I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[NDohio]

1. You didn't hear me defend Martin Bashir. I think he's a tool and he deserved what he got, too.

2. First off, I don't think anyone is slamming him. At least I'm not. I'm saying he said something ignorant and that he has to live with the fallout for it. Romney, who apparently I voted for according to wooly (which is funny), had to live with his 47 percent comment, as did the idiot who talked about legitimate rape, as did virtually every other public figure who said something stupid. Some care that they offended people and some don't. Usually, there is a public relations recognition that makes them walk their statements back and try to repair the damange that they've done to themselves.

3. I despise Alec Baldwin and have for years -- long before he belittled his daughter on an a voicemail, calling her a pig because she didn't call him on time and long before his comments on MSNBC. When I was in the Navy and stationed on the USS Enterprise, he was on board to film Hunt for Red October and he was a total dick to most everyone on the crew.

On the bolded.

A) You may not agree with what he said. You may despise his thought process, but this was far from an ignorant statement. This man studies his Bible. He believes in what it says wholeheartedly. There was no lack of knowledge here on his part.

B) Phil believes his mission is to spread the words of the Bible to all mankind. He also seems to realize that he will be persecuted as a result. He obviously does not care one bit about the fallout. In fact, he is standing tall in the face of it. It's obvious that the Robinsons do not believe they have to "repair any damage they have done to themselves".

 

[wizards8507]

First off, I don't think anyone is slamming him. At least I'm not. I'm saying he said something ignorant and that he has to live with the fallout for it.

There's your problem. You don't have the authority to define what is or is not "ignorant." In this case, "ignorance" is any belief that differs from yours. If Phil Robertson's comments were ignorant, then the Pope is also ignorant, along with the 45% of Americans (according to Pew) who also believe homosexuality is a sin. My guess is that the number is even higher because the poll does not distinguish between homosexuality itself and homosexual acts. Many Catholics believe that homosexual acts (i.e. "gay sex") are sinful, but simply being homosexual is not.

 

[GoIrish41]

You serious, Clark? So you are going to defend this absurd belief that Phil, with dastardly intent, gave this interview in order to proclaim with vigor that homosexuality=beastiality=hetorosexual promiscuity? For real... Step back and think about how bizarre of a thought that is...

I'm dead serious. Show us some of these "daily events" of celebrities and politicians backing away from comments connecting homosexuality to sin. I have never heard Kirk Cameron back off of his comments (far worse than Phil's as well). Shoot, Mitt Romney was confronted by a homosexual veteran on the campaign trail regarding his beliefs on homosexuals and Mitt, knowing he was being filmed, reiterated his beliefs right to his face. Again, over 40% of Americans feel this way. People say offensive comments regarding homosexuality, but it is clearly a rarity for celebs/athletes/politicians to apologize for simply calling homosexuality a sin.



Then where is your outrage? Per the Huff Post, 37% of this country believe that homosexuality is a sin (per Lifeway poll) and 43% of Americans do not think they should be married (galloup poll). So where is your outrage for the numerous politicians that debate this? I even believe that you voted for Romney? No outrage from you regarding him telling a homosexual veteran that he shouldn't be able to marry because of his religious beliefs? Where is your outrage for the Catholic Church, who openly call it a sin? See where I am going here?

I don't think he set out to proclaim anything with vigor, but I think he did make the statements and has to live with them. I don't hink that he had dastardly intent, but I think he offended people nonethesame. You are trying to suggest that I somehow said that he planned out this scenario so that he could say offensive things about gays. I'm sure you don't even have to go back through my posts to know that I said nothing of the sort. You keep arguing against points that I'm not making and then accusing me of twisting this guy's words to "fit my own narrative."

Here's another example ... I said this ...

There are literally daily cases of politicians being called out for saying stupid or objectionalble things, especially when they demonstrate a lack of civility. Almost as often they come out and apologize publically for saying the thing that got them into trouble in the first place.

And you argue this ...

Show us some of these "daily events" of celebrities and politicians backing away from comments connecting homosexuality to sin.

I don't even think it is worth having a conversation about if all you are going to do is twist my words into what you want to make an argument about.

Your last paragraph is the most laughable of all, as not only does it suggest that I'm not "outraged" by the debates against equal rights for homosexuals. Have you read the politics thread on IE. I'm the guy who stands up for this stuff all the time ... often against many more posters who disagree than there are on my side. I'm the liberal, hippy, bleeding heart who is always mentioning my distaste for such rhetoric. If you don't believe me, just ask the conservatives who post in the thread. So, it is the funniest thing ever to suggest that I voted for Romney because he had a propensity for making idiotic comments like the ones you mentioned, the 47 percent, and a who stream of idiocy that came out of his mouth during his run at the presidency.

If you want to have a discussion with me, I'd appreciate if the back and forth was based on what was actually said and not what you are reading into what I said or assuming about me.

 

[GDomer09]

When did I ever treat you with such disrespect?

So I though I would pull out some statistics. When we work with populations, we are taught to add in the estimate of underreported. Also, we are taught to add for grandpa groping tits and ass. Things that may not be considered by the "criminal stats." What you need to know that anyone who sexually abuses a child, and hires a "good enough" attorney who is willing to "further victimize" the victim, is not counted either. And, we are taught, this is the major reason that more sexual abuse takes place in lower socioeconomic groups. They cannot hire the good legal help.

Here is a report I pulled out of my ass for you. Shows you that it is worse (more despicable) than you thought :

Wow a little thin skinned are we. I was saying that in a sarcastic for the love of God I hope you pulled those numbers from your ass!?! Because those NUMBERS are despicable. If I was calling you a liar you would know it. Also sorry if I don't immediately accept reports and/or research performed by anybody done but myself. From your numbers you can see why it's so hard for me to believe other people with the amount of apparent sickos in the world.

 

[connor_in]

I don't think he set out to proclaim anything with vigor, but I think he did make the statements and has to live with them. I don't hink that he had dastardly intent, but I think he offended people nonethesame. You are trying to suggest that I somehow said that he planned out this scenario so that he could say offensive things about gays. I'm sure you don't even have to go back through my posts to know that I said nothing of the sort. You keep arguing against points that I'm not making and then accusing me of twisting this guy's words to "fit my own narrative."

Here's another example ... I said this ...

There are literally daily cases of politicians being called out for saying stupid or objectionalble things, especially when they demonstrate a lack of civility. Almost as often they come out and apologize publically for saying the thing that got them into trouble in the first place.

And you argue this ...

Show us some of these "daily events" of celebrities and politicians backing away from comments connecting homosexuality to sin.

I don't even think it is worth having a conversation about if all you are going to do is twist my words into what you want to make an argument about.

Your last paragraph is the most laughable of all, as not only does it suggest that I'm not "outraged" by the debates against equal rights for homosexuals. Have you read the politics thread on IE. I'm the guy who stands up for this stuff all the time ... often against many more posters who disagree than there are on my side. I'm the liberal, hippy, bleeding heart who is always mentioning my distaste for such rhetoric. If you don't believe me, just ask the conservatives who post in the thread. So, it is the funniest thing ever to suggest that I voted for Romney because he had a propensity for making idiotic comments like the ones you mentioned, the 47 percent, and a who stream of idiocy that came out of his mouth during his run at the presidency.

If you want to have a discussion with me, I'd appreciate if the back and forth was based on what was actually said and not what you are reading into what I said or assuming about me.

Just to inject a little humor in here and release a little tension, seeing the use of "literally" above made me remember a series of sketches from MADtv

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RAIww1VRY7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[tussin]

There's your problem. You don't have the authority to define what is or is not "ignorant." In this case, "ignorance" is any belief that differs from yours. If Phil Robertson's comments were ignorant, then the Pope is also ignorant, along with the 45% of Americans (according to Pew) who also believe homosexuality is a sin. My guess is that the number is even higher because the poll does not distinguish between homosexuality itself and homosexual acts. Many Catholics believe that homosexual acts (i.e. "gay sex") are sinful, but simply being homosexual is not.

Nail. Head.

People that believe homosexual acts are sinful are not "ignorant." That's like saying you have godly knowledge of what actually constitutes a sin. How can anyone judge someone else's belief set?

 

[connor_in]

If I may, I would like to bring up a question that has only been addressed in passing in most places if at all (not just IE)...

If A&E feels so strongly about his comments and has suspended him indefinitely from the show...why is it OK for them to show an upcoming marathon of the show and a brand new season (upcoming in Jan 2014)? How can those that got A&E to suspend him be happy with this development? The new season is likely to have one of two things happen...decreased viewership from those that support him due to protesting A&E's actions but not watching the channel or increased viewership because more people will tune in to see out of curiousity or support.

I am guessing that A&E is basically trying to have its last bite of cake (presumably the last season) and eat it too, but those calling for his head should be all over the network for keeping it on the air you would think.

[Full Disclosure: I do not watch the show and still will not tune in for future episodes (have seen clips and a few minutes at other friends and family members homes). I have yet to find a "reality" show I like and most of them the "reality" is not truly there. Most of these are either game shows with angst or poorly partially scripted shows with bad actors. The best "reality" shows were the ones that were a bit more true back before it was a genre. I am referring to the likes of COPS (back in its early days) and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.]

 

[GoIrish41]

Nail. Head.

People that believe homosexual acts are sinful are not "ignorant." That's like saying you have godly knowledge of what actually constitutes a sin. How can anyone judge someone else's belief set?

Isn't saying that homosexuals are sinners doing the same thing?

 

[wizards8507]

Isn't saying that homosexuals are sinners doing the same thing?

Not when you also say "I am a sinner" and "we are all sinners."

 

[GoIrish41]

Not when you also say "I am a sinner" and "we are all sinners."

So we can be removed of the burden of saying any dispicable thing just by saying, "but I have my issues, too?" I'd be interested to hear old Phil tell us just how sinful he is and not just leaving it to our imaginations ... he singled out a certain group but left his own sin vague. Classy.

 

[Rack Em]

So we can be removed of the burden of saying any dispicable thing just by saying, "but I have my issues, too?" I'd be interested to hear old Phil tell us just how sinful he is and not just leaving it to our imaginations ... he singled out a certain group but left his own sin vague. Classy.

He was asked what he thought was sinful. He didn't discriminate against anything he found sinful! You're conveniently leaving out the other things he mentioned.

He wasn't asked to confess his sins in a GQ article.

This continues to loop back to your disagreeing with his views and claiming they're ignorant because his views on sinfulness is directly tied to his religious views.

We've made zero progress in a thread about progressiveness.

 

[wizards8507]

So we can be removed of the burden of saying any dispicable thing just by saying, "but I have my issues, too?" I'd be interested to hear old Phil tell us just how sinful he is and not just leaving it to our imaginations ... he singled out a certain group but left his own sin vague. Classy.

It's impossible to argue with you because you make up your own facts.

He didn't "single out" a group. He listed a whole pile of groups, one of which (men who sleep around) included him.

"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."
-Phil Robertson

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."
-Ronald Reagan

 

[no.1IrishFan]

So we can be removed of the burden of saying any dispicable thing just by saying, "but I have my issues, too?" I'd be interested to hear old Phil tell us just how sinful he is and not just leaving it to our imaginations ... he singled out a certain group but left his own sin vague. Classy.

Is it not ok to list things that the Bible identifies as sin unless you make public what you have also done wrong? I'm willing to bet if the interviewer had asked what sins Phil had committed he probably would have listed quite a few.

 

[GoIrish41]

He was asked what he thought was sinful. He didn't discriminate against anything he found sinful! You're conveniently leaving out the other things he mentioned.

He wasn't asked to confess his sins in a GQ article.

This continues to loop back to your disagreeing with his views and claiming they're ignorant because his views on sinfulness is directly tied to his religious views.

We've made zero progress in a thread about progressiveness.

Oh, he wasn't asked to confess his sins ... just those of others? Got it. His religious views are Christian, a faith that talks about tolerance and not judging, yet he did just that. What am I leaving out? That he thinks other things that other people do are sinful, too. That just makes things worse.

 

[wizards8507]

Oh, he wasn't asked to confess his sins ... just those of others? Got it. His religious views are Christian, a faith that talks about tolerance and not judging, yet he did just that. What am I leaving out? That he thinks other things that other people do are sinful, too. That just makes things worse.

What are you leaving out? Basic comprehension of the English language. You clearly don't know what "judging" means.

Let me ask you, GoIrish41. What things do YOU think are sinful?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

For the umpteenth time, he did NOT single out 1 group.

He LISTED things. Good grief taking a freaking English class.

 

[GoIrish41]

For the umpteenth time, he did NOT single out 1 group.

He LISTED things. Good grief taking a freaking English class.

I have a bachelor's degree in English, thank you very much. And the fact that he listed multiple things he views as sinful just compounds his problem and makes him more judgmental. When someone asks you a question about one thing and your answer includes a laundry list of other things that are similar, that is comparing.

 

[wizards8507]

I have a bachelor's degree in English, thank you very much. And the fact that he listed multiple things he views as sinful just compounds his problem and makes him more judgmental. When someone asks you a question about one thing and your answer includes a laundry list of other things that are similar, that is comparing.

I'd like you to answer the question I posed a few posts up.

What do YOU consider sinful?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wow a little thin skinned are we. I was saying that in a sarcastic for the love of God I hope you pulled those numbers from your ass!?! Because those NUMBERS are despicable. If I was calling you a liar you would know it. Also sorry if I don't immediately accept reports and/or research performed by anybody done but myself. From your numbers you can see why it's so hard for me to believe other people with the amount of apparent sickos in the world.

I tried to explain in the second post following that it isn't about thin skin. It is about anger related to hypocrisy. Not yours. What is despicable is people who talk about following God's law, come up with some self serving dogma, and use it to manipulate others for their own self serving wants.

This abuse thing is huge. It is an epidemic. And it has always been there. It is only overtly controlled by social mores, or religious doctrine. As we can see, THAT all gets lied about and covered by the most pious of us.

My problem isn't you, you have been honorable. Others on this site have called my fervor for helping victims and improving the world, versus, just honoring traditions and propagandistic, myopic world views, that support little more than personal or popular beliefs, "unintelligible." This whole thing by me was just an attempt to prove that I am not the only "idiot" around here. And in the final analysis, ignoring the "poor, hungry, grieving, and persecuted," and expecting the world to produce rosy results, is nothing more than doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the results to turn out differently.

 

[GoIrish41]

What are you leaving out? Basic comprehension of the English language. You clearly don't know what "judging" means.

Let me ask you, GoIrish41. What things do YOU think are sinful?

The difference between Phil Robertson and I is that I'm not so caught up in myself that I'm willing to alienate other people by publically saying what I find to be "sinful." That is the crux of what I'm saying and have been saying since my first post in this thread. Perhaps basic comprehension of the English language is your issue and not mine.

 

[woolybug25]

I have a bachelor's degree in English, thank you very much. And the fact that he listed multiple things he views as sinful just compounds his problem and makes him more judgmental. When someone asks you a question about one thing and your answer includes a laundry list of other things that are similar, that is comparing.

So when my wife does the grocery list, she is comparing tampons to laundry detergent?

Did you test out of the reading comprehension courses?

Fact: the moment someone brings up their degree as evidence of their point being valid... You know they have ran out of ammo.

 

[wizards8507]

When someone asks you a question about one thing and your answer includes a laundry list of other things that are similar, that is comparing.

GoIrish41 logic...

Question: What are some things that are red?
Answer: Fire truck, stop sign, Cardinals hat, thumb tack, marker, Clifford the big red dog

GoIrish41: OH MY GOD, WHAT AN IDIOT! YOU THINK A THUMB TACK CAN DRIVE AS FAST AS A FIRE TRUCK.

 

[wizards8507]

So when my wife does the grocery list, she is comparing tampons to laundry detergent?

Did you test out of the reading comprehension courses?

Fact: the moment someone brings up their degree as evidence of their point being valid... You know they have ran out of ammo.

He didn't call me a Nazi yet...

Though I think he did in the politics thread.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I have a bachelor's degree in English, thank you very much. And the fact that he listed multiple things he views as sinful just compounds his problem and makes him more judgmental. When someone asks you a question about one thing and your answer includes a laundry list of other things that are similar, that is comparing.

Well you should get a refund.


So when he asked what he thinks is sinful and listed more than one (because there is more than 1 thing) he was in the wrong? Yeah ok.


Within Christianity all sins are equal. In God's eyes, heterosexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and something we see has petty as lying to your mom and dad about something small are all sins.

 

[irishog77]

Can anybody criticize another person? Must we accept all forms of behavior? Is there ANY form of moral absolutism?

I don't think anybody is "unChristian" for doing or believing any of the above. In fact, I'm not sure there's a legitimate Christian theologian who would disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoIrish41]

So when my wife does the grocery list, she is comparing tampons to laundry detergent?

Did you test out of the reading comprehension courses?

Fact: the moment someone brings up their degree as evidence of their point being valid... You know they have ran out of ammo.

First statement is just beyond silly and does not even merit a comment.

I brought up the degree because I was challenged in two consecutive posts about my comprehension of the English language, which you are repeating in your post. I can say with a certain degree of confidence that my understanding of the English language is superior to yours and the other two posters who challenged me on it.

 

[GoIrish41]

He didn't call me a Nazi yet...

Though I think he did in the politics thread.

Again, you would be wrong.

 

[irishog77]

For all of us who apparently can't comprehend the English language as well as GoIrish, please explain, then why Wooly's first question is silly and why we can't get a response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

The difference between Phil Robertson and I is that I'm not so caught up in myself that I'm willing to alienate other people by publically saying what I find to be "sinful." That is the crux of what I'm saying and have been saying since my first post in this thread. Perhaps basic comprehension of the English language is your issue and not mine.

Maybe it's the format of an "interview" that has you confused. Typically, the interviewer asks the questions and the interviewee answers them. The "difference between you and Phil Robertson," therefore, is that someone cares what he thinks enough to ask him. His only options were to say how he felt or to lie about it.

 

[DillonHall]

First statement is just beyond silly and does not even merit a comment.

I brought up the degree because I was challenged in two consecutive posts about my comprehension of the English language, which you are repeating in your post. I can say with a certain degree of confidence that my understanding of the English language is superior to yours and the other two posters who challenged me on it.

Have you read the GQ piece?