Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[thomastmc]

That 'bigotry' wouldn't exist without the bible. It's clearly known that before Rome or japan was influenced by Christianity that homosexuality was accepted. Clearly we're dealing with religious principles here stemming from the Jewish tradition and spread to Christians and Muslims

 

That bigotry also wouldn't exist without people like you who don't think that a man and woman of two different races can truly be in love and involved in a deeply committed relationship.

 

It's funny how you use the Bible as both an excuse for bigotry and a validation of it... Of course, it's not like you're a person of free will who is capable of coming to their own conclusions without the Bible telling you what to think.

[thomastmc]

seriously. This is the equivalent of state performed baptisms. Clearly not a proper government function

If marriages didn't come with 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities, like baptisms, you might be right. But, they do, and you're not.

[FloatingFatMan]

The fact you felt the need to add the second line is also incredibly telling symptom of ingrained prejudice.

 

I advise you to research what constitutes discrimination (specifically homophobia in this case) and ingrained bias/prejudice, there are plenty of academic studies on the topic.

 

Personally, I don't have any black friends.

 

I also don't have any red friends, yellow friends, pink friends, green friends, blue friends or even any ultramarine with orange spots friends!

 

What I DO have, is a whole bunch of friends who may or may not have the same colour skin as me; I've never really bothered to take any notice, tbh.

[FloatingFatMan]

He doesn't like city folk... it looks at them funny and calls them names...

 

I don't think he'd take kindly to a homosexual, even if they were wearing an adorable camo top... :p

He said, and I quote:

"The first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another. Degrade each other... ...Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the penalty for their perversion. They are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

- Phil Robertson

 

So basically, he's an even bigger bunghole than I thought and just dislikes anyone who doesn't suck up to his particular invisible sky friend.

[FloatingFatMan]

let me rephrase that. no one could validly oppose interracial marriage from a religious morality... quite unlike homosexual acts which the bible calls an abomination.

 

 

my solution is to get rid of all legal marriage. why is the government even administering something so personal? what truly valid reason does the government have to know who you regularly sleep with?

 

I say the same applies to religion as well. What business is it of a bunch of priests who you regularly sleep with?

 

The only thing that matters really is that two people are in love and wish to commit their lives to each other. The Christian religion instructs its followers to love their fellow man :p, so what's the damned problem?

[Noir Angel]

People seem to forget that KingCracker.. that he didn't really force his opinion on anyone - people are calling this man a homophobe when he isn't ..he simply doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle..and he's allowed to feel that way, it doesn't make him a homophobe

 

Bigots often use rationalisations like that to make themselves feel better. If you're not a bigot the only answer you really should give is "what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business". They're not exactly trying to turn him gay so really he has no beef with them.

 

 

Not really. That has been my position all along. I defended it and I don't care what you think. You and a lot of people are to sensitive these days. 

 

You mean the same anger and sensitivity you display when the topic of gun control comes up? I do like that you display your hypocrisy so openly (Y). Trying to force gay people to accept christian theocractic laws is just as unconstitutional as banning guns, yet 1 gets you irrationally angry and one doesn't. Like all hypocrites you only love free speech when it's used in defence of a viewpoint you agree with.

[Sandor]

Bigots often use rationalisations like that to make themselves feel better. If you're not a bigot the only answer you really should give is "what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business". They're not exactly trying to turn him gay so really he has no beef with them.

 

 

So basically no one should believe in anything? As long as it's out of sight go for it? Not very societal of you.

[guru]

Bigots often use rationalisations like that to make themselves feel better. If you're not a bigot the only answer you really should give is "what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business". They're not exactly trying to turn him gay so really he has no beef with them.

 

If this thread is any indication , more people have indulged in  holier than thou pontifications to make themselves feel better than "bigots"

[Athernar]

I stand by what I said end of story. If you get butt hurt by someones opinion that doesn't make them a homophobe.

 

Obviously you don't, since you keep trying to act like you didn't spend the last 2-3 pages trying to argue a man with clearly homophobic viewpoints is not homophobic.

 

If anyone is "butt hurt" here, it is you trying to rationalise away your prejudices.

 

Personally, I don't have any black friends.

 

I also don't have any red friends, yellow friends, pink friends, green friends, blue friends or even any ultramarine with orange spots friends!

 

What I DO have, is a whole bunch of friends who may or may not have the same colour skin as me; I've never really bothered to take any notice, tbh.

 

Well said.

[TrevorLahey]

I lot of people here must have failed biology....

[+Raze Subscriber²]

I lot of people here must have failed biology....

 

And what does your remark have to do with the topic?  Please tell us, don't keep us waiting.

[MorganX]

Which would also be a violation of his freedom of speech as well. Many have come out as gay, but are they fired/suspended from their career? Nope.

 

 

 

He is voicing his opinion on homo marriage.

 

The only think his employer can violate is his employment contract and any clauses therein.

[seta-san]

:laugh:, well a birth detect wouldn't relegate the issue to only the human species so your argument is sound on that level. But, a genetic basis doesn't necessarily imply that something needs to be passed down in a conventional sense from parent to offspring (like eye color). A biological basis could simply be that it is inherit in all members of a species and that it occurs because there are evolutionary benefits for a species that exhibit homosexuality:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html#.Urfjb_RDu38

the only thing evolution rewards are traits that cause a person to have more/stronger viable offspring that also have offspring. A gay gene wouldn't be passed on.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

If this thread is any indication , more people have indulged in  holier than thou pontifications to make themselves feel better than "bigots"

 

That's generally an easier thing to do. It's very easy to attack people as a group when there are more of you and less of them voicing their opinion. I think a lot of times that sanity and thoughtfulness are drowned out in the process. Why should we consider what people are actually saying or treat them rationally when it is easier to just name-call and say others are bigoted/racist/homophobic? At the end of the day, for controversial topics, it just tends to be that the winners dirty their hands just as much as the losers in the debate. Well... no-one really wins in the end.

 

I'm for 100% for LBGTQ marriage and rights, but in this thread I've called people on both sides of the spectrum because people are simply putting forth bad arguments all around and doing what you say -- making holier than thou pontifications. And that is simply not how one should have a debate or treat other people. If you are arguing in bad faith, then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

 

Ah, but I digress from the topic...

[TPreston]

the only thing evolution rewards are traits that cause a person to have more/stronger viable offspring that also have offspring. A gay gene wouldn't be passed on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_trait

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

the only thing evolution rewards are traits that cause a person to have more/stronger viable offspring that also have offspring. A gay gene wouldn't be passed on.

 

Evolution rewards a species survival, viableness, and fitness not an individuals only. There's an important distinction between the two. The former can and does encompass the latter, but the latter alone is not a viable means for continued existence. Survival of the fitness gets you no-where if you've managed to doom the existence of the species except for yourself and a select few. This is the entire reason why societal evolution exists in the animal kingdom because creating societies helped species survive. If homosexual tendencies indirectly increases the reproductive chances for success in some manner then yes it could be inherit in the evolution of the species...

[MorganX]

That's generally an easier thing to do. It's very easy to attack people as a group when there are more of you and less of them voicing their opinion. I think a lot of times that sanity and thoughtfulness are drowned out in the process. Why should we consider what people are actually saying or treat them rationally when it is easier to just name-call and say others are bigoted/racist/homophobic? At the end of the day, for controversial topics, it just tends to be that the winners dirty their hands just as much as the losers in the debate. Well... no-one really wins in the end.

 

I'm for 100% for LBGTQ marriage and rights, but in this thread I've called people on both sides of the spectrum because people are simply putting forth bad arguments all around and doing what you say -- making holier than thou pontifications. And that is simply not how one should have a debate or treat other people. If you are arguing in bad faith, then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

 

Ah, but I digress from the topic...

 

Excellent and thoughtful post. I'm also for gay marriage and rights from a legal standpoint. I think if two law abiding people want to live together and partner, they should be given the same legal and financial rights as a heterosexual couple doing the same. Though I would prefer those rights be given to civil unions as I do believe marriage is or should be between a man and a woman. For that I am considered homophobic. So be it.

[MorganX]

Evolution rewards a species survival, viableness, and fitness not an individuals only. There's an important distinction between the two. The former can and does encompass the latter, but the latter alone is not a viable means for continued existence. Survival of the fitness gets you no-where if you've managed to doom the existence of the species except for yourself and a select few. This is the entire reason why societal evolution exists in the animal kingdom because creating societies helped species survive. If homosexual tendencies indirectly increases the reproductive chances for success in some manner then yes it could be inherit in the evolution of the species...

 

Yes. We are not animals. We are sentient beings something evolution does not address.

 

If you're at home with your family having a peaceful night, everyone blissfully asleep, and a couple armed home invaders come in and you and your family are staring down the barrel of a shotgun, based on survival of the fittest, they have all rights to blow you away, take your stuff, and move on to the weaklings sleeping next door. When we apprehend them, they shouldn't be punished and face justice for their dastardly deeds, we should exalt them for being more "fit" for life than the family they snuffed out.

[Athernar]

That's generally an easier thing to do. It's very easy to attack people as a group when there are more of you and less of them voicing their opinion. I think a lot of times that sanity and thoughtfulness are drowned out in the process. Why should we consider what people are actually saying or treat them rationally when it is easier to just name-call and say others are bigoted/racist/homophobic? At the end of the day, for controversial topics, it just tends to be that the winners dirty their hands just as much as the losers in the debate. Well... no-one really wins in the end.

 

I'm for 100% for LBGTQ marriage and rights, but in this thread I've called people on both sides of the spectrum because people are simply putting forth bad arguments all around and doing what you say -- making holier than thou pontifications. And that is simply not how one should have a debate or treat other people. If you are arguing in bad faith, then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

 

Ah, but I digress from the topic...

 

This is a tone argument.

 

I can appreciate your position here, but prejudice is still prejudice at the end of the day - no matter how nicely you wrap it up or sugarcoat it.

[Growled Member]

Cracker Barrel, after outcry, resumes selling 'Duck Dynasty' products

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-cracker-barrel-duck-dynasty-20131223,0,480592.story#axzz2oLwT8esC

 

 

Cracker Barrel has heeded to an old adage: The customer is always right.

Late Sunday, the Tennessee-based restaurant chain, which has 625 locations in 42 states, reversed course and said it would resume selling "Duck Dynasty" merchandise.

Customer outcry, the company said, forced it to reevaluate its decision to stop carrying merchandise from the popular reality TV show after controversial comments made by the show's star in a recent magazine interview.

"You told us we made a mistake," the company said on its Facebook page. "And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores."

 

 

[Darrian]

Yes. We are not animals. We are sentient beings something evolution does not address.

 

If you're at home with your family having a peaceful night, everyone blissfully asleep, and a couple armed home invaders come in and you and your family are staring down the barrel of a shotgun, based on survival of the fittest, they have all rights to blow you away, take your stuff, and move on to the weaklings sleeping next door. When we apprehend them, they shouldn't be punished and face justice for their dastardly deeds, we should exalt them for being more "fit" for life than the family they snuffed out.

 

Except we are animals, and we aren't the only sentient species on the planet.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

This is a tone argument.

 

I can appreciate your position here, but prejudice is still prejudice at the end of the day - no matter how nicely you wrap it up or sugarcoat it.

 

:rolleyes: You are misrepresenting the concept of a tonal argument. In short, it is making the argument that X person would be more like to listen to an argument if Y person changed tones. I am not making this argument. I'm saying that the majority of the people in his thread have simply been throwing ad hominems and other logical fallacies around in place of an actual argument because it is easier to do than actually have a rational discussion.

 

As you well know, I've made it very explicit where people were committing logical fallacies on both sides. Name calling and personal attacks are not valid or rational arguments.

 

Or are you making the argument that repeatedly calling someone a homophobe and bigot isn't a ad hominem; isn't name calling; and isn't a logical fallacy?

[MorganX]

Except we are animals, and we aren't the only sentient species on the planet.

 

1) It depends on whose definition of animal you subscribe to. Some describe animal as any living thing that is not a human or plant. 2) By definition we are not the only sentient species.

 

What we are are mammals. The only ones with no inherent protection from the elements like most animals.

 

None of which create an exception to the scenario presented.

[Athernar]

:rolleyes: You are misrepresenting the concept of a tonal argument. In short, it is making the argument that X person would be more like to listen to an argument if Y person changed tones. I am not making this argument. I'm saying that the majority of the people in his thread have simply been throwing ad hominems and other logical fallacies around in place of an actual argument because it is easier to do than actually have a rational discussion.

 

As you well know, I've made it very explicit where people were committing logical fallacies on both sides. Name calling and personal attacks are not valid or rational arguments.

 

Or are you making the argument that repeatedly calling someone a homophobe and bigot isn't a ad hominem; isn't name calling; and isn't a logical fallacy?

 

No, calling someone who is homophobic a homophobe is absolutely not ad hominem, it's a valid descriptor of what that person is.

 

This is why I linked the article about tone arguments, while you might not be making that exact form of tone argument set out in the article - the end result is the same, you're drawing attention to the tone rather than the content.

 

While there are people in this thread confusing prejudice with bigotry, this thread is still full of both. And quite honestly, that is a far bigger issue than the use of some fallacies.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

No, calling someone who is homophobic a homophobe is absolutely not ad hominem, it's a valid descriptor of what that person is.

 

This is why I linked the article about tone arguments, while you might not be making that exact form of tone argument set out in the article - the end result is the same, you're drawing attention to the tone rather than the content.

 

While there are people in this thread confusing prejudice with bigotry, this thread is still full of both. And quite honestly, that is a far bigger issue than the use of some fallacies.

 

Fill in the blank:

No, calling someone who is ______ a ______ is absolutely not ad hominem, it's a valid descriptor of what that person is. See how that works with all pejoratives?

 

 

Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles state that "as [homophobia] is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve.^[111]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia