It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did GLAAD mess with the wrong duck? Could this be a tipping point in the culture wars?

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


I think had Robertson said " To me xyz is a sin" or " according to my faith and belief xyz is a sin" before his original comment, none of this would have gained the slightest bit of traction and GLAAD would not have a leg to stand on. But he didn't and so, they do.

He most certainly said it was because of his faith that he thought it was a sin, so I’m not sure how you are missing that. He was paraphrasing the Bible. As for GLAAD, they aren’t interested in niceties such as accuracy of whether they have a case. It’s just fire away with the smear job and strong arm tactics such as going against the sponsors. It’s not only about Phil, it’s going nuclear in order to warn ANYONE that nothing outside the accepted canon shall be tolerated. That’s the whole PC gameplan right there.


The issue GLAAD is raising is legitimate. Blanket statement can be killers. People *are* being discriminated against, are being beaten and are being killed on the sole basis that Joe Bog's faith is the RIGHT one, the ONLY faith and whats more, is the "ONE TRUE FAITH" so therefore every word written here in xyz book - interpreted THIS RIGHT WAY ACCORDING TO ME - is THE ONLY truth for EVERYONE.
It isn't though, and can never be, and that kind of one eyed thinking isn't much different from the dribble violent jihadists say every day when you look at it.


When GLAAD has the balls to go after the Islam then maybe you will have a better case. As it is, GLAAD would have made a better case if they were honest, but they were not. They just went into attack mode and sought to pump up the outrage. They misrepresented his comments as lies, exaggerations, and vile stereotypes when they were nothing of the kind. In doing so, GLAAD proved itself vile in its lying and exaggerating and its seeking to defame Phil by saying he wasn’t a real Christian.

Phil didn’t do anything to incite hatred, so your point about folks being killed by blanket statements doesn’t apply and the overheated bit about the one true faith stuff is a red herring.


IMO, if people just owned their stuff, even just by using a simple preface like "according to my faith or my belief", and so make a choice to not make blanket statements and have some real respect ( which is just self admitting your not god and dont know it all) instead of trying to score points, life could be so much better and neither side would be given a free club to beat another side...ever.


Again, he owned it and he has been wholly upfront about his faith, which was what he was talking about when this part of the interview came up:


“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost. “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful? “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em ou t later, you see what I’m saying?”

www.gq.com...

Nothing in there that is intolerant or hateful. Just speaking his beliefs and loving all, even those he thinks of as sinners--because according to the beliefs he was plainly speaking of, everyone is a sinner, including Phil.

No matter how you slice this, GLAAD has no case, unless you want to say that anything but absolute acceptance about anything regarding gays is unacceptable, which apparently is what GLAAD is shooting for.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


Dear Occum's sock puppet.

Not taking the bait.

cheers

Ro.



ps: Founding fathers of the USA were not christian and nor are the noahide laws a christian doctrine : 'thou shall not kill' etc. Go do your research.

edit on 22-12-2013 by Rosha because: additions for clarity.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 



I see your point...and I'm expressing my disagreement with his point of view and perhaps a little too harshly and zealously. I'll give you guys that. I get a little to passionate with this type of thing. My concern remains valid though. Read his quotes now and from previous interviews and speeches and he's saying that homosexuality is sin and comparable to having sex with animals or as part of that list of sins. So you have to take a stand on this view. Is Homosexuality a life choice like smoking or is it something you have almost no or no control of being? I didn't wake up deciding whether I was going to be sexually attracted to women or men today.. it wasn't a choice for me.


So you are taking a stand and I support your doing so 100%. Note what you are not doing, however. You are not smearing a guy who disagrees with you. This puts you far ahead of GLAAD, and as another gay person said in one of the first reactions I read about this, GLAAD really blew it because instead of using the opportunity to open a dialogue, they went for the smear to pump up the outrage. In short, you good, GLAAD bad.


The second concern is that if you get millions of people with his view point that minorities were better off without civil rights...that's a pretty bad road we're heading down. Isn't it? Am I wrong to express that all men are created equally as our forefathers said? He's not right in his thinking and I'm opposed to him and those that think like him.


He's not saying anyone shouldn't have civil rights. What he said was that in his direct experience things were as they were. He also said that he was with those black people, working side by side with them. The outrage folks overlooked that. I only have this article to go on, as I've never seen the show or know anything beyond what that article said, but I see nothing where he is saying folks aren't created equal. It's just not coming through in anything he put out. Instead he's saying we should all love each other and love God. He's not saying you should be strung up or anything. That's what makes this faux outrage from GLAAD the noxious bit it is.


“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”


Oh, the OUTRAGE. Now, because of GLAAD''s underhanded actions, people who aren't connected with them or share their activist views have to deal with the blowback from a misguided effort of PC strong arming. With friends like these, eh?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


Dear Occum's sock puppet.

Not taking the bait.

cheers


Heh. I'm a sock puppet because your points didn't hold up to dispassionate scrutiny? Beauty. Say you don't work for GLAAD, do ya?

Regarless, I can see why you don't want debate.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
GLAAD Ducked Up!


Seriously though, over the years we've seen too many folks destroyed by this madness. This time I hope people will stick to their guns and say enough is enough, and stand by the Robertson family on this. Any company that caves to GLAAD right now and tries to sever ties to them, they should feel the real boycott by the American people who are sick and tired of this PC BS!



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Love the title. CULTURE wars? That was meant to be ironic, no?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

BlueMoonJoe

Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


I think had Robertson said " To me xyz is a sin" or " according to my faith and belief xyz is a sin" before his original comment, none of this would have gained the slightest bit of traction and GLAAD would not have a leg to stand on. But he didn't and so, they do.

He most certainly said it was because of his faith that he thought it was a sin, so I’m not sure how you are missing that. He was paraphrasing the Bible. As for GLAAD, they aren’t interested in niceties such as accuracy of whether they have a case. It’s just fire away with the smear job and strong arm tactics such as going against the sponsors. It’s not only about Phil, it’s going nuclear in order to warn ANYONE that nothing outside the accepted canon shall be tolerated. That’s the whole PC gameplan right there.


The issue GLAAD is raising is legitimate. Blanket statement can be killers. People *are* being discriminated against, are being beaten and are being killed on the sole basis that Joe Bog's faith is the RIGHT one, the ONLY faith and whats more, is the "ONE TRUE FAITH" so therefore every word written here in xyz book - interpreted THIS RIGHT WAY ACCORDING TO ME - is THE ONLY truth for EVERYONE.
It isn't though, and can never be, and that kind of one eyed thinking isn't much different from the dribble violent jihadists say every day when you look at it.


When GLAAD has the balls to go after the Islam then maybe you will have a better case. As it is, GLAAD would have made a better case if they were honest, but they were not. They just went into attack mode and sought to pump up the outrage. They misrepresented his comments as lies, exaggerations, and vile stereotypes when they were nothing of the kind. In doing so, GLAAD proved itself vile in its lying and exaggerating and its seeking to defame Phil by saying he wasn’t a real Christian.

Phil didn’t do anything to incite hatred, so your point about folks being killed by blanket statements doesn’t apply and the overheated bit about the one true faith stuff is a red herring.


IMO, if people just owned their stuff, even just by using a simple preface like "according to my faith or my belief", and so make a choice to not make blanket statements and have some real respect ( which is just self admitting your not god and dont know it all) instead of trying to score points, life could be so much better and neither side would be given a free club to beat another side...ever.


Again, he owned it and he has been wholly upfront about his faith, which was what he was talking about when this part of the interview came up:


“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost. “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful? “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em ou t later, you see what I’m saying?”

www.gq.com...

Nothing in there that is intolerant or hateful. Just speaking his beliefs and loving all, even those he thinks of as sinners--because according to the beliefs he was plainly speaking of, everyone is a sinner, including Phil.

No matter how you slice this, GLAAD has no case, unless you want to say that anything but absolute acceptance about anything regarding gays is unacceptable, which apparently is what GLAAD is shooting for.


BS. If he subscribes to a faith, nay, preaches and promotes it daily, and acknowledges that the faith considers homosexuality to be a sin, then he is by proxy saying that homosexuality is a sin. He is saying it is wrong in a PC, beat-around-the-bush way. Like OccamsRazor said earlier, his belief system dictates that it's wrong. His "unconditional love" apparently has conditions! Same for Robertson. The act of saying "I love you despite your flaws" is basically saying "you have flaws". Doublespeak at its best.

Christians can't seem to grasp that it's not just extremist interpretations of the text that are immoral - the text itself is clearly hateful. Commanding parents to murder their children for disobeying, to murder "witches", shunning those who don't trim their beards correctly, men who lieth with other men, etc. etc. etc. The act of professing Christianity itself is a form of promoting the most vile and hate-filled messages that have ever existed.

Whether GLAAD's methods or mindset are unsound or not, I personally see no difference - hate-preaching cultists, like Christians, need to be seen for what they are. A psychological cancer.
edit on 12 22 2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

gwynned
Love the title. CULTURE wars? That was meant to be ironic, no?


No. It was not. And the title was better before the censors neutered it.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Son of Will

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


BS. If he subscribes to a faith, nay, preaches and promotes it daily, and acknowledges that the faith considers homosexuality to be a sin, then he is by proxy saying that homosexuality is a sin.


Right, that's precisely what he is saying.


He is saying it is wrong in a PC, beat-around-the-bush way.


Saying it is a sin is beating around the bush in a PC way? How you came up with this convoluted bit of illogic, only you know.


Like OccamsRazor said earlier, his belief system dictates that it's wrong. His "unconditional love" apparently has conditions! Same for Robertson. The act of saying "I love you despite your flaws" is basically saying "you have flaws". Doublespeak at its best.


You really don't understand how this works and you aren't making sense. If you love someone despite their flaws then your love is conditional, so that flies in the face of your assertion of doublespeak. And as for having flaws, it's basic doctrine that EVERYBODY has flaws, so that isn't anything controversial, either.


Christians can't seem to grasp that it's not just extremist interpretations of the text that are immoral - the text itself is clearly hateful. Commanding parents to murder their children for disobeying, to murder "witches", shunning those who don't trim their beards correctly, men who lieth with other men, etc. etc. etc. The act of professing Christianity itself is a form of promoting the most vile and hate-filled messages that have ever existed.


Uh, you seem to be mixing up the Old and New Testaments. You might want to redirect your ire towards, well, best leave it where it is as in the PC game Christians are fair game. Saying the kind of stuff you are saying here towards Jews is strictly a no go, so we'll just go with the Christians being responsible for both testaments. Throw in the Quran, too, because when you look at what that says about gays, you will be GLAAD to keep the focus on the duck guy.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


If you ever make any logical defenses, let me know. All I heard is "you're wrong, you're stupid" without addressing anything I said.


And your "No, it's the Old Testament that's bad, not the New Testament!" defense is absurd - the sane deity resides in both. Surely you acknowledge that much?

PS, I see I offended you. But understand that you have to compete with the logic if you want to get anywhere. Emotional arguments are just another way of saying "... I got nothing."



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

BlueMoonJoe

Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


Dear Occum's sock puppet.

Not taking the bait.

cheers


Heh. I'm a sock puppet because your points didn't hold up to dispassionate scrutiny? Beauty. Say you don't work for GLAAD, do ya?

Regarless, I can see why you don't want debate.

Cheers.



No, its quite simple and scientific really, you just fail to see the equation because you dont seem to be aware one even exists. Next time change your sentence structure and syntax's.

How to identify and out a socket puppet


toodles.


Ro



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

BlueMoonJoe

gwynned
Love the title. CULTURE wars? That was meant to be ironic, no?


No. It was not. And the title was better before the censors neutered it.


Oh. Perhaps you can explain how this duck show and it's seemingly backwoods (though clearly fake) lead act qualifies as 'culture'? Sigh! Perhaps they are justified in treating us like swine.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 


Oh gods, I saw that post on TMZ with Charlie Sheen. I laughed for over 5 minutes at that, and now I wish Celebrity Death Match was still on the air.

Warlock vs. Duck Commander



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Phil for President 2016
Non sequitur

X



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I don't watch alot of television mostly because there is not much on there worth watching.

I do not watch the Duck Guys and their families. I Tried to watch it once and it was not my cup of tea. I also do not buy their products.

I only know of this story because it turned up on my Kindle in the news.

This sort of reminds me of some similar event which happened with a fast food outlet named "Chick Filet."
Any of you recall that about a year or so back.

I reckon what I am trying to say is that the public is getting tired of certain groups defaulting through by crying wolf and expecting others to be silent.
These groups or interests seem to be all for tolerance..but they are not want to extend it to others. I find this to be a very interesting and telling contrast.

This is censorship. It is not free speech. And this is dividing our nation into camps. It is not uniting our people.

I am not for censorship.



At the same time I find something very strange out here..

That a people..any people would define themselves publicly by their sexuality or sexual orientation and expect and even demand the approval of others on this belief about their sexuality or sexual orientation.

To my limited knowledge of history ..a people define themselves by their lineage, their occupation, or some great work they have done and left to posterity.

People do not define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation.

I am not saying that people do not have sexuality or sexual orientation..but am trying to say that people are so much more than this.

When I see people attempting to define themselves by their sexuality...their sexual orientation..and expecting others to approve of this or failing such..be silent...I realize how dumb we as a people have become.

When I detect our leadership catering and cow cowing to this template..I realize our leadership has an investment in dumbing us down for controllable, gauranteed, malleable votes.
We are being conned here. They only care about the votes while they dumb down the rest of us or at least keep us silent...censorship.

Any of you ever thought this through as to what is happening out here.

When you understand that people are supposed to be and should be so much more than sexuality and sexual orientation....you realize what a con job is taking place out here.

You also begin to look at leadership and realize that the standards for leadership in this country are not as high as we have been mislead to believe...or understand...from the top down.

Oh..by the way...Charlie Sheen. No thanks ..not my cup of tea as well. I tried to watch this program about something and a half men..and found it to be of a low common denominator. Not interested.
I am insulted when I see the news media trying to sell me on an idea that because some celebrity thinks such and such that I should lock step because they are celebrities. No thanks, I will do my own thinking and drive my own bus.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


let these glaad people speak out against other countries too, like NOW does for women.

oh wait, did i get something wrong?

i guess, i did.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

BlueMoonJoe
reply to post by amazing
 



I see your point...and I'm expressing my disagreement with his point of view and perhaps a little too harshly and zealously. I'll give you guys that. I get a little to passionate with this type of thing. My concern remains valid though. Read his quotes now and from previous interviews and speeches and he's saying that homosexuality is sin and comparable to having sex with animals or as part of that list of sins. So you have to take a stand on this view. Is Homosexuality a life choice like smoking or is it something you have almost no or no control of being? I didn't wake up deciding whether I was going to be sexually attracted to women or men today.. it wasn't a choice for me.


So you are taking a stand and I support your doing so 100%. Note what you are not doing, however. You are not smearing a guy who disagrees with you. This puts you far ahead of GLAAD, and as another gay person said in one of the first reactions I read about this, GLAAD really blew it because instead of using the opportunity to open a dialogue, they went for the smear to pump up the outrage. In short, you good, GLAAD bad.


The second concern is that if you get millions of people with his view point that minorities were better off without civil rights...that's a pretty bad road we're heading down. Isn't it? Am I wrong to express that all men are created equally as our forefathers said? He's not right in his thinking and I'm opposed to him and those that think like him.


He's not saying anyone shouldn't have civil rights. What he said was that in his direct experience things were as they were. He also said that he was with those black people, working side by side with them. The outrage folks overlooked that. I only have this article to go on, as I've never seen the show or know anything beyond what that article said, but I see nothing where he is saying folks aren't created equal. It's just not coming through in anything he put out. Instead he's saying we should all love each other and love God. He's not saying you should be strung up or anything. That's what makes this faux outrage from GLAAD the noxious bit it is.


“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”


Oh, the OUTRAGE. Now, because of GLAAD''s underhanded actions, people who aren't connected with them or share their activist views have to deal with the blowback from a misguided effort of PC strong arming. With friends like these, eh?


dude, phil used black, bible and christian, in the same paragraph.

obviously, he is racist as well as wanting all gays dead.

anyone see these glad people on the news? i thought they were gonna break out sobbing, after the hissyfit.

they were livid! lol!!!
ya, over the top funny.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Son of Will
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


If you ever make any logical defenses, let me know. All I heard is "you're wrong, you're stupid" without addressing anything I said.


And your "No, it's the Old Testament that's bad, not the New Testament!" defense is absurd - the sane deity resides in both. Surely you acknowledge that much?

PS, I see I offended you. But understand that you have to compete with the logic if you want to get anywhere. Emotional arguments are just another way of saying "... I got nothing."


ya, and traveling is the same offence in HS as the pro's.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


nice post.

charlie sheen, lol!!

can't wait to hear jon stewart.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
People who think spouting prejudice and hatespeech is just a matter of people having differing opinions, I wonder what you think about other forms of freedom of speech.

For example - is it OK for people with a public platform to happily discuss their rampant racism, or how they think disabled people should be terminated at birth, or how women should be seen and not heard because they are inferior to men, or how some people find children sexually attractive.

Should people with these kind of opinions for example be given a free unbiased platform to air their opinions - I mean you have the right to disagree with them, but do you have the right to censor their freedom of speech?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join