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

daskakik

beezzer
Yet I disagree with you. If I had a picture of Springer having a salad lunch with Dick Cheney at Haliburton HQ and could force him (with exposure of the picture) to ban you, would that be fair?

So you're trying to say that it was blackmail and not someone forgetting to read the fine print of their contract?

It could be but you don't know that which debases the premis of your analogy.

And neither do you.

But it stands to reason that Phil's beliefs were already a matter of record prior to signing up with A&E. It is also a matter of record that they were a religious family.

So where is the surprise?

The issue came about because someone disagreed with Phil's beliefs.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

OccamsRazor04

Rosha
The two quotes I placed above ARE from his ACTUAL interview.

sigh.

HILARIOUS!!!! You don't even get it after I point it out to you.

Where is " to me" or "in my biblical belief" there ?

HELLO!!!!

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.

It's right friggin there. You just want to ignore it.

No, I am not ignoring the fact that he later paraphrased the words you quoted to try and cloak his bigotry in a religious garment. Just please remember you responded to my original post, a post that clearly said if a person makes a blanket statement, then before that statement it sh/could say ' To me ...' or " To my belief".

This idea of prefacing statements was not about a reference to intent once or twice in a mile long interview..but rather spoke of using a preface intended to go WITH the/each statement AS it is being made.

If you had read my initial post rather than reacted to it, then that would be obvious and simple to comprehend.

OccamsRazor04

maus80You can't address the validity of any of my arguments, so you are resorting to ad hominem and jumping on my admission that I'm not a Christian.

Oh look the cry of the person who lost the argument. "You resort to ad hominem".

I used Jesus' own words to prove you are taking his words out of context.

Looking at his disciples, he said:
Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep
(Luke 6:20,21,24,25).

You mean this, the part of his sermon that actually proves MY (Or should I say Jesus') point? Try, and try again.

reply to post by Rosha


Or it's an interview and people are twisting things to say what fits their agenda. He never mentioned Jim Crow Laws .. yet it's reported like he did.

He 100% said that this is ALL based on his religious beliefs. Yet you and others want to act like he did not. It's in the interview. I'm done quoting where he flat out says it, and flat out says he treats everyone with respect either way.

beezzer
And neither do you.

Right, but I'm ot the one arguing from ignorance.

daskakik

beezzer
Yet I disagree with you. If I had a picture of Springer having a salad lunch with Dick Cheney at Haliburton HQ and could force him (with exposure of the picture) to ban you, would that be fair?

So you're trying to say that it was blackmail and not someone forgetting to read the fine print of their contract?

It could be but you don't know that which debases the premis of your analogy.

They say it's not in their contract, and their contract actually states they are Christian etc .. and Phil is threatening to sue them. So can you show it is?

I want to ask everyone this question.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

beezzer
I want to ask everyone this question.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

My 'feewings' would be hurt if you even asked.

OccamsRazor04
Using the ol' ad hominem ploy is great when it's true. When it's not it just makes you look beaten. Now since I never used any ad hominem attacks against you, it seems you are just beaten.

The fact you are not a Christian is telling as you have zero idea what the Bible, or Jesus, is talking about.

Your tone from then on was obviously in relation to my stating that I'm not a Christian, but have a workable knowledge of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I'm not spelling anything else out for you! Stop fiening ignorance and just address the topic ok?

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Rosha

 

Or it's an interview and people are twisting things to say what fits their agenda. He never mentioned Jim Crow Laws .. yet it's reported like he did.

He 100% said that this is ALL based on his religious beliefs. Yet you and others want to act like he did not. It's in the interview. I'm done quoting where he flat out says it, and flat out says he treats everyone with respect either way.

Go and read my posts again.

WHERE did I say anything about WHAT he said except this last one, where I do allude to him being a bigot...which to my understanding of the term, he most certainly is. In my opening post I only spoke of HOW he said what he did. Maybe READ before you react hmm? He can say what he likes..I dont care and dont care to..he is nothing to me...but how he says it, now that is revealing the man beneath and yes I have an agenda there as bigots in the closet or bigots coming out of the closet, especially those using Gods name to harm children and adults for no good reason, well that's a pet topic of mine...I'm going to jump on it , every time I see it, no matter what garment they cloak in.

daskakik

beezzer
And neither do you.

Right, but I'm ot the one arguing from ignorance.

Actually you are. You have zero info yet post as if it's fact.

Not a source I would normally trust but the regular MSM sources aren't touching this issue ...
politicaloutcast.com...#!

According to that Phil has threatened A&E already because of them editing out things dealing with Christianity.

Snarl
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

AHHHH hahahahaha. I like you too Kanga. You're a fun person!! I hope everyone else participating is getting a smile out of this.

You know the mods are going to kill these posts, right?

I hope they are too. It's a little heavy in here... and yes. I foresee these posts vanishing.

Maybe if I say that I think Phil should refuse to go back even if they ask him they will let the post stand.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Show what?

I'm saying that we don't have access to the fine print of that contract so, even if it shows the persons religion in bold, that wouldn't change anything that they specifically "may have" agreed to.

reply to post by Rosha


Well ....

RoshaI 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.

The issue GLAAD is raising is legitimate.

To which I have replied over and over that is EXACTLY what he did. Phil claimed his beliefs on homosexuality are according to his faith and belief in the Bible.

Sorry, you don't get to say crap and then act like you didn't.

Phil said the Bible teaches xyz is wrong, I believe the Bible, xyz is wrong.

Why am I being ignored?

I want to ask everyone this question.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

daskakik
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Show what?

I'm saying that we don't have access to the fine print of that contract so, even if it shows the persons religion in bold, that wouldn't change anything that they specifically "may have" agreed to.

No, the only "evidence" we have about the contract is that according to Phil A&E has been censoring things in violation of that contract and he has threatened them over it.

Regardless, this post is not about A&E, it is about GLAAD and their tactics of employing fear and bullying to scare anyone with a different view into submission so they are silenced, yet pretend their mission is to promote acceptance of different viewpoints.

OccamsRazor04
Actually you are. You have zero info yet post as if it's fact.

The only thing that I am posting as fact is that there isn't enough info to come to a conclusion.

I'll stand by that.

beezzer
Why am I being ignored?

I want to ask everyone this question.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

If it can't happen, gotta have faith in the mods, then the question is moot.

daskakik

If it can't happen, gotta have faith in the mods, then the question is moot.

Are you afraid of answering my question?

Obviously.

Because it would negate your argument.

QED

beezzer
Are you afraid of answering my question?

No, I honestly don't think it would happen and that is why I will say, again, that your analogy is inaccurate.