DUCK DYNASTY

exact33 wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

I think it does when they start labeling people vile bigots and start saying the First Amendment should not apply to them. It's one thing to say you dont support his views but its another entirely to say he should not be able to hold them.

Well you know what they say, "if the shoe fits". He can hold his views, but it's in his best interest to keep his big mouth shut if he dosen't want to get fired.

Vexer6 wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

I think it does when they start labeling people vile bigots and start saying the First Amendment should not apply to them. It's one thing to say you dont support his views but its another entirely to say he should not be able to hold them.

Well you know what they say, "if the shoe fits". He can hold his views, but it's in his best interest to keep his big mouth shut if he dosen't want to get fired.

Phil is a multi-millionaire. I highly doubt he cares about the show for money or getting suspended. He himself said he was doing it to spread the Word and not for the money.

Also, we need to protect all speech - particularly that which offends us - otherwise, the freedom of speech is meaningless.

It seems people exist to be offended now.

Like others have mentioned that has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It's the networks right to suspend him if they feel he's acting unprofessionally and representing them in a negative light, so it's not really about people being "offended" so much as the execs acting in their best interests.

S.D. wrote:

Alec was being hounded by paparazzi and called one of them a f*g, of course that was recorded by all the other paparazzi.  Stupid on Alec's part, he should have known he'd be recorded.  

People say things when they're angry. It's usually always impulsive. I'm not saying it's right, but people (especially from his era) threw words like that around commonly.

Troublezone wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Alec was being hounded by paparazzi and called one of them a f*g, of course that was recorded by all the other paparazzi.  Stupid on Alec's part, he should have known he'd be recorded.  

People say things when they're angry. It's usually always impulsive. I'm not saying it's right, but people (especially from his era) threw words like that around commonly.

Right, I got called that all the time in grade school, and I doubt those kids were even old enough to know what it really meant.

Vexer6 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Alec was being hounded by paparazzi and called one of them a f*g, of course that was recorded by all the other paparazzi.  Stupid on Alec's part, he should have known he'd be recorded.  

People say things when they're angry. It's usually always impulsive. I'm not saying it's right, but people (especially from his era) threw words like that around commonly.

Right, I got called that all the time in grade school, and I doubt those kids were even old enough to know what it really meant.

It's a common put-down from back in the day.

As for his Jim Crow comments, I will say that is a very common perspective held by southerners. My mother-in-law was born and raised in Georgia and has told me the same thing, and my heritage is rooted in Oklahoma, so a lot of the same stories get tossed around. I've only known one black man who worked in the stables during that period; all he had told me was that he had it pretty good. Whether this viewpoint is true or not is anyone's guess. I don't have an opinion either way because I just wasn't there. Of course, we all know that violent and unsettling racism has been a part of the South's blood supply.

Vexer6 wrote:

James B. wrote:

It's kinda/sorta like my cousin sayin he hates/despises people who are racist and doesn't understand why I laugh.

What's so funny about that?  Racism is no laughing matter.

Seems you miss the gest too ?

A racist hates/despises "others", correct
My cousin hates/despises "racists".

key word in both examples is "hate", So why is it "okay" for one to hate one and then not okay for that one to hate another ?

I am not racist, I just have an issue when people point a finger at this or that and fail to see they should be pointing it at themselves as well.

Vexer6 wrote:

Like others have mentioned that has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.  It's the networks right to suspend him if they feel he's acting unprofessionally and representing them in a negative light, so it's not really about people being "offended" so much as the execs acting in their best interests.

Comments from people like Piers Anthony who say Phil should not be allowed to express his opinion because Anthony finds it to be offensive makes it a Freedom of Speech issue.

Vexer6 wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

I think it does when they start labeling people vile bigots and start saying the First Amendment should not apply to them. It's one thing to say you dont support his views but its another entirely to say he should not be able to hold them.

Well you know what they say, "if the shoe fits". He can hold his views, but it's in his best interest to keep his big mouth shut if he dosen't want to get fired.

Thanks for being so tolerant. The above fits in perfectly with you calling me 'sick' for my views on abortion.

Vexer6 wrote:

Like others have mentioned that has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.  It's the networks right to suspend him if they feel he's acting unprofessionally and representing them in a negative light, so it's not really about people being "offended" so much as the execs acting in their best interests.

I am well aware of what the First Amendment protects - it protects individuals from government infringement of speech. Also, this is totally about faux outrage/pearl-clutching and a corporation's response to it. If A&E wants to suspend Phil they are well within their rights to do so, but why is anyone surprised by these comments?

Regardless of the First Amendment, we as a societal whole should encourage different viewpoints and not stifle unpopular speech. Frankly, Political Correctness is anathema to free speech and a free society.

James B. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

James B. wrote:

It's kinda/sorta like my cousin sayin he hates/despises people who are racist and doesn't understand why I laugh.

What's so funny about that?  Racism is no laughing matter.

Seems you miss the gest too ?

A racist hates/despises "others", correct
My cousin hates/despises "racists".

key word in both examples is "hate", So why is it "okay" for one to hate one and then not okay for that one to hate another ?

I am not racist, I just have an issue when people point a finger at this or that and fail to see they should be pointing it at themselves as well.

There's really no "gest" to miss here, so I fail to see the hilarity. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Like others have mentioned that has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.  It's the networks right to suspend him if they feel he's acting unprofessionally and representing them in a negative light, so it's not really about people being "offended" so much as the execs acting in their best interests.

I am well aware of what the First Amendment protects - it protects individuals from government infringement of speech.  Also, this is totally about faux outrage/pearl-clutching and a corporation's response to it.  If A&E wants to suspend Phil they are well within their rights to do so, but why is anyone surprised by these comments?

Regardless of the First Amendment, we as a societal whole should encourage different viewpoints and not stifle unpopular speech.  Frankly, Political Correctness is anathema to free speech and a free society.  

Oh i'm not surprised by his comments really nor are many other people, but that dosen't mean they can't be pissed off at them.

Not all viewpoints should be encouraged if they themselves condone hatred to another person for something they have no control over, take Mel Gibson for example, he believes that the Holocaust never happened, now would you REALLY want to encourage a viewpoint like that? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I personally just cannot bring myself to support any viewpoint that condones hatred for a person just for their sexual orientation or the color of their skin.

exact33 wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

I think it does when they start labeling people vile bigots and start saying the First Amendment should not apply to them. It's one thing to say you dont support his views but its another entirely to say he should not be able to hold them.

Well you know what they say, "if the shoe fits". He can hold his views, but it's in his best interest to keep his big mouth shut if he dosen't want to get fired.

Thanks for being so tolerant. The above fits in perfectly with you calling me 'sick' for my views on abortion.

You're still holding a grudge against me for that?  

You're not exactly the pinnacle of tolerance yourself, so you really have no room to speak.

Vexer6 wrote:

There's really no "gest" to miss here, so I fail to see the hilarity.  Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

I laugh at him cause it's stupid to call somebody on doing something you are doing yourself.   I can't help that you fail to see my point and most PC folks fail to ever get it.   Hate is hate and it's wrong regardless of intent behind it.  If you fail to see the implications of saying you hate others that hate and feel your hate is justified, how is that being tolerant ?  It's situational ethics that isn't based on right or wrong but personal opinion and/or circumstance.

James B. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

There's really no "gest" to miss here, so I fail to see the hilarity.  Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

I laugh at him cause it's stupid to call somebody on doing something you are doing yourself.   I can't help that you fail to see my point and most PC folks fail to ever get it.   Hate is hate and it's wrong regardless of intent behind it.  If you fail to see the implications of saying you hate others that hate and feel your hate is justified, how is that being tolerant ?  It's situational ethics that isn't based on right or wrong but personal opinion and/or circumstance.

So I can't hate someone for being racist? Yeah that makes perfect sense, not.  

OK, that's enough of this sh*t. Thread locked.