A&E decides

#176
#176
Chris4Vols22 said:
Have you heard about the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...

Yes. Hence my question to you. I find nothing wrong with Phil Robertson's belief. I find it odd that you deem his beliefs should be censored. Or that you find in offensive.

I agree with you that they (A&E) has the right to run their business as they see fit.

They are apparently hypocrites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#178
#178
govols/cc said:
Nobody is. It's frowned upon by christians for heterosexual couples to have sex before marriage kinda like they frown upon homosexuality. If a Christian expresses their thoughts on the heterosexual couple it's like "whatever". If they express thoughts on a homosexual couple it's the worst thing ever.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I think a lot of those who think along these lines are the more vocal and extreme type, while there are probably more level headed representatives in the real world. Stuff like that used to irritate me, but I don't think it's as bad in the real world compared to crap you see on the internet all the time.
 
#179
#179
Obsessed said:
Yes. Hence my question to you. I find nothing wrong with Phil Robertson's belief. I find it odd that you deem his beliefs should be censored. Or that you find in offensive.

I agree with you that they (A&E) has the right to run their business as they see fit.

They are apparently hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Hypocrites? You said they should run it the way they see fit, they don't see Robertson as being fit for the job, so they do something about it. What are you disagreeing with? Do you want me to say that I'm against homophobia? Because you already know I am.
 
#180
#180
volmaverick said:
but it does exist

Bestiality is very common, and there is proof. Just visit the website beastforum.com -- as of March 2011, there are more than 874,000 members -- that's enough people to fill 20 baseball stadiums to full capacity.


Additionally, there is a Wikipedia article called "zoophilia", which discusses the history of zoosexuality. People have been having sex with animals for centuries and will continue to do so, no matter how many bigots try to stop them.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't ban you. I'm afraid you'll spend all your time at beastforum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#182
#182
Chris4Vols22 said:
Hypocrites? You said they should run it the way they see fit, they don't see Robertson as being fit for the job, so they do something about it. What are you disagreeing with? Do you want me to say that I'm against homophobia? Because you already know I am.
Click to expand...

He's saying they're free to have their beliefs but the person they been using for ratings isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#183
#183
Chris4Vols22 said:
Hypocrites? You said they should run it the way they see fit, they don't see Robertson as being fit for the job, so they do something about it. What are you disagreeing with? Do you want me to say that I'm against homophobia? Because you already know I am.
Click to expand...

They reflected that their views are not in line with him. So am I to assume they are in line with cooking meth?

A&E just cost themselves millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#185
#185
volmaverick said:
and I am against the law that states gays can marry

but it's okay for you to be against but not me..your side calls me a homophobe a bigot and a closet gay for being against it
Click to expand...


I could be wrong but I interpreted Chris4Vols22 to say that a business can do as it chooses within the context of the law. That was my point.
 
#186
#186
Obsessed said:
They reflected that their views are not in line with him. So am I to assume they are in line with cooking meth?

A&E just cost themselves millions.
Click to expand...

That's just an assumption, as you insinuated. It's just damage control.

There's a big difference between a one-on-one sit down magazine interview and a fictional TV show.
 
#187
#187
Velo Vol said:
I could be wrong but I interpreted Chris4Vols22 to say that a business can do as it chooses within the context of the law. That was my point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, considering current legislation. Although, I guess I still think along those lines in terms of principles.
 
#188
#188
Chris4Vols22 said:
You cry about people having their liberties trampled on, but you get mad when A&E exercise their rights? It's a national television network, not the Gander Mountain in Macon, GA. You can't expect such a network to condone remarks of this nature.
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that they can hire and fire as they see fit. I am also of the opinion that Phil can say what he wants but has to accept the consequences of what he says. If I was a part of the Robertson family, I would not want any part of the A & E organization. There are probably as many watching Duck Dynasty as there are watching the other crappy programming combined. I would completely disassociate with A & E and publically denounce them with the response they had.

Also, Phil has an opinion that he bases on his Christian beliefs. As a Christian it is my responsibility to tell others the truth or as you would claim my perceived truth but it is my right living in America to disagree with you, just as you can disagree with me.

Why can GLADD and other organizations tell me I am wrong and get me fired but I can't tell them they are wrong for their beliefs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#189
#189
My .02 cents.

1) Phil has a right to his opinion
2) I agree with gcb that even implied linking of homosexuality to bestiality is wrong but refer to 1)
3) AE has the right to remove him from their airwaves


4) Political correctness from any side is the real culprit here. Why we as a culture care so much about shielding ourselves and others from the opinions of others is the tragic mystery of it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#191
#191
Don't forget how he also said he worked along side blacks in the cotton fields. He said he never saw the mistreatment of blacks or heard blacks blame whites for anything. Said they worked hard & were happy & religious. But this was before entitlements & welfare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#192
#192
volinbham said:
My .02 cents.

1) Phil has a right to his opinion
2) I agree with gcb that even implied linking of homosexuality to bestiality is wrong but refer to 1)
3) AE has the right to remove him from their airwaves


4) Political correctness from any side is the real culprit here. Why we as a culture care so much about shielding ourselves and others from the opinions of others is the tragic mystery of it all.
Click to expand...

Agree with all except 4. I think it's quite the opposite. People are able to massively convey their ideals to the public now, so exposure to new ideas is at an all time high. With the exposure, people are able to see many differing views and therefore broaden their perspective on these issues. This results in more people formulating more comprehensive opinions on issues. Some people see others' views as a threat, some see it as a learning opportunity, etc. Jmo.
 
#193
#193
Would they fire a gay actor for saying certain Christians are bigots for not supporting gay marriage? Nope not a chance in hell!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#194
#194
Chris4Vols22 said:
Agree with all except 4. I think it's quite the opposite. People are able to massively convey their ideals to the public now, so exposure to new ideas is at an all time high. With the exposure, people are able to see many differing views and therefore broaden their perspective on these issues. This results in more people formulating more comprehensive opinions on issues. Some people see others' views as a threat, some see it as a learning opportunity, etc. Jmo.
Click to expand...

I'd agree it was a learning opportunity if not for the repeated actions based in outrage that someone holds "dangerous" opinions that require action.

We simply have become a nation, (a modern world) where some views are held up as admirable because they are viewed as "tolerance" and other views are deemed dangerous and worthy of sanction because they are viewed as intolerant.

The irony is that in both cases the views are based in one group's view of other groups.

For example, in reaction to the Phil thing, a commentator said "He's a redneck, don't all rednecks believe that?" Here's a guy labeling and stereotyping people and it is perfectly acceptable to the purveyors of "tolerance" because the target is not in the protected class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#195
#195
volmaverick said:
Would they fire a gay actor for saying certain Christians are bigots for not supporting gay marriage? Nope not a chance in hell!
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem. I don't think anyone is claiming his 1st Amendment Rights are being violated. I believe the #1 reason for anger is the double standard.

Can you imagine if A&E pulled the show on Phil if he came out stating he supported gay marriage? There would be such a backlash against A&E.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
Burhead said:
Eh, on one hand to each there own but on the second they can't consent so I really don't know. I do know that I prefer two or more blondes though...
Click to expand...


how do you know they cant consent if a dog lick you and hup on you he may want it
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top