[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
From what I had read previously Phil Robertson wanted out after this season anyways, I think this whole thing is a publicity stunt. I do watch the show and my beliefs are very similar to Mr. Robertson’s. If people would read the whole of what he said there was absolutely no reason for everyone to get their panties in a wad, but just like everything else that goes one we here what we want to here and we read what we want to read.
Come on people open up your damn minds, not everyone thinks the same way. We all have the right to our own opinions and have the right to speak them, especially when asked. It just so happens that he hit directly on two hot buttons that the media likes to blow out proportion.[/quote]
He expressed his opinions, and others expressed theirs. He has a right to his opinion, but no right to be free from the reactions his opinions cause in others. The government didn’t step in and squelch either side of the debate. This is exactly how free speech is supposed to work. If he is worried that his opinions might piss people off, he also has the right to shut the fuck up and not state them at all during an interview on TV.[/quote]
I agree with you, Jack, that the government intervention angle is not present. So what? It’s still “word police” stupidity and…reverse “intolerance.”
[/quote]
I personally don’t care what this guy says or thinks and his opinions won’t make me watch or not watch the show. But it is a hot-button issue and he is a public figure. If he wants to jump in the fire because he believes in his cause, good for him, but I wouldn’t expect jumping into that fire to be consequence free. In the same way, if I was a public figure and expressed views openly hostile to Christianity, I wouldn’t expect masses of Christians to suddenly preach tolerance and beg people to watch my show in the interest of free speech. To the contrary, I’d expect an organized boycott from the Christian right. That’s just the way it works.
[/quote]
There is also a large divide between expressing Christians as a group and expressing homosexuals as a group. Homosexual people aren’t a group in the same way Christians are.
[/quote]
I’ve seen the debates in PWI between Christians and as an outsider observer I’d never know they are all Christians and all part of the same belief system if they didn’t all claim to be Christians and part of the same group. Anytime you have a “group” of people there are assumptions of coherence that have to made are we couldn’t even have a discussion, but there is always going to be dissent, divergent views, and differences of opinion within the group. [/quote]
I’d say there are semantics involved there, people having different definitions for a thing doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing. But that’s not to my point.
And if anyone should be, shouldn’t GLAAD be responsive and understanding of the minority view?[/quote]
I don’t speak for GLAAD, but they probably should react with love and understanding of his choice to hold beliefs that are abhorrent to their own. Maybe offer to help find him a camp with counselors where he could get his views straightened out and help him see the light.
[/quote]
That would be a disaster. A disaster I would pay money to watch, that is. You’re going to stick a hunter in a camp with some counselors for “tolerance”… Phil’s gone. You’ll never see him again until you hear the report of the rifle he smuggled into camp and a flock of ducks fleeing for their lives. He doesn’t even own anything besides camo. Show up and he’ll have built a bivy and outpost.
