I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[Bluto]

God's punishing him because at least two of his sons are guilty of gluttony? Just a thought.

 

[IrishLax]

The attempt to make it into a free speech issue (see Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.) is a bigger spin, IMO.

Maybe. I think it's pretty equal. Everyone leveraging an opportunity to spin it the way that best suits their narrative/ratings.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Maybe. I think it's pretty equal. Everyone leveraging an opportunity to spin it the way that best suits their narrative/ratings.

Probably so.

An interesting comparison I just read...did Ted Cruz or others rip MSNBC for getting rid of Bashir after his comments about Palin (which were just rancid, by the way)? Free speech!

 

[IrishLax]

Sorry, but I think that's simply absurd. Much like there are dozens of felonies, there are dozens of sins. What you choose to put on the list is essentially an editorial comment. If I make a list of: terrorism, treason, espionage and securities fraud you don't think there is an editorial component to that? Are you kidding me?

What? I literally have no idea what you're saying, and per SAT scores I'm pretty darn good at reading comprehension...

It's really this simple. In the course of dialog, segueing from a discussion on his views on homosexuality, he's asked about other things he considers sinful. He then goes on to give a list of sins including sleeping around heterosexually that are related to sexual indiscretion. But he makes no attempt to equate, compare, or contrast. You cannot logically infer that because he left necrophilia off the list he is OK with that. Similarly, you cannot infer that he views homosexual behavior == bestiality == heterosexual infidelity, or any sort of hierarchy.

It's not much different than having a conversation about getting mugged, and then segueing into a broader discussion and saying something like "I don't like all kinds of theft, armed robberies, grand theft auto, shop lifting, grave robbing... the idea of taking something that isn't yours blah blah blah..." You cannot infer from that kind of statement that grave robbing == shop lifting, just that they fall under the same umbrella. Similarly, omission of any other kind of theft (e.g. identity theft) cannot be used as an indicator of feelings on that specific kind of act.

The fact that he's listing sins is irrelevant, he picked certain sins to list and left of dozens of others. When he does that he's giving commentary and equating behaviours.

Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all. What are you expecting him to do, list literally every conceivable sinful act? See above.

 

[phgreek]

Not much thought needed.

...mhmm...but you still here...not carin'

 

[tussin]

Probably so.

An interesting comparison I just read...did Ted Cruz or others rip MSNBC for getting rid of Bashir after his comments about Palin (which were just rancid, by the way)? Free speech!

I wouldn't necessarily compare the two incidents. Not really the same IMO.

- Bashir unleashed a personal attack and even suggested that a caller shit in Palin's mouth (absurdly offensive but kind of hilarious in a "wtf" kind of way).

- Summary of DD Phil's comments: Homosexuality is a sin. It's unnatural and he doesn't agree with it. He follows Christ and the Bible's teachings. All that being said, he thinks we are all created equal and should love each other.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I wouldn't necessarily compare the two incidents. Not really the same IMO.

- Bashir unleashed a personal attack and even suggested that a caller shit in Palin's mouth (absurdly offensive but kind of hilarious in a "wtf" kind of way).

- Summary of DD Phil's comments: Homosexuality is a sin. It's unnatural and he doesn't agree with it. He follows Christ and the Bible's teachings. All that being said, he thinks we are all created equal and should love each other.

They aren't exactly analogous. Again, Bashir's was just nasty and vulgur. But both were just exercising free speech and the network fired one and suspended the other. In both cases, the TV personality and the station were within their rights.

Note: I know that Bashir "resigned," but I don't buy it.

 

[tussin]

They aren't exactly analogous. Again, Bashir's was just nasty and vulgur. But both were just exercising free speech and the network fired one and suspended the other. In both cases, the TV personality and the station were within their rights.

Note: I know that Bashir "resigned," but I don't buy it.

Bashir definitely got Mack Brown'd.

This has been touched on a bunch of times in this topic, but I think we can all agree for the most part that the stations had every legal right to dismiss or fire both people. My only point is that I think Bashir's comments exhibited more "hatred" than the guy from DD.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Bashir definitely got Mack Brown'd.

This has been touched on a bunch of times in this topic, but I think we can all agree for the most part that the stations had every legal right to dismiss or fire both people. My only point is that I think Bashir's comments exhibited more "hatred" than the guy from DD.

I think that's undeniable.

 

[irishfan]

I think its a free speech issue. A&E is pretty much saying that anyone who expresses this viewpoint should lose their job.

AKA if you say these things, it would affect you negatively. Makes it so people will rather shut their mouth than express their opinion on an issue like this and have something happen like lose their job. Seems like hindering his free speech.

Yes, he's not being told not to say this, he's not being thrown in jail, but he's being told IF you say this, your job is in jeopardy. I think that's affecting his free speech (and everyone's considering the media attention/organizations looking at this as a potential precedent decision) but that's just me.

 

[greyhammer90]

been off the board all day, so where are we at now? Have we distinguished between free speech and private contract yet? Have we moved onto the realization that this was probably a purely business decision by A&E that will be felt, and that this is more of a question of economics than morality?

 

[phgreek]

Probably so.

An interesting comparison I just read...did Ted Cruz or others rip MSNBC for getting rid of Bashir after his comments about Palin (which were just rancid, by the way)? Free speech!

I understand where you are going, and agree we should all try to be a little more discerning before we pounce.

BUT...

I struggle with the comparison...

First, I think news organizations...even ones who generally editorialize, need to hold their folks to a bit higher standard than say some reality TV guy giving an interview.

Second, the intent of what was said by these guys ...matters, at least to me. Robertson answered some questions about sin etc. He never identified/attacked a person. He never said he wished ill on anyone or any group. Bashir actually attacked a person, and volunteered vitriol...he did so in a personally degrading and pre-meditated way, and ....well you know what he said.

I think there is room for folks to be held to account for what they say, but I think there are some groups who lack restraint, or even care if they discern motive. If words are spoken by someone of a different political persuasion...and those words can be spun into an offense...they will be. I just don't have time for people looking for excuses to be the victim, when there are bunches who really are being victimized. I'm sorry, but I think some LGBT folks tried to make themselves victims today...

Camille Paglia ...

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

Robertson has been suspended from Duck Dynasty due to comments he made to GQ that have been deemed “anti-gay.” According to Paglia, the culture has become too politically correct.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

“There is a dialogue going on in human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism."

 

[peoriairish]

been off the board all day, so where are we at now? Have we distinguished between free speech and private contract yet? Have we moved onto the realization that this was probably a purely business decision by A&E that will be felt, and that this is more of a question of economics than morality?

In short? No.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

I support his right to say it. Whether I agree with it or not.
But I've always held the opinion if it harms no one else I really don't care.
Two homosexuals loving each other don't hurt anyone else. Just like Phil's words didn't hurt anyone else.

Except it does hurt other people. There's a reason why gay kids have a suicide rate that is twice as high as the straight kids for something they have no control over. I don't think anybody here would be defending him here if, for example, he said black people are dumb apes that should go back to Africa. Someone has the right to be a bigot, but don't hide behind your religion to justify it.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

I'm sorry, but I think some LGBT folks tried to make themselves victims today...

Considering that they're just about the only group where widespread public bigotry against them is considered acceptable by a considerable segment of the population, is that not justified?

 

[phgreek]

Except it does hurt other people. There's a reason why gay kids have a suicide rate that is twice as high as the straight kids for something they have no control over. I don't think anybody here would be defending him here if, for example, he said black people are dumb apes that should go back to Africa. Someone has the right to be a bigot, but don't hide behind your religion to justify it.

seems to me he led with his religion...he did not hide behind it. He answered a direct series of questions...about his beliefs regarding Sin...and cited biblical passages...

He did not attack anyone...he did not say he hated anyone...

 

[phgreek]

Considering that they're just about the only group where widespread public bigotry against them is considered acceptable by a considerable segment of the population, is that not justified?

I won't pretend that they don't suffer from people with real intent to harm them...

But I think its pretty clear Phil Robertson's comments did not rise to a threat/attack, and were not worthy of the responses they elicited...rather you think the responses were understandable because of things that actually happened to LGBT folks in the past is, as you say, a bit of a justification for what I think is a clear lack of restraint and deliberation. And A&E...their conduct does nothing to help true discourse...Knee jerked so hard they bloodied their own nose...stupid. What we have is a lot of spun up folks with resentment...and that helps LGBT folks how? I can tell you how it hurts them...keep playing victim over stupid things...and the real issues lose impact on people...

 

[drayer54]

Who cares? What about A&E's right to free speech and their right to protect their image?

 

[woolybug25]

Sorry, but I think that's simply absurd. Much like there are dozens of felonies, there are dozens of sins. What you choose to put on the list is essentially an editorial comment. If I make a list of: terrorism, treason, espionage and securities fraud you don't think there is an editorial component to that? Are you kidding me?

The fact that he's listing sins is irrelevant, he picked certain sins to list and left of dozens of others. When he does that he's giving commentary and equating behaviours.

I never knew we had a mind reader on IE!

I didn't realize that if one starts listing something, they need to include every single type of that something... Otherwise, they are comparing them...

I better call the wife regarding our grocery list. Don't want my avacadoes turning into her tampons. I forgot to add tomatoes after all...

 

[50milesSE ND]

I never knew we had a mind reader on IE!

I didn't realize that if one starts listing something, they need to include every single type of that something... Otherwise, they are comparing them...

I better call the wife regarding our grocery list. Don't want my avacadoes turning into her tampons. I forgot to add tomatoes after all...

^ lol

 

[CanadianIrish]

What? I literally have no idea what you're saying, and per SAT scores I'm pretty darn good at reading comprehension...

It's really this simple. In the course of dialog, segueing from a discussion on his views on homosexuality, he's asked about other things he considers sinful. He then goes on to give a list of sins including sleeping around heterosexually that are related to sexual indiscretion. But he makes no attempt to equate, compare, or contrast. You cannot logically infer that because he left necrophilia off the list he is OK with that. Similarly, you cannot infer that he views homosexual behavior == bestiality == heterosexual infidelity, or any sort of hierarchy.

It's not much different than having a conversation about getting mugged, and then segueing into a broader discussion and saying something like "I don't like all kinds of theft, armed robberies, grand theft auto, shop lifting, grave robbing... the idea of taking something that isn't yours blah blah blah..." You cannot infer from that kind of statement that grave robbing == shop lifting, just that they fall under the same umbrella. Similarly, omission of any other kind of theft (e.g. identity theft) cannot be used as an indicator of feelings on that specific kind of act.



Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all. What are you expecting him to do, list literally every conceivable sinful act? See above.

If we're resorting to quoting how one did on standardized tests, that's awesome. I'd suggest you not write the LSATs, you'd do very poorly on logical reasoning.

If you pick five things from a list if fifty, the five you pick is making a commentary. It's not like he chose the only sins occurring in society, or the only sexual sins. He picked three sins, lumped them together and talked about a moral decline. If you don't get that I can't help you.

And wooly, your post made even less sense. One doesn't have to be able to read minds to understand editorializing based on grouping. I'm not asking that he list every sin, I'm saying including certain ones makes an editorial commentary. Using your analogy of your wife and the grocery list, if she says she's going shopping and what would you like, there are probably fifty things you want. You decide to list three. Saying apples, milk and ice cream is very different than saying apples, milk and lube - and you know full well you're going to take crap over it even if it would be on the list.

He lumped beastiality and homosexuality together (no matter what the connection you think there is between them, he could have included a different example). And let's be clear here, beastiality is not a common occurrence leading to the moral decay of society. It's vastly less common than his other examples. It's impossible to read that sentence without drawing an implication unless you're willfully blind.

He put beastiality and homosexuality on the same list of three things, he's going to get in trouble for that - period.

 

[autry_denson]

My attempt yesterday to make the debate a little bit less emotional by moving to the abstract was completely misunderstood by those who responded. Probably my fault. Anyway, let me try to go the other direction and focus on the very specific issue at hand: cultural views of homosexuality and the consequences of those views. Some of you might have seen this opinion piece last week:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...re-the-closet-is-still-common.html?ref=sunday

The basic finding that's relevant here is that, based on google searches, the % of gay men is about the same across the country. But the % of men who self-identify as gay is much lower in the south than in, for instance, the northeast. Not a perfect study (none are), but revealing.

The point? The stakes are high. The LGBT advocates wants a society where kids aren't afraid to acknowledge that they're gay. Social conservatives want a society where their discomfort with homosexuality, or their belief that it is a sin, can be seen as valid and respected. Advocates think it's pathological that so many gay men and women are unable to come out. In truth, my guess is that a lot of social conservatives are ok with the fact that there are so many gay men who remain in the closet.

Regardless of your opinion, it's silly and superficial to argue that it's all meaningless, or that Americans just have to stop being b!tches and toughen up. When a very popular public figure makes a statement like this it has enormous ramifications for the cultural dialogue, which has implications for how kids feel about their own sexuality, what is perceived to be acceptable treatment of others, etc. Advocates are focusing on this case, and social conservatives are responding, b/c the stakes are extremely high.

 

[T Town Tommy]

We are all tolerant... until you disagree with our opinions.

 

[ND NYC]

Is righteous indignation a sin?

thou all doth protest too much

 

[wizards8507]

It's true that he didn't draw a straight line, but he did place homosexuality on the same list as bestiality and terrorism. Seemed a bit hyperbolic to me.

Q: What do you love?
A: My mom, my wife, a good steak, college football, and bacon.

You: OMG OUTRAGE! THIS GUY JUST EQUATED WOMEN TO MEAT!

 

[wizards8507]

Who cares? What about A&E's right to free speech and their right to protect their image?

No one disputes their right.

I disagree with their decision to exercise that right in this way. I also disagree with the way this story has been portrayed in the media.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Is righteous indignation a sin?

thou all doth protest too much

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Q: What do you love?
A: My mom, my wife, a good steak, college football, and bacon.

You: OMG OUTRAGE! THIS GUY JUST EQUATED WOMEN TO MEAT!

Nailed it.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

(a) Who is this majority that you speak of?
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(b) The constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We're not a majority rules society when it infringes on someone else's rights. People are entirely free to not get have a same-sex partner. They just shouldn't be free dictate the choices of two other consenting adults.

 

[autry_denson]

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

Not sure if you're serious - but if you are you have a really inaccurate view of the national sentiment. That may be accurate in Alabama, but it is objectively not accurate in most of the country.