Duck Dynasty

[midcan5]

I've only watched a bit of Duck Dynasty but I am fascinated by so called reality TV. This show reminded me of when we were kids in what some call the 'olden times.' No electronics or social media for us. We played outside and when bored we did stupid things, we'd climb just about anything, we'd fire BB guns at whatever, we tried to smoke cigars or get a wino to buy us booze, we'd play with knives, etc etc etc. So for me watching adults act like bored kids was kinda like home. Maybe that is its appeal. But then came another element of the past, intolerance of those on the other side of the tracks, followed by yet another modern American phenom, everything is now partisan.

Calling intolerance intolerance is the only honest reaction to intolerance. Robertson's intolerance is wrong, and his racist nonsense just plain stupid for a man who is around my age. Pretending intolerance is only an act of partisans excuses evil, and while Robertson is not evil, the sort of characterizations he engages in are the foundations of evil. Check history sometime.

Teaching Intolerance
The New Religious Intolerance | Boston Review
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/hate-speech-and-free-speech-part-two/


"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper

[MO]

There is nothing tolerant about asking someone for their religious opinion and then mocking it. It's completely intolerant for there to be right and wrong opinions. The answer to speech you don't like is to engage in more speech.

That quote is un American.
People who don't like the first amendment are free to try and move to London, where views like that fly. That would be more "tolerant" than ignoring the bloody war we fought for independence. Just go there and enjoy the thought police.

While it's true that it's not the government standing between Phil's beliefs and his job, so not technically a first amendment issue, one could say the same thing of Hollywood film writers in the late 1940s. They didn't have a right to work in Hollywood.

[midcan5]

Mo, your reply makes you a relativist, you have to realize that if everything is relative then nothing is wrong or nothing is right - caught in a logical quandary. Now follow that logic and get back to us.

[MO]

Dec 30, 2013 7:11:07 GMT -5 midcan5 said:

Mo, your reply makes you a relativist, you have to realize that if everything is relative then nothing is wrong or nothing is right - caught in a logical quandary. Now follow that logic and get back to us.

Who is "us?" Are you a schizophrenic? Where is the relativism? Phil is 100% fine in holding any opinion he wants. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask.

[midcan5]

So anyone at all is 100% fine in holding their opinion? Did you feel that way about the Martin Bashir? Or how about the Dixie Chicks? You relativism is interesting as you don't even see it. I've read enough of your opinions to know that your tolerance is relative to your ideological stance. Most on the right today are that way. Hatred of other humans because they are different is wrong, plain and simple.

[MO]

No one fired the Dixie Chicks. Some of their fans apparently were disgusted with them and stopped buying their recordings. That's certainly their right. Why toss that at me? I didn't buy their stuff before the political rants. The comparison with the Dixie Chicks is really a stretch. LOL No one has said you don't have a right to NOT watch Duck Dynasty and not buy associated products.

Bashir wasn't fired for any ideological stance. He let loose with a verbal assault of a violent sexual nature against a specific woman, all planned and loaded into the teleprompter. It wasn't a political opinion voiced on an interview outside his show, it was a personal attack on the show he "resigned" from.

Phil Robertson didn't personally attack anyone.

[midcan5]

My gay brother who has been in relationship just a few years less than our marriage may take exception to your excuses for intolerance.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QjaYScgeDs

"...Tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation, in academic discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private religion. But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument of the continuation of servitude." Herbert Marcuse

[MO]

So what? Your gay brother or some of his friends may have made comments about breeders I don’t agree with. Thankfully, I don’t have this pathology that makes it too uncomfortable for me that me and my lifestyle and religion are not universally liked and accepted. As far as your quote, it’s no surprise that a Marxist would speak out against free speech.

It’s too bad that leftists are just Marxists and aren’t liberals anymore. Any true liberal would be more offended by the attempts to silence Phil Robertson via politically correct speech codes than anything he said.

[midcan5]

You continue to miss the point and then use empty labels rather than a considered reply. No one is silencing the moron, but here's the point, he is a moron if that is the way he truly thinks. The YouTube shows that much. And anyone engaging in hate speech needs to be called out for it. Stupid is stupid, when it concerns hatred towards a large segment of society it needs to be called stupid.

[MO]

Jan 12, 2014 7:54:28 GMT -5 midcan5 said:

You continue to miss the point and then use empty labels rather than a considered reply. No one is silencing the moron, but here's the point, he is a moron if that is the way he truly thinks. The YouTube shows that much. And anyone engaging in hate speech needs to be called out for it. Stupid is stupid, when it concerns hatred towards a large segment of society it needs to be called stupid.

^ that's hate speech. Just calling it out.

If you think 1 Corinthians is hate speech, don't read it.

[midcan5]

So long as you are following Biblical stories as factual considerations, may I suggest you be consistent and allow for the precepts below as well. Hopefully the defenders of Duckie are above these biblical injunctions.

Americans are always intolerant for a while, you know all the native Americans massacred, or WWII intolerance, or race intolerance, or feminist intolerance, or alcohol intolerance, or religious intolerance, we Americans eventually get over our intolerance, sometimes it takes years, sometimes a hundred years, and sometimes it just fades into a corner somewhere and only pops out when needed.

But in order for you nice freedom loving bigots to justify your intolerance you use only part of your book, time you stood up and followed all of it. See below for help.

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit." Interesting, let's see if we can follow this Holy Book on family relations and whatnot? Why stop at hating gay people, who made them anyway, let's go all the way.

Great way to get rid of lots of congressmen.
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

How old does this have to be enforced at? Lots of children swing at their parents when little? Any age limit in that book on the family? My granddaughter whacked me good at 14 months, maybe grandpas are excluded? "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Jeez, this sure would control the population, my brother and his partner of twenty five years may complain though.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Thank goodness only priest's daughter get the hot seat.
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Is it OK if you marry the bitch after fornication or does that count too? Maybe kill each other? Anyone know.
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

These Bible folks sound a bit like Union organizers? No work on Sunday, huh. Imagine the stampede at Walmart after the loud speaker announcement.
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'" (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Is this retroactively possible? I mean suppose you find out after the sons have flew the coup? Is it necessary to track them down?
"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants." (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

"Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)"


All around good advice? Sounds a little nutty to me but maybe that's just me?
"Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)[/QUOTE]

[MO]

All you're doing is showing your ignorance of the bible, and biblical law.

[midcan5]

Mo, I admit I am not a Biblical scholar, but much of the old Testament would not fit into the modern world. The more orthodox may try to adhere to certain aspects of the Bible and all the other religious texts, but I think diversity and the idea of acceptance of all people is a necessary ingredient for a peaceful and sane world.

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin

[MO]

Of course OT law doesn't fit into the new covenant.

It's great that you appreciate diversity and acceptance of all people. Now try practicing it.

Keep in mind that you started a rant to be non accepting of an old man, a private citizen.

[midcan5]

Old and not so old men are allowed to be stupid, there's Gohmert, Cruz, Lee, Bundy, Hannity, Sterling, etc etc etc but that does not mean we cannot call them stupid. The homophobic stupidity from the Duck guy is stupid OT stuff, call it that next time.