A question of morality (Full Version)

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



Message


shadowborn61 -> A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:09:43 PM)

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.




HipPoindexter -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:14:15 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.



he doesn't have the right to be on television.

his views are reprehensible and people absolutely have the right to react to his hate speech by not supporting any of his endeavors financially. i can't take any credit for "boycotting" anything involving duck dynasty because i've always thought the show looked dull as fuck, but i do hope he's hurt economically for the comments he's made. i'd certainly derive some schadenfreude from watching him crash and burn. or actually from being vaguely aware that he had crashed and burned, since i have no real intention of following the story closely.

EDIT oh shit i didn't realize i'd accidentally posted in politics and religion. my bad. i probably won't be following this thread, this particular sub forum is just sort of depressing. srrry!




shadowborn61 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:26:36 PM)

So what exactly gives You the right to decide that? are You an A&E producer? You have the right to not watch his show or buy his products but other than that You have no more right to tell him what to say or believe than he has to tell You.
Or did all the Americans who died to protect Your rights die for nothing?




MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:28:53 PM)

Remember reading about the Alabama bus boycott? Remember how the law was that the buses could discriminate against blacks if they wanted to? It was legal, it was their right to believe that blacks were inferior. It was the black community's right to not spend their money riding the buses as long as those bigoted policies were in place. I feel the same way about this. He has every right to say what he wants and anyone else has the right to not spend their money on Duck Dynasty products. I don't see it as forcing beliefs to an extent it IS an attempt to force desired societal mores. That's what morality is, isn't it?

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.






DaddySatyr -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:39:45 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 think the "morality" in question is one of "politically correct" Vs. "personal beliefs".

I believe that people have a God-given right to love anyone they choose but, you're not likely to find me in a gay bar.

Does my desire not to hang out in a gay bar make me "homophobic" (I've always hated that word)? I don't think so. I think it's me, exercising a choice; just like the denizens of that gay bar are not likely to be found in a "straight" bar. People are attracted to things that make them comfortable and happy.

Where I have to disagree with you is that I believe that how and where we spend our money is the only real voice we have left. I believe "the power of the vote" is a romantic anachronism.

If people choose to not buy Duck Dynasty products, good on 'em! I think the shit is ugly, anyway and I have never watched the show (although I was a bit intrigued by the one son, walking away from professional football to support the family business).

I refuse to spend my money in certain places for various reasons and I don't think it's wrong for people to choose to do the same thing; vis-à-vis Duck Dynasty products (including the TV show). I felt the same way when people were up in arms over Rush Limbaugh's words about the young lady mis-leading congressional hearings.

One of the great things about this country (used to be) that people have a right to their opinions and that other people have a right to express their displeasure with those opinions.

Live and let live.



Peace (and thank you for your service, troop!),



Michael




RedMagic1 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:43:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61
Have we now become the opposite of "gay bashers"?

Are you trying to say the following two things are parallel?

1) I don't like X behavior, so I won't spend my own money to support X behavior.
2) I don't like X behavior, so I will hospitalize people who engage in X behavior.




shadowborn61 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:44:11 PM)

That is an entirely different thing that was discrimination and infringing on the rights of others.
As i said i do not agree in any way with what this man has to say but he still has the right to say it.
He is not infringing on my rights he was stating his beliefs just as we all are doing. the comparison You have made is closer to your example than his statements because it sounds as if You would deny him his right to freedom of speech.
Unfortunately the constitution of the United States guarantees the right of an idiot to speak nonsense just as it does my right to tell him it is nonsense. It does not however give me the right to stop an idiot from speaking his nonsense.




RedMagic1 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:49:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61
It does not however give me the right to stop an idiot from speaking his nonsense.

That's not exactly correct. The First Amendment doesn't give the *government* the right to stop an idiot from speaking his nonsense. You and I can't stop him either, because of legal traditions far older than the Constitution, like "kidnapping is bad, guys." And he hasn't been arrested or charged, so the Constitution is working fine here.

This is a private business decision by A&E. The Constitution, and laws, don't have anything to do with it, one way or the other.




shadowborn61 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 4:52:25 PM)

No RedMagic1
i meant it as used along the lines of slut shaming something else i dislike intensely.
Beating someone is a crime no matter their sexual orientation.
Talking bad about them is not nor is disagreeing with or disapproving of them.




kalikshama -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 5:08:59 PM)

This bisexual veteran believes that no one has a constitutional right to a reality show.




MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 5:18:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61

That is an entirely different thing that was discrimination and infringing on the rights of others.
As i said i do not agree in any way with what this man has to say but he still has the right to say it.
He is not infringing on my rights he was stating his beliefs just as we all are doing. the comparison You have made is closer to your example than his statements because it sounds as if You would deny him his right to freedom of speech.
Unfortunately the constitution of the United States guarantees the right of an idiot to speak nonsense just as it does my right to tell him it is nonsense. It does not however give me the right to stop an idiot from speaking his nonsense.


I won't try to stop an idiot from making bigoted comments; but I sure as hell won't pay him for it either. I can get bigoted comments for free.




LadyPact -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 5:42:58 PM)

You've got two different things going here.

The first is privately entered contracts between the parties. Yes, any employer can draw up any terms that are reasonable under the law, that, if a person breaks them, the employer is permitted to exercise their right to no longer retain a person with a company. That can include stuff like "company image" just as much as they have an attendance policy. Let's not get carried away here. Mr Robertson wasn't some guy who was starving to death and signed on to work at Wal-Mart because he didn't have an income. This guy was more than affluent before A&E ever came along. I'm a female, poly, sadistic Dominant. I'm not going to work for Focus on the Family.

The second is, you can't argue both sides of the same coin. If you honestly believe that everyone is entitled to express their views, you also have to believe in the concept of voting with your feet. Just earlier today, I made a statement elsewhere that I'm not going to sit at the same table with those who are offensive to Me on a personal level. That means, no, I'm not going to support organizations that don't match My beliefs. I'm certainly not going to add to the value of their advertising revenue because of Neilsen ratings.

Whether I walk or stand with someone's personal beliefs, is also using My voice. You can't have one without the other.

I happen to be a person of faith. I don't try to screw with other people's faith. Yet, if there is one thing that has been so misconstrued and misunderstood over the last two thousand years, (I happen to be Christian) it is the concept of homosexuality. While other people might form their views over a single sentence, I am not willing to do that.




crazyml -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 5:59:06 PM)

You also served to protect the freedom of people to choose where they buy their stuff from, and to choose which tv programs they watch. Presumably.




jlf1961 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 6:07:27 PM)

I covered this in the other thread, so I am going to cut it down.

First the bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, sorry but it is, at least in Leviticus.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

As I read it, "They shall surely be put to death" indicates they face the wrath of god. Since Sodom and Gomorrah he has not done much smiting. Which means he has either mellowed or something.

Which brings us to the point that homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom as well. Now some born again, evangelical, smite people with the bible on the forehead Christians will say animals do not know better. However, homosexuality is not a choice, its biological. The pray the gay away boot camps and rehabs be damned, they aint going to cure it.

So where does that leave us? Simple, it leaves us with the one thing that Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Speak your beliefs, but leave everything else to God. And HIV/AIDS, soldiers being killed in combat, natural disasters are not God passing judgement on Homosexuality, sins of America or anything else. Remember when God smites a city or a people, he dont leave anyone behind except the righteous, and when it came to cities, he told the righteous to get out.

If AKDS/HIV was a plague on homosexuals, then answer this:

Why are people other than homosexuals getting it? Besides the parent disease is called SIDS, Simian Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Found in apes and monkeys. People eat monkeys and got the virus, then it mutated as viruses do, and bingo, people pass it to people. There is also a Feline virus and other species viruses.

I have a daughter that is bi, so, while I dont agree with her lifestyle, I accept it.

And no, you dont have to buy the products that the family makes, it is your choice. Walt Disney was anti Semitic, how many of you bought Disney products when he was still alive? Where was the call to boycott Disney for the founder's beliefs? It is the same fucking thing.

I have been told by people I pray wrong, I am going to hell for being Catholic and my daughter is going to hell for her lifestyle. When these people show me the tablets of stone carved by the finger of god, or I hear a booming voice from heaven when they tell me this, I will blow em off as not knowing what they are talking about and claiming authority they dont have.

I mean I have seen "the Ten Commandments" and read the bible enough to know just what people look like after being in the direct presence of god.




DomKen -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 6:11:05 PM)

FR
This is pretty clear. The guy has the right to hold his views and A&E has the right to end his employment for discussing those views in public. This is free speech and the free market at its finest.




DesideriScuri -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 6:23:09 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.


You disagree with the guy's beliefs. People are going ape-shit over his statements, and A&E is making a decision based on their analysis of the benefits and consequences of having Mr. Robertson on the show (and, it's going to end up being a decision on the show being on A&E, I do believe). A&E has every right to do that, too. A&E will get some mud slung at them, and they really had no option that wouldn't result in mud being slung, just a decision on who was going to throw the mud.

As others have stated, there is nothing here that is involving government, so this isn't really a 1st Amendment situation. And, no one is demanding that Mr. Robertson changes his beliefs. He's not being assigned to a "re-education" camp. He's also not backing down from his beliefs.

If you disagree with him, you have every right to choose to not purchase products that support him and his family, just like if you agree with him, you have every right to choose to purchase products that support him and his family. It's the same with Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, too. And, IMO, that's the way it should be.

Now, if there is a boycott and protest where people prevented you from choosing to purchase those products, that would be an issue. You get to choose for yourself. You don't get to choose for others. That's up to them.

Thank you, btw, for your service.




shadowborn61 -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 7:36:37 PM)

I agree in that the only vote we have today is where we choose to spend our money and to be honest i returned a duck dynasty hoodie that i got for my son for Christmas and told him i was doing so and why and he agreed with my reasons.
No he doesn't know about my preferences.
@jlf1961
Seriously you are going to quote Leviticus? really?
OK i have to go way off topic for this one and i did not write this but i do have the authors permission to re post it. It goes along with my belief that the Bible is not the word of God but that it is the word of God as written down and interpreted by men
This was written to a friend of the authors who is lesbian and believes that the Bible as written says that homosexuality is a sin.
Here goes.

i studied Theology at a Catholic college, i was briefly on track to become a nun, i dissected the Bible using it's original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and again with it's translation to French (which was later translated to English). While people are free to believe whatever they want, it is NOT clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe it is a sin, maybe it's not (i don't think so but hey, that's my opinion). But why do people think it is so clearly a sin? Because of translation issues & poor interpretation, mostly.

These are the verses she and her friends gave me to support how cut and dry their argument was. Following each verse is my response. You can find these verses and various translations of them here.

Timothy 1:10
"for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine " (NIV)

The word that translated to homosexual in Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoiati, and the translation is highly debated, in large part because this was not a word used to mean homosexual until this writing by Paul. (note: there were words that were common and translated to a range of things including sexual acts between men, or between women, but these words were not used).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV)

This verse says that says that malakoi will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but malakoi has also been translated to male prostitutes, effeminate men, perverts, and the self-indulgent. (Even the NJB, the version of the Bible that is commonly used in the Catholic Church, translates malakoi to self-indulgent, not to homosexuals or men who have sex with men).

1 Corinthians 7:2
"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." (NIV)

Paul states that people are best off being celibate, but if they are going to have sex then they should get married. He goes on to say that married couples should never deny each other sex. The argument that it is against homosexuality comes from the wording that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. However, there no such thing as a recognized marriage between the same sex at the time this was written, so it would not make sense for the author to say that a man should have a husband. This is an example of a verse that needs to be taken in context of the chapter and the era to be best understood.

P.S. If the statements in this chapter are to be taken as literal fact, if a husband raped his wife she would be at fault, for denying him sex to begin with.

Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)

The reference to strange flesh is most commonly interpreted to mean sex with angels, not between men. This is apparent from the link back to the story of Sodom & Gomorrah (which was about inhospility and sexuality with angels, not about homosexualty), and is supported in the word choice: the Greek word, heteras, was used, which means different, instead of the word homoios, which means the same.

And finally, the most commonly used verse to argue that homosexuality is a sin:

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV)

Leviticus was written for a specific sect, and includes many other things that we would view as being unrealistic, and definitely not sinful, to do today, such as saying that eating or even touching hares and pigs (11:6-8) or crab, shrimp, or lobster (11:10-12) makes you unclean. Here are a few other things prohibited, sinful, punishable by death, etc. in Leviticus: Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11). Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13). Eating fat (3:17). Eating blood (3:17). Moses tells his sons if they mess up their hair or tear up their clothes they will die (10:6). Drinking alcohol in holy places (this was specified as a permanent rule, which makes me worry about Catholics) (10:9). Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4). Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5). Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19). Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) or picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10). Mixing fabrics in clothing, or planting different seeds in the same field (19:19). Trimming your beard (19:27). Getting tattoos (19:28). Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32). Working on the Sabbath (23:3).
This was written by irisenchanted on FetLife and posted there here is a link to Her blog as well http://iriskraken.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/homosexuality-in-the-bible/




Phydeaux -> RE: A question of morality (12/23/2013 9:31:13 PM)

quote:



Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV)

Leviticus was written for a specific sect, and includes many other things that we would view as being unrealistic, and definitely not sinful, to do today, such as saying that eating or even touching hares and pigs (11:6-8) or crab, shrimp, or lobster (11:10-12) makes you unclean. Here are a few other things prohibited, sinful, punishable by death, etc. in Leviticus: Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11). Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13). Eating fat (3:17). Eating blood (3:17). Moses tells his sons if they mess up their hair or tear up their clothes they will die (10:6). Drinking alcohol in holy places (this was specified as a permanent rule, which makes me worry about Catholics) (10:9). Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4). Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5). Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19). Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) or picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10). Mixing fabrics in clothing, or planting different seeds in the same field (19:19). Trimming your beard (19:27). Getting tattoos (19:28). Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32). Working on the Sabbath (23:3).
This was written by irisenchanted on FetLife and posted there here is a link to Her blog as well http://iriskraken.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/homosexuality-in-the-bible/



Leviticus was not written for a specific sect. The quote is question is one of two holiness codes, leviticus 18 and leviticus 20 which compliment the Deuteronomic codes.

The writer, to make the prohibitions of leviticus ridiculus equates the punishment of homosexuality with various offenses which merely rendered a man or woman unclean. They are not the same in the least.

Homosexuality, or adultery - etc were punishable by death.
Having sex with a woman during her period or masterbation merely made one unclean. One, due to contact with blood - for 7 days; the other for 3. Eating improper food made one unclean. Working on the sabbath.

The blood prescription in Judaism (if I recall my studies correctly) date all the way back to cain and abel - where the blood spilled cried to the Lord. In all of Judaism there were correct ways to slaughter animals - rules that are kept to this day in orthodox congregations.

This is why christians are made clean by the blood of the lamb.

Picking up grapes, or fallen grain deprived widows and orphans the role of gleaners - which afforded them a way to live

Anyway.

1. I know of no significant disagreement that the words of Leviticus make homosexuality punishable by death.
2. The fact that the general population views something as sinful or not sinful isn't really material to believers.
3. My personal observation as a christian is along the lines of the pope. God's definition of sin hasn't changed - but who am I to judge another's persons walk to christ? Pride, not homosexuality is the greatest vice - and blasphemy against the spirit the only unforgiveable sin.





FellowSlave -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 12:01:13 AM)

As I understand Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty made his remarks while having private interview and the remarks were not specifically directed to concrete person but they rather reflect his belief system. The question is: are people allowed to say what they believe when asked?
As a libertarian I have no problems what he said. Is it wrong or right it is up to me to decide, but only to compare with my own understanding. Pseudo-liberals are sending him to re-education camp. This is what being fired symbolically equates. Today it is just symbolic, very soon it will become a reality. Marxist totalitarian state is developing. The question is not only about morality, it is also about mind control.




joether -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 12:45:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave
As I understand Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty made his remarks while having private interview and the remarks were not specifically directed to concrete person but they rather reflect his belief system. The question is: are people allowed to say what they believe when asked?
As a libertarian I have no problems what he said. Is it wrong or right it is up to me to decide, but only to compare with my own understanding. Pseudo-liberals are sending him to re-education camp. This is what being fired symbolically equates. Today it is just symbolic, very soon it will become a reality. Marxist totalitarian state is developing. The question is not only about morality, it is also about mind control.


No, he made his comments to a media source that would turn around and publish those viewpoints. The guy is educated and intelligent but apparently not much wisdom for his age. His view was published and it set off a wave of surprise and hostility. Not just for the usual individuals and groups, but from an all together different area: advertisers. A&E makes the bulk of its revenue from commercials on their programs. With the show, they were acquiring more revenue from those same advertisers. When Mr. Robertson made the remarks A&E did not immediately 'shitcan' him. No, its when the advertisers were threating to pull their funding not just from the show but from other shows that A&E had to act. You want to place blame where blame is due? Attack those capitalist advertisers. But can you really attack them? Since they gain their funding from the companies that sell products and services. And people buy those products and services, thus keeping those companies in business. So the business viewpoint is that when someone says really wild, outlandish, or down right negative/hostile view, the companies that advertise do not want their products and/or services being associated with that person.

This was a business decision. For good or bad on A&E's part. This is not some crazy liberal, mind controlling, whacko fantasy. Its amusing when someone states they are libertarian and spew they are so free, yet wish to limit others is rather ironic.

Ever notice how movie starts suddenly show up on late night talk shows? Book authors on the news? Game developers on web shows? Just before the products they worked on are released? They go into those interviews knowing what they can and can not say of the product. When a politician speaks on 'Meet the Press' for example, they must try to push their viewpoint without allowing the interviewer to trip them up and say something REALLY bad. An there have been plenty of moments in US History of famous people doing or saying dumb things. I'm sure they wish they could take it back. Sarah Palin basically torpedo'd John McCain's bid for President in 2008 by saying a whole bunch of dumb things that people did not like. Which brings us to Mr. Robertson again. I can understand Mr. Robertson's view. I do not agree with it. However, this viewpoint has cost him some financial credibility on the part of A&E's advertisers both now and in the future. This set of remarks could be just a bump and nothing more for a month or two. Or could have a profound effect that is plus or minus for Mr. Robertson, his family, A&E and A&E's advertisers.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625