Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

bigfatfurrytexan

Wrabbit2000
How did we ever get from Duck Dynasty to child consent issues?

(sends out a hunting party to find the topic)...it seems to be lost?

via homophobic nonsense.

I would recommend that moderators just start removing posts that link homosexuality to pedophilia, and the problem would be solved. THere isn't room for that nonsense on a site that denies ignorance.

I agree...
And I back you 1000%...
Eta:
Duck guy Phil's rant was akin to the opening of "Blazing Saddles" without a satiristic bent...

bigfatfurrytexan
I call it a question, which you have failed to answer.

Of course, your dishonesty is no secret here.

bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

Robertson was right, too bad spoiled activist children are not treated like the children they are, and told to shut up and sit in a corner.

When you take tantrum throwing children as serious people, then you get an upside down world of irrational silliness.

Now had Phil wished death on entire elderly race of white people he would get a noble prize. The PC police ( fascists ) continue to practice the double standard, target certain groups of people while giving racists like Oprah back pats.

What kind of country is it when YOU ARE CRUCIFIED DUE TO YOUR OPINION?

Seriously I don't even watch the show it seems stupid and over rated its reality TV, and I cant even relate to the old timer much but this is absurd. A&E should be boycotted. Maybe A&E should move to China. They would fit right in. Probably wouldn't matter though Obama and the Marxist regime is Importing communism and phasing out America as we know it piece by piece.




Time to stand up and slap the taste out the networks mouth people

reply to post by peck420

feel like im gonna need a shower after all of this but here goes

well first of age of consent is not standard around the usa nor even the world. my state for example age of consent is 16 not 18 just wanted to clear that part up as its not really totaly relevent to the post.


and just as a general question if animals are treated as property(read things owned by humans) why would consent be necessary? i think MOST of the anti bestiality laws on the books run afowl of animal abuse not animal rape by lack of consent(shudders who would wanna bang animals anyways?)


blog.al.com... this case is creepy the guy was charged with many counts of rape (of humans) and one charge of animal abuse(not animal rape implying consent isnt required) so it seems the issue of consent for animals is not so much in question but weather or not its abuse.

animalblawg.wordpress.com... creepy but interesting read on the matter

As of 2001, engaging in sex with an animal was considered a crime in 23 states. The legitimacy of criminalizing such conduct is unclear. It could be argued that bestiality is a victimless crime that is made criminal solely because a majority of the population believes that such conduct is immoral. If so, the criminalization of bestiality would run afoul of a foundational principle of liberal political theory – John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. According to the harm principle, the state may only criminalize conduct in order to prevent harm to others. Are there additional reasons justifying the criminalization of bestiality?

well 23 states ban it but we have 50 so in some states i guess it is good and legal to bone animals consent regardless.......

en.wikipedia.org... i was astounded to find out how many states this is legal in. and of note there is no federal law(other then one related to the military) about having sex with animals just federal ones so it seems in the state where legal consent is not required from animals mostlikely because they are ruled property. hence why some times they go for charges of animal abuse rather then animal rape

en.wikipedia.org... international law on the matter not world wide illegal either

Sudan (February 2006) - man caught having sex with a neighbour's goat, is ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal

posted only to add some small bit of humor to this terrible topic of animal boning.so any would be animal bangers out there becarefull or you may find your self in a shotgun wedding and paying a dowry to the owner of a disgruntled goat


more on topic he was not comparing or saying that gay people were = to bestiality/adulterers just that in the eyes of god they are equal sins so its more god/bible/jesus opinion then his least thats how i took it

DarthFazer
Now had Phil wished death on entire elderly race of white people he would get a noble prize. The PC police ( fascists ) continue to practice the double standard, target certain groups of people while giving racists like Oprah back pats.

What kind of country is it when YOU ARE CRUCIFIED DUE TO YOUR OPINION?

Seriously I don't even watch the show it seems stupid and over rated its reality TV, and I cant even relate to the old timer much but this is absurd. A&E should be boycotted. Maybe A&E should move to China. They would fit right in. Probably wouldn't matter though Obama and the Marxist regime is Importing communism and phasing out America as we know it piece by piece.

Time to stand up and slap the taste out the networks mouth people

Okay...so as long as the media agrees with your viewpoint they don't need to "be slapped around"...cuz only commies do that.
I guess you're a "Commie" in disguise then...
I don't care for Oprah either. Just had to add that.

This whole Duck Dynasty debate is ridiculous. Yeah, you have the right to free speech...but the network executives also have the right to fire you if you say something that goes against their views/beliefs.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any consequences.

Is it unfair that A&E fired the guy for simply expressing his opinion? Sure, but guess what? It's their show. They were 100% in their bounds to do what they did.

***ENOUGH***

Does anyone remember the actual topic at hand? Here's a little hint:

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

The off topic replies stop NOW. Any further off topic WILL result in post removals and a loss of posting privileges.

Thank you.

RalagaNarHallas
Just read Mods orders, check your pm.

reply to post by mitman93


again i posted it a few pages back but its not a first amendment issue its a civil rights issue,they fired him (at least in their public statement) for his religious views and opinions something not allowed under federal law.the case of the fired fox news sports caster who was also fired for his religious views on gay marriage and is in process of suing for civil rights violation may in fact set a precedent for this kind of case one that if he wins would put A@E at huge liability for future lawsuits of religious discrimination
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...


now if the fired him for being a republican that would strangely enough be LEGAL depending on firing laws of his state as political affiliation is NOT a protected class where as religious views ARE.and them saying because of his VIEWS and words expressed(in line with what his religion teaches and believes in) they pretty much set them selves up for a lawsuit if craig james wins his lawsuit.

to further clarify i am in support of gay marriage and equal right to marry what ever human you want (or robots some day) and while i am not religious i will not try to change their belief in what they believe in and respect their opinions on the matter even if i do not personally agree with them.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.judiciary.senate.gov...

www.archives.gov...


edit to add congratulations to new mexico becoming the 17th state to legalize gay marriage and afford the same rights to same sex couples that their straight counterparts enjoy

As far as bestiality, promiscuity, and pedophilia. They have nothing to do with homosexuality one bit.

Are some gay people pedophiles? Yes. And I find it kind of ironic that it has in the past been somewhat notorious within the churches. But, that's only a fraction of people. Straight people can be pedophiles also. So if you were to say that pedophilia would be associated with gay people, then you would have to say the same towards heterosexuals. Saying that homosexuality is the culprit would be nothing more than a big stinking double standard.

As far as promiscuity, or so called "deviant" behavior. Do some gay people uphold this? Yes, but just as pedophilia, so do heterosexuals. Just go look at pornography for example. It doesn't take much imagination to find such behaviors in favor of both gay and straight people. So, once again that would just be a ridiculous double standard, and probably just a shallow stereotype.

And lastly, the concern for bestiality, I don't understand the logic behind that. I don't see why a gay person would be inclined to have intercourse with an animal. Having a preference to someone of your sex within your species is far different then being attracted to an entire different species altogether. And is also an idiotic double standard. I never hear how straight people might magically be involved with bestiality.

And back to Phil's comments. In the interview he never said that they were intertwined. He said that these were certain behaviors that were frowned within the bible. But to him he wouldn't be able to judge their behaviors. Only god would. But, some people out there will see these things lumped together and then some how associate them together. I know this because this is not the first time I have seen these things put into the same thought. I've seen it numerous times.

Nothing more than double standards and stereotypes that people use to try and convince people that what their saying is right. And it probably would be considered a logical fallacy called guilt by association. Or simply the association fallacy.

reply to post by technical difficulties
I take back what I said. I reread the interview and he's said more about homosexuality than it just being a sin. He was definitely implying that it was immoral.

This however, doesn't change my opinion that they should bring him back.

technical difficulties
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

I take back what I said. I reread the interview and he's said more about homosexuality than it just being a sin. He was definitely implying that it was immoral.

This however, doesn't change my opinion that they should bring him back.

edit on 19-12-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

Isn't a sin immoral? Eyeroll.

reply to post by the owlbear

Okay...so as long as the media agrees with your viewpoint they don't need to "be slapped around"...cuz only commies do that. I guess you're a "Commie" in disguise then... I don't care for Oprah either. Just had to add that.

Not even remotely the same. Now did I say "censor A&E" or ""Suspend A&E" anywhere? Slapped can be taken in many ways, would you like specifics? I am thinking more along the line of losing support of the show entirely , people just stop watching it and other programs all together. While A&E can air whatever crap and flavor of the month they deem needed.

If A&E was fearing losing viewers if Phil stayed on after his interview I would have to say unlikely or hardly even noticeable. Id bet many of the shows viewers will not be privy to what happened and wonder if he died. Those that are informed will be unhappy as I am sure and they should be. Kind of kills the chemistry, this may be the start of the shows demise who knows. The family should quit the show all together as a show of support imho.

A&E may very well have shot itself in the foot, this might backfire I certainly hope so but we will see


Hey if you dont like what he has to say turn the channel, or what I have to say scroll along. Political Correctness is a cancer. It is counter productive. People will never evolve or move past social issues if we just sweep them under the rug and act like everything is hunky dory. America... love it leave it.

reply to post by DarthFazer


I find it hilarious that you compare this to Communism. A&E saw a threat to their bottom line. They removed the issue. This is Capitalism 101.

Restricted

technical difficulties
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

I take back what I said. I reread the interview and he's said more about homosexuality than it just being a sin. He was definitely implying that it was immoral.

This however, doesn't change my opinion that they should bring him back.

edit on 19-12-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

Isn't a sin immoral? Eyeroll.

Quote from the interview for context:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

Read More www.gq.com...

That quote appears just before he starts talking about the homosexuals amongst others.

He's not wrong in calling homosexuality a sin. He's wrong in thinking that homosexuality is wrong because of it. Sin is only immoral in the eyes of religion.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

This is what's wrong with the whole incident. In a society that truly typifies Amendment 1, especially in the media which is where Duck Dynasty is, Phil Robertson would be backed for holding his opinion and not being afraid to say it. And, yes, backed even by gays because by being willing to defend him, they could expect him to defend them the next time they said (or did) something controversial in the media.

It should be a quid pro quo arrangements with each side agreeing to disagree and give each other some flack, but underneath it all realizing that if they don't stand together defending each other's right to speak out on the things important to them, they may ultimately lose that right, both of them.

Do any of us want to lose that society and lose that right?

Realize that freedom and religion and freedom speech are in the same Amendment, you cannot easily start infringing on one without encroaching on the other.

burdman30ott6

At what point is America going to throw their middle fingers into the air and start treating the PC police with the same disdain so many currently show towards the actual police? Hell, I'd rather be slapped around by a cop than fall victim to one of these ridiculous coordinated efforts to force compliance into the political correctness horsecrap.

At this point. Start today. I've written a protest letter to A&E
and a few leftist publications like Time Magazine, NY times, etc. Have you? If not, stop what you are doing and do it now.

We have to speak up to get our voices heard, you know.

Xcalibur254
reply to post by DarthFazer

 

I find it hilarious that you compare this to Communism. A&E saw a threat to their bottom line. They removed the issue. This is Capitalism 101.

The Communists do have a history of Censorship, however there is little grey area between the two any more. If anything it's gross stupidity and a poor business decision on A&E's behalf. We can argue about Communism and censorship with the iron fist all day but that's not the topic is it?

Yeah...others beat me to it...and I think we should probably just shut down the noise before too many people end up with bans...I'm out.

mitman93
This whole Duck Dynasty debate is ridiculous. Yeah, you have the right to free speech...but the network executives also have the right to fire you if you say something that goes against their views/beliefs.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any consequences.

Is it unfair that A&E fired the guy for simply expressing his opinion? Sure, but guess what? It's their show. They were 100% in their bounds to do what they did.

You are correct, this is not about amended rights. It's about business. Dirty politics in business. In this case the networks views ( PC Bull S**** ) is a very poor decision and bad for business. They certainly kicked a hornets nest and hurt the shows fan's in the process. Like i said people just stop watching the show and find something else on TV. Hurt the network where it hurts ..in its ratings = revenue.