Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[jesseinsf]

It's the teaching of the bible. If you're a Christian your bound by the book. The bible isn't an exceptionally tolerant or open minded book. But the first amendment combined with protected classes allows you to have those views without being punished by either the government or your employer.

Actually you are wrong. There is a limit of tolerance. Look at Fred Phelps and his clan. See what happened to them.

[seta-san]

?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,?

 

This is a slippery slope argument where homosexuality is considered the modest first step. In a small way it's an underhanded compliment because he's putting homosexuality morally above promiscuity. But the slippery slope isn't necessarily a logical fallacy, it usually just breaks down as one step leads to a more absurd one. An example of a slippery slope regarding homosexuality is that the next step after that would be polygamy. People told me i was crazy until it happened in Canada. No, polygamy isn't technically legal in Canada but the government doesn't prosecute it either because the arguments to strike down gay marriage bans could equally be used in polygamy. We're also starting to here the murmurs on the left in the U.S. regarding polygamy. What's next after that? Legalized incest? Sounds absurd... now. What would come after that? I'll let you decide.

[seta-san]

Actually you are wrong. There is a limit of tolerance. Look at Fred Phelps and his clan. See what happened to them.

 

Fred Phelps isn't being punished by the government nor by employers nor were they ever a real news story. Why do you think you hardly hear about the Phelps clan anymore? They are still protesting and acting like asses. Theye largely disappeared from the news 5 years ago along with code pink... Those were stories that a biased, left wing media, would use to gin up hate against Bush and his beliefs. After Bush was out of office their parts in the media largely died. Get another religious republicans back in office and they will be back.

[benthebear]

It's the teaching of the bible. If you're a Christian your bound by the book. The bible isn't an exceptionally tolerant or open minded book. But the first amendment combined with protected classes allows you to have those views without being punished by either the government or your employer.

 

Then why are we not stoning women who are not virgins when they get married?

[benthebear]

Fred Phelps isn't being punished by the government nor by employers nor were they ever a real news story. Why do you think you hardly hear about the Phelps clan anymore? They are still protesting and acting like asses. Theye largely disappeared from the news 5 years ago along with code pink... Those were stories that a biased, left wing media, would use to gin up hate against Bush and his beliefs. After Bush was out of office their parts in the media largely died. Get another religious republicans back in office and they will be back.

 

Fred Phelps is a bad example to use. Legislation has been passed to restrict his protesting. His employers don't take action because, well, he's the head of the church that employs him. And finally, we still hear about the Phelps clan in the news all of the time. Not only are they recently in the news because they support Phil Robertson, but also for planning to picket Paul Walkers funeral, making comments about the helicopter crash in Scotland, and comments about Nelson Mandela. All done while the,"Anti-Christ," is in office.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

/snip

 

Best line of that video... "people should be able to speak their minds without having these repercussions"

 

Yep.  This country is going so politically correct that it is going backwards.  People (more specifically groups of people) get offended over the stupidest crap and end up destroying or harming the lives of those that offended them.

 

I do not care about Duck Dynasty are that old fellow...but A&E and others are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[spenser.d]

I do not care about Duck Dynasty are that old fellow...but A&E and others are making a mountain out of a molehill.

A&E isn't making anything out of it. It's everyone else that's making it a big deal when it's not. It's not illegal and you can agree or not with their decision, but it's theirs to make.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

A&E isn't making anything out of it. It's everyone else that's making it a big deal when it's not. It's not illegal and you can agree or not with their decision, but it's theirs to make.

 

"A&E and others"

[spenser.d]

"A&E and others"

I know what you said.

[Noir Angel]

The difference is piers morgan said he would deport himself if gun laws didn't change and the fact every show he did was about gun control. This guy is asked his opinion once.

 

So like most hypocrites, you're only in favour of free speech when it's being used in a way you agree with?

 

See, no they can't. You would have a winning law suit on your hands. P.s. I'm not coming at this from a freedom of speech pov. I'm coming at it from a protected class pov.

 

You're coming at this from a "defending a fellow homophobe" POV, has nothing to do with right and wrong.

[KingCracker]

So like most hypocrites, you're only in favour of free speech when it's being used in a way you agree with?

 

 

You're coming at this from a "defending a fellow homophobe" POV, has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Really? Campaigning on national television EVERY night to abolish an American citizen right is the same thing as saying a vagina is more desirable than a mans anus? Its not. Not only that but he said he would deport himself if new gun laws didn't pass so i'm still waiting for him to leave.

And if you think someones a homophobe for preferring a vagina over a mans anus then you need help.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

?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,?

 

This is a slippery slope argument where homosexuality is considered the modest first step. In a small way it's an underhanded compliment because he's putting homosexuality morally above promiscuity. But the slippery slope isn't necessarily a logical fallacy, it usually just breaks down as one step leads to a more absurd one. An example of a slippery slope regarding homosexuality is that the next step after that would be polygamy. People told me i was crazy until it happened in Canada. No, polygamy isn't technically legal in Canada but the government doesn't prosecute it either because the arguments to strike down gay marriage bans could equally be used in polygamy. We're also starting to here the murmurs on the left in the U.S. regarding polygamy. What's next after that? Legalized incest? Sounds absurd... now. What would come after that? I'll let you decide.

 

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless the arguer establishes the chain of events leading from one premise to the other. I.e. how exactly you get from homosexuality to bestiality.

 

Polygamy in Canada hasn't be prosecuted since the mid twentieth century and there's been talk of legalizing it for almost a decade now. That's not a new occurrence. It isn't particularity related with homosexuality other than people using similar logical arguments for it being unlawful (i.e. denial of personal liberties between people). The argument is general enough that it could be used for any number of things. I don't particularly see how you could apply the same argument to jump to bestiality though.

 

Interestingly though, he isn't really talking about the legal status of such things, he is more talking about the moral movement down that slope. And, that's kind of where the argument falls completely apart...

[Noir Angel]

Really? Campaigning on national television EVERY night to abolish an American citizen right is the same thing as saying a vagina is more desirable than a mans anus? Its not. Not only that but he said he would deport himself if new gun laws didn't pass so i'm still waiting for him to leave.

And if you think someones a homophobe for preferring a vagina over a mans anus then you need help.

 

No, what makes one a homophobe is trying to assume that their sexual desires should be the same as those of gay people, in other words trying to force their sexual ethics onto gay people. A box I'd say you fit very well into (Y)

[seta-san]

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless the arguer establishes the chain of events leading from one premise to the other. I.e. how exactly you get from homosexuality to bestiality.

Polygamy in Canada hasn't be prosecuted since the mid twentieth century and there's been talk of legalizing it for almost a decade now. That's not a new occurrence. It isn't particularity related with homosexuality other than people using similar logical arguments for it being unlawful (i.e. denial of personal liberties between people). The argument is general enough that it could be used for any number of things. I don't particularly see how you could apply the same argument to jump to bestiality though.

Interestingly though, he isn't really talking about the legal status of such things, he is more talking about the moral movement down that slope. And, that's kind of where the argument falls completely apart...

I'm not saying that gay marriage ends in beastiality. But it's not unreasonable to believe that it will likely go further

[FloatingFatMan]

I'm not saying that gay marriage ends in beastiality. But it's not unreasonable to believe that it will likely go further

 

Why? Why is it any more likely to go further than a hetero relationship?

 

You're claiming a slippery slope when everyone's wearing rubber soles on a dry hill.

[seta-san]

Why? Why is it any more likely to go further than a hetero relationship?

You're claiming a slippery slope when everyone's wearing rubber soles on a dry hill.

you mean further than a homosexual relationship? Because it's already been shown in Canada to at least slip to polygamy. Does it then slip to incest? I don't know. Seems crazy at the moment.. But so did legalized gay marriage 20 years ago.

[Googintosh]

Because it's already been shown in Canada to at least slip to polygamy.

 

Polygamy is a criminal offense in Canada. Explain your statement.

[seta-san]

Polygamy is a criminal offense in Canada. Explain your statement.

 

the law is unenforced. the state won't bring a case against it because it would give someone standing to take the case to higher courts and have it struck down because the exact same arguments that legalized gay marriage could be equally applied to polygamy.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

the law is unenforced. the state won't bring a case against it because it would give someone standing to take the case to higher courts and have it struck down because the exact same arguments that legalized gay marriage could be equally applied to polygamy.

 

 

Polygamy is a criminal offense in Canada. Explain your statement.

 

Googintosh: note that he is ignoring the fact that the laws against polygamy in Canada haven't been enforced since the mid 20th century. So the statement that they won't prosecute anyone because of the similarities to gay marriage is false -- they just haven't tried prosecuting anyone for polygamy in Canada in more than 60 years in general... I pointed this out to him a few posts ago.

 

I imagine, the misrepresentation originated as a talking point from from the news media.

[seta-san]

Googintosh: note that he is ignoring the fact that the laws against polygamy in Canada haven't been enforced since the mid 20th century. So the statement that they won't prosecute anyone because of the similarities to gay marriage is false -- they just haven't tried prosecuting anyone for polygamy in Canada in more than 60 years in general... I pointed this out to him a few posts ago.

 

I imagine, the misrepresentation originated as a talking point from from the news media.

 

it might not have been prosecuted in 60 years. but it's only been the last 10 years that the extreme abuses of the fundamentalist Mormon church has come to light.

[Ravensky]

Exactly. I rest my case.   :p  There are few whose brains are more numb than the devout.

And you good sir have just shown us ignorant you are...

[Googintosh]

Seta-san, thank you for clarifying your opinion even though your reason was given on the previous page. I read your post out of context and neglected to read the discussion. Laziness ftw.

 

Unfortunately it seems to me that your argument died at post 262.

[wakjak]

 I don't know. Seems crazy at the moment.. But so did legalized gay marriage 20 years ago.

 

You know what else seemed crazy, oh say 60 years ago? Interracial marriage

 

You know what seems crazy TODAY, but was the norm 60+ years ago? Racial segregation. Your lame slippery slope, is pretty lame.

[seta-san]

When people opposed interracial marriages they did it from a position of political and economic power, not morality. Gay marriage is different.

[KingCracker]

No, what makes one a homophobe is trying to assume that their sexual desires should be the same as those of gay people, in other words trying to force their sexual ethics onto gay people. A box I'd say you fit very well into (Y)

No, its his opinion, He is not telling people not to be gay. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like anyone. He is allowed his opinion, he's not stopping anyone or campaigning against them.

In fact he broke his silence and he said he loved all men and women. He is not a homophobe, you are to quick to point the finger..

And when have I forced my sexual preference on anyone javik? You make bold claims without anything to back it up.

I mean damn, someone can't voice their opinion without someone like you pointing the finger and calling them a homophobe. Like I said a person can disagree with how other people live but that doesn't mean they aren't tolerant towards them.

Just because someone doesn't agree with their stance in life, it doesn't mean they don't respect them, however you disrespect people when you start throwing insults around.