RE: A question of morality

RE: A question of morality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA. Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm. So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them. Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them. Igniting a bit of a flame. Japan is quite xenophobic. Does it cause harm? Ask the Chinese or anyone who had to live under Japanese imperial rule, and I think they would say yes.

MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 6:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yes. Xenophobia in Japan And what do you say the harm is? What was the harm in the way black people were treated under Jim Crow in the US? I ask because if you cannot see the harm in that then you will most certainly not see the harm in xenophobia in Japan. public places (restaurants, hotels etc.) that openly deny service to foreigners. Asians being discriminated against regarding where they can live or work based on the fact that they are not Japanese. Police harassment of non Japanese. And unless something has recently changed, it is legal to treat people that way over there. I say all of these thing are harmful to the people they are happening to. So I ask, what do you say the harm is? citation

SilverBoat -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 8:51:34 PM)
@OP ------- Not that I buy any of the duck-doofuses' crappy widgets or watch their concocted surreality show, but their entire schtick is (self?)delusional psychodrama, with no more real intent behind it than conning some megabucks out of the ignorant and idiotic masses. I no more buy-into Phil Roberton 'believing' the crap he spouts than I would Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or Osama bin-Laden. Sure, there's wide difference in the scale of how many people they bamboozled, but they've all got obvious 'tells' in the expressions they choose in efforts to psychopathic manipulation of their various audiences. A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies, now they've 'got-religion' and they're spouting the born-again 'saved' ideology, complete with the usual trigger-words and us-vs-them phrases to 'connect' to the bubba-got-religion-rightwing demographic. (Though he's slightly more coherent than Palin, have you ever tried to diagram a sentence from her speeches?) My take on Phil's ranting is that he aimed it very specifically at getting a certain demographic to indentify with him, and with that, to watch his show, buy his crap, etc. But, his mind had (maybe still has) enough projective delusion that he underestimated the magnitude of negative reactions. And his further remarks about formerly enslaved people had the same intent, and (so far) less negative effect. If the CEO of IBM or some other giga-buck TIC (Three Initial Corporation) spouted racial slurs in a publicity interview, would it be "forcing" some sort of censure, if most or all of their minority customers decided to choose other suppliers? Or would that be more accurately and more honestly stated as exerting economic "influence"? There are other shows to watch, other gizmos to buy, and of people decide to take their business somewhere other than the opinionated charlatan, that's just as much their right as it is his to speak his objectionable opinions. ...

Blonderfluff -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 8:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverBoat @OP ------- Not that I buy any of duck-doofuses' crappy widgets or watch their concocted surreality show, but their entire schtick is (self?)delusion psychodrama, with no more real intent behind it than conning some megabucks out of the ignorant and idiotis masses. I no more buy-into Phil Roberton 'believing' the crap he spouts than I would Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or Osama bin-Laden. Sure, there's wide difference in the scale of how many people they bamboozled, but they've all got obvious 'tells' in the expressions they choose in efforts to psychopathic manipulation of their various audiences. A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies, now they've 'got-religion' and they're spouting the born-again 'saved' ideology, complete with the usual trigger-words and us-vs-them to 'connect' to the bubba-got-religion-rightwing demographic. (Though he's slightly more coherent than Palin, have you ever tried to diagram a sentence from her speeches?) My take on Phil's ranting is that he aimed it very specifically at getting a certain demographic to indentify with him, and with that watch his show, buy his crap, etc. But, his mind had (maybe still has) enough projective delusion that he underestimated the magnitude of negative reactions. And his further remarks about formerly enslaved people had the same intent, and (so far) less negative effect. If the CEO of IBM or some other giga-buck TIC (Three Initial Corporation) spouted racial slurs in a publicity interview, would it be "forcing" some sort of censure, if most or all of their minority customers decided to choose other suppliers? Or would that be more accurately and more honestly stated as exerting economic "influence"? There are other shows to watch, other gizmos to buy, and of people decide to take their business somewhere other than the opinionated charlatan, that's just as much their right as it is his to speak his objectionable opinions. ... You know. I've been reading this thread, but didn't feel the need to weigh in.... Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't.

njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 9:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverBoat @OP ------- Not that I buy any of the duck-doofuses' crappy widgets or watch their concocted surreality show, but their entire schtick is (self?)delusional psychodrama, with no more real intent behind it than conning some megabucks out of the ignorant and idiotic masses. I no more buy-into Phil Roberton 'believing' the crap he spouts than I would Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or Osama bin-Laden. Sure, there's wide difference in the scale of how many people they bamboozled, but they've all got obvious 'tells' in the expressions they choose in efforts to psychopathic manipulation of their various audiences. A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies, now they've 'got-religion' and they're spouting the born-again 'saved' ideology, complete with the usual trigger-words and us-vs-them phrases to 'connect' to the bubba-got-religion-rightwing demographic. (Though he's slightly more coherent than Palin, have you ever tried to diagram a sentence from her speeches?) My take on Phil's ranting is that he aimed it very specifically at getting a certain demographic to indentify with him, and with that, to watch his show, buy his crap, etc. But, his mind had (maybe still has) enough projective delusion that he underestimated the magnitude of negative reactions. And his further remarks about formerly enslaved people had the same intent, and (so far) less negative effect. If the CEO of IBM or some other giga-buck TIC (Three Initial Corporation) spouted racial slurs in a publicity interview, would it be "forcing" some sort of censure, if most or all of their minority customers decided to choose other suppliers? Or would that be more accurately and more honestly stated as exerting economic "influence"? There are other shows to watch, other gizmos to buy, and of people decide to take their business somewhere other than the opinionated charlatan, that's just as much their right as it is his to speak his objectionable opinions. ... Friend of mine is an expert in symbolic analysis, which basically means he takes speeches, breaks them down, and tries to see what they are really saying....take a speech, remove the filler, the stuff that says nothing, the stuff that basically erases other stuff, and see what you have..and he said when you do that to something Sarah Palin has said, you basically end up with something that is gibberish, without a coherent logic stream in it or actually saying something and defending it....

Kana -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 9:21:23 PM)
quote: you basically end up with something that is gibberish, without a coherent logic stream in it or actually saying something and defending it.... John Hay, Lincolns private secretary, 40 year federal vet, a lifelong Washingtonian insider who served every pres from Lincoln to Teddy, culminating as Secretary of State, once defined politics as "The art of talking while saying nothing." Sounds as if Palin is ninja

EdBowie -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 10:44:00 PM)
quote: A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies That's an interesting addition to the mix... what's the source?

MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 5:38:29 AM)
Here is a link to story talking about it. I don't know about the coke-head part; but the article has several of their yuppie pics. I honestly thought everyone knew this about them. They made up fake "redneck" personas for the "reality show." quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies That's an interesting addition to the mix... what's the source?

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 6:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana quote: you basically end up with something that is gibberish, without a coherent logic stream in it or actually saying something and defending it.... John Hay, Lincolns private secretary, 40 year federal vet, a lifelong Washingtonian insider who served every pres from Lincoln to Teddy, culminating as Secretary of State, once defined politics as "The art of talking while saying nothing." Sounds as if Palin is ninja LMAO!!!

kalikshama -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 6:49:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY Here is a link to story talking about it. I don't know about the coke-head part; but the article has several of their yuppie pics. I honestly thought everyone knew this about them. They made up fake "redneck" personas for the "reality show." quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies That's an interesting addition to the mix... what's the source? Great pictures, thanks for the link! My faves: Before Reality TV [image]http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/62464/large/23-robertson-brothers-without-beards-duck-dynasty-then-and-now-e1364400084151.jpg[/image] [image]http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/62458/large/9-willie-and-korie-robertson-beach-duck-dynasty-then-and-now.jpg[/image]

kalikshama -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 6:51:51 AM)
"The people saying A&E has no right as an employer to control what an employee says (despite a contract) are the same people saying Hobby Lobby, as an employer, has the right to control an employee's birth control." [image]http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/62501/large/1520651_681418975223745_1078044293_n.jpg[/image]

kalikshama -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 6:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: A couple of decades ago, Phil and his clan were coke-head yuppies That's an interesting addition to the mix... what's the source? Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, Miss Kay, Jep and Reed share about pressures of fame, addictions, suicide and faith Duck Dynasty's Robertson family open up about faith, family and the struggles of fame in a new short film released yesterday. 'I am Second' seeks to share personal testimonies of how God has been faithful in times of trial and adversity. The Robertsons' addition to the site features Phil, Miss Kay, Jep and Reed Robertson sharing honestly about the struggles they have faced in the past, including alcohol and drug addiction and suicidal thoughts. ...But before the business began, Phil struggled with drug and alcohol addiction after experimenting at college. It came as a shock to his young wife, who says "Phil, who had never drank before, started drinking...it was scary to me." Things spiralled out of control, and Phil was constantly in trouble with the law, sometimes going away into hiding for two to three months at a time, leaving Miss Kay and their three young boys at home alone. That is until, during what Phil describes as his "lowest point", he forced them to leave. ...Son Jep became addicted to drugs and alcohol as a teenager, "I pretty much did anything that was put in front of me," he says. Read more

thishereboi -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 7:31:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama "The people saying A&E has no right as an employer to control what an employee says (despite a contract) are the same people saying Hobby Lobby, as an employer, has the right to control an employee's birth control." A & E has a right to fire anyone they like. That said I think it is very sad that so many people are petitioning to have this guy fired for expressing his belief. My personal favorite is a guy I heard the other day going on about how he hoped they cancelled the show and then "the ignorant redneck will have to actually work for a living". I can only assume he had never actually watched the show or he would know "the ignorant redneck" wouldn't miss the income much. After listening to him rant I think he was much more upset about the amount of money the Ducks have than anything they might have said. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Hobby Lobby has a right to control an employee's birth control but I have heard some suggest they shouldn't be forced to supply something they believe is wrong. And if someone has a problem with them they have the right to go elsewhere to look for employment. When we start trying to legislate what people believe we are truly fucked.

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 1:28:17 PM)
The thing is..he DOES have the RIGHT to be on television..it is free enterprise. If he does not want to pay for his own air time or cannot find a station wiling to give him a platform that is part of the market! Recent news is showing that this will very likely backfire on A&E because, unlike most reality stars, this family does not seem to really CARE about the fame. They have said they will leave without him, they indicated in contract negotiations that they were not happy with A&E downplaying their religious beliefs and lives, they negotiated to have the prayer scene at the end put in AND, when A&E filmed the first seasons and cut off the "in Jesus' name" they were willing to walk if A&E did not STOP cutting it A&E is having a HUGE problem...you don't play Russian roulette with someone who does not care if they live or die. They are now having to consider backpedaling because they REALLY want to keep the show...it earns them a fortune and, they found out the hard way, that "backlash" goes both ways. Usually these stations and companies don't really CARE but they have always feared being boycotted for NOT taking a stand..In entertainment, all attention is GOOD attention. Sponsors care about ratings and if their product sales increase...they do NOT care if the reason you BUY $1,000,000 of Chick Fil a sandwiches is to set them on fire or something!!! And they don't care if ratings are high on a show because everyone HATES the people and just watch to be disgusted! A&E was hoping that he would, like most TV people, back down, apologize..quietly float into the background to keep the gravy train. He has not because he honestly BELIEVES what he said (not a drunken spout off or something he hides from others).. And frankly, A&E should have KNOWN this!!! Don't have a reality show of born again Christian hunters if you don't EXPECT them to say things like this!! You ever see NOW or Planned Parenthood wanting to do a reality show about "life inside the Vatican'" & not thinking..."these people may one day say abortion is BAD"!!! That is why you hire actors!!! They will do and say what YOU want! Now, he has stood up, the family has backed him up, the fans...like me who don't care WHAT his personal beliefs are (and I knew it anyway..how many fire and brimstone born agains DON'T believe something along these lines!!! ). I was fully expecting a devil worship speech during the Halloween episode and you could tell he was watching his words. Not because America cared but because his wife! kids! grand kids.. all enjoy it (& apparently have always done Halloween in their family) Anyway...now the show is being courted by rival networks willing to agree to whatever to get the family and the millions of dollars they bring. This just increased HOW valuable the franchise is because retailers are being threatened with boycotts if they STOP selling the merchandise, FB has a million "likes" on "bring back Phil".... It is proving that mainstream America and all of their shopping money will go with them!!!

Phydeaux -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 1:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA. Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm. So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them. Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them. Igniting a bit of a flame. Japan is quite xenophobic. Does it cause harm? Ask the Chinese or anyone who had to live under Japanese imperial rule, and I think they would say yes. And do you think that this would have been less injurious if the motivation were simply japanese imperialism?

MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 2:18:44 PM)
Personally I think the network is getting exactly what they wanted. Free publicity, a boost in interest, greater fan loyalty and higher ratings for the show. Every member of that show is under contract so they are not going anywhere until they complete that obligation. I am not sure about copyright laws but can another station even do the same show (or one that is basically the same) without paying A&E? Considering the show's season 4 ratings went from 11.8 million at the beginning to 8.4 in the October finale it is entirely plausible that this whole thing is a publicity stunt to get the ratings back to where they were. Incidentally the Duck Dynasty name and merchandising all belongs to A&E. I am not sure if fans know that demanding that stores keep selling the product makes more money for A&E. quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss The thing is..he DOES have the RIGHT to be on television..it is free enterprise. If he does not want to pay for his own air time or cannot find a station wiling to give him a platform that is part of the market! Recent news is showing that this will very likely backfire on A&E because, unlike most reality stars, this family does not seem to really CARE about the fame. They have said they will leave without him, they indicated in contract negotiations that they were not happy with A&E downplaying their religious beliefs and lives, they negotiated to have the prayer scene at the end put in AND, when A&E filmed the first seasons and cut off the "in Jesus' name" they were willing to walk if A&E did not STOP cutting it A&E is having a HUGE problem...you don't play Russian roulette with someone who does not care if they live or die. They are now having to consider backpedaling because they REALLY want to keep the show...it earns them a fortune and, they found out the hard way, that "backlash" goes both ways. Usually these stations and companies don't really CARE but they have always feared being boycotted for NOT taking a stand..In entertainment, all attention is GOOD attention. Sponsors care about ratings and if their product sales increase...they do NOT care if the reason you BUY $1,000,000 of Chick Fil a sandwiches is to set them on fire or something!!! And they don't care if ratings are high on a show because everyone HATES the people and just watch to be disgusted! A&E was hoping that he would, like most TV people, back down, apologize..quietly float into the background to keep the gravy train. He has not because he honestly BELIEVES what he said (not a drunken spout off or something he hides from others).. And frankly, A&E should have KNOWN this!!! Don't have a reality show of born again Christian hunters if you don't EXPECT them to say things like this!! You ever see NOW or Planned Parenthood wanting to do a reality show about "life inside the Vatican'" & not thinking..."these people may one day say abortion is BAD"!!! That is why you hire actors!!! They will do and say what YOU want! Now, he has stood up, the family has backed him up, the fans...like me who don't care WHAT his personal beliefs are (and I knew it anyway..how many fire and brimstone born agains DON'T believe something along these lines!!! ). I was fully expecting a devil worship speech during the Halloween episode and you could tell he was watching his words. Not because America cared but because his wife! kids! grand kids.. all enjoy it (& apparently have always done Halloween in their family) Anyway...now the show is being courted by rival networks willing to agree to whatever to get the family and the millions of dollars they bring. This just increased HOW valuable the franchise is because retailers are being threatened with boycotts if they STOP selling the merchandise, FB has a million "likes" on "bring back Phil".... It is proving that mainstream America and all of their shopping money will go with them!!!

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 2:39:06 PM)
But I bet they are not contractually obligated to be funny!! That is a joke... I do wonder what happens if people on a reality show decide to be "boring". I mean, you are not dealing with pros who worry about not getting another acting job and, since technically it is "reality" or even "scripted reality" what happens if the "stars" decide to live like the rest of us? You can give them scripts but I don't know how they "contract" people because typically the networks are in the "driver side". The only person I have heard of wanting to get off a reality show while under contract was Dina on Real Housewives of NJ. She deliberately stopped doing any activity that would BE of interest and worked out the contract by "showing" up when directed to but she would not react to anything said and, in the "talking heads" would just make nice polite comments...ultimately, Bravo saw no point in paying her because no one cared anymore about her...

MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 3:01:15 PM)
That is an interesting question. I am sure somehow (especially after the Dina incident) the shows write it into the contracts that the actors have some kind of contractual obligations to be entertaining. Many reality shows have mandatory events or projects stars are contractually required to participate in on camera as a way to to keep it interesting if their normal lives become boring. Camera angles, dramatizations and such all add to this. That's why so many people declare that reality tv is anything but real. quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss But I bet they are not contractually obligated to be funny!! That is a joke... I do wonder what happens if people on a reality show decide to be "boring". I mean, you are not dealing with pros who worry about not getting another acting job and, since technically it is "reality" or even "scripted reality" what happens if the "stars" decide to live like the rest of us? You can give them scripts but I don't know how they "contract" people because typically the networks are in the "driver side". The only person I have heard of wanting to get off a reality show while under contract was Dina on Real Housewives of NJ. She deliberately stopped doing any activity that would BE of interest and worked out the contract by "showing" up when directed to but she would not react to anything said and, in the "talking heads" would just make nice polite comments...ultimately, Bravo saw no point in paying her because no one cared anymore about her...

Arturas -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 3:42:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shadowborn61 By now i am sure most of us have heard about the remarks made by Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show on A&E. Let me start by saying that i am a bisexual man as well as a veteran. Now while i find Mr.Robertsons beliefs to be offensive does that give me the right to try and force my beliefs on him? Absolutely not too many of my brothers in arms have died to give me the right to disagree with Mr.Robertson as well as give him the right to believe as he does. Are we not by boycotting the products his family produces or the show his family stars in trying to force our beliefs on him and his family? Doesn't that make us just as bad as we are trying to make him and his family out to be? Have we the victims of prejudice now become the bigots? The only reason this even got any attention is because the man is a celebrity and the media made it a point to make this an issue. Remember when the owner of the Chick-Fillet restaurant chain made similar statements and his stores were boycotted? He changed his stance and business went back to normal. Now how many of you believe the man really changed how he believes or just said what everyone wanted him to say? Have we now become the opposite of "gay bashers"? I believe that my right to my opinion stops where it interferes with anyone elses rights and as i have said too many of my brothers in arms have died for us to disparage their sacrifice by trying to force our beliefs on others. I do believe forcing anyone to adhere to your beliefs is wrong. As you know now, A&E and others reversed themselves. I am amazed these commercial entities reversed so quickly. This reversal rapidity, in the face of the Most Reverend "Love Child" Jackson and the Most Reverend Al "Those Evil Republicans" Sharpton focused and very public opposition, indicates a full U-turn reversal of the far left power does it not? In any event, I do hope now that the question of morality is no longer a question decided by a group but instead a personal answer respected by all. Except for the abortion question of course.:) Arturas and Tammy Star

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question of morality (12/27/2013 7:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss The thing is..he DOES have the RIGHT to be on television..it is free enterprise. If he does not want to pay for his own air time or cannot find a station wiling to give him a platform that is part of the market! Actually, no one has a right to be on TV. It's a privilege to be on TV, if someone thinks you deserve to be there.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375