06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 5051525354 ...
tools
  1. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I'm at a disadvantage because I've never actually watched the show, but I have read about the actors very recently, as a result of this nonsense. Many of the articles are from August, and have something to do with a rumor about Phil getting ready to leave the show. Funny how 3 months later, him not being on the show is 1. surprising 2. traumatic.

    A slightly older quote than last week's from Phil, “They inserted fake beeps like somebody had used profanity, but no one had used profanity,” he explained. “…So I asked those guys who produce the show, I said, ‘Lemme ask you something. What’s the point of the fake bleeps?’” This was in response to him being asked about the show being "fake".

    Phil was a very clean cut kid who went to college on a football scholarship and has a master's degree in education. He actually had a chance at going to the NFL. You CAN get a masters while being ignorant, but it's presumed that people who master in education know something about at least something.


    These are the brothers prior to having a TV show:

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594928
    http://www.refinedguy.com/wp-content...4400084151.jpg
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594930
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594937

    Obviously very different when not in beards and camouflage. The other brother, who just joined the show, still wears the yuppie gear and doesn't have the beard. From what I can tell, Phil has had his beard for many, many years but they all made a conscious decision to double down on dressing and grooming the stereotypes.
    I have no doubt that they're probably actually Christians (the newest brother to the show is or was a pastor) and that they live in Louisiana. I'm saying neither of those things make you ignorant or racist, etc. by default and that, just like the clothes and beards, they adopted those things as part of the role.
    Is that really them? I can't believe it!
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-24-2013 02:49 PM
  2. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    One man's ten is another man's one.



    [SARCASM]You didn't know that every Republican is a racist?[/SARCASM]
    However, I do agree with you 100% Serial Fordicator.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    Lol believe it or not, I'm an independent. The way liberals act just really annoys me sometimes.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-24-2013 03:52 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Of course, the news the last couple of days has let out that Phil has made comments much worse than this before. Conducting a sermon in Pottstown, PA, concerning homosexuals he said the following:

    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.

    Is there any way to interpret this as a loving statement of respect for all mankind? These are not statements of belief or faith, for in multiple cover to cover readings of several different versions of the Bible, these messages are simply never stated. Not in English, not in Hebrew, nor in any version I've ever heard of. However, even if it DID say those things, and people still believed those statements, it still would NOT EVER excuse the comment.

    Making a discriminatory or otherwise hateful statement, regardless of why you say it, is still making a discriminatory or otherwise hateful statement. Your choice in religion does not absolve you of responsibility for your words or deeds, at least not on this Earth. If you believe you'll be absolved in the next life, okay, I have no way of know if that's right or not, but I suspect most people who share that first belief are also taught to believe that the way that they choose to treat others, especially the way that they embrace and love sinners, for the followers of Jesus... has something to do with how they themselves will ultimately be judged.
    palandri and jdbii like this.
    12-25-2013 08:13 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    If A&E didn't smite him for the 2010 comments, then they should back away from these. Otherwise it looks like hypocrisy stemming from lobby or media groups, rather than a genuine disagreement with the statements. 2010 comments were much worse and they apparently didn't care because it wasn't all over Twitter.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    12-25-2013 08:28 PM
  5. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    A & e firing him doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me how people are acting about it. Farrakhan said that gays need to be beheaded but nothing was said. Why? Political party. Obama has hailed him as a hero in the past and people won't say anything about what he's said because their political party has not said anything about him but good things. Yet, slam someone not affiliated with their ideology for saying he doesn't "agree" with a lifestyle.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-25-2013 08:55 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    A & e firing him doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me how people are acting about it. Farrakhan said that gays need to be beheaded but nothing was said. Why? Political party. Obama has hailed him as a hero in the past and people won't say anything about what he's said because their political party has not said anything about him but good things. Yet, slam someone not affiliated with their ideology for saying he doesn't "agree" with a lifestyle.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    It'd be difficult to try to understand how that's not much worse. And that's exactly my point as well. If you believe that your faith doesn't like or hates or wants to murder or whatever another group of people, that right to your faith stops at taking or advocating violence and hatred towards any group.

    This is part of the ideological confusion on the war on terrorism. Most people have no clue what exactly we are fighting against and want to apply the war to all of Islam and some of the violent extremists we are fighting want to apply their hatred to all Christians or all Americans or all non Muslims, etc. Religion is no excuse for hateful speech or actions and it's pretty insulting to see people try to cloud the issues by using religion as a thorned shield. Even if you think your religion teaches hatred and violence, your actions accordingly are still your personal choices.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    palandri and jdbii like this.
    12-25-2013 09:07 PM
  7. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    I'm at a disadvantage because I've never actually watched the show, but I have read about the actors very recently, as a result of this nonsense. Many of the articles are from August, and have something to do with a rumor about Phil getting ready to leave the show. Funny how 3 months later, him not being on the show is 1. surprising 2. traumatic.

    A slightly older quote than last week's from Phil, They inserted fake beeps like somebody had used profanity, but no one had used profanity, he explained. So I asked those guys who produce the show, I said, Lemme ask you something. Whats the point of the fake bleeps? This was in response to him being asked about the show being "fake".

    Phil was a very clean cut kid who went to college on a football scholarship and has a master's degree in education. He actually had a chance at going to the NFL. You CAN get a masters while being ignorant, but it's presumed that people who master in education know something about at least something.


    These are the brothers prior to having a TV show:

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594928
    http://www.refinedguy.com/wp-content...4400084151.jpg
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594930
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1387594937

    Obviously very different when not in beards and camouflage. The other brother, who just joined the show, still wears the yuppie gear and doesn't have the beard. From what I can tell, Phil has had his beard for many, many years but they all made a conscious decision to double down on dressing and grooming the stereotypes.
    I have no doubt that they're probably actually Christians (the newest brother to the show is or was a pastor) and that they live in Louisiana. I'm saying neither of those things make you ignorant or racist, etc. by default and that, just like the clothes and beards, they adopted those things as part of the role.
    They're quite a bit younger in those pictures then on the show.


    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-25-2013 09:34 PM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    It'd be difficult to try to understand how that's not much worse. And that's exactly my point as well. If you believe that your faith doesn't like or hates or wants to murder or whatever another group of people, that right to your faith stops at taking or advocating violence and hatred towards any group.

    This is part of the ideological confusion on the war on terrorism. Most people have no clue what exactly we are fighting against and want to apply the war to all of Islam and some of the violent extremists we are fighting want to apply their hatred to all Christians or all Americans or all non Muslims, etc. Religion is no excuse for hateful speech or actions and it's pretty insulting to see people try to cloud the issues by using religion as a thorned shield. Even if you think your religion teaches hatred and violence, your actions accordingly are still your personal choices.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    The only quote that people has had problems with is the one from the GQ magazine. No one, but you mentioned the other. To me, that is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Now, what he said during the GQ article said absolutely nothing about hating or anything to that effect of homosexuality. He actually said he loves everyone.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-25-2013 09:49 PM
  9. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    Of course, the news the last couple of days has let out that Phil has made comments much worse than this before. Conducting a sermon in Pottstown, PA, concerning homosexuals he said the following:

    Theyre 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.

    Is there any way to interpret this as a loving statement of respect for all mankind? These are not statements of belief or faith, for in multiple cover to cover readings of several different versions of the Bible, these messages are simply never stated. Not in English, not in Hebrew, nor in any version I've ever heard of. However, even if it DID say those things, and people still believed those statements, it still would NOT EVER excuse the comment.

    Making a discriminatory or otherwise hateful statement, regardless of why you say it, is still making a discriminatory or otherwise hateful statement. Your choice in religion does not absolve you of responsibility for your words or deeds, at least not on this Earth. If you believe you'll be absolved in the next life, okay, I have no way of know if that's right or not, but I suspect most people who share that first belief are also taught to believe that the way that they choose to treat others, especially the way that they embrace and love sinners, for the followers of Jesus... has something to do with how they themselves will ultimately be judged.
    Do you have a link for the whole sermon?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-25-2013 09:55 PM
  10. The Hustleman's Avatar
    A & e firing him doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me how people are acting about it. Farrakhan said that gays need to be beheaded but nothing was said. Why? Political party. Obama has hailed him as a hero in the past and people won't say anything about what he's said because their political party has not said anything about him but good things. Yet, slam someone not affiliated with their ideology for saying he doesn't "agree" with a lifestyle.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    When did Farrakhan say it?

    That could be a huge piece of information because if he said it during the latest homo-happy period in American society, he'd have been beheaded.

    People care more about gays than black people.
    12-25-2013 10:20 PM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    Do you have a link for the whole sermon?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    Probably this one:

    12-25-2013 10:23 PM
  12. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    Probably this one:

    Actually that wasn't the whole sermon this is the whole sermon and he was talking about sinners in general. Here was the whole sermon.



    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    palandri likes this.
    12-25-2013 10:47 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    That quoted statement was around the 18 minutes mark, and is contextually specific to homosexual people.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    palandri likes this.
    12-25-2013 11:34 PM
  14. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    That quoted statement was around the 18 minutes mark, and is contextually specific to homosexual people.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    Not if you listen to what he says before the 18 minute mark.

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-25-2013 11:40 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    A & e firing him doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me how people are acting about it. Farrakhan said that gays need to be beheaded but nothing was said. Why? Political party. Obama has hailed him as a hero in the past and people won't say anything about what he's said because their political party has not said anything about him but good things. Yet, slam someone not affiliated with their ideology for saying he doesn't "agree" with a lifestyle.
    When did Farrakhan say it?

    That could be a huge piece of information because if he said it during the latest homo-happy period in American society, he'd have been beheaded.

    People care more about gays than black people.
    I haven't found a date because no one seems to have the exact quote or any information other than the meme going around. The original post seems to be from conservativebyte.com and has no attributing links or information. If the picture is a clue, it was probably around 30 years ago. Farrakhan is around 80 years old. The closest thing I could find was someone else, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe, who spoke of beheading homosexuals when stating that he will not accept foreign aid if it's conditional on their government ceasing to persecute gay denizens.

    I'm not sure why the perception is that he's liberal, other than he supported President Obama for the 2008 election (presumably based on race, given the context of the rest of his career) - the presidential campaign immediately distanced themselves from his support - but not for the 2012 election. Obama's actions in Libya are apparently way to pro-jewish for Farrakhan. He was also a very close friend to Qadhafi and has close ties to Iranian President Rouhani. You don't become good friends with the leaders of the most right-wing totalitarian islamic governments by being a liberal and I can't think of anyone that is not a racist, a muslim extremist and a outright delusional person being able to follow him, let alone think of him as a "hero". That's absurd.

    His actual "politics" are far, far right wing, well beyond the bounds of reason. He's extremely racist and discriminates on people for just about every reason he can if they are not male and Muslim, and a specific brand of Muslim at that. The major and somewhat credible allegation of his involvement with the assassination of Malcolm X is a somewhat good example, because Malcolm X was far too timid for Louis' game. I wasn't able to find any comments of Obama praising Farrakhan, and the only connection that seemed credible is that they both worked on the Million Man March in 1995.

    Every part of this meme seems to be fabricated, but even if we assumed it were true.... that a racist, right wing islamic leader who has repeatedly praised Hitler said some ridiculous things (presumably based on their faith) that most people find completely deranged... how would that justify someone who is Christian saying the same thing somewhat more surface-diplomatically for the same reasons? The only differences that I can see are that Farrakhan is already marginalized and therefore his comments mean very little to anyone other than members of the group that he is in charge of, whereas Robertson is fairly mainstream in many living rooms across the country and works for a company that apparently is nervous about the impact of his comments on their brand.
    palandri, msndrstood and jdbii like this.
    12-26-2013 03:40 AM
  16. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I haven't found a date because no one seems to have the exact quote or any information other than the meme going around. The original post seems to be from conservativebyte.com and has no attributing links or information. If the picture is a clue, it was probably around 30 years ago. Farrakhan is around 80 years old. The closest thing I could find was someone else, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe, who spoke of beheading homosexuals when stating that he will not accept foreign aid if it's conditional on their government ceasing to persecute gay denizens.

    I'm not sure why the perception is that he's liberal, other than he supported President Obama for the 2008 election (presumably based on race, given the context of the rest of his career) - the presidential campaign immediately distanced themselves from his support - but not for the 2012 election. Obama's actions in Libya are apparently way to pro-jewish for Farrakhan. He was also a very close friend to Qadhafi and has close ties to Iranian President Rouhani. You don't become good friends with the leaders of the most right-wing totalitarian islamic governments by being a liberal and I can't think of anyone that is not a racist, a muslim extremist and a outright delusional person being able to follow him, let alone think of him as a "hero". That's absurd.

    His actual "politics" are far, far right wing, well beyond the bounds of reason. He's extremely racist and discriminates on people for just about every reason he can if they are not male and Muslim, and a specific brand of Muslim at that. The major and somewhat credible allegation of his involvement with the assassination of Malcolm X is a somewhat good example, because Malcolm X was far too timid for Louis' game. I wasn't able to find any comments of Obama praising Farrakhan, and the only connection that seemed credible is that they both worked on the Million Man March in 1995.

    Every part of this meme seems to be fabricated, but even if we assumed it were true.... that a racist, right wing islamic leader who has repeatedly praised Hitler said some ridiculous things (presumably based on their faith) that most people find completely deranged... how would that justify someone who is Christian saying the same thing somewhat more surface-diplomatically for the same reasons? The only differences that I can see are that Farrakhan is already marginalized and therefore his comments mean very little to anyone other than members of the group that he is in charge of, whereas Robertson is fairly mainstream in many living rooms across the country and works for a company that apparently is nervous about the impact of his comments on their brand.
    You actually want to sit here and honestly say Racist, right wing Islamic leader? I get that Farrakhan is a racist and Islamic but right wing? Are you serious? You actually believe he is conservative or that conservatives are racists or Islamic? Wow man. Wow

    But you also never really replied to my last statement other than going off on the Farrakhan thing. Why do you interpret what he said as bashing for what he said?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-26-2013 06:07 AM
  17. phoneaddict78's Avatar
    I haven't found a date because no one seems to have the exact quote or any information other than the meme going around. The original post seems to be from conservativebyte.com and has no attributing links or information. If the picture is a clue, it was probably around 30 years ago. Farrakhan is around 80 years old. The closest thing I could find was someone else, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe, who spoke of beheading homosexuals when stating that he will not accept foreign aid if it's conditional on their government ceasing to persecute gay denizens.

    I'm not sure why the perception is that he's liberal, other than he supported President Obama for the 2008 election (presumably based on race, given the context of the rest of his career) - the presidential campaign immediately distanced themselves from his support - but not for the 2012 election. Obama's actions in Libya are apparently way to pro-jewish for Farrakhan. He was also a very close friend to Qadhafi and has close ties to Iranian President Rouhani. You don't become good friends with the leaders of the most right-wing totalitarian islamic governments by being a liberal and I can't think of anyone that is not a racist, a muslim extremist and a outright delusional person being able to follow him, let alone think of him as a "hero". That's absurd.

    His actual "politics" are far, far right wing, well beyond the bounds of reason. He's extremely racist and discriminates on people for just about every reason he can if they are not male and Muslim, and a specific brand of Muslim at that. The major and somewhat credible allegation of his involvement with the assassination of Malcolm X is a somewhat good example, because Malcolm X was far too timid for Louis' game. I wasn't able to find any comments of Obama praising Farrakhan, and the only connection that seemed credible is that they both worked on the Million Man March in 1995.

    Every part of this meme seems to be fabricated, but even if we assumed it were true.... that a racist, right wing islamic leader who has repeatedly praised Hitler said some ridiculous things (presumably based on their faith) that most people find completely deranged... how would that justify someone who is Christian saying the same thing somewhat more surface-diplomatically for the same reasons? The only differences that I can see are that Farrakhan is already marginalized and therefore his comments mean very little to anyone other than members of the group that he is in charge of, whereas Robertson is fairly mainstream in many living rooms across the country and works for a company that apparently is nervous about the impact of his comments on their brand.
    So Farrakhan supporting Obama for the 2008 election and makes him a conservative? That makes about as much sense as saying that conservatives support totalitarian Islamic governments. Since Farrakhan is so right wing like you claim you should easily find something on him endorsing Romney for the 2012 election, hugh?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-26-2013 06:22 AM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    You actually want to sit here and honestly say Racist, right wing Islamic leader? I get that Farrakhan is a racist and Islamic but right wing? Are you serious? You actually believe he is conservative or that conservatives are racists or Islamic? Wow man. Wow

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Conservative doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to mainstream, but the ultra-right wing (think globally and historically, not in the US mainstream), where the value set is ultra-adherence to traditional or fundamentalist mentalities of control. Just like the Taliban is a form of the ultra-right wing of Arab muslim political movements, this guy represents that ideology mixed heavily with an ultra-right black panther-esque flavor. The Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc. these are all ultra-right wing political forces. Right wing in this sense does not mean "republican" or anything like that. These guys make fundamentalist Christian republicans look like libertarian hippies.

    So, yes, he is on the far, far right of the political spectrum, but in the most regressive of senses, not conservative. And the traditional American conservative has very little to nothing in common with these ultra-right factions, but yes, conservatives can be racist if they want to and they can be Islamic if they want to. It's just a completely different connotation that applies to the broader global spectrum.

    A good example of the spectrum is North and South Korea. North Korea is technically a mostly socialist type of government, but their ruling class practices the extreme right wing form of government in their execution of control. South Koreans are democratic, far more liberal and represent the moderates and left wing of the Korean peninsula. It's not left and extreme left, it's center left and ultra right. It may seem weird to think of communism and right wing together, but that's exactly what it is. It's not communism as a system of equalizing the market, but "communism" in the form of controlling the people in a mostly state owned and completely state controlled environment.

    The details of the political spectrum do not form a two dimensional line, but a three dimensional matrix that portrays social, economic and political freedom/control. I don't agree 100% with this chart, but it's the basic idea:



    As you can see, one can easily move away from libertarian ideals without becoming more liberal and on a cultural scale, a society reaches a working balance of ability to exercise social, economical and political freedoms. The Ultra Right Wing doesn't describe the Tea Party, but the authoritarian edge of the right wing. The Tea Party, sans corporate leadership, would be much closer to the libertarian edge of the right side of the spectrum.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So Farrakhan supporting Obama for the 2008 election and makes him a conservative? That makes about as much sense as saying that conservatives support totalitarian Islamic governments. Since Farrakhan is so right wing like you claim you should easily find something on him endorsing Romney for the 2012 election, hugh?

    Sent from my LG-LS980 using AC Forums mobile app
    You guys are thinking of this in CNN/Fox terms, not in political science terms. I think that my post indicated that he supported Obama in 2008 because he's a racist, and stopped supporting him because he's a racist that didn't get his way with his first attempt. Right Wing doesn't mean Ron Paul, necessarily or if it does, that doesn't describe the Ultra Right at all.

    One hour of research into Farrakhan's actual principles and teachings will show how militantly ultra right wing his beliefs are. Again, take it in the full spectrum context, not the US Congressional context. Keep in mind, the vast majority of American's are somewhere inside that square in the center, typically shying away from the bottom left. The three of us are probably all right around 60,60,70.
    12-26-2013 06:23 AM
  19. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Edited- let's get back on topic.
    12-26-2013 06:41 AM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    Right wing and left wing stems from where the Democrats and republicans have sat in the house for years.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Okay, but we're talking political spectrum. This guy doesn't fit in republican or democrat molds because he's so far right of republicans that they'd have no clue what to do. From a political science standpoint, we look at a spectrum based on liberties afforded to citizens.

    There are hundreds of models, the one linked above is basically a 3rd dimension added to the Nolan Chart. If you don't want to study market theory, use the Korean analogy for context. Despite labels of "socialism" or "communism" or whatever, it's measured by the actual liberties that citizens and visitors enjoy. In two dimensions, it's possible to have a progressive/libertarian hybrid (though that's the hardest to articulate) and a conservative authoritarian hybrid, which has happened pretty much forever. The latter is basically Nazi Germany and in a current context, Iran and many other middle eastern countries, a lot of Africa and North Korea. In a third dimension, the additional factor is simply the ability of the average denizen to impact the political process.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum - Crash course.
    12-26-2013 06:52 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    The term "right" seems to be what may be misleading here, because it's being used in a mainstream context.

    Far-right politics, or extreme right politics, are right-wing politics that are considered to be further to the right of those of the mainstream centre-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far-right politics usually involve support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism, and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are commonly used to describe fascist, neo-fascist or other ideologies and organizations that feature extremenationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[1] Some extreme right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2]
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-26-2013 07:01 AM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    But you also never really replied to my last statement other than going off on the Farrakhan thing. Why do you interpret what he said as bashing for what he said?
    It's an inequality of argument position. The language is somewhat twisted, but the implication of it being a "sin" is that it's also a "choice". We've had a thread on that topic and probably all have a general place where we feel on that issue, but for some people the degree of "not sinning" it seems to be as simple as changing clothes and for others it'd be as complicated as changing your gender. If you believe it's a choice and that it's a sin, then of course there is nothing possibly offensive about saying, "hey, I think they should choose differently". If you're on the other side and think it's part and parcel with their identity, then it'd be the same thing as telling someone to stop being Asian or to stop being Christian, under penalty of eternal punishment, etc, etc.

    When we are allowed to treat choices of political party or religion exactly as important and respected as choice in what to eat for breakfast, then the conversation can move forward. Right now the argument is, "I don't like it" and the reason is, "because of religion" and that's somehow supposed to be an unassailable position and debate stopper. For some reason we feel an inability to point out flaws in religion and/or to accept criticism of religion without an argument going immediately to an 11. Yet, we all assume that the religion of the other 99% of the world that believes differently is wrong. I'd honestly have more respect for an argument of, "I think it's gross" than religion.

    He's not attacking the purchasing habits of someone who bought a different brand of car or voted for another candidate, he's attacking the sexual identity, which is psychologically deeply integrated with self perception, of a giant group of people. Most of his statements are not offensive in the least. He basically said, (paraphrase), "I'm not gay, it doesn't really make sense to me and I have a hard time relating to it". Then he said, "it's a sin, just like greed, terrorism, murder, etc" in which case, assuming it's a choice, sure I can see how that'd make sense to you. But as above, it's easy to see how someone could take that personally, just as if it were race, or creed or gender, etc. Then he closed with, "but hey, I love them anyways, even if I don't really get it". So to be clear, I have no issue at all with him believing any of that or saying any of that. I also think A&E is well within their rights to respond to criticism both for and against his stance.

    Officially in our society, there is no such thing as "a sin", but having grown up Catholic I'm fully aware of the other side of our culture, where it is a very real thing... and THAT is where the message that he closed with should have taken priority (in my opinion). An, "I sin, you sin, we all sin in different ways, lets try to move past that and find the things we do well together" approach makes far more sense and is more in line with Jesus' actual teachings, than one of segmentation and differentiation based on mortals judging the morality of mortals.

    When you describe homosexuality as a deviant act, you're ascribing properties that may not be real. For example, if a person was homosexual but celibate, is that okay? Most theists believe that adultery includes thinking about the act, so I am unaware of why this would would be different from that. Is the sin having homosexual coitus or thinking about it, or just being the type of person that has those thoughts? If things were reversed and it was frowned upon by religion to be straight, if the Bible had a passage that said, "Thou shall never have physical contact with the other gender"... would you feel differently? We get pretty outright angry at the thought of Islamic based theocracies. From a philosophical and moral standpoint, there are a whole lot of double-twists in the logic to make this work.

    Again, fully support his ability to believe and speak whatever he wants. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom without consequence and it never has. Once one person speaks their mind, another is entitled to respond, etc. We can't all agree and if we could it'd be boring. In my mind, if you remove theocratic leanings, the most conservative position possible on most social issues is, "do what you want, the government doesn't care until you're hurting someone or infringing upon the liberty of others". If someone is or is not homosexual, I cannot think of any reason in the world that I would ever want to know, in either direction, and certainly no reason why I would ever care. If it's a theology question, same answer. Let final judgement decide, it'll probably be wiser than my assumptions and there is no way that what two people do in their private bedroom can effect me anymore than what my wife and I do could ever possibly effect them.

    Jefferson said it best in 1781: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    That sentiment ought be at the foundation of our approach to speech. Let people say/do what they want, and if it's not harming anyone, who cares. This entire case would be in that category of, "who cares" if it weren't for viral media attention putting the spotlight and threat of the market on A&E. Their response may not be most ideal (and probably wasn't), but given the rumors of Mr Robertson considering a leave from the show a couple of months ago, I'm inclined to agree with those that feel this is a somewhat calculated market move with the obvious benefit of igniting further partisan separation.
    msndrstood, palandri and jdbii like this.
    12-26-2013 07:46 AM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    It's an inequality of argument position. The language is somewhat twisted, but the implication of it being a "sin" is that it's also a "choice". We've had a thread on that topic and probably all have a general place where we feel on that issue, but for some people the degree of "not sinning" it seems to be as simple as changing clothes and for others it'd be as complicated as changing your gender. If you believe it's a choice and that it's a sin, then of course there is nothing possibly offensive about saying, "hey, I think they should choose differently". If you're on the other side and think it's part and parcel with their identity, then it'd be the same thing as telling someone to stop being Asian or to stop being Christian, under penalty of eternal punishment, etc, etc.

    When we are allowed to treat choices of political party or religion exactly as important and respected as choice in what to eat for breakfast, then the conversation can move forward. Right now the argument is, "I don't like it" and the reason is, "because of religion" and that's somehow supposed to be an unassailable position and debate stopper. For some reason we feel an inability to point out flaws in religion and/or to accept criticism of religion without an argument going immediately to an 11. Yet, we all assume that the religion of the other 99% of the world that believes differently is wrong. I'd honestly have more respect for an argument of, "I think it's gross" than religion.

    He's not attacking the purchasing habits of someone who bought a different brand of car or voted for another candidate, he's attacking the sexual identity, which is psychologically deeply integrated with self perception, of a giant group of people. Most of his statements are not offensive in the least. He basically said, (paraphrase), "I'm not gay, it doesn't really make sense to me and I have a hard time relating to it". Then he said, "it's a sin, just like greed, terrorism, murder, etc" in which case, assuming it's a choice, sure I can see how that'd make sense to you. But as above, it's easy to see how someone could take that personally, just as if it were race, or creed or gender, etc. Then he closed with, "but hey, I love them anyways, even if I don't really get it". So to be clear, I have no issue at all with him believing any of that or saying any of that. I also think A&E is well within their rights to respond to criticism both for and against his stance.

    Officially in our society, there is no such thing as "a sin", but having grown up Catholic I'm fully aware of the other side of our culture, where it is a very real thing... and THAT is where the message that he closed with should have taken priority (in my opinion). An, "I sin, you sin, we all sin in different ways, lets try to move past that and find the things we do well together" approach makes far more sense and is more in line with Jesus' actual teachings, than one of segmentation and differentiation based on mortals judging the morality of mortals.

    When you describe homosexuality as a deviant act, you're ascribing properties that may not be real. For example, if a person was homosexual but celibate, is that okay? Most theists believe that adultery includes thinking about the act, so I am unaware of why this would would be different from that. Is the sin having homosexual coitus or thinking about it, or just being the type of person that has those thoughts? If things were reversed and it was frowned upon by religion to be straight, if the Bible had a passage that said, "Thou shall never have physical contact with the other gender"... would you feel differently? We get pretty outright angry at the thought of Islamic based theocracies. From a philosophical and moral standpoint, there are a whole lot of double-twists in the logic to make this work.

    Again, fully support his ability to believe and speak whatever he wants. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom without consequence and it never has. Once one person speaks their mind, another is entitled to respond, etc. We can't all agree and if we could it'd be boring. In my mind, if you remove theocratic leanings, the most conservative position possible on most social issues is, "do what you want, the government doesn't care until you're hurting someone or infringing upon the liberty of others". If someone is or is not homosexual, I cannot think of any reason in the world that I would ever want to know, in either direction, and certainly no reason why I would ever care. If it's a theology question, same answer. Let final judgement decide, it'll probably be wiser than my assumptions and there is no way that what two people do in their private bedroom can effect me anymore than what my wife and I do could ever possibly effect them.

    Jefferson said it best in 1781: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    That sentiment ought be at the foundation of our approach to speech. Let people say/do what they want, and if it's not harming anyone, who cares. This entire case would be in that category of, "who cares" if it weren't for viral media attention putting the spotlight and threat of the market on A&E. Their response may not be most ideal (and probably wasn't), but given the rumors of Mr Robertson considering a leave from the show a couple of months ago, I'm inclined to agree with those that feel this is a somewhat calculated market move with the obvious benefit of igniting further partisan separation.
    If people just stuck to the ever so simplistic 'sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me' paradigm, this country (AND THIS FORUM) would be in much better shape.



    I think signatures are stupid.
    Aquila likes this.
    12-26-2013 08:25 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    If people just stuck to the ever so simplistic 'sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me' paradigm, this country (AND THIS FORUM) would be in much better shape.



    I think signatures are stupid.
    10,000% agree in spirit, that's the attitude we should have, but since it requires at least an assumption of general etiquette in practice, we're required to uphold rules concerning civility, non-discrimination, etc. The obvious flip side of "words can never hurt" me is that namecalling, etc are pointless tactics and a waste of time, lend nothing to the debate and detract from one's credibility.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    12-26-2013 08:29 AM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    10,000% agree in spirit, that's the attitude we should have, but since it requires at least an assumption of general etiquette in practice, we're required to uphold rules concerning civility, non-discrimination, etc. The obvious flip side of "words can never hurt" me is that namecalling, etc are pointless tactics and a waste of time, lend nothing to the debate and detract from one's credibility.
    Credibility, shmedibility...



    I think signatures are stupid.
    12-26-2013 08:59 AM
1,813 ... 5051525354 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD