixon applying his Southern Strategy for racists, picked up Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and the most of the rest of the Southern white racists. And that includes Mr. Robertson
• I Wear Pants

  bases_loaded;1554902 wrote:So its ok to have an opinion...but only if it supports gays. Got it.
  
  You really have to spin hard to make this a big deal...which mainstream media will do. He is against gay marriage, doesn't understand why you would fuck in the ass when there's vagina out there, and in the end its not for him to judge because he believes were all judged in the end.

  You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction.
  
  Plus this dude didn't say the standard "I don't think gays should be able to marry because the Bible says so". He put being gay in the same category as bestiality, adultery, prostitution, greed, slander, alcoholism, and terrorism. Not exactly "just voicing his opinion".
  
  I don't watch the show, I don't really care what the dude says since it doesn't have any bearing on my life but I hate that people will go all "hurp derp what about the 1st Amendment" on something like this. The 1st Amendment protected him from the government stopping him from saying it or from punishing him for saying it. It doesn't protect him from people thinking he's wrong or an asshole or awesome or whatever they think nor does it protect him from losing his job.
  
  Edit: Didn't see that isadore is back, which side of the argument is he on? I'll take the opposite.
• bases_loaded

  

  Actually it is exactly that, him voicing his opinion.
• vdubb96

  

  I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote:You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction. .

  then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?
• I Wear Pants

  vdubb96;1555103 wrote:then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?

  Because they're marketed for their disagreements with certain segments and viewpoints and have a sort of "us against them" schtick. Apparently A&E or the Duck Dynasty showrunners don't want to go that route and that's perfectly fine. It would be fine if they did want to go that route as well. I disagree with what the dude says obviously and I like that the network would not want to be associated with his words. But I love that he's able to say it without fear of retribution and the network could continue to air him if they wanted to. Those choices aren't without consequence but they are free to make them which is great.
• I Wear Pants

  bases_loaded;1555101 wrote:Actually it is exactly that, him voicing his opinion.

  You really don't get why the two types of anti-gay statements I wrote down are very much different from each other?
  
  Yes it's his opinion. So would it be if he said any number of things on countless hot button issues. Some of those statements, especially with wording like the one he actually made would gain him the ire of sponsors, the public, and his network. Why are you so upset that people or his network take issue with what he said? Are they not allowed to disagree with him and are they forced to continue their business association with him?
• se-alum

  

  vdubb96;1555103 wrote:then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?

  Ratings. It all comes down to money, which is why you'll see Robertson back on DD after missing a few episodes.
• bases_loaded

  

  He was asked by GQ he answered. He didn't hold a press conference to bash queers. Only a librard would prefer a lie over a non PC opinion
• gut

  People absolutely have a right to their opinion about what he said and whatever actions they deem necessary or within their power. And I guarantee Phil Robertson doesn't care, either. I would guess he's probably pleased his comments have received so much attention.
• Sonofanump

  I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote: If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long.

  Bullshit. CNN or MSNBC would give you a contract extension.
• bases_loaded

  

  Jim Norton is killing it on twitter right now
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote:You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction.
  
  Plus this dude didn't say the standard "I don't think gays should be able to marry because the Bible says so". He put being gay in the same category as bestiality, adultery, prostitution, greed, slander, alcoholism, and terrorism. Not exactly "just voicing his opinion".
  
  I don't watch the show, I don't really care what the dude says since it doesn't have any bearing on my life but I hate that people will go all "hurp derp what about the 1st Amendment" on something like this. The 1st Amendment protected him from the government stopping him from saying it or from punishing him for saying it. It doesn't protect him from people thinking he's wrong or an asshole or awesome or whatever they think nor does it protect him from losing his job.

  I Wear Pants;1555109 wrote:You really don't get why the two types of anti-gay statements I wrote down are very much different from each other?

  Phil basically said, "a sin is a sin." Which is Biblical truth. There is no differentiation between sins.
  
  It was his opinion, and one that he is based on truth -- since he is a Christian and a Bible-believing person. So, in his mind (and millions of others'), his "opinion" is backed up by truth.
  
  And, I'll go on and say (as I did in the first page), Phil doesn't care if he's on A&E. I imagine the rest of the Robertson family doesn't care either. Will they lose some money, yes. But, money isn't what makes them. Their lives and well-being goes beyond what a show will bring them. They have far more cares in the world. They've said from the beginning that they'll be using the show as a means of "evangelizing." Phil will go on living his life. Heck, he even passed up on being a star football player...missing out on some television time won't concern him this time, just like he didn't (and doesn't) miss football.
• I Wear Pants

  bases_loaded;1555113 wrote:He was asked by GQ he answered. He didn't hold a press conference to bash queers. Only a librard would prefer a lie over a non PC opinion

  It's not that it's not PC it's that it calls gay people akin to terrorists. Hell it's even insulting to alcoholics. Just because Tiernan drinks a lot doesn't mean he should be lumped in with people that fuck animals.
  
  You just give him a free pass because he shares your viewpoint or because he angers people you hate. If someone on the other end of the political spectrum in television said something with similarly bad taste about say gun owners or something like that I'm sure there'd be a backlash from the segment of society that supports that issue. "owning a gun is a sin like murderer, drunkeness, terrorism, bestiality, and those that partake will have to answer for their sins". If I dunno a dude from The Big Bang Theory said that there would be a backlash and he'd deserve it.
  
  So great, you think this guy was honest about what he thinks. Good for him but apparently there's a bunch of people who think he stepped over the line and some of those people are his employers.
• bases_loaded

  

  Read OSHs first sentence above. Surprising someone as intellectual as yourself could miss the hick from Louisianas point.
• I Wear Pants

  bases_loaded;1555122 wrote:Read OSHs first sentence above. Surprising someone as intellectual as yourself could miss the hick from Louisianas point.

  “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”
  
  Whether you're talking in the Biblical context of lying to your mom about doing the laundry being equal to murdering a child or not he was still lumping in being gay with things like adultery and bestiality. You don't get a free pass because you say it's from the Bible. Stop being a coward and actually say it, don't just say negative things about something then cover it up with "but all sins are equal so who am I to judge". If that was actually the opinion you'd occasionally hear these type of people lump being gay in with not doing your chores or cheating on your homework. But you never see that, you see it listed with what people consider some of the more heinous offenses and that is not an accident. If you think gay people are icky or are as bad as terrorists than grow a pair and just say it.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555124 wrote:“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”
  
  Whether you're talking in the Biblical context of lying to your mom about doing the laundry being equal to murdering a child or not he was still lumping in being gay with things like adultery and bestiality. You don't get a free pass because you say it's from the Bible.

  Where did the whole interview start, and where did the editors decide to insert quotes into the article? We don't know the whole context of the conversation...or at least I don't.
  
  I know Phil said this:
  

  "Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine."

  "œDon'™t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers --” they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

  “I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

  "But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1555129 wrote:Where did the whole interview start, and where did the editors decide to insert quotes into the article? We don't know the whole context of the conversation...or at least I don't.
  
  I know Phil said this:

  Dude talks about greed being sin while shirts with his face on them are in every Walmart.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555130 wrote:Dude talks about greed being sin while shirts with his face on them are in every Walmart.

  What's your point?
  
  Is it possible to not be greedy yet still make money? Is it possible to be profitable and charitable?
  
  Or does making money always mean greed?
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1555131 wrote:What's your point?
  
  Is it possible to not be greedy yet still make money? Is it possible to be profitable and charitable?
  
  Or does making money always mean greed?

  There's plenty of organizations and people that are profitable and charitable at the same time and making money I don't think is inherently greedy. But like many things the Bible and I may have different definitions as to what greed is.
  
  The point being, many people are fine with gay people and don't think there's anything wrong with it. Why are people upset that these people might not like it when a dude talks about terrorists, bestiality, and adultery as being similarly sinful to being gay. (Yes, yes I'm aware you believe that all sins are equal but apparently there's a bunch of people who think that the 9/11 bombers did something worse than a dude kissing a dude).
  
  I don't get the surprise at the push back to his statements.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555133 wrote:There's plenty of organizations and people that are profitable and charitable at the same time and making money I don't think is inherently greedy. But like many things the Bible and I may have different definitions as to what greed is.
  
  The point being, many people are fine with gay people and don't think there's anything wrong with it. Why are people upset that these people might not like it when a dude talks about terrorists, bestiality, and adultery as being similarly sinful to being gay. (Yes, yes I'm aware you believe that all sins are equal but apparently there's a bunch of people who think that the 9/11 bombers did something worse than a dude kissing a dude).
  
  I don't get the surprise at the push back to his statements.

  I haven't heard one complaint about people saying Phil's comments are out of line because of his comparisons.
  
  Everything I've seen is criticizing Phil over his "anti-gay comments." And, in general, everything references his "vagina...man's anus..." comments.
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1555135 wrote:I haven't heard one complaint about people saying Phil's comments are out of line because of his comparisons.
  
  Everything I've seen is criticizing Phil over his "anti-gay comments." And, in general, everything references his "vagina...man's anus..." comments.

  See everything I've seen is more critical of the implication that gayness or the acceptance of gays leads to bestiality/acceptance of bestiality or adultery. It's a common arguing point for people who don't like gays or gay marriage or whatever and is an absurd slippery slope fallacy. Legalizing or accepting gay people doesn't make legalizing or accepting bestiality any more likely nor do the two things have anything to do with one another.
• se-alum

  

  OSH wrote:Phil basically said, "a sin is a sin." Which is Biblical truth. There is no differentiation between sins.

  This is a debatable philosophy. Though I consider myself Agnostic now, I grew up in the church. They claim that all sins are equal, however, Jesus also said punishment would be handed out with "many blows" or "a few blows", basically saying there is a level of sin that is worse than another. I do agree though, this was the point Robertson was making, that all sin is equal.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  Duck Dynasty is the Kardashians for poor people and hillbillies. Hope this helps.