Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Duck Dynasty

Duck Dynasty (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Logistical concerns? The Israelis figured it out in the 80's. Go fish.
They've figured out a great many things including profiling at their airport checkpoints -- doesn't mean it'll necessarily fly in the States. I'm not interested in fishing for your point, I was merely expressing why all things can't be wrapped up neatly under PHOBIA!®

Edit: not to mention all the homosexuals we were already housing.
So... apparently DADT was working for all these homosexuals already?
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not interested in getting all legalistic and pseudo-scientific on this issue. If you can't see that being gay makes kids feel particularly vulnerable, confused, stressed about coming out to parents and friends, not to mention the possibility of having to deal with bullying, I don't know what I can say that will change things here.
If you can't tell me why this should be more profound than any other kid going through the pangs of puberty and all the related confusion and stress that goes with being a teenager, you're just acting out of fashionable advocacy with no regard for any statistical data that might truly lead to effectively mitigating societal ill.

About the only thing on your list that is comparable is being a minority, as being a certain race or certain sexual orientation is very much the core of one's being, whereas having pimples or being overweight is a condition that for a number of kids will only be temporary.
For a number of kids these situations are not temporary and the affects of mistreatment are lasting. After all, same-sex relationships may only be temporary for bisexuals, it doesn't define them either. My point was not to compare them, my point was to indicate they exist. Sexual orientation and its related plight are in no way comparable to the racial plight in this country.

But I'm really not sure where you are going with all of this. It seems like you are interested in being insensitive about being gay to make some sort of point, although I'm not sure what that is. I'm not saying that you're homophobic, I think your point is something about how too much attention is put on being gay, but I still don't understand why you feel the need to downplay this issue. What social issue would you like to promote in the place of homosexuality tolerance/rights?
I feel the need to interject facts, perspective, and reality in any discussion where they seem decidedly absent. Particularly when compassion is allegedly at issue.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They're going to boycott the show because they suspended the homophobe?
Interesting article on "The Atlantic" website.
The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic
Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 02:59 PM
 
Mr. Robertson's anti-gay comments in the GQ article have received the lion's share of negative attention. However, he made some other comments that clearly demonstrate his abject idiocy ... or at best, a willful blindness rooted in conservative mythology. This op-ed sums it up quite nicely ....

Originally Posted by Phil Robertson
I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field .... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
That is Robertson responding to a reporter's question about life in Louisiana, before the civil-rights movement. I am sure Robertson did see plenty of black people who were singing and happy. And I am also sure that very few black people approached Robertson to complain about "doggone white people."

I have some idea why:

The corpse of 16-year-old Freddie Moore, his face showing signs of a severe beating, hands bound, remained hanging for at least 24 hours from a metal girder on the old, hand-cranked swing bridge spanning Bayou Lafourche.

Hanged by the neck the night of Oct. 11, 1933, in a mob lynching, the black youth had been accused in the death of a neighbor, a white girl ...

Arrested Oct. 10, 1933, in the slaying days earlier of Anna Mae LaRose, a 15-year-old girl who was his friend, Moore was pulled from the parish jail in Napoleonville the next night by an angry mob of 50 to 200 armed and unmasked people who had the prison keys.

Some accounts say the lynchers were unknown and from out of town, as far away as New Orleans, while others say the mob was known to authorities. A coroner’s jury, impaneled by then-parish Coroner Dr. T.B. Pugh, said Moore “met death by a mob of unknown persons,” according to news accounts.

After being hauled from the jail, Moore was brought to the field where LaRose’s body was found, according to an Oct. 14, 1933, account in the black-owned New Orleans newspaper, The Louisiana Weekly. With a rope around his neck and clothes stripped to his waist, the teen was then marched, while being beaten, from the murder scene to the bridge and subjected to a branding iron whenever he fell.

Hanging from his body, a sign offered the final indignity: “Niggers Let This Be An Example. Do-Not-Touch-In 24 Hr. Mean it.”

As white people reviewed the scene on the bridge and black residents were warned to stay away, Moore’s body remained within sight of a school and the venerable St. Philomena Catholic Church, its spire above the fray.
One should not be lulled into thinking that the murder of Freddie Moore was out of the ordinary in Louisiana. Between 1882 and 1936, only Georgia, Texas and Mississippi saw more black people lynched. For part of that period four of Louisiana's parishes led the nation for counties with the most lynchings.

That is because governance in Phil Robertson's Louisiana was premised on terrorism. As late as 1890, the majority of people in Louisiana were black. As late as 1902, they still lived under threat of slavery through debt peonage and the convict-lease system. Virtually all of them were pilfered of their vote and their tax dollars. Plunder and second slavery were enforced by violence, as when the besiegers of Colfax massacred 50 black freedmen with rifles and cannon and tossed their bodies into a river. Even today the Colfax Massacre is honored in Louisiana as the rightful "end of carpetbag misrule."

The black people who Phil Robertson knew were warred upon. If they valued their lives, and the lives of their families, the last thing they would have done was voiced a complaint about "white people" to a man like Robertson. Ignorance is no great sin and one can forgive the good-natured white person for not knowing how all that cannibal sausage was truly made. But having been presented with a set of facts, Robertson's response is to cite "welfare" and "entitlement" as the true culprits.


The belief that black people were at their best when they were being hunted down like dogs for the sin of insisting on citizenship is a persistent strain of thought in this country. This belief reflects the inability to cope with an America that is, at least rhetorically, committed to equality.
Phil Robertson's America - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you can't tell me why this should be more profound than any other kid going through the pangs of puberty and all the related confusion and stress that goes with being a teenager, you're just acting out of fashionable advocacy with no regard for any statistical data that might truly lead to effectively mitigating societal ill.
Seriously?

You can't tell the difference between homosexuality and its stigma in society and the pangs of puberty? Since you want to make things political, it's no wonder conservatives lose elections so long as you have moments like this where feet are lodged in mouths.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
From having argued this a few times with ebuddy, I'd say the general shape of his argument is homosexuality is a disorder, but there's severe political (as opposed to scientific) opposition to the idea.

I can't tell you if it's a disorder, but I 100% agree with the claim there is overwhelming political (as opposed to scientific) pressure not to consider it as such. I don't think it's even possible to have a proper scientific investigation on it considering the political atmosphere.
I am not the arbiter of mental disorders, but what I can tell you from a great deal of research on the matter is that there is far more substantial evidence on the psycho-social/environmental components of homosexuality than there is for genetics. The US removed it as a disorder in the 1970's and Europe in the 1990's with very little science in their reasoning, having relegated the diagnosis itself simply more destructive than the condition. As to the remainder of your point -- yes, you've summed it up well. For too many, it is simply a matter of fashionable advocacy; their cause du jour.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Seriously?

You can't tell the difference between homosexuality and its stigma in society and the pangs of puberty? Since you want to make things political, it's no wonder conservatives lose elections so long as you have moments like this where feet are lodged in mouths.
I've lodged my feet in my mouth for standing up for minorities, those with severe acne, obesity, shortness, race, and a host of other factors by which children are bullied simply because it doesn't meet your narrative that gay kids deserve more focused protection than all these other children? Hmm... I'll take your concern for the struggles of conservatism under advisement.

Egadz, you're like an episode of Glee.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They've figured out a great many things including profiling at their airport checkpoints -- doesn't mean it'll necessarily fly in the States. I'm not interested in fishing for your point, I was merely expressing why all things can't be wrapped up neatly under PHOBIA!®


So... apparently DADT was working for all these homosexuals already?
If you want to say we lacked the political will, fine.

You said logistics.

As for DADT, it worked to prove housing homosexuals was logistcally possible. In the same manner Israel and dozens of other countries have.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've lodged my feet in my mouth for standing up for minorities, those with severe acne, obesity, shortness, race, and a host of other factors by which children are bullied simply because it doesn't meet your narrative that gay kids deserve more focused protection than all these other children? Hmm... I'll take your concern for the struggles of conservatism under advisement.

Egadz, you're like an episode of Glee.

You've completely disregarded my pointing out that comparisons to obesity and acne are pretty dumb, because in many cases these conditions are temporary, and they certainly do not define an individual like their sexuality does.

This is on you. Whatever happened to not falling in populist traps?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you want to say we lacked the political will, fine.

You said logistics.
Right, logistics. we're not Israelis up to and including the fact that we're not essentially flanked by hostility.

As for DADT, it worked to prove housing homosexuals was logistcally possible. In the same manner Israel and dozens of other countries have.
DADT didn't prove this. You phrased your statement in such a way as to imply that many homosexuals had been serving prior to the elimination of DADT which to me, begged the obvious. It worked. It doesn't work now all of a sudden, but it must've then. To be clear, my view on this had always been shaped by the majority, military brass -- if they thought this wouldn't affect troop readiness, I certainly wouldn't know better to challenge that view. If they felt otherwise, I was willing to hear that as well. This was detestable and phobic to the cyber-bullies of course, but I'm not going to let that deter me from offering a different perspective.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You've completely disregarded my pointing out that comparisons to obesity and acne are pretty dumb, because in many cases these conditions are temporary, and they certainly do not define an individual like their sexuality does.
You've ignored the fact that these weren't the only examples I offered. You also ignored the fact that for many, these situations are not temporary nor are the affects of their mistreatment. How much does your sexuality define you?

This is on you. Whatever happened to not falling in populist traps?
What populist trap have I fallen into?
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I am not the arbiter of mental disorders, but what I can tell you from a great deal of research on the matter is that there is far more substantial evidence on the psycho-social/environmental components of homosexuality than there is for genetics. The US removed it as a disorder in the 1970's and Europe in the 1990's with very little science in their reasoning, having relegated the diagnosis itself simply more destructive than the condition. As to the remainder of your point -- yes, you've summed it up well. For too many, it is simply a matter of fashionable advocacy; their cause du jour.
My layman understanding is what makes something a disorder is whether it bothers you.

I'm quite the obsessive-compulsive. However it's ultimately not a disorder for me because the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Of course, society isn't telling me that being a "practicing" obsessive-compulsive is an abomination before God, so it's relatively easy to attempt a semi-objective analysis of how it impacts my life.

Not so for a homosexual.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've ignored the fact that these weren't the only examples I offered. You also ignored the fact that for many, these situations are not temporary nor are the affects of their mistreatment. How much does your sexuality define you?
You should have left obesity and acne off your comparison list, is my point. Sexuality defines everybody, particularly unusual sexuality. Have you ever asked a gay person this very question?


What populist trap have I fallen into?
The trap of saying something dumb, and inviting being used as a punching bag in a way that is highly distracting from causes you probably care about more, while doing nothing to make your ideology you are so invested in seem more appealing to those who find homosexual rights to be an important social issue.

I mean, you come out and say that homosexuality is not that important, and then you paint a huge ass target on your head by saying something provocative. If it's not important to you, why not just keep your mouth closed?

We see this foot-in-mouth syndrome all the time, and right now the populist viewpoint seems to be not so much of a fan of this particular foot.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, logistics. we're not Israelis up to and including the fact that we're not essentially flanked by hostility.



DADT didn't prove this. You phrased your statement in such a way as to imply that many homosexuals had been serving prior to the elimination of DADT which to me, begged the obvious. It worked. It doesn't work now all of a sudden, but it must've then. To be clear, my view on this had always been shaped by the majority, military brass -- if they thought this wouldn't affect troop readiness, I certainly wouldn't know better to challenge that view. If they felt otherwise, I was willing to hear that as well. This was detestable and phobic to the cyber-bullies of course, but I'm not going to let that deter me from offering a different perspective.
I'm only begging the question if the term "working" is binary. It isn't.

As for trusting top military brass, big mistake. Huge. In peacetime, top brass are politicians. A good CinC will fire most of them when a real war breaks out.

There's a direct correlation between our operational military success and the number of generals who get sacked along the way.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My layman understanding is what makes something a disorder is whether it bothers you.
Right and the matter we're discussing is the source of distress. Certainly, if the source of distress is exclusively that of societal acceptance, that's not the homosexual's ill or diagnosable distress -- that's others' problems and distress. However, evidence indicating distress void of the societal acceptance causation unless entirely ignored for political reasons -- is distress and may not be others' issue.

I'm quite the obsessive-compulsive. However it's ultimately not a disorder for me because the benefits outweigh the downsides.
And yet it is considered a disorder nonetheless. It's not the God-fearing citing the condition, it's the APA. This apparently is not making you feel better or worse for yourself.

Of course, society isn't telling me that being a "practicing" obsessive-compulsive is an abomination before God, so it's relatively easy to attempt a semi-objective analysis of how it impacts my life.

Not so for a homosexual.
Society is also not calling you phobic for offering a different perspective. They're likely not comparing you to terrorists or hostage-takers for expressing a contrarian view, or calling you obstructionist racists, etc... none of these are worth taking my life over.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why would a homosexual have much greater odds of committing suicide due to bullying than the person with severe acne, the obese person, the minority, and the wealth of any other factors by which kids mistreat other kids? Because they show a higher suicide rate overall. Any cursory glance at statistics showing far greater rates of gay suicide in the most tolerant countries on the globe would establish that bullying or acceptance may not be the primary factor of suicide and that perhaps other factors are at play here. Truly compassionate action for these children would have to include careful examination into why they are more prone to depression and suicide regardless of societal acceptance.

I also don't think it's easy to conclude that it is heterosexuals that are most cruel to homosexuals in which case we'd have to teach homosexual children that it's not okay to lash out at other homosexual children to cover their own closeted sexuality.
Bullying is bad, no matter what the reason may be.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You should have left obesity and acne off your comparison list, is my point. Sexuality defines everybody, particularly unusual sexuality. Have you ever asked a gay person this very question?
For some gays, I don't have to ask them this question -- it's patently apparent. For others, it does not seem to be as much an integral part of their identity. It seems, we're all different. Go figure.

The trap of saying something dumb, and inviting being used as a punching bag in a way that is highly distracting from causes you probably care about more, while doing nothing to make your ideology you are so invested in seem more appealing to those who find homosexual rights to be an important social issue.
It's dumb in your opinion because it does not champion your issue in a way that offers the perspectives you'd want to be heard. This is how you lead tolerance by example. Got it.

I mean, you come out and say that homosexuality is not that important, and then you paint a huge ass target on your head by saying something provocative. If it's not important to you, why not just keep your mouth closed?
I've apparently said something provocative, but that's not my fault. For example, I never said that homosexuality is unimportant. The only reason you've placed a target on my head is your inability to accept differing views. And this isn't new.

We see this foot-in-mouth syndrome all the time, and right now the populist viewpoint seems to be not so much of a fan of this particular foot.
Really? I believe A&E will pay a heavy price for this step and it seems even many of those who don't agree with Phil Robertson's statements support his right to make them. I've not said anything remotely comparable to the subject of this thread. The fact that you're making more of it than is warranted may speak to your general boredom. Otherwise, maybe you should direct this ire toward someone who has actually made a hateful statement.

That's not on me.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Bullying is bad, no matter what the reason may be.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right and the matter we're discussing is the source of distress. Certainly, if the source of distress is exclusively that of societal acceptance, that's not the homosexual's ill or diagnosable distress -- that's others' problems and distress. However, evidence indicating distress void of the societal acceptance causation unless entirely ignored for political reasons -- is distress and may not be others' issue.


And yet it is considered a disorder nonetheless. It's not the God-fearing citing the condition, it's the APA. This apparently is not making you feel better or worse for yourself.


Society is also not calling you phobic for offering a different perspective. They're likely not comparing you to terrorists or hostage-takers for expressing a contrarian view, or calling you obstructionist racists, etc... none of these are worth taking my life over.
As I implied upthread, these environments where there are no societal pressures are mythical.

WRT disorders, are you saying the situation with homosexuality is analogous to OC? There is "disorder homosexuality" and "non-disorder homosexuality"?

As far as your last statement goes... feel free to slap that list of people who have lost their lives for being homophobic next to that list of people who lost their lives for being homosexual.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:19 PM
 
Does feeling that something is morally wrong automatically mean you want that thing outlawed? I find the consumption of escargot to be entirely repellent, but that doesn't mean I want the practice banned.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:23 PM
 
You're morally against escargot?
( Last edited by subego; Dec 23, 2013 at 05:17 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I implied upthread, these environments where there are no societal pressures are mythical.
Well then we have absolutely no basis for gauging societal acceptance and tolerance. In that case, we're sort of back to square one where we're all subject to societal pressures and must employ some degree of coping with the immeasurable stresses of existence. Those that aren't coping as well will be considered victims of people who think differently.

WRT disorders, are you saying the situation with homosexuality is analogous to OC? There is "disorder homosexuality" and "non-disorder homosexuality"?
No. Are you? Curiously, you brought up OCD.

As far as your last statement goes... feel free to slap that list of people who have lost their lives for being homophobic next to that list of people who lost their lives for being homosexual.
My last statement included all manner of contrarian viewpoints and the many that I hold. How many have lost their lives for this? Countless millions I suspect.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 04:56 PM
 
I wouldn't object to a definition including disorder and non-disorder varieties. It fits in with my experience. Edit: more to the point though, if you don't think they're analogous I'd say comparing them makes for a poor analogy.

I am making no claim there is no way to gauge societal acceptance and tolerance. I'm saying that if you peg Europeans as tolerant, you're ignoring most of history.

You've lost me on the third paragraph.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 23, 2013 at 05:45 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Your morally against escargot?
Yes, I think it's evil, and repulsive in every way.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 05:08 PM
 
Why?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 05:10 PM
 
As an aside... do baby clams have baby shells?

Inquiring minds and all.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why?
Because they're completely gross and repellent to all my senses. They aren't to be confused with barnacles, however, those are delicious, especially with wasabi.

Baby clams.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2013, 05:29 PM
 
Those clams need to think a little less about ****ing.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 06:54 AM
 
While discussing this issue with my wife and adult son yesterday, (as in "why are people noticing at all?"), my wife noted that the same people who are making a big deal about the "free speech" aspects of some very odd person stating his beliefs in an interview are the same ones who broke out the torches and pitchforks for rallies to destroy the Dixie Chicks for their individual statements about George W. Bush... Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (or drake).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
While discussing this issue with my wife and adult son yesterday, (as in "why are people noticing at all?"), my wife noted that the same people who are making a big deal about the "free speech" aspects of some very odd person stating his beliefs in an interview are the same ones who broke out the torches and pitchforks for rallies to destroy the Dixie Chicks for their individual statements about George W. Bush... Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (or drake).
If sauce for the goose had been sauce for the gander, I'd have fully expected the Dixie Chicks or at least a couple of celebs to decry unprovoked military action in Libya and while most of the country was decrying proposed action in Syria -- these types were all, but entirely absent from the debate.

Silly people, it's all about whether there's an (R) or (D) after the President's name. Birds of a feather and all that.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wouldn't object to a definition including disorder and non-disorder varieties. It fits in with my experience. Edit: more to the point though, if you don't think they're analogous I'd say comparing them makes for a poor analogy.
I'd say comparing them makes for a poor analogy.

I am making no claim there is no way to gauge societal acceptance and tolerance. I'm saying that if you peg Europeans as tolerant, you're ignoring most of history.
Of course, that wasn't the crux of the point at all. I'm saying there are controls more or less tolerant than the US by available measures and you'd expect to see some trending that might establish a stronger relationship between tolerance and suicide rates like that in San Francisco, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. It's just not there. With regard to the psychosocial components of homosexuality, they are entirely off limits in today's political discourse which is why I generally let any accusations of a lacking compassion roll off as nothing more than fashionable advocacy.

You've lost me on the third paragraph.
You asked for a list of those who have lost their lives for being homophobic. I avoided the homophobic aspect of the question as that seems too ambiguous a term and more useful as a hot-button political indictment than having any real foundation in credible psychological analysis. i.e. homophobic appears to = not saying the socially-defined proper things about homosexuality regardless of whether or not there is in reality, an irrational fear of homosexuals. In short, many have been persecuted and killed for not saying the proper things regarding enter subject here, something in the millions over the course of human history I suspect.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
While discussing this issue with my wife and adult son yesterday, (as in "why are people noticing at all?"), my wife noted that the same people who are making a big deal about the "free speech" aspects of some very odd person stating his beliefs in an interview are the same ones who broke out the torches and pitchforks for rallies to destroy the Dixie Chicks for their individual statements about George W. Bush... Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (or drake).
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If sauce for the goose had been sauce for the gander, I'd have fully expected the Dixie Chicks or at least a couple of celebs to decry unprovoked military action in Libya and while most of the country was decrying proposed action in Syria -- these types were all, but entirely absent from the debate.

Silly people, it's all about whether there's an (R) or (D) after the President's name. Birds of a feather and all that.
When the Dixie Chicks made the comments about W the comments from their critics are now being echoed by the Chistophobics: Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from consequences.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 02:10 PM
 
Can someone explain to me why this incident would fall under violation of freedom of speech ?

I thought freedom of speech referred to the ability to voice one's opinion free from government coercion and interference. That's clearly given in this case.

-t
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 02:37 PM
 
@ebuddy

I'll try and focus on everything else in time, but the main part of this is going down the rabbit hole.

Your argument was to point out how OC being labeled as a disorder doesn't make someone OC suicidal.

If you think they're not analogous, if you refuse to accept some form of analogy between OC and homosexuality, the above argument is meaningless.

It's really confusing to have you slam my analogy and also use it as a basis for your argument.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Excellent, the sports issue is within arm's reach, I'll be here all day.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 04:54 PM
 
As far as I've seen, the only people who care about the Duck Dynasty "Homosexuality" comment are: (1) the "top dogs" at A&E...and I'm curious to know how much of the attention is to "cash in," (2) a few people at CrackerBarrel (wow, relax guys, you can keep showing off your restroom traffic lights), and...
(3) pretty much anyone who feels like they "have to defend" something or else they're not "standing up for" oneself.
The reality is 98% of people who watch Duck Dynasty couldn't care less about the theo-political drama.
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 05:06 PM
 
Nah, it has to do with people not liking the what the Bible has to say. It's easier to shoot the messenger than the message.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ebuddy

I'll try and focus on everything else in time, but the main part of this is going down the rabbit hole.
Feigned confusion generally results in conversations going down the rabbit hole.

Your argument was to point out how OC being labeled as a disorder doesn't make someone OC suicidal.

If you think they're not analogous, if you refuse to accept some form of analogy between OC and homosexuality, the above argument is meaningless.
I wasn't making an argument on OC or "quite OC" in your case. (how that differs from OCD, not sure) I found the whole thing a little curious, but merely offered an observation that it doesn't bother you. If you think they equate somehow, great. I don't think you'll get far in splitting homosexuality into two components; disorder from non-disorder, but whatever trips your trigger.

It's really confusing to have you slam my analogy and also use it as a basis for your argument.
At what point did I use it as a basis for my argument? You brought it up, assumed a position for me, and when I didn't agree with the position you assigned me, offered an observation. Yes, it is exhausting.

I wish you a Merry Christmas nonetheless.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Feigned confusion generally results in conversations going down the rabbit hole.
I refrained from impugning your motives.

I expect the return as basic courtesy.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can someone explain to me why this incident would fall under violation of freedom of speech ?

I thought freedom of speech referred to the ability to voice one's opinion free from government coercion and interference. That's clearly given in this case.

-t

Including in the ways of establishing laws which interfere with this speech. I agree with you, the government has had nothing to do with this, I share your confusion as to what is behind these statements.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I refrained from impugning your motives.

I expect the return as basic courtesy.
In this spirit of openness, going forward I'd appreciate not being held accountable for things others bring up including European tolerance and OCD.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can someone explain to me why this incident would fall under violation of freedom of speech ?

I thought freedom of speech referred to the ability to voice one's opinion free from government coercion and interference. That's clearly given in this case.

-t
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Including in the ways of establishing laws which interfere with this speech. I agree with you, the government has had nothing to do with this, I share your confusion as to what is behind these statements.
Good question, turtle777 and IMO it's likely a "slippery slope" matter for these people. I certainly wouldn't argue that this is a 1st Amendment issue as Robertson clearly said what he said and is not being imprisoned for it, but there are enough people interested in thought-policing (Jennifer Lawrence; "it should be illegal to call someone fat on TV") and calls to return to Fairness Doctrine to show that it is not above the collective to unwittingly encourage the infringement of speech. Is it applicable in this case at all? No.

If there is any grievance at all, it might be one of equal protection. i.e. Can you be fired for defending homosexuality?
ebuddy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 11:56 AM
 
Nothing in the Constitution says that Robertson has to have an A&E TV show. He can say what he wants, but A&E doesn't have an obligation to provide him with the TV show (or the advertising).

Robertson is free to say what he wants, but A&E has no legal obligation to maintain their relationship with him. I think the logic is "we're not firing you for your beliefs, we're firing you for making [u]US[/us] look bad."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In this spirit of openness, going forward I'd appreciate not being held accountable for things others bring up including European tolerance and OCD.
Listen. You're the only person here this happens with.

If I don't understand you, you start attacking me.

As someone who puts in great effort to try and understand, you're basically taking a shit on me.

Repeatedly.

Can you please stop it?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The magic number is "next season".

"It looks like Phil Robertson's suspension from 'Duck Dynasty' may be just for show. Entertainment Weekly learned that on Jan. 15, A&E will begin airing new episodes of the show that include scenes featuring the 'Dynasty' patriarch."


http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/4485646

Sorry for the HP link. I suck.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Listen. You're the only person here this happens with.

If I don't understand you, you start attacking me.

As someone who puts in great effort to try and understand, you're basically taking a shit on me.

Repeatedly.

Can you please stop it?
If it bothers you this much, there's not much I can offer you other than the forum's ignore feature. As it stands, you're one of the few who go out of their way to not understand me and it usually begins with trying to cram more into my posts. I've seen this problem between you and other posters as well, subego -- there's no reason to get personal.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 10:25 PM
 
What makes it personal is your continued insistence it's intentional on my part.

I don't consider the fact I often misunderstand things, or are often not good at communicating my point as a virtue. As I said above, I put in great effort to avoid this problem.

If you think it's helping me to become abusive when I fail, then I shall (with sorrow, no snark) use the ignore. I want to assume however, kicking someone when they're down is not your intent.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What makes it personal is your continued insistence it's intentional on my part.
subego, my intention here is usually to address what I consider bumper-sticker mentalities; quick hits of simpleton sensationalism to play on intellectual laziness. In this thread, I began by citing this phenomena in the Christian community. The problem I eventually encountered with you and besson was that I didn't stop there at which point besson was forced to wonder if I was homophobic. You then framed my position as if I had suggested that disenfranchisement of gays is a "tiny little issue" and besson framed my position as "homosexuality is unimportant". My discussion with you evolved into comparisons with OC (which was not my doing) and overall European intolerance. (which had nothing to do with what I said). At some point I get the impression folks are trying to make me or my arguments something they are not in order to either avoid what I'm really saying or attempt to flesh-out something hateful or detestable. To me, these are rhetorical bullying devices (straw man arguments) too prevalent in these discussions in order to avoid examining these things more deeply than the average bumper sticker would allow.

I believe varying perspectives are important, particularly in any discussion involving the virtues of diversity and tolerance. This includes your contributions btw and it's not completely unheard of that you and I would find some solidarity from time to time.

I don't consider the fact I often misunderstand things, or are often not good at communicating my point as a virtue. As I said above, I put in great effort to avoid this problem.
I've not defined you as any of these things, subego as I don't consider the above shortcomings particularly common or problematic with you. This might explain my suspicion that these were dishonest attempts to make my points something they were not or to set up a straw-man ebuddy.

I apologize for making that leap against you, subego and must offer a Presidential-esque apology; "I am sorry that you are finding yourself upset based on anything you got from me."

If you think it's helping me to become abusive when I fail, then I shall (with sorrow, no snark) use the ignore. I want to assume however, kicking someone when they're down is not your intent.
While it is at times difficult for me to express diplomacy in the typed-word, I wouldn't have considered my responses to you or anyone else here, a "kicking" or particularly abusive. We've all been exchanging ideas (sometimes heated) for years and I've assumed some level of frankness with you all, perhaps in error. I'll try to tone it back, but this might be problematic in that I'm sure I've made and broken that promise before.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 09:14 AM
 
Ummm, ebuddy...

My "tiny issue" statement was to besson. If it was to you, I would have quoted you, at signed you, or made it directly after one of your posts.

You've been attacking me for something I didn't do, and my practically begging you to stop has had zero effect.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"It looks like Phil Robertson's suspension from 'Duck Dynasty' may be just for show. Entertainment Weekly learned that on Jan. 15, A&E will begin airing new episodes of the show that include scenes featuring the 'Dynasty' patriarch."


http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/4485646

Sorry for the HP link. I suck.
What are they supposed to do? Digitally remove him from the already filmed episodes?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Ummm, ebuddy...

My "tiny issue" statement was to besson. If it was to you, I would have quoted you, at signed you, or made it directly after one of your posts.
I'm not sure how I should've regarded your post directed to besson as anything other than; "in addition to what you just said" as loosely directed at my discussion with besson. Recap:
Originally Posted by besson3c
Also, to gay people it's a very big issue [schoolyard bullying/homosexuality/mistreatment thereof] that is deeply personal to them. I can dig that.
You added government policy and that it's no tiny little issue we're talking about. Who's "we're" in your statement -- you and besson? Otherwise, no one said it was a tiny little issue. If someone is addressing a point I've made and someone else adds to that respondent's statement, how would I not take that as directed to me? Notwithstanding the fact that you didn't correct my misappropriation of a rebuttal at that time, but engaged it.

You've been attacking me for something I didn't do, and my practically begging you to stop has had zero effect.
C'mon, man I've not attacked, kicked, or abused anyone here. I apologized for leaping to conclusions on you, suggested that I don't consider any of the weaknesses you attributed to yourself as being problematic for you, and attempted to lighten the tone of our exchange with a little humor and some introspect. It's only zero effect if you give it zero acknowledgement.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Dec 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM. )
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2