jerk - Page 4

Rupert Pupkin · #61 12-24-2013, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i saw that earlier.
i disagree that it is 'strongly condemned' in the bible.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ible_says.html

and this just came out, which bears that out.

as for people justifying hate because it's their 'religious belief', it's still hate...and is counter to what the original christian had to say about loving one another, not judging, etc.

people have freedom of speech...and of course freedom of religion. however, their freedom to swing their religious fist ends at the tip of the other guys nose.

many christians don't focus on the OT, unless it's to support an argument they are making. for the most part, it's thrown out as archaic...again, til useful.

since so many supposed christians pick and choose what's sinful, they are out on a limb when using their religions as their reason for judging.
how great a sin when it's someone else committing it.

Nobody claims that it is ok to hate based on religious beliefs. Hate is not a part of Christianity. I'm sure there are some so-called Christians who hate, but I didn't hear any hate in Phil Robertson's comments.

If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

Where does the word "hate" even come into this debate?

Rupert Pupkin · #62 12-24-2013, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

As I said before, if someone says really nasty and hateful things, they probably should get fired, regardless of their right to free-speech and regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.

As I said before, if a Muslim or a person of any religion is being interviewed and says that they think that something that I do is a sin, I would have no problem with that. Why would I care? If they said that they hate Jews and Christians and all Jews and Christians should die, that would be totally different. I would have a problem with that and I would want the person to get fired.

I don't see any hypocrisy there.

Danzig · #63 12-24-2013, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nobody claims that it is ok to hate based on religious beliefs. Hate is not a part of Christianity. I'm sure there are some so-called Christians who hate, but I didn't hear any hate in Phil Robertson's comments.

If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

Where does the word "hate" even come into this debate?

i think what created the firestorm in some peoples minds was his linking homosexuality to bestiality, etc and it 'morphs out from there'. as tho it's some sort of gateway sin to other things.
my discussion about hate, religion, etc, is part of a broader discussion. i'm sorry that you think i was only discussing phil. i was thinking of westboro, who i mentioned above, tony perkins, my mother in law, etc.

are you sure 'nobody claims' that it's ok to hate based on religion? that's not been my experience, based on what i've seen, read, heard.

Rupert Pupkin · #64 12-24-2013, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think what created the firestorm in some peoples minds was his linking homosexuality to bestiality, etc and it 'morphs out from there'. as tho it's some sort of gateway sin to other things.
my discussion about hate, religion, etc, is part of a broader discussion. i'm sorry that you think i was only discussing phil. i was thinking of westboro, who i mentioned above, tony perkins, my mother in law, etc.

are you sure 'nobody claims' that it's ok to hate based on religion? that's not been my experience, based on what i've seen, read, heard.

I think the one thing that I didn't take into account is that gay people have a history of being persecuted so they are obviously going to be sensitive to these types of statements. If I have sex with a woman and I hear a guy on television say that is a sin, I'm not going to get mad or say that the statement was hateful. But I don't have a history of being persecuted for having sex with women, so I'm obviously not going to be sensitive about someone calling it a sin.

So I understand where a group like GLAAD is coming from, but I think they have to understand where other people are coming from too. Sure there is a history of bigotry against gay people. But that doesn't mean that Phil Robertson or any other Christian has a hatred of gay people. I think a group like GLAAD does themselves a huge disservice when they start accusing people of beating "hateful". It reminds me of when guys like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton accuse of everyone of being racists. It's not good for their cause. It actually causes a huge backlash, as we've seen in this case.

GLAAD would have been much better off making a measured statement saying something to the effect of, "We are very sensitive to comments like this and although Mr. Robertson probably did not have bad intentions, we are concerned that comments like these could conceivably cause some people to discriminate against gay people. We would like to see Mr Robertson explicitly state that gay people should be accepted and treated like everyone else."

If GLAAD would have made this type of statement, it would have helped their cause and there would not have been such a firestorm and backlash. But instead, they overplayed their hand like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and it totally backfired.

Danzig · #65 12-24-2013, 01:39 PM

i don't think they overplayed it at all. and they haven't just been persecuted, people have been attacked and killed because of others not liking their sexuality.
i'm not sure why someone can make such comments, and everyone is supposed to 'understand where he's coming from'.
so, he can say what he wants and point to a book as to why? but if someone takes offense, they need to be more tolerant?
i know it's the general rule, oh just ignore it. but that's what people who behave badly are counting on. that altho they are uncivilized, they can depend on civilized people to stay...civil.
his comments don't reach the level of, say, tony perkins. but they certainly deserved to be called what they were. and it's not the first time he's made those type comments.
he certainly didn't make them to get dialogue going, but to stop it.
and it's too bad that the homosexual comments got so much more attention than him trying to gloss over the days of jim crow.

Rupert Pupkin · #66 12-24-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think they overplayed it at all. and they haven't just been persecuted, people have been attacked and killed because of others not liking their sexuality.
i'm not sure why someone can make such comments, and everyone is supposed to 'understand where he's coming from'.
so, he can say what he wants and point to a book as to why? but if someone takes offense, they need to be more tolerant?
i know it's the general rule, oh just ignore it. but that's what people who behave badly are counting on. that altho they are uncivilized, they can depend on civilized people to stay...civil.
his comments don't reach the level of, say, tony perkins. but they certainly deserved to be called what they were. and it's not the first time he's made those type comments.
he certainly didn't make them to get dialogue going, but to stop it.
and it's too bad that the homosexual comments got so much more attention than him trying to gloss over the days of jim crow.

I will ask you the question again. I should say I will ask you 3 questions again. If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

If your answer is "yes", I think 99% of people would disagree with you. If your answer is "no", then you should understand why GLAAD has gotten such a backlash. They overplayed their hand by saying that these comments amount to "hate".

By the way, the word "persecution" would include people being attacked and killed.

Danzig · #67 12-24-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will ask you the question again. I should say I will ask you 3 questions again. If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

If your answer is "yes", I think 99% of people would disagree with you. If your answer is "no", then you should understand why GLAAD has gotten such a backlash. They overplayed their hand by saying that these comments amount to "hate".

By the way, the word "persecution" would include people being attacked and killed.

except you aren't doing an actual comparison to what phil said. he didn't say homosexuality is a sin, he said far, far more than that. how it morphs into bestiality, etc.
i didn't know glaad had gotten backlash over it, tho. not that it matters, i doubt all homosexuals think glaad speaks for all them, any more than i think the national org for women speaks for me.

as i said above, i mentioned hate as part of a broader discussion, not about what phil said. if someone else categorized it as hate speech, you'll have to get clarity from them.
i think his comments were inappropriate, but that's just my opinion. i didn't watch duck dynasty before, i won't now, some la. yahoos opinions matter as much to me as my opinions matter to him-not a bit.

Rupert Pupkin · #68 12-24-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

except you aren't doing an actual comparison to what phil said. he didn't say homosexuality is a sin, he said far, far more than that. how it morphs into bestiality, etc.
i didn't know glaad had gotten backlash over it, tho. not that it matters, i doubt all homosexuals think glaad speaks for all them, any more than i think the national org for women speaks for me.

as i said above, i mentioned hate as part of a broader discussion, not about what phil said. if someone else categorized it as hate speech, you'll have to get clarity from them.
i think his comments were inappropriate, but that's just my opinion. i didn't watch duck dynasty before, i won't now, some la. yahoos opinions matter as much to me as my opinions matter to him-not a bit.

Here is an article about all the backlash GLAAD has received:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynast...010050637.html

I agree with you that GLAAD does not speak for most gay people. As I said before, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson acting like he speaks on behalf of most black people.

By the way, here is the exact quote: ""It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical," he's quoted as saying.

Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He was not saying that homosexuality turns into beastiality. I think some people mistakenly thought he said that. His use of the word "morph" was a little confusing. I don't think he used the correct word to convey what he was trying to say.

Danzig · #69 12-24-2013, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is an article about all the backlash GLAAD has received:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynast...010050637.html

I agree with you that GLAAD does not speak for most gay people. As I said before, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson acting like he speaks on behalf of most black people.

By the way, here is the exact quote: ""It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical," he's quoted as saying.

Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He was not saying that homosexuality turns into beastiality. I think some people mistakenly thought he said that. His use of the word "morph" was a little confusing. I don't think he used the correct word to convey what he was trying to say.

hey, if you want to give him benefit of the doubt, go for it.