|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 16:53:11 GMT -5
Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. Not in Amur-ica, cowboy. You could drink milk wrong on your lunchbreak and have people picketing by your car when you get off. Yeah, cause drinking milk and slandering an entire group of people? Same thing....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2013 16:54:15 GMT -5
Just because something is your "religious belief" doesn't mean it's also not hate speech.
|
|
Surfer Sandman
Bubba Ho-Tep
You had to be a big shot, didn't cha
Posts: 506
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Dec 29, 2013 17:00:38 GMT -5
We definitely are getting better. This is kinda morbid, but the biggest reason society is getting better is simply, people are dying off. The brilliant die off and leave behind great ideas and things to strive for, where as the ignorant bigots die off, and their ideas thankfully die off with them. That's why gay marriage is more accepted now. There are still deep seeded issues in society that are pretty tough, but thanks in part to the brave folks who came out of the closest, some people still liked them because they were friends/relatives/whatever, and the bigots continued to be as such. But, it does seem that more bigots are dying off, and less bigots are being created, which is going to be a huge positive for society in the long run. Just one problem here: People are impressionable, especially young children. If they're raised in a household that cherishes the perverted values of Phil Robertson, then that child is going to grow up thinking that it's ok to be like that. This will create MORE bigots.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2013 17:05:02 GMT -5
We definitely are getting better. This is kinda morbid, but the biggest reason society is getting better is simply, people are dying off. The brilliant die off and leave behind great ideas and things to strive for, where as the ignorant bigots die off, and their ideas thankfully die off with them. That's why gay marriage is more accepted now. There are still deep seeded issues in society that are pretty tough, but thanks in part to the brave folks who came out of the closest, some people still liked them because they were friends/relatives/whatever, and the bigots continued to be as such. But, it does seem that more bigots are dying off, and less bigots are being created, which is going to be a huge positive for society in the long run. Just one problem here: People are impressionable, especially young children. If they're raised in a household that cherishes the perverted values of Phil Robertson, then that child is going to grow up thinking that it's ok to be like that. This will create MORE bigots. Yeah, but one of the big issues again is more gay people are out in the open. So it's a lot easier to empathize with someone who actually exists, where as many years ago, it was really easy to be a bigot, because gay people really didn't exist that much in the mainstream, especially those who were actually out of the closet. So that helps to somewhat quell bigotry. The parents creating more bigots certainly is true, and it is true for some places, especially rural regions, where you're only seeing one type of human being around you. So just the idea that these people exist in larger groups is a help, and will help in the future, when people continue to die off.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:14:52 GMT -5
Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. No, the quote about gay people WAS hateful. I can chalk up the whole "blacks liking Jim crow" as straight up opinion/stupidity, but not that. That's not a difference of opinion. That's hate. Period. How is it not attacking an entire group of people by what he said? He crudely said that it was, in his religious view, sinful behavior. Everybody sins, including himself. Which means he was putting homosexuals on par with everybody else, including himself. He was not advocating discrimination, mistreatment, or violence. He did not even say that their sin was worse than any of the sins he's admittedly committed in his life. He didn't even say they were hell bound. From the same interview "“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.” Not an attack. Not hateful. A basic disagreement on religious grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 17:15:08 GMT -5
Not in Amur-ica, cowboy. You could drink milk wrong on your lunchbreak and have people picketing by your car when you get off. Yeah, cause drinking milk and slandering an entire group of people? Same thing.... Yeah, 'cause that's totally what I meant... No fault to you for inferring that though. These eggshells are the problem though, I think to a point. People aren't looking to progress anything. They're more looking looking to blow the whistle on cannonfodder for not upholding their views and beliefs. That's not true understanding. It never will be.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:16:06 GMT -5
We definitely are getting better. This is kinda morbid, but the biggest reason society is getting better is simply, people are dying off. The brilliant die off and leave behind great ideas and things to strive for, where as the ignorant bigots die off, and their ideas thankfully die off with them. That's why gay marriage is more accepted now. There are still deep seeded issues in society that are pretty tough, but thanks in part to the brave folks who came out of the closest, some people still liked them because they were friends/relatives/whatever, and the bigots continued to be as such. But, it does seem that more bigots are dying off, and less bigots are being created, which is going to be a huge positive for society in the long run. Just one problem here: People are impressionable, especially young children. If they're raised in a household that cherishes the perverted values of Phil Robertson, then that child is going to grow up thinking that it's ok to be like that. This will create MORE bigots. Unfortunately, people use this same flawed argument when they commit ignorant hate speech against homosexuals. It's just as ignorant when it's used against supposedly "bigoted" people.
|
|
Surfer Sandman
Bubba Ho-Tep
You had to be a big shot, didn't cha
Posts: 506
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Dec 29, 2013 17:18:29 GMT -5
Just one problem here: People are impressionable, especially young children. If they're raised in a household that cherishes the perverted values of Phil Robertson, then that child is going to grow up thinking that it's ok to be like that. This will create MORE bigots. Unfortunately, people use this same flawed argument when they commit ignorant hate speech against homosexuals. It's just as ignorant when it's used against supposedly "bigoted" people. Well it's true because no matter how far our society has come, there will always be areas where the folks are close-minded to anyone who isn't the same as them. In other words, bigots will always exist.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:20:50 GMT -5
Unfortunately, people use this same flawed argument when they commit ignorant hate speech against homosexuals. It's just as ignorant when it's used against supposedly "bigoted" people. Well it's true because no matter how far our society has come, there will always be areas where the folks are close-minded to anyone who isn't the same as them. In other words, bigots will always exist. Well that's true. You're doing a good job of attacking somebody who doesn't hold the same beliefs as you. Merely disagreeing with somebody is not being bigoted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 17:26:23 GMT -5
No, the quote about gay people WAS hateful. I can chalk up the whole "blacks liking Jim crow" as straight up opinion/stupidity, but not that. That's not a difference of opinion. That's hate. Period. How is it not attacking an entire group of people by what he said? He crudely said that it was, in his religious view, sinful behavior. Everybody sins, including himself. Which means he was putting homosexuals on par with everybody else, including himself. He was not advocating discrimination, mistreatment, or violence. He did not even say that their sin was worse than any of the sins he's admittedly committed in his life. He didn't even say they were hell bound. From the same interview "“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.” Not an attack. Not hateful. A basic disagreement on religious grounds. Do you honestly think it's sinful to be gay, then?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 17:30:57 GMT -5
Yeah, cause drinking milk and slandering an entire group of people? Same thing.... Yeah, 'cause that's totally what I meant... No fault to you for inferring that though. These eggshells are the problem though, I think to a point. People aren't looking to progress anything. They're more looking looking to blow the whistle on cannonfodder for not upholding their views and beliefs. That's not true understanding. It never will be. But in the case of THIS situation, I think we reached the point where it's not a PC police moment. This is not a misunderstood monster case. Oh, we understand this monster perfectly fine.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:40:47 GMT -5
He crudely said that it was, in his religious view, sinful behavior. Everybody sins, including himself. Which means he was putting homosexuals on par with everybody else, including himself. He was not advocating discrimination, mistreatment, or violence. He did not even say that their sin was worse than any of the sins he's admittedly committed in his life. He didn't even say they were hell bound. From the same interview "“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.” Not an attack. Not hateful. A basic disagreement on religious grounds. Do you honestly think it's sinful to be gay, then? It doesn't matter my personal feelings on the matter. If I don't think it's sinful, then I concede that it is a perfectly legitimate, non-hateful religious view to believe that it is. If I do, then I'd acknowledge that I myself am definitely a sinner so we're on equal ground. Either way, I can love gay people just as much as I do the rest of my fellow man. I can respect them and I can respect the people who peacefully disagree with them.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,966
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 29, 2013 17:42:24 GMT -5
The thing about this is, no matter how dressed up or nice you want it to look, it's still the same hate speech. People don't have to be tolerant then, they just have to use "the right words" to be as hateful as they are, and that's pretty damn stupid. Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. Equating an adult in a loving consensual relationship with an animal rapist or a terrorist is attacking a specific group of people regardless what his intent was. How is this not clear?
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:44:11 GMT -5
Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. Equating an adult in a loving consensual relationship with an animal rapist or a terrorist is attacking a specific group of people regardless what his intent was. How is this not clear? He also equated drunkards, liars, and cheating spouses to animal rapists as well. He was merely restating accepted doctrine that all sin is equal and that they try and preach the good news to everybody--regardless of their perceived sinful status.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 17:45:40 GMT -5
Do you honestly think it's sinful to be gay, then? It doesn't matter my personal feelings on the matter. If I don't think it's sinful, then I concede that it is a perfectly legitimate, non-hateful religious view. If I do, then I'd acknowledge that I myself am definitely a sinner so we're on equal ground. Either way, I can love gay people just as much as I do the rest of my fellow man. I can respect them and I can respect the people who peacefully disagree with them. Well, I ask, because you saying how his comments were not hateful or malicious, in the same sentace where you talk about him calling it sinful, and you not noticing how odd that sounds, I had to know.... And, again, not able to define it more due to board rules, but the whole argument of what his views are holds no water if the people making it can't bring up a single valid piece of proof to support it. Cause it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:47:38 GMT -5
It doesn't matter my personal feelings on the matter. If I don't think it's sinful, then I concede that it is a perfectly legitimate, non-hateful religious view. If I do, then I'd acknowledge that I myself am definitely a sinner so we're on equal ground. Either way, I can love gay people just as much as I do the rest of my fellow man. I can respect them and I can respect the people who peacefully disagree with them. Well, I ask, because you saying how his comments were not hateful or malicious, in the same sentace where you talk about him calling it sinful, and you not noticing how odd that sounds, I had to know.... And, again, not able to define it more due to board rules, but the whole argument of what his views are holds no water if the people making it can't bring up a single valid piece of proof to support it. Cause it doesn't exist. Yes it does. His argument has legitimate theological support. We can't debate that point, though. The fact we can't debate *that* particular point really makes this discussion unproductive, I think. So I'll just end it with that I respect your opinion on the matter and I do understand where you're coming from. I just don't agree with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 17:50:50 GMT -5
Yeah, 'cause that's totally what I meant... No fault to you for inferring that though. These eggshells are the problem though, I think to a point. People aren't looking to progress anything. They're more looking looking to blow the whistle on cannonfodder for not upholding their views and beliefs. That's not true understanding. It never will be. But in the case of THIS situation, I think we reached the point where it's not a PC police moment. This is not a misunderstood monster case. Oh, we understand this monster perfectly fine. Fair points, Mikey C. Iit's just that, chalking dude up isn't necessarily unjust, it's just it's kinda bullshit like he's "the guy." He 's the voice of a generation. He's the one who matters. Most folks see him scuttled and it ends right there. Nothing.... has happened. An idiot is still an idiot. A bunch of suits make money preying off human emotions and someone... gets a book deal.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,966
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 29, 2013 17:52:32 GMT -5
Equating an adult in a loving consensual relationship with an animal rapist or a terrorist is attacking a specific group of people regardless what his intent was. How is this not clear? He also equated drunkards, liars, and cheating spouses to animal rapists as well. He was merely restating accepted doctrine that all sin is equal and that they try and preach the good news to everybody--regardless of their perceived sinful status. And you don't see a huge problem with this? I mean, should we let the Westboro Baptist Church off the hook for their actions too?
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 17:58:17 GMT -5
He also equated drunkards, liars, and cheating spouses to animal rapists as well. He was merely restating accepted doctrine that all sin is equal and that they try and preach the good news to everybody--regardless of their perceived sinful status. And you don't see a huge problem with this? I mean, should we let the Westboro Baptist Church off the hook for their actions too? Acknowledging that all people are sinners and worthy of God's grace? No, I see no problem with that. They're barely even comparable situations. There's an important difference between peacefully disagreeing with somebody and spitefully attacking them with sexual slurs and lord knows what else. The Duck Dynasty Family is not the Westboro Baptist Church. Phil says, correctly, that it's not his place to judge. WBC seems to believe that it's legitimately their place to judge.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Dec 29, 2013 18:11:39 GMT -5
|
|