Facebook Conversation RE: Duck Dynasty

Further Reading:

Birdman's Duck Dynasty Thread

First of all, look at the actual interview:

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He was asked what he found sinful, and answered. That seems reasonable to me, even if his opinion was "unpopular." I will go ahead and say that when I first read his opinion, I was offended.

But I am more offended by the fact that he was taken off the program, and even more offended by liberals who are literally promoting openly their agenda of no free speech.

And look at the reasoning behind his answer:

Robertson released his own statement in response to the flap early Wednesday: "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Duck Dynasty Article

reply to post by darkbake


Sorry guys - working on the Facebook picture edit to get fake names put in. Okay, I got it. So discussion on this. It looks like what we are really dealing with is the idea that all opinions are allowed - if they are liberal opinions.

And that is not a Democracy at all, and it isn't even based on reality anymore - in my opinion, liberals have gone off the deep end, and there some legitimate criticisms that could be made against their agenda that are being suppressed.

And as you can see from the Facebook chat, the real liberal mindset is that people's jobs should be used as leverage against them to keep them from having free speech.

So, basically it's

"I was a drug using sinner and then I found god. Now I can accuse people I don't know of sins that I equate with raping animals and that's my right. If some sinner is upset, then should change their sinning ways."

and this is groovy stuff to spew over and over because.. awww he likes ducks. All the bearded duck hunters are in love with him, all the religious sinners are in awe of him and the internet says "Yes, free speeeeeech!"

or something.

Yeep.. he's a religious bigot. Oh well. Did anyone think a religious bigot would not say something like this?

reply to post by darkbake


Pick any hot-button topic on ATS or in life;
Abortion
Contraception
Homosexuality
Religion
Politics
OWS
Westboro Baptist Church
US Constitution


There are going to be people that agree and people that disagree.

But what we all should be doing, is promoting the free expression of ideas without fear of reprisal.

The minute that a person or a group attempts to shut someone up, to silence someone, to place someone into a "free speech zone" then the freedom of speech isn't free anymore.

We should all be responsible for what we say, and we should be given the oppourtunity to answer for what we've said.
But when the free exchange of ideas become punitive, then it's not a freedom anymore.

Ok lots been said about this. Without stating my opinion on anything, you say you are offended he was taken off the program.

I have just one question, not necessarily related, but maybe...

what is your opinion on unions?

simple question

reply to post by winofiend


Well yeah I don't like what he said - but that doesn't mean I want to retaliate against him for having an opinion instead of engaging him in conversation about it or something like that.

The best thing Phil Robertson and his family can do is get their ball and go to another network. I will say again that the network was well aware of his beliefs but were ok with it (money, money, money) until he was brazen enough to stick by those same beliefs when asked about them. I would bet my own money that he knew what was coming down the line when he made the statement.







With the above videos A&E needs to be asked why his views didn't matter more than the money did until they upset a certain group of people IMO.

They did have the right to fire him but like you.... I am surprised that so many are so angry that someone had the audacity to state an increasingly unpopular opinion.

I respect somebody a lot more if they state how they feel honestly. Even if I don't agree with that opinion I have respect for someone who doesn't cower and retract when threatened for having that opinion.

I am amazed that this has gotten that much attention. I don't foresee them extending their contract for DD even if they let Phil come back. They don't need A&E's money and I think the whole family will stand behind him and their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong (to them).

I don't like a lot of what people may say, but I will stand beside them and fight for their right to say it.

reply to post by beezzer


Exactly what Beezer is saying - people are going to be offended by Atheists all the time - they are going to be offended by gays all the time - once we go down the dirty road of shutting someone down for their opinion, free speech is gone.

There are two scenarios - in the first one, only one opinion is allowed, which is the Dominant Opinion - and, honestly, that could easily be anything.

There is an illusion right now that the liberal opinion is the only one out there, but that illusion is only in place because of political mechanisms that are keeping other people from expressing their opinions.

And there is a problem when one group is allowed to run rampant with their opinion without being forced to engage in conversation with the other side - they polarize and are more prone to making mistakes and being inaccurate.

In addition to this, the other side is going to head underground, where they will polarize as well.

tinner07
Ok lots been said about this. Without stating my opinion on anything, you say you are offended he was taken off the program.

I have just one question, not necessarily related, but maybe...

what is your opinion on unions?

simple question

I am for gay marriage, actually - I like Civil Unions as well - the guy offended me when I first I heard about what he said.

But then the main thing I started hearing was how people should "pay attention to what the popular opinion is, and don't say anything against it, that's what being a responsible citizen is" and it really offended me more.

My immediate reaction to this line of thinking was actually the same reaction that I have to religious zealots.

See, the real problem with homosexuality and race segregation is when actions came from words. Anyone can say well, I don't belief this type of life or that type of person is _____. And that's just an opinion. But as soon as you commit some action against a person, simply because of beliefs, race, religion… it then becomes discrimination.

Since the man's comments were not actions, nor did he call actions against any group, creed, race. Merely offering his opinion that he believes something is sinful (along with a list of others), or that when he was younger he made a comment that he saw no differences between poor white people or poor black people. It again, was an opinion.

Him getting fired though, definitely an action.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe




Here is the rest of the conversation.

"There is a difference between honest interviews and mean opinions"

From what I read, it was an honest interview and not a "mean opinion" and I'm wondering what constitutes a "mean opinion" - as in, is it something that you don't agree with?

I can understand how it is kind of mean for the guy (I only know he looks like a member of ZZ Top) to not like gays - but - Atheists don't like Christians, and are very hostile towards them a lot -

I agree that people should be honest in their opinion, but I also think they should watch what they say - I don't think anyone would be fired if they knew that their opinion was strongly disagreed with.

And there you have it. Someone actually went out and said it. And to answer your question, Tinner, that's what I'm worried about. I'm not worried about gays at all - I want gays to get married, honestly.

But these people in this conversation are the up-and-coming liberals, and they are young, and I'm worried about the peer pressure aspect here -

reply to post by darkbake


That's really disturbing.

reply to post by beezzer


It's really scary, Beezer - oh hey! You didn't see the actual screen shot yet, did you? I could be over-reacting here. I have a tendency to get really activated by stuff that has to do with taking away Civil Rights.

How long before Duck Dynasty becomes Fox News' first foray into reality television?

darkbake
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

"There is a difference between honest interviews and mean opinions"

From what I read, it was an honest interview and not a "mean opinion" and I'm wondering what constitutes a "mean opinion" - as in, is it something that you don't agree with?

I can understand how it is kind of mean for the guy (I only know he looks like a member of ZZ Top) to not like gays - but - Atheists don't like Christians, and are very hostile towards them a lot -

I agree that people should be honest in their opinion, but I also think they should watch what they say - I don't think anyone would be fired if they knew that their opinion was strongly disagreed with.

And there you have it. Someone actually went out and said it.

edit on 20pmFri, 20 Dec 2013 17:41:49 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I do wonder about the "honest interview and mean opinion" bit myself. It seems to me that any opinion the person you are talking to that does not fall in line with your beliefs and/or opinions could be considered "mean" by a lot of people... and apparently frequently are.

That's the problem with this whole line of "offensive speech". There is always someone that is going to find something offensive. You can go out and proclaim to the world that you want the best for every man, woman, and child on the planet and all the Ted Bundys and Dahmers will be offended. It sounds stupid when you put it that way, but in reality it is exactly the same thing IMO.

I do see people that are afraid to go "against the grain" when things like this happen, and that is how everything gets so crapped up. People seem unaware of the fact that their opinion may not be so popular next year and they will be left wondering WTH.

All of us need to stand up for each and every person's right to voice their beliefs/opinions whether we agree with them or not or we are all going to be stuck with nothing in the end but a big cup of STFU....

reply to post by darkbake


Imagine if ATS had a "ghost mod" someone who just read what we posted and never rebutted anything we said.

But we randomly get banned, not for swears or anything like that, but for simply posting an opinion that the "ghost mod" disagreed with.

Imagine how that would change the tone of any forum here.

I thought ATS was pro private businesses exercising their contractual rights based upon certain specified severance clauses there-within.

Further, it wasn't just the gay commentary, it was the tone deaf discussion about blacks being happier under Jim Crow than they are now. To shed light on that last little portion: It was always advisable to be polite, nice, and to display large smiles around whites to avoid even the slightest provocation...especially in the deep south. Seeing them smiling an singing (songs that, if listened to, are horrendously mournful) doesn't equate to them being happy under Jim Crow.

Now that's out of the way:

If Philly said stressed the fact that Christianity comes from the perspective that none, not one, are righteous and that human nature is inherently sinfully and wrong, then that would have been ok. It would highlight the fact that homosexuality, substance abuse, premarital sex, drinking, and other things are sinful and that everyone sins just as much as the person attracted to the same sex (EVERY SINGLE DAY). So, we would all be shown as PERPETUAL SINNERS)

However, none of that happened. None of that. He gave his ungraceful explanation of homosexuality and of Jim Crow. Thus, A&E exercised its contractual rights.

What, are we going to limit people's ability to enter into private contracts?
This, believe it or not, is not a 1st amendment issue. This is about the freedom to contract.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Thanks for joining the discussion - that's a valid perspective. Hey, could you put in a link to the blacks and Jim Crow law discussion? I heard about that one, but never saw it.

There is a historical president for reaction of Ducks comments.

Remember way back when to Nazi Germany and their book burning.

They got rid of anything they didn't like.

People are free to say whatever the hell they want.

Doesn't matter in private or public.

People are free to disagree or agree with it.

That is where it begins and ends.

That is the epitome of a 'free society'.

Say whatever the hell floats your boat.

Thought and expression is not owned by anyone.

Never has been never will be.

reply to post by darkbake


www.cnn.com...

tv.yahoo.com...
www.rawstory.com...

theweek.com...