RE: 646,000 likes on Facebook Page to boycott A&E until Phil Robertson is back on the air.

Did I say it was okay for Phil to? Did I anywhere? I have never even watched that atrocious show and I don't give two sh!ts what happens to anyone involved. But you obviously have problems with reading comprehension. My point is, by stereotyping members of a religion, you are doing the exact same thing that Duck Dynasty retard did.It is certainly problematic to lump EVERYONE within a particular group as one thing or another.

get used to it. wrote:

What! So I am not allowed to generalize and stereotype but Phil can? Hmmm.

duck die nasty wrote:

So every person who follows Christianity is hypocritical at best? Every single one? Hmm, sounds like a generalization to me, maybe even, dare I say it, a stereotype? I usually try to avoid broadly classifying groups of people based on their sexuality, ethnicity, religion etc.

This thread makes me sad, back to running only threads for me...

duck die nasty wrote:

My point is, by stereotyping members of a religion, you are doing the exact same thing that Duck Dynasty did.

This is true, but don't expect reasoning and common sense to get you anywhere in an argument with liberals.

asu guy wrote:

Bangpop Go wrote:

Do I have this straight?

One of the minority guys on a loosely scripted TV show (designed to poke fun at his select minority) pokes fun at another group. The folks who produce the show don't like their character bashing minorities outside the scripted one and they stop him from doing it on their show. Now the folks who watch the show that bashes his minority won't watch the show until the character on the show gets allowed to bash his choice of minorities.

Yes?

POD

thanks

The more I think about it the more I realize the viewers of this crappola want to do a (think they should be allowed to?) "pick their ending" thing. Or better yet initiate(dictate?) a TV reality where plot direction is decided by Tweet count or on what ever social media arbiter that has popped up since I last looked.

anapaix wrote:

This is true, but don't expect reasoning and common sense to get you anywhere in an argument with liberals.

Just like you shouldn't expect accurate facts or consistency of principle in public outrage by conservatives.

dumb wrote:

anapaix wrote:

This is true, but don't expect reasoning and common sense to get you anywhere in an argument with liberals.

Just like you shouldn't expect accurate facts or consistency of principle in public outrage by conservatives.

I concede liberals are much more consistent. There was nothing but support from them for Larry Craig and his gayness.

2 things that a couple of the posters on this thread don't seem to know about..

These hillbillies are all educated and all of the men (exempt the uncle Si) have at least an undergrad degree so they might be rednecks but they are not dumb.

They were rich before the show. The show was picked up because it is about rich hillbillies. I have seen a couple of comments that say that the show made them rich. This is simply not true. The just like a simpler way of life and are a product of their environment. They are for sure not white trash or anything like that Lizard Lick or Hardcore Pawn show.

Also the person with the handle Economy...please show us where he said the rest of those comments.

You folks really need to learn what reading comprehension is before you accuse someone of having poor reading comprehension. And you need better writing skills so as to not confuse people. See, when you make a statement like accusing me of generalizing you are implying that you have the opposing stance on the issue at hand because who the hell argues with someone who is agreeing with them? So had you said, "I don't care one way or the other what happens to anyone on this show, or what position they take, but you are being hypocritical by doing the same thing that Phil is doing", it would have been cool. In fact, you did it just now in the follow up post. So don't accuse me of poor reading comprehension when the issue at hand is what you actually wrote.

[quote]Lifeguardsarecool wrote:

I am guessing that A & E needs the Ducks way more than they need them. They could easily take their business elsewhere. And laugh all the way to the bank.

That's not how things work. Sumner Redstone owns Viacom that owns A&E. He and his co-religionists that own the other major media companies aren't about to let some rednecks have that kind of freedom.

It's like the NFL. The players sign a contract and are obligated to the team but the team can cut them and not pay them anytime they want

[quote]The Economy wrote:

He goes on to say that homosexuals 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."

Did you make that up?

dumb wrote:

jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:

so in order to pass the bigot test, one must publicly endorse homo ass-sex when given the opportunity to do so? If you happen to believe certain sexual behavior is harmful, you're a bigot?

That attitude is why A&E has their as$ in a crack right now..

I know you are arguing disingenuously as usual, but no:

1) It should be obvious that "endorsing homo ass-sex" is not the same thing as "refraining from making bigoted statements".

2) He did not merely "believe certain sexual behavior is harmful" which is his right to do, he compared gays to adulterers, alcoholics, and criminals.

...and adulterers, alcoholics & criminals are very upset, as they should be, lol.

dc wonk wrote:

"Dumb Dynasty". Note to ignorant conservatives: the big businesses that you so love and protect and shower with tax breaks have every right to do what they want with the show, whether it means taking old goofball off the air for a while or whatever. A&E bankrolled the show, made the family super rich, and now the family complains about being made so rich. Only in the US.

note to stupid liberal: The Robertsons are a gold mine for A&E and their sponsors. A&E will cave, because Phil & co. don't need the network, when there are plenty of other networks who'd love to do duck dynasty..

I agree A&E can do whatever they like, just as I agree millions of Americans can give A&E the finger..

jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:

If you happen to believe certain sexual behavior is harmful, you're a bigot?

That attitude is why A&E has their as$ in a crack right now..

I'm still waiting for an intelligent explanation on how homosexuality is harmful.

K5 wrote:

[quote]The Economy wrote:

He goes on to say that homosexuals 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."

Did you make that up?

Did you bother to look at the link he provided?

jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:

whi is being intolerant here? the dude who made some pretty mild comments about homos, or the network that threatened him because he dared voice a non-PC opinion?? Liberals only practice tolerance on those who agree with them...

So, those "liberals" in the 1960s who thought blacks should be treated as equals to whites should have been tolerant of those who disagreed with them? To me, this is the issue. There are really tricky and complicated issues, but this isn't one of them. Yes, as an ethical person I am compelled to be intolerant of those beliefs that are intolerant.

As a liberal, I practice tolerance on everything but intolerance. I may heartily disagree with some Republican economic/social/foreign policies, but I'm really happy to have a debate on those. When you start comparing homosexuality to bestiality, my tolerance ends. Just like if you started staying that whites are better than blacks, or women can't be anything other than sandwich-makers, as a tolerant person I certainly do not have to be tolerant of those remarks. And as a tolerant person I must condemn those remarks.

So I am very tolerant of beliefs I disagree with, except when we wade into clear right-and-wrong territory, like civil rights.

Facebook doesn't even have 646,000 active users anymore, good luck.

living in reality wrote:

K5 wrote:

[quote]The Economy wrote:

He goes on to say that homosexuals 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."

Did you make that up?

Did you bother to look at the link he provided?

Since he provided no link that would be difficult to do.

Oh. By the way. You are a lying POS

K5 wrote:

Since he provided no link that would be difficult to do.

Keep scrolling down the page.

People don't currently discriminate against adulterers, alcoholics and criminals, because in all 50 states, these groups can still marry.You are welcome.

jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:

dumb wrote:

I know you are arguing disingenuously as usual, but no:

1) It should be obvious that "endorsing homo ass-sex" is not the same thing as "refraining from making bigoted statements".

2) He did not merely "believe certain sexual behavior is harmful" which is his right to do, he compared gays to adulterers, alcoholics, and criminals.

...and adulterers, alcoholics & criminals are very upset, as they should be, lol.