30
   

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:05 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Being a "true believer" doesn't mean Robertson should be shielded from the reactions of those who find his comments offensive, or those whose beliefs differ from his.


He is no believer ff. He is an astute and cynical manipulator of social tension and polarised prejudices as are those who pull his strings.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:20 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Being a "true believer" doesn't mean Robertson should be shielded from the reactions
of those who find his comments offensive, or those whose beliefs differ from his.
spendius wrote:
He is no believer ff.
He is an astute and cynical manipulator of social tension and polarised prejudices
as are those who pull his strings. At least robbing banks is honest.
Will u reveal the source of your knowledge
qua what he does not believe ??

Do u represent yourself to possess supernatural powers ?





David
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
because America
was created to be a secular Republic and these guys are theocrats

I think that's true.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Firefly

And, when you start blaming them for God's wrath against our country, and blaming them for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did in 2001, you're advocating flat out hatred for those groups, and you are throwing stones.


David, I do not remember Firefly having any problem at all with Sharpton getting a mob to chat no justice no peace IE threatening to riot if Zimmerman is not arrested but let a bible true believer dare to used the words in the bible in
regard to homosexuals and they are throwing stones..............

Lord is the lady a hypocrite of the worst kind.

Footnote the reason that those who did not agree with Phil did not in the end get to censor him is that there are simply too many millions who either agree with him or like me feel that he have every damn right in the world to express his religion in the public square without being harm by GLAAD or any such assholes.

We do not need any more blacklists or blacklists keepers in this nation.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Will u reveal the source of your knowledge
qua what he does not believe ??


Sure I will. A true believer would not have gone out of his way to plan and script an interview with a magazine in order to demonstrate his lack of love for others.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:33 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
A true believer would not have gone out of his way to plan and script an interview with a magazine in order to demonstrate his lack of love for others.


????????? He dare to answer questions of a reporter who wish to paint him in the worst possible light that is not going out of his way in any manner.
firefly
 
  3  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:56 pm
@BillRM,
The chant, "No Justice, No Peace," meant non-violent protests would continue until the government addressed the issue.

No one ever threatened riots, that's your paranoia about blacks being dangerous. They were engaging in civil disobedience, just as Martin Luther King, Jr. had done, to protest the D.A.'s action in the case of Zimmerman.

The alleged "true believer" Phil Robertson went beyond the Bible in terms of how he chose to express himself on the subject of homosexuality, and his offensive comments on marrying under-aged women, and his offense comments on blacks, are unrelated to the Bible.

And you rather hypocritically bash fundamentalist Muslim "true believers", who express their religious views, when you don't like the opinions they base on their religious views. You didn't even want Muslims to be able to build a mosque/community center in lower Manhattan, in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site, and you flatly said their civil rights didn't matter.

In the case of Robertson, you agree with his opinions, particularly his anti-gay opinions, even though you disagree with his religious beliefs. You've been using this situation mainly to attack G.L.A.A.D., and mainly by accusing them of doing something they never did in the case of Robertson. They never asked for him to be fired, and they never "threatened his livelihood" in any way. They simply voiced their reactions to what he said. As did other groups, like the N.A.A.C.P., Rainbow/PUSH and N.O.W. And all of those groups, including G.L.A.A.D., have a right to express reactions to whatever Robertson says, particularly when he's saying things about them.







0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:02 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
????????? He dare to answer questions of a reporter who wish to paint him in the worst possible light that is not going out of his way in any manner.

Did you read the GQ interview? The reporter liked Robertson.

Robertson wants to paint himself in a certain light. A great deal of his redneck shtick is a put-on, just like the long beard and camo get-up is really a costume for the act. I can't believe people really take this man seriously.

I'm inclined to agree with spendius that Robertson is
Quote:
He is an astute and cynical manipulator of social tension and polarised prejudices

He likes controversy, he likes publicity, he likes MONEY. If he were really serious about his allegedly religiously based beliefs, particularly that there is too much sex in the country today, he wouldn't give interviews to GQ, which in the same issue as his interview, had an article on the best breasts on the red carpet. Rolling Eyes

Unfortunately, A & E doesn't want social tensions and polarized prejudices tarnishing their light-hearted, and very popular Duck Dynasty show, nor do they want him putting them in the middle of such divisiveness, which is why they had to flex their muscles with him. I suspect they were surprised when anyone took what he said to GQ seriously, but once they did, A & E had to deal with it.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:24 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The salient point about Magary’s cavalier approach to the facts regards how unimportant they are to his shtick. It didn’t matter what Phil said. It didn’t matter what I said. Magary had the story written before he walked into the room.
It’s not journalism so much as it is anthropology, Margaret Mead among the Samoans stuff. One can go back to his GQ piece earlier this year on Kid Rock and his uncouth fans to witness Magary recycling, albeit in a kinder, gentler manner, the condescending tone that appears in his cottage industry of articles on rednecks, conservatives, conservative rednecks, and redneck conservatives. Magary, of course, isn’t trekking across the globe to examine the folkways of primitive peoples. He conducts his fieldwork among—in Magary’s words--the “Mericans,” perhaps the most exotic humans on the planet to any self-described “uppity liberal.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/12/22/Before-GQs-writer-got-Duck-Dynastys-Phil-he-got-me

an alt view from Firefly's.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're overlooking the fact that Robertson, and his sons, like playing rednecks and pretending to be rednecks--a good deal of this is pretense, it's an act. And the GQ interviewer was aware of that.

And that act is the premise of Duck Dynasty which is a carefully scripted, contrived, and edited show, to present them in a certain comic light.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:48 pm
@spendius,
DAVID wrote:
Will u reveal the source of your knowledge
qua what he does not believe ??
spendius wrote:
Sure I will. A true believer would not
have gone out of his way to plan and script an interview
with a magazine in order to demonstrate his lack of love for others.
I hope to avoid creation of an infinite regression,
but:
1. HOW did u ascertain what a "true believer would not" have done???

and

2. HOW did u ascertain whether that interview was "scripted" or not ??

or
were those notions merely the products
of your own imagination and projected by u onto THEM ?





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:52 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
You're overlooking the fact that Robertson, and his sons,
like playing rednecks and pretending to be rednecks--a good deal of this is pretense, it's an act.
I can see where u might be right; u might be rong.
Y do u believe that it is pretense ??
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:08 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that Robertson, and his sons, like playing rednecks and pretending to be rednecks--a good deal of this is pretense, it's an act. And the GQ interviewer was aware of that.

And that act is the premise of Duck Dynasty which is a carefully scripted, contrived, and edited show, to present them in a certain comic light.


The A&E PR people set this up knowing what to expect I think, but old Phil got the better of them. Like the PR pros Phil had to know that GQ readers are not his brands prime audience, that the goal was to mock some rednecks for attention.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
This is one of Phil Robertson sons in his pre-beard, pre-redneck days. Smile

http://aetvcdn.aetndigital.com/picture/aetn-default-mpx-series/picture_gallery_965x664/family-pre-beard.jpg?itok=18EQzxbI

Phil and his sons are fairly well educated, and Willie is a very successful businessman--they really aren't rednecks.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:27 pm
@firefly,
Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton are both very intelligent women. What is your point? This is TV.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton are both very intelligent women. What is your point? This is TV.

David asked me
Quote:
Y do u believe that it is pretense ??

I showed him a picture of one of the Robertson sons before he adopted "the costume" and the affectation of being "a redneck millionaire".

What's your point?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jan, 2014 09:19 pm
@firefly,
You and your smiley face seem to be mocking the Robersons.....which is not warranted. For instance google Steve Irwin (the Croc Hunter) and look at images, you will have look a long time before you see a pic of him out of his "uniform".

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Galleries/Steve%20Irwin/steve-irwin-baby-croc-2002-sized.jpg

just a different guy with a different schtick yukking it up for the camera in charactor...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:33 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Quote:
Going after someone's source of income for expressing unpopular opinions is an action I disapprove of.

Who, beside A & E, threatened Robertson's income?

I was informed that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) did the boycott thing. But on further research, this information turned out to be false. I still disagree with you on the principle that government isn't the only agent who can thwart people's freedom of speech. But my application of the principle to this case was mistaken. Even by my own standards, the record does not show me any outside activists coming after Phil Robertson's income.

That leaves your earlier point about A&E's freedom of speech, its power to control its own message and values. Here I actually agree with you on the principle --- but it doesn't apply to Phil Robertson's interview with GQ magazine. Nobody is claiming that Robertson said anything unacceptable on A&E's show. Nobody is claiming that he misbehaved on A&E's set. Phil Robertson, on his own time, gave an interview to a magazine that had nothing to do with A&E. At no point did he claim to speak for A&E. So how do the network's message and the network's values even enter into it? What we had there wasn't A&E controlling its own message. That was A&E trying to control GQ's and Phil Robertson's message --- and fortunately failing.

firefly wrote:
Do you have similar concerns about Faith Driven Consumers threatening the income of A & E if the network didn't comply with their demands--which is exactly what they did?

Yes I do. And as I indicated before, my moral judgment would then balance the activists' infringement of A&E's freedoms of speech and press (which is bad) against the network's non-infringement of Phil Robertson's (which is good).
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:44 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
I was informed that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) did the boycott thing. But on further research, this information turned out to be false. I still disagree with you on the principle that government isn't the only agent who can thwart people's freedom of speech. But my application of the principle to this case was mistaken. Even by my own standards, the record does not show me any outside activists coming after Phil Robertson's income.


Would you please link to any information that the start of this whole chain of events was not an agent of GLAAD having a meeting with A&E demanding that Phil be removed from his show?
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Can we agree that a human mind can be ignorant -- i.e., un-informed?

Sure.

Quote:
Is it POSSIBLE for a non-living entity e.g. a remark, (the molecular movement of air) to be ignorant?

Yes. According to Webster's Dictionary, one meaning of "ignorant" is "resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge". That's the meaning I tried to convey, and unlike other participants in this thread, I try to write standard English so that my correspondents may understand me.

OmSigDavid wrote:
Is it your position that whether sentiments are bigoted
depends on whether resentment is justified ?

No, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. And when their resentments are justified, the benefit of the doubt comes more easily.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 01:00:44