30
   

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

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:53 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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?

No I would not, because I can't prove a negative, not even with a link. I thought I knew GLAAD was behind it, but it turned out I didn't.

You, on the other hand, might conceivably post a link proving a positive : that an agent of GLAAD did have that meeting with A&E. And when you do (or anyone else does), I'll be happy to change my mind back.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:56 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
No I would not, because I can't prove a negative, not even with a link. I thought I knew GLAAD was behind it, but it turned out I didn't.

You, on the other hand, might conceivably post a link proving a positive : that an agent of GLAAD did have that meeting with A&E. And when you do (or anyone else does), I'll be happy to change my mind back.




Quote:


http://www.eonline.com/news/491973/glaad-responds-to-phil-robertson-s-gq-comments-regarding-homosexuality?cmpid=sn-000000-twitterfeed-365-top_stories&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitterfeed_celebrities_top_stories&dlvrit=79438



Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz tells E! News in a statement. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples."
Cruz adds, "Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."
GLAAD has also reached out to the network regarding Robertson's comments.
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:59 am
@BillRM,
Fair enough. Consider my mind changed back.

EDIT: Well, maybe halfway back. The comment you quote is closer to expressing an opinion than to the all-out boycott I had in mind in my John-Birch hypothetical.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 05:00 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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.
Thanks for your responses, Tom.
U r a good fellow.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 05:27 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Why non-Christians would give a damn about Robertson's views on the bible, on the other hand, continues to baffle me.

I know, right?. It's almost as baffling as the two correspondents, Christian or not, who did not know or denied that the Bible considers gay sex an abomination punishable by death. Far from being some crazy fabrication, what people call "Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible" really just shows straightforward reading comprehension. One correspondent, to her credit, has admitted her mistake. Engineer, the other, apparently hasn't yet.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 05:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
were those notions merely the products
of your own imagination and projected by u onto THEM ?


Apisa is A2K's expert at pretending pedantic naivete.

To avoid the infinite regression--I don't know. I would bet on it though.

Do you know that Snowden is not an agent of the NSA making a set-up look good? I doubt the Russians have ruled that out.

We do know that the industry involved deals in illusions and preys on the gullibility of various interest groups. I think the GQ interview was a set-up but I don't know for sure. The guy's initials are PR. He's a rich and experienced professional actor. Would he blurt?

He has probably forgotten who he actually is. Being talked about is the oxygen of persona. Not being talked about is death.

As a result of the interview he is more famous than before it took place. More talked about. The videos of past episodes of DD are worthless objects unless broadcast again or exported. GQ has its name up in lights more than it had.

Who says you can't get something from nothing? The medium is the message.

"Cut". "Print it".

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 09:13 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I know, right?. It's almost as baffling as the two correspondents, Christian or not, who did not know or denied that the Bible considers gay sex an abomination punishable by death. Far from being some crazy fabrication, what people call "Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible" really just shows straightforward reading comprehension. One correspondent, to her credit, has admitted her mistake. Engineer, the other, apparently hasn't yet.

I've read explanations as to why the bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality, despite the plainly obvious passages in Leviticus and the Pauline epistles, but I remain unconvinced. It all smacks of special pleading. God, after all, hates shellfish and cotton-polyester blends, so why is it difficult to believe that he hates homosexuality?

I suppose, then, that my interpretation of the bible makes me as loathsome as Robertson. Oh well, I can live with that. I don't put much stock in this "sin" business anyway, so it's all the same to me whether someone is considered sinful or sinless.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:02 am
@joefromchicago,
The bible contain some very very ugly materials that is completely shocking to the mind of modern man.

I can still remember reading the bible as a young person and having some of it turned my stomach due to some of the actions or words of the bible god.

Strange how atheists tend to read the bible more carefully then so call Christians who just go with the kinder god that their churches teach instead of reading the bible themselves.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:10 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
God, after all, hates shellfish and cotton-polyester blends


I knew there was something immoral about Red Lobster!! Doubly so it seems.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:34 am
@joefromchicago,
But if we personify the meaningless, random process by which males and females came about (evolved) wouldn't the personification object to its creative genius being transgressed as contrary to the law of energy preservation.

The biological division of labour being set aside.

There might be transgression for its own sake which, as far as I know, is not found in evolution. We do not, perhaps cannot, know why homosexuality was so severely condemned in those times in that place.

To speculate that the elders were all evil and insane monsters is to play at parlour games.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 11:07 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."
GLAAD has also reached out to the network regarding Robertson's comments.

That is just an opinion. It's not threatening or demanding anything, it's asking that A & E and sponsors "reexamine their ties"--it puts the matter of deciding what to do, or not do, about Robertson on those other parties. It's simply drawing their attention to the remarks Robertson made.

The boycott threat came from Faith Driven Consumers. This is the last paragraph of their petition to A & E demanding that they reinstate Robertson::
Quote:
There are 46 million Faith Driven Consumers in America today who spend 1.75 trillion dollars annually. Should you refuse to equally respect and welcome our legitimately held views, we will gladly stop watching this and all other A&E programming and turn to any reformulation of Duck Dynasty on another network – while simultaneously supporting brands that stand with the show and the Robertson family.

Both of these groups had the right to weigh in on the matter, and both of them, as consumers and advocates, were free to react, in any way they chose, to whatever A & E decided to do.

What triggered all of this off were Robertson's controversial comments in GQ, and G.L.A.A.D, and Jesse Jackson, were within their rights to react to those remarks, about blacks and homosexuals, and it's understandable why they reacted to them.

It's BillRM who seems to think that G.L.A.A.D. should ignore statements they find offensive to homosexuals and stop making "a big deal of it". If they don't speak up for their group, who will?









firefly
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:10 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I think the GQ interview was a set-up but I don't know for sure. The guy's initials are PR. He's a rich and experienced professional actor. Would he blurt?

He has probably forgotten who he actually is. Being talked about is the oxygen of persona. Not being talked about is death.

As a result of the interview he is more famous than before it took place. More talked about. The videos of past episodes of DD are worthless objects unless broadcast again or exported. GQ has its name up in lights more than it had.

Well, he's really not "an experienced professional actor"--he's a man who is in the duck whistle and hunting equipment business who happened to wind up with a reality TV series that turned him into a pop celebrity and icon.

He's like Snooki from the reality series Jersey Shore, who now has another reality show, they are pop culture "personalities" who enjoy their media created fame and the cash cow it becomes for them.

And you are right, if those people are not talked about, it is death for them, because their spotlight goes dark. In that GQ interview, Robertson said he knows this media gravy train won't last more than another few years. So why shouldn't he try to milk it all he can?

I don't know if the GQ interview was a "set-up" but, like all interviews, it was done for publicity reasons. An A & E rep was at the interview, and Robertson was in control of what he wanted to say. He didn't "blurt" I think the controversial statements were all deliberate--that's what generated the publicity, for him, and GQ, and A & E. And the issue of GQ the interview appeared in, seemed timed to appear with the new season of Duck Dynasty, and Phil's new book, and Duck Commander's new line of guns.

And you're also right that the interview got him more famous and more talked about, and that's true for A & E's Duck Dynasty show as well, and for GQ magazine as well. It accomplished its purpose for all those parties.

I doubt that A & E figured they'd get caught in the cross-fire between the Christians and the homosexuals, or that it might affect Duck Dynasty negatively, because Phil's personal views on homosexuality were already known, and they've been careful to keep all his controversial views, and zeal for Jesus, out of Duck Dynasty.

So this entire dust-up has been a tempest in a teapot over what, one clearly iconoclastic man, said in a magazine interview, that landed his network in an uncomfortable position. It's really never been about more than that, although lots of others jumped onboard to promote their own interests.

And it's over.

A & E gave Robertson a fake slap on the wrist, then they kissed and made up, and everyone is laughing all the way to the bank.



.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
and everyone is laughing all the way to the bank.


Which is, of course, the general idea. I would say the only idea.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
he's a man who is in the duck whistle and hunting equipment business who happened to wind up with a reality TV series that turned him into a pop celebrity and icon.


John Major was in the garden ornaments business who happened to wind up Prime Minister and one who waged war enthusiastically.

John Prescott was a waiter on a cruise ship (know what I mean squire?) and he happened to wind up Deputy Prime Minister and waged war enthusiastically.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:50 pm
@joefromchicago,
The only reason any of this is such a hot-button issue at the moment has to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

I think that the entire issue of whether the Bible condemns homosexuality is irrelevant when it comes to equality of civil rights in a secular government.

The problem is that fundamentalist Christians really don't want a secular government. David is right, this country was founded as a secular Republic, and those people want a theocracy.

And I expect the fundamentalists and evangelicals to make increasingly more noise about the issue, now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been gutted, and more and more states continue to legalize same-sex marriage. They know they are losing the battle. And I think they should lose the battle. The civil rights of citizens should be decided on the basis of our Constitutional provisions and not on the religious texts of any religions.

Given how the Bible also regards women as inferior to men, and subordinate to them,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

if these Christian fundmentalists really had their way, I'd likely still not have the vote, and my liberties and my rights would be just as limited and curtailed as the women in any fundamentalist Muslim controlled country.

That's why I don't want to live in a theocracy.
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:05 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
The boycott threat came from Faith Driven Consumers. This is the last paragraph of their petition to A & E demanding that they reinstate Robertson::
Quote:
There are 46 million Faith Driven Consumers in America today who spend 1.75 trillion dollars annually. Should you refuse to equally respect and welcome our legitimately held views, we will gladly stop watching this and all other A&E programming and turn to any reformulation of Duck Dynasty on another network – while simultaneously supporting brands that stand with the show and the Robertson family.

Yes. That's much closer to the all-out boycott thread I had in mind. And yes, I consider it a bad thing.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:15 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Yes. That's much closer to the all-out boycott thread I had in mind. And yes, I consider it a bad thing.


You consider it a bad thing to defend a man right to earn a living by threatening counter economic harm to those who would try to bring back a blacklist like we have in the 1950s?

Too bad we did not have social networks in the 1950s that could had counter the blacklisters and keep many men and women working in the entertainment industry instead of ruining their careers and driving some to suicide.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:15 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
and everyone is laughing all the way to the bank.
spendius wrote:
Which is, of course, the general idea. I would say the only idea.
As I remember, the quote issued from Liberace;
(qua his attire) something like: u can laff at me now,
but I 'll laff all the way to the bank.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:19 pm
@BillRM,
two points.

phil is not an actor.

he is a "personality".

no one is going to pay to see him in Hamlet. ok, some goofy redneck christians might...

secondly, my guess is that dave supports the blacklist from the 50's.

all those scary communists...
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:34 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
my guess is that dave supports the blacklist from the 50's.

all those scary communists...
Yeah, the nazis & the commies really were scary.
I remained un-easy until communism collapsed on Christmas of 1991.
The nazis and the commies both showed us what thay woud do and what thay both DID.
Thay were not kidding around, contrary to what u imply, making a joke of it.

U need not "guess" about it Rocky.
Identifying your enemy is an important part of the fight.

Perhaps u might remember
that the commies were in partnership with the nazis
until June 22nd, 1941, when the Germen betrayed their partnership,
stabbing Roosevelt 's "Uncle Joe" in the back. Until then, their partnership was intact.





David
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.03 seconds on 06/01/2024 at 02:54:29