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

OccamsRazor04

Snarl

OccamsRazor04

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
Except this is an example of it actually happening, only in real life where it actually matters.

Is it or are they all laughing about all the publicity that they are getting?

We don't have proof to come to that conclusion either.

That is all I'm saying.

GLAAD threatening Duck sponsors is not a publicity stunt. This is serious.

Wait a sec. What if it was meant to be a publicity stunt ... and then the poop hit the fan? Now we've got a CT!! Did A&E see this conclusion being drawn the whole time ... and expect to collect damages ... without employing the Ducks anymore?

If you followed this it's clear it was never a publicity stunt. How is A&E going to collect damages?

Pretty hard to define intent. Might have been GLAAD's intent ... might not. If they spun up advertisers on A&E's programs you never know what could happen in a court of law ... or in a settlement.

If A&E gets their expected revenue from the advertisers ... or GLAAD ... would the investors care as long as the returns are paid? A lot of 'ifs' there I know, but business strategies are some of the hardest of all to predict.

Think about it ... this could be the financial ruin of GLAAD if they've got to cover everyone's eventual losses. Maybe that's why they reacted with shock. Maybe they see the light at the end of the tunnel is moving 'at' them.

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
Stop your obfuscating trying to say what you think would or would not happen on ATS, we are talking about what DID happen and putting it into ATS terms.

Well, the post I originally replied to was making the comparison to ATS so, that was context of my reply.

Ok, I can see that. But imagine if that DID happen on ATS. Wouldn't that make you say wow, HOW did that ever happen??

Imagine some "mainstrean" science group saying Scott Crieghton is vile and disgusting and if ATS doesn't take down his forum, and all ATS sponsors publicyly state how vile Scott is, then this powerful group will destroy ATS and all the sponsors.

Thats what happened. It's disgusting.

Let Scott speak, if people no longer want to listen they won't "tune in".

SnarlThink about it ... this could be the financial ruin of GLAAD if they've got to cover everyone's eventual losses. Maybe that's why they reacted with shock. Maybe they see the light at the end of the tunnel is moving 'at' them.

Funny enough GLAAD can't be sued only A&E can. The freedoms they wish to deny Phil protect them. Ironic isn't it?

OccamsRazor04
Ok, I can see that. But imagine if that DID happen on ATS. Wouldn't that make you say wow, HOW did that ever happen??

But it has not been established that that is what happened at A&E.

It might look like that on the surface but things happen behind closed doors.

OccamsRazor04

SnarlThink about it ... this could be the financial ruin of GLAAD if they've got to cover everyone's eventual losses. Maybe that's why they reacted with shock. Maybe they see the light at the end of the tunnel is moving 'at' them.

Funny enough GLAAD can't be sued only A&E can. The freedoms they wish to deny Phil protect them. Ironic isn't it?

They can be charged with extortion. I would assume that would be the case. You've got a case if GLAAD used an identical tactic with two separate advertisers, specific to Phil, and these advertisers and A&E collaborated on bringing charges. The first 2d order effect would be labeling GLAAD as an Organized Crime activity. All of their corporate officers would likely face jail time. ... They'd settle.

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
Ok, I can see that. But imagine if that DID happen on ATS. Wouldn't that make you say wow, HOW did that ever happen??

But it has not been established that that is what happened at A&E.

It might look like that on the surface but things happen behind closed doors.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks at me, I am calling it a duck until proven otherwise. You can see GLAADS public response and comments.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Call it what you want but if it looks like an assumption then I will call it an assumption.

daskakik
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Call it what you want but if it looks like an assumption then I will call it an assumption.

GLAAD called for Phil to be fired. Phil was fired. There's no assumption.

If you want to think there's another cause you are welcome to do so, THAT is an assumption.

ETA: Even if nothing happened, what GLAAD did is still completely vile and disgusting.

OccamsRazor04
GLAAD called for Phil to be fired. Phil was fired. There's no assumption.

The assumption is that it was the direct cause.

If you want to think there's another cause you are welcome to do so, THAT is an assumption.

Yes it would be but, stating that other causes can exist isn't.

tsingtao

maus80
I think it's fair to say he's not a "real Christian", the guy is loaded and has been for a while. The New Testament is a bit ambiguous about matters of sex and sexuality, but makes it VERY clear that nobody rich is going to heaven.

sorry, had to chuckle at that.

the NT makes it VERY clear that no one can BUY their way into heaven.

are you a christian? just wondering how you know he isn't a "real christian"

I'm not a Christian, and I personally don't care if he is or not. I just dislike religious hypocrisy aka "I'm going to ignore the parts that apply to me".

What are you talking about, buying your way into heaven? I didn't say anything like that. You are applying a false negative that doesn't fit, at all. Not being greedy, so as to follow the teachings of Jesus, does not equate to trying to buy God's favor. It's funny how people can get so confused about the simplest things...

Snarl

They can be charged with extortion. I would assume that would be the case. You've got a case if GLAAD used an identical tactic with two separate advertisers, specific to Phil, and these advertisers and A&E collaborated on bringing charges.

What tactic are you referring to? Advocating a boycott of an advertiser?

reply to post by amazing


He didn't say anything about not liking gays as people, he only said their actions were sinful. As he is a Christian -Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10-11, Jude 1:7, Genesis 19:1-38, Judges 19:22 state quite clearly biblical attitude toward homosexuality. But hey, it's not like he has a right to express himself... right? Don't even gay people have lines they won't cross, things they aren't tolerant of? Is it wrong to be intolerant of something you believe to be wrong? Wouldn't a habitual animal rapist consider your attitude against raping animals (assuming you hold that stance), "holier than thou"? How far do we have to sink before we realize the idea we should be eternally tolerant of everything is flawed?

iiianyydayiii
reply to post by amazing

 

He didn't say anything about not liking gays as people, he only said their actions were sinful. As he is a Christian -Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10-11, Jude 1:7, Genesis 19:1-38, Judges 19:22 state quite clearly biblical attitude toward homosexuality. But hey, it's not like he has a right to express himself... right? Don't even gay people have lines they won't cross, things they aren't tolerant of? Is it wrong to be intolerant of something you believe to be wrong? Wouldn't a habitual animal rapist consider your attitude against raping animals (assuming you hold that stance), "holier than thou"? How far do we have to sink before we realize the idea we should be eternally tolerant of everything is flawed?

You're right, that idea is totally flawed. If someone went on tv saying slavery is good, and murdering children for back-talking is ok, because The Bible says so (it's quite clear on that), well I bet people would just be tripping over themselves to tolerate that wouldn't they?

DelMarvel

Snarl

They can be charged with extortion. I would assume that would be the case. You've got a case if GLAAD used an identical tactic with two separate advertisers, specific to Phil, and these advertisers and A&E collaborated on bringing charges.

What tactic are you referring to? Advocating a boycott of an advertiser?

That's right. Doing something ... and threatening to do something (or else!) are handled by the law differently. Let two or more people collaborate to do this and you've got them on conspiracy (a felony) ... whether they go through with it or not.

There's a reason GLAAD started hollerin'. I wonder what it is.

I've been banned from ATS about for 5 days last year for calling republicans a derogatory name....to me it was free speech...to the MOD that did it, it went over the top.....so all of you republican frees speech guys are also PC.

What if Duck Commander had an Evangelical Lutheran employee that decided to proclaim, outside of the workplace that Phil's stance on homosexuality is wrong and a sin?

What if Willy fired him for that act?

Would the A&E supporters here be okay with that?

Fylgje
Hopefully it's the tipping point, but now that Charlie Sheen is attacking Phil....I just don't know! lol

Charlie Sheen? lol The same guy who keeps paid prostitutes in his home, who has abused his wife Denise Richards, and has abandoned two of his children with another mother? Looks like Charlie should be looking into his own life first. Just sayin...

reply to post by beezzer


Well money is the root of all evil as they say. Where there's money there's corruption

I've never watched one episode of Duck Dynasty until this morning, just to see what the hub bub is all about. From what I understand, Phil Robertson already had religious beliefs and preached them long before A&E ever picked them up. So I don't know why A&E would be surprised by Phil's stance on gay people. You would think that their producers would already know.

I really don't understand why GLAAD is so upset about this. There are plenty of shows on tv, with gay folks on them. Ellen, has her show every single day. When I had cable, I'd flip through channels and land on her once in awhile. She was allowed to be flirtatious with straight guests, crack dirty jokes, sexual innuendos, and dance around and sometimes hump pieces of her furniture on set.

Did I run and call the network and flame them, and tell them to get her off air? Did I scream that she should be punished for her behavior? Nope. I just changed the channel and moved on.

Now, why can't Phil have his show, and everyone who doesn't like him, or his beliefs, do the same thing?

No. I think they are messing with the right Duck!

This guy has preached sermons that are full of hate and nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

I am not a Christian, and it's people like him that give Jesus followers a bad name, imo, of course!

Here is a sermon on morality. Listen to it! www.cnn.com...

I would never defend a person who speaks to people like this ^^^. It's not that I am so sensitive, I just do not believe in hate speech's ( PERIOD). I will NOT teach my kids this kind of thinking is OK.

Homosexuals should not be put to death, they should not be put in the oven alive, or told they are going to hell and they should not feel as though they are worthless people who cannot be loved by God.

The ones I know were BORN THIS WAY. They were CREATED this way.

If this is a test of loving your neighbor as yourself then Phil no doubt failed the test.

Free speech my ass! Discriminatory remarks should not be made freely without recourse!

Go into work and start talking like the Duck and see how long you hold that job. lol Let us know how it works for ya.

He can back track now and say how he loves everyone, blah, blah, blah. HA! Listen to all of his sermons. These come from his heart. His heart is as cold as ice.

I am glad this has happened though. It has given me and the kids great conversations about the true meaning of loving thy neighbor as thy self. Saying something stupid can come back and get ya. Making light of the black struggle says to me this person is uneducated in history and in his heart. "No one was singing the blues". PLEASE. This statement also shows his uneducated bias. I am surprised he has hair and isn't wearing white. Maybe he does at night, who knows. His words tell me it's possible he could be that hateful!

This dude did all kinds of things in his past. Oh he was a "SINNER". He has now found Jesus and now his ego tells him he is a saint who can talk down to others? Seriously? People love this? Where is the compassion for your brother/sister??




SMDH!