Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[Darrian]

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.

 

Generally people incorrectly say animals when what they mean to say is non-human animals.  It is generally accepted when a person says animal they really mean non-human animal.  It doesn't change the fact that we're animals, and it doesn't help you to differentiate us from other animals by saying that we are mammals, as all mammals are animals.

[Athernar]

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?

 

So you're saying someone with homophobic views is not a homophobe?

 

This is going exactly down the route set out in the tone argument article.

[bradsday]

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.

 

I honestly could not agree more.  Marriage is an institution of religion; civil union is societal recognition of a binding agreement.  However, if a church, such as the Presbyterians, decide to sanction gay marriages and perform the rites accordingly, I have not issue with that either.  My real concern is forcing churches to go against their established doctrine and charter to perform gay marriages.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

So you're saying someone with homophobic views is not a homophobe?

 

This is going exactly down the route set out in the tone argument article.

 

I'm saying have you stopped beating your wife? I hope you appreciate where I went with that.

 

I'm stating that you can't call someone homophobic without actually establishing that they actually are through logical argument. This is easily done with the Duck Dynasty guy because of a plethora of statements he has made. It's not so easily done with a number of the folk who have been participating in this thread. If you don't show evidence that someone is homophobic yet call them a bigot/homophobic then you are simply name calling and making ad hominem arguments.

[Athernar]

I'm saying have you stopped beating your wife? I hope you appreciate where I went with that.

 

I'm stating that you can't call someone homophobic without actually establishing that they actually are through logical argument. This is easily done with the Duck Dynasty guy because of a plethora of statements he has made. It's not so easily done with a number of the folk who have been participating in this thread. If you don't show evidence that someone is homophobic yet call them a bigot/homophobic then you are simply name calling and making ad hominem arguments.

 

Equally, you cannot say someone isn't homophobic while holding homophobic views just because they are (or claim to be) tolerant and not bigoted with those views - which is what has been occurring en masse in this thread.

 

As I said earlier, some posters in this thread are clearly bigoted, others are merely prejudiced.

 

The problem with your posts in this situation is they serve to provide cover, (but not ammunition) for those that try to hide away and rationalise their prejudice, and that is harmful.

[KingCracker]

Equally, you cannot say someone isn't homophobic while holding homophobic views just because they are (or claim to be) tolerant and not bigoted with those views - which is what has been occurring en masse in this thread.

 

As I said earlier, some posters in this thread are clearly bigoted, others are merely prejudiced.

 

The problem with your posts in this situation is they serve to provide cover, (but not ammunition) for those that try to hide away and rationalise their prejudice, and that is harmful.

So people can't have gay friends but oppose gay marriage and things of that nature?  :rolleyes: If someones a homophobe they wouldn't have gay friends. And if you look at is newest statement he says he loves all men and women, and so because he says he thinks a vagina is more desirable than a mans anus, that makes him a homophobe? I agree I think a vagina more desirable than a mans anus, does that mean im a homophobe too??  It seems like a one sided argument when it comes to tolerance. If you don't hold a favorable view of gay marriage and the lot then you are not to be tolerated and you're a homophobe.. Why not respect all views and let people hold their own opinions instead of trying to shame them. You can say that Christians are shaming gays but if you're not christian than who cares what they think is a sin or not since you don't believe in it. 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Equally, you cannot say someone isn't homophobic while holding homophobic views just because they are (or claim to be) tolerant and not bigoted with those views - which is what has been occurring en masse in this thread.

 

As I said earlier, some posters in this thread are clearly bigoted, others are merely prejudiced.

 

You have to provide evidence of an assertion before you make a statement about someone. It isn't enough to just make the statement. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that someone IS something.

 

Someone simply stating that they don't agree with an LBGTQ lifestyle doesn't provide evidence that they are homophobic. It doesn't show that they have an aversion/hatred/antipathy to LBGTQ persons.

 

A simple analogy would be this: if a parent doesn't agree with the serial murdering acts of their child, that doesn't mean they have hatred and antipathy for their child.

[trag3dy]

This bigoted word keeps being tossed around so much. It applies to people who talk down to those of religion too and there is a lot of that in this thread.

[Athernar]

So people can't have gay friends but oppose gay marriage and things of that nature?  :rolleyes: If someones a homophobe they wouldn't have gay friends. And if you look at is newest statement he says he loves all men and women, and so because he says he thinks a vagina is more desirable than a mans anus, that makes him a homophobe? I agree I think a vagina more desirable than a mans anus, does that mean im a homophobe too??  It seems like a one sided argument when it comes to tolerance. If you don't hold a favorable view of gay marriage and the lot then you are not to be tolerated and you're a homophobe.. Why not respect all views and let people hold their own opinions instead of trying to shame them. You can say that Christians are shaming gays but if you're not christian than who cares what they think is a sin or not since you don't believe in it. 

 

Tolerance and prejudice are independant concepts, please educate yourself on this matter as this is well documented and has been explained to you multiple times already.

 

You have to provide evidence of an assertion before you make a statement about someone. It isn't enough to just make the statement.

 

Someone simply stating that they don't agree with an LBGTQ lifestyle doesn't provide evidence that they are homophobic. It doesn't show that they have an aversion/hatred/antipathy to LBGTQ persons.

 

A simple analogy would be this: if a parent doesn't agree with the serial murdering acts of their child, that doesn't mean they have hatred and antipathy for their child.

 

So then you would then agree with the statement that racial segregation is not racist? Since such a postion is not "an aversion/hatred/antipathy" of a race, rather just that you might not "agree" with the view of race mixing.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

So then you would then agree with the statement that racial segregation is not racist? Since such a postion is not "an aversion/hatred/antipathy" of a race, rather just that you might not "agree" with the view of race mixing.

 

Yes, I would agree with that. Racial segregation is just a concept about segregating humans into groups based upon race.

 

Where racism comes into play is in the reasons and motivations of why people want to be racially segregated (i.e. taking a position) and that's typically aversion/hatred/antipathy/fear.

 

I'm not really sure how that's relevant though since no-one is taking the position that they want to be segregated from LBGTQ people... I'm trying to frame the analogy and it simply doesn't appear to be relevant.

[Athernar]

Yes, I would agree with that. Racial segregation is just a concept about segregating humans into groups based upon race.

 

Where racism comes into play is in the reasons and motivations of why people want to be racially segregated (i.e. taking a position) and that's typically aversion/hatred/antipathy/fear.

 

I'm not really sure how that's relevant though since no-one is taking the position that they want to be segregated from LBGTQ people... I'm trying to frame the analogy and it simply doesn't appear to be relevant.

 

Interesting. Would you mind providing some example reasons/motivations a person that does not agree with a LBG lifestyle might have that are not homophobic?

 

Aditionally, what are your thoughts on scientific racism?

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Interesting. Would you mind providing some example reasons/motivations a person that does not agree with a LBG lifestyle might have that are not homophobic?

 

Aditionally, what are your thoughts on scientific racism?

 

Scroll back about fifty posts to where I talked about my co-worker and my visit to the city of love.

 

I think eugenics and the like are nonsense. I wouldn't believe in persecuting people or treating them as lesser even if they was a scientific basis for all of that anyway. In the same way as I don't think the ability to abstractly reason gives one the right do as they want with other species.

[Athernar]

Scroll back about fifty posts to where I talked about my co-worker and my visit to the city of love.

 

I think eugenics and the like are nonsense. I wouldn't believe in persecuting people or treating them as lesser even if they was a scientific basis for all of that anyway. In the same way as I don't think the ability to abstractly reason gives one the right do as they want with other species.

 

That doesn't answer my question and you're making the same mistake KingCracker does, confusing the notion of prejudice (In this case, homophobia) with intolerance/bigotry.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

That doesn't answer my question and you're making the same mistake KingCracker does, confusing the notion of prejudice (In this case, homophobia) with intolerance/bigotry.

 

You'll have to be more specific about what doesn't answer your question. The motivation was religion in the the story I gave.

 

Also, the words are synonyms:

 

 

big?ot?ry

Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

 

EDIT: ah, I misunderstood what words you were saying were different. Can you be more specific on exactly what you are talking about. What is my mistake with the terms prejudice and intolerance exactly? I don't recall using either term...

[Athernar]

You'll have to be more specific about what doesn't answer your question. The motivation was religion in the the story I gave.

 

Also, the words are synonyms:

 

 

EDIT: ah, I misunderstood what words you were saying were different. Can you be more specific on exactly what you are talking about. What is my mistake with the terms prejudice and intolerance exactly? I don't recall using either term...

 

The motivation was religion yes, but being religiously motivated does not make a prejudiced view not so.

 

The mistake stems from the statement that a view is not homophobic (prejudiced) if the person who holds it is tolerant (not bigoted with said view) of the relevant group.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

The motivation was religion yes, but being religiously motivated does not make a prejudiced view not so.

 

The mistake stems from the statement that a view is not homophobic (prejudiced) if the person who holds it is tolerant (not bigoted with said view) of the relevant group.

 

You have a very liberal definition of prejudice (i.e. not agreeing with something someone does). Personally, I'd go with 3 and 4 which fall directly inline with what I said about hatred/antipathy/etc. previously:

 

1.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

b. A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

 

 

[Athernar]

You have a very liberal definition of prejudice (i.e. not agreeing with something someone does). Personally, I'd go with 3 and 4 which fall directly inline with what I said about hatred/antipathy/etc. previously:

 

You cannot say I have a liberal definition and then ignore half of the examples in one single dictionary definition. Especially when the latter examples fail to address or explain the existance of ingrained prejudice. (The first two do a far better job)

 

Anyhow I'm out of this discussion for the moment, I shall return at a later time.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

You cannot say I have a liberal definition and then ignore half of the examples in one single dictionary definition. Especially when the latter examples fail to address or explain the existance of ingrained prejudice. (The first two do a far better job)

 

Anyhow I'm out of this discussion for the moment, I shall return at a later time.

 

I didn't feel your definition (as I posited it) fit any of those definitions to be honest. It's not that ignored the other examples, it was just that the latter two are exactly what I've been saying for about 20 posts.

[Torolol]

I honestly could not agree more.  Marriage is an institution of religion; civil union is societal recognition of a binding agreement.  However, if a church, such as the Presbyterians, decide to sanction gay marriages and perform the rites accordingly, I have not issue with that either.  My real concern is forcing churches to go against their established doctrine and charter to perform gay marriages.

well... they managed to bend the Boy Scout so why not aim for the church as well?

[wakjak]

well... they managed to bend the Boy Scout so why not aim for the church as well?

All the priests are gay anyway so it's not a stretch to make it work.

[DocM]

He's Baa-aack.....

A&E caves to fan pressure.

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/18327

[trag3dy]

He's Baa-aack.....

A&E caves to fan pressure.

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/18327

 

They must have realized that every other family member on the show was probably gonna walk out consequences be damned if they didn't let him back on.

[DocM]

A&E needs them more than they need A&E's money.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

He's Baa-aack.....

A&E caves to fan pressure.

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/18327

 

I'd imagine this has less to do with caving to fan pressure and more to do with it having been planned from the get-go while the network evaluated the reaction to his comments. Suspending him when things look bad and then waiting until everything dies down to let him back on is simply good PR policy.

[seafirex]

His views are his views and yes we have to respect them. 

We do not have to agree with them and it does not make him a bad person because he thinks differently.

 

He also took the time to explain why he thinks as he does. Remember : The devout Christian then paraphrased a biblical passage.

 

If we say he has no right to do so then none as the right to read the bible or follow it because everything he said was in it and since we where kids we where told the bible say's the truth and no lies. :) 

 

Now time to get flamed by every christian on the planet with what i just said !!!! But again that is free speech . I can say what ever i want but i can not say i will harm someone. That is exactly what he did. he expressed his opinion only. It does not make someone homophobic for doing so. 

 

If he would have said i don't want them beside me or live in the same town etc. or even exist. Then i would have said he his one of those homophobic. But that's not the case.