I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
The Agnostic/Atheist thing is way off topic, but if someone wanted to make a thread I think that a discussion about what exactly each term means and the reasons people choose to identify as one or the other could be interesting. It's something that I have struggled with myself actually (partially because identifying as an Atheist is something that has caused a lot of stress in my work/family/social life while people accept Agnostic much better for some reason).
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
Not trolling, just fed up how people often seem to think being branded an atheist would somehow be insulting, no matter how accurate the word would be.
I mean, i understand how it might be inconvenient if you are a priest, but outside that...
And if you lack even the concept of god, you pretty much are atheist be definition.
Of course people have such insane and stupid concepts of god, that "what is god", is a perfectly valid question to ask of a religious person.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'd consider myself agnostic. I used to read lots of stuff on religions and found spirituality interesting as a younger person. But after all that I ultimately concluded I didn't believe it at all.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
You don't believe in god or gods? Congratulations, you're an atheist.
It doesn't need to be important, you don't need to have ever even heard of the concept, you don't need to have ever even thought about the whole damn thing, but by definition, if you do not believe in a god, or gods, you, are an atheist.
Agnostic just means you don't claim knowledge of the existence of god or gods.
I identify as "agnostic" because "I don't believe in God" is not a completely accurate statement of my beliefs. It's as inaccurate for me as "I believe in God." Neither accurately depicts my personal beliefs.
You can be pedantic and claim that because I cannot say "I believe in God" I am technically atheist but fuck that.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I feel like you are trying to expand the definition pointlessly, and annoying people in the process.
I don't think the churches or religions of the world are accurate or true, and I do not accept the concept of a deity as it has been presented to me. Does that make me an atheist, even though I have the sense that there is more than what we have here, even if I can't quantify or define it?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Agnostic and atheist are pretty well-defined and useful terms - not sure about the existence of god vs sure about the non-existence of god.
People with agendas seek to control and police the usage, but there's no need. They're already long-established terms.
It's weird to say they're well-defined and long-established terms when you're not using them correctly. Atheism is in it's most common definition merely the absence of a belief in God(s). The amount of certainty of that view can vary from person to person, indeed one can easily claim that they can not be certain in the slightest but yet still not belief in God.
Agnosticism deals with a different issue. Here the question is not about belief but about the possibility of true knowledge. It's about the justification of a belief, rather than the belief itself. The agnostic position is that it's either impossible or highly difficult to actually be sure of anything, to actually know what is true with regards to God(s).
I also immediately regard anyone claiming theoretical terms are well-defined or clear with suspicion. It feels like you're ignoring vast amounts of shit to be able to claim that.
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
Well at the very least the next racist homophobe you run across will probably be filling your order at a fast food restaruant, and not a millionare faking it for tv to bilk rubes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
It's a strange culture we live in. What the guy said was basically what the republican platform has been for the last 10+ years, and what evangelicals have been screeching on about since the early 80's. If we allow politicians and good honest christians to say such heinous shit, why is it suddenly a big deal when a reality tv actor says it?
Well clearly according to A&E it wasn't. And I don't think many politicians of the last 10 years have advocated blacks had it better prior to the civil rights movement. I mean they dog whistle, sure, but they don't flat out go the full Paula Deen.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
It's a strange culture we live in. What the guy said was basically what the republican platform has been for the last 10+ years, and what evangelicals have been screeching on about since the early 80's. If we allow politicians and good honest christians to say such heinous shit, why is it suddenly a big deal when a reality tv actor says it?
The Duck Dynasty guy isn't any different from racist or homophobic politicians. They get criticized by the left when they do that as well. Nor is it strange that a reality star, or actor, gets into a shitstorm for their opinions.
Well clearly according to A&E it wasn't. And I don't think many politicians of the last 10 years have advocated blacks had it better prior to the civil rights movement. I mean they dog whistle, sure, but they don't flat out go the full Paula Deen.
There was the guy from alaska who said that dumb shit about his pappy's farm, but yes, you are correct.
Well clearly according to A&E it wasn't. And I don't think many politicians of the last 10 years have advocated blacks had it better prior to the civil rights movement. I mean they dog whistle, sure, but they don't flat out go the full Paula Deen.
Typically they go full on Paula Deen about misogyny, though. Which gets them roasted during elections.
Agreed, politicians are very good at couching their language and adding lots of finger quotes
When they fail it does blow up, see the dudes in North Carolina talking about voter rights and the gray faced rape apologists in 2012
You can still get away with saying stuff about gay people to a degree but if you add in racism that's a problem
Oddly he probably would have been far worse off if he had not disparaged gays, it's tougher to disguise racism as religious beliefs
I'm surprised his racist shit didn't get more attention.
He basically said black people in Louisiana in the 60s were better off because they had Jesus. That requires either being racist or breathtakingly ignorant.
Agreed, politicians are very good at couching their language and adding lots of finger quotes
When they fail it does blow up, see the dudes in North Carolina talking about voter rights and the gray faced rape apologists in 2012
You can still get away with saying stuff about gay people to a degree but if you add in racism that's a problem
Oddly he probably would have been far worse off if he had not disparaged gays, it's tougher to disguise racism as religious beliefs
I'm surprised his racist shit didn't get more attention.
He basically said black people in Louisiana in the 60s were better off because they had Jesus. That requires either being racist or breathtakingly ignorant.
Or both, actually. In fact I would be willing to bet that is the case.
A lot of modern day racism is rooted firmly in ignorance.
He couched it in the "I was working along side them." But someone in the thread found his dad was an oilman and IF he worked along side them it would have been more as a master than a fellow worker, and that was probably why they just seemed so darned happy bossman's son was working with the help.
I think his racial comments didn't get comments because of the Deen stuff. A&E knew the smarter play would be to blow up the homophobia, write that off as just down home folks christianity and quietly hope everyone forgets he said some abhorent racist shit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's pretty damn ignorant to think that just because you worked alongside black people during that era that they are going to act exactly as they would if you weren't around. It seriously blows my mind somewhat that this is something he apparently never thought about.
It was sort of rooted in the claim that what happened here was censorship by A&E, which I have since abandoned.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
At no point was A&E going to do that. Robertson's family stood by him and made it clear they didn't feel like they could continue the show without him. They do all get paid a lot of money, but A&E needs the Robertsons more then the Robertsons need A&E.
A&E's viewers made it clear that the vast pots of money that show brings them shouldn't be allowed to go away. For Q1-Q3 or 2013 the show pulled in 80 million in advertising revenue. That's a lot, and it's only one of the multitude of revenue streams a show like this generates. The Season 4 premier was the most watched cable non-fiction telecast with 11.8 million viewers.
I'm all for people taking a stand against bigotry. But that has consequences. People, and corporations especially, can only be expected to deal with consequences as long as the benefits outweigh them.
Yeah, A&E has made it clear who their target audience is now. Which is fine.
"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said in the 2010 speech. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”
Look, I think A&E made a mistake by censoring Robertson. They should have known this would raise a stink, and now they're paying the price for not approaching this from a calmer more rational perspective. SHouting "shut-up, you're fired!" is never a good way to go about this.
I admit that I'm a christian, and I don't approve of homosexuality (You want to live your life this way? fine, but don't try to force me to voice gigantic moral approval for your lifestyle. Thank you), but I will say that Phil should have been more careful. This was a giant Fustercluck of a situation that Phil started and A&E made worse.
Look, I think A&E made a mistake by censoring Robertson. They should have known this would raise a stink, and now they're paying the price for not approaching this from a calmer more rational perspective. SHouting "shut-up, you're fired!" is never a good way to go about this.
Robertson wasn't fired. His "infinite" suspension didn't last a week. During a haitus for the tv show, no less, so all his punishment ended up being was a stern talking to by A & E. He didn't miss one day of filming, the new season was shot before he talked to GQ.
I admit that I'm a christian, and I don't approve of homosexuality (You want to live your life this way? fine, but don't try to force me to voice gigantic moral approval for your lifestyle. Thank you), but I will say that Phil should have been more careful.
Welp.
What did you think about his comments on black people from the Jim Crowe era?
He didn't seem that concerned about lesbians or female prostitutes, either. So he's not only a bigot but a hypocrite. I'm shocked!
This was a giant Fustercluck of a situation that Phil started and A&E made worse.
It's less force people to voice enthusiastic approval for the LGBT lifestyle and more have actual consequences for saying hateful, ignorant things while under an image clause. I fail to see how comparing gay people to people who want to fuck animals is simply not enthusiastically approving of a lifestyle.
That's not even getting into being plain and simply wrong on what the Bible says about homosexuality, or being a decent human being, the latter of which Christians seem to want to gloss over whenever they (irrationally) feel persecuted.
+2
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said in the 2010 speech. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”
Yeah, that was on page 2 of the thread.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's less force people to voice enthusiastic approval for the LGBT lifestyle and more have actual consequences for saying hateful, ignorant things while under an image clause. I fail to see how comparing gay people to people who want to fuck animals is simply not enthusiastically approving of a lifestyle.
That's not even getting into being plain and simply wrong on what the Bible says about homosexuality, or being a decent human being, the latter of which Christians seem to want to gloss over whenever they (irrationally) feel persecuted.
I can understand that. I try to be a decent human being as often as possible, even to people I disagree with (and their are plenty). It worries me sometimes how some christians have strayed from the bible's teachings. My mother spent several years as a children's pastor in a church in Hyde Park Cincinnati run by people who seemed to see the church as more of a business then a place to go for teaching, and worship (she hated it.)
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
Fought against with other opinions. I'm not a fan of enforcing my opinions by deciding those with opposite opinions will pay dearly for voicing them. This is exactly what I was saying earlier, in that it doesn't seem to be enough for some to combat bad opinions with better ones. They have tear the people down, make them go away. Usually a person doing that would make me think their own opinions and arguments are insufficent, because that's what happens when one side can't win the old-fashioned way: when they can't counter an argument, they attempt to remove the platform for said argument. But I know that's not the case here, there are plenty of ways to combat what he said. So I'm left thinking it's more an ideological thing, which isn't much better.
Essentially, I'm happy for anyone and everyone to tear into him as much as they like. I'm just wary of the whole "let us also attempt to hurt him as a warning to the rest!" bit.
It was sort of rooted in the claim that what happened here was censorship by A&E, which I have since abandoned.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
At no point was A&E going to do that. Robertson's family stood by him and made it clear they didn't feel like they could continue the show without him. They do all get paid a lot of money, but A&E needs the Robertsons more then the Robertsons need A&E.
A&E's viewers made it clear that the vast pots of money that show brings them shouldn't be allowed to go away. For Q1-Q3 or 2013 the show pulled in 80 million in advertising revenue. That's a lot, and it's only one of the multitude of revenue streams a show like this generates. The Season 4 premier was the most watched cable non-fiction telecast with 11.8 million viewers.
I'm all for people taking a stand against bigotry. But that has consequences. People, and corporations especially, can only be expected to deal with consequences as long as the benefits outweigh them.
Yeah, A&E has made it clear who their target audience is now. Which is fine.
They really had nothing to gain. Liberals would ridicule their shows anyways, and would not come flocking in because Duck Dynasty was canned. I'm the furthest thing from surprised at how this ended up going down.
It's less force people to voice enthusiastic approval for the LGBT lifestyle and more have actual consequences for saying hateful, ignorant things while under an image clause. I fail to see how comparing gay people to people who want to fuck animals is simply not enthusiastically approving of a lifestyle.
That's not even getting into being plain and simply wrong on what the Bible says about homosexuality, or being a decent human being, the latter of which Christians seem to want to gloss over whenever they (irrationally) feel persecuted.
I can understand that. I try to be a decent human being as often as possible, even to people I disagree with (and their are plenty). It worries me sometimes how some christians have strayed from the bible's teachings. My mother spent several years as a children's pastor in a church in Hyde Park Cincinnati run by people who seemed to see the church as more of a business then a place to go for teaching, and worship (she hated it.)
Speaking of straying from the bible's teachings...
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
Fought against with other opinions. I'm not a fan of enforcing my opinions by deciding those with opposite opinions will pay dearly for voicing them. This is exactly what I was saying earlier, in that it doesn't seem to be enough for some to combat bad opinions with better ones. They have tear the people down, make them go away.
That's how free speech works. This has happened to people on the left from the right all the time. Its shitty but that's life in situations like this. People have been combating Robertson's views with arguments, as well. But they didn't have to until now since the show and Robertson was still under their radar - now they have a reason to act.
Usually a person doing that would make me think their own opinions and arguments are insufficent, because that's what happens when one side can't win the old-fashioned way: when they can't counter an argument, they attempt to remove the platform for said argument. But I know that's not the case here, there are plenty of ways to combat what he said.
Like what? From what I've seen Robertson and his family have doubled down on their bigoted views - they're not interested in a discussion. They also have leverage over A & E so they don't have any reason to back down. Of course, even if they didn't it's possible they'd just ship to another network.
So I'm left thinking it's more an ideological thing, which isn't much better.
Ideology's conflicting is a thing. It's unavoidable, especially when its by a celebrity. Matt Damon's got shit on for his ideology, as well.
Essentially, I'm happy for anyone and everyone to tear into him as much as they like. I'm just wary of the whole "let us also attempt to hurt him as a warning to the rest!" bit.
Losing his job was a consequence for his actions. Which didn't happen anyway so the only punishment he did get was criticism from the left. Martin Bishir got worse consequences for being less of a dick than this guy.
It was sort of rooted in the claim that what happened here was censorship by A&E, which I have since abandoned.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
At no point was A&E going to do that. Robertson's family stood by him and made it clear they didn't feel like they could continue the show without him. They do all get paid a lot of money, but A&E needs the Robertsons more then the Robertsons need A&E.
A&E's viewers made it clear that the vast pots of money that show brings them shouldn't be allowed to go away. For Q1-Q3 or 2013 the show pulled in 80 million in advertising revenue. That's a lot, and it's only one of the multitude of revenue streams a show like this generates. The Season 4 premier was the most watched cable non-fiction telecast with 11.8 million viewers.
I'm all for people taking a stand against bigotry. But that has consequences. People, and corporations especially, can only be expected to deal with consequences as long as the benefits outweigh them.
Yeah, A&E has made it clear who their target audience is now. Which is fine.
They really had nothing to gain. Liberals would ridicule their shows anyways, and would not come flocking in because Duck Dynasty was canned. I'm the furthest thing from surprised at how this ended up going down.
This show must have had some kind of liberal, non-red neck audience. Shows like this thrive on the audience laughing at the people on it so it'd lose some viewers.
I don't know if it was as much racist as it was separatist. Yeah there's not much difference but it was more boundary than outright hate. Most of the old folks around here wanted separation but never said anything much more than that. When I was young, my town was separated by one street. Black on one side and white on the other. That's just how it was 30 years ago. Now it is more diverse and most people don't have a problem with it except for those old farts still alive and some redneck retards. The old folk used to have housekeepers way back when. Old black ladies usually that did their house work and pretty much raised their children.(for a fee of course). Believe me these ladies were loved by the whole family. I still hear from people my parents age how much they loved and miss those house keepers. I believe this is a big reason that racism took a big turn down here in the 60's-70's. Unless you grew up in the south, you just won't understand. There's still pockets of outright hatred but it's not how Hollywood portrays. People down here just hold on to the past for fear of losing it. Even though some of it should be lost.
The above is somebody I'm arguing with on my Mustang forum. I actually don't know how to respond to this. It lines up square with how Phil sees his childhood.
Attempt to explain to him why Seperatism is still racism. The only way separatism makes sense is if there is some fundamental difference between the races. That having a servant class be defined by the color of their skin assumes a subservience and order which is inherently racist.
It may be better to go at this by asking what we should base separatism on so you can get out that it's still amazingly racist without saying it straight out.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I feel like you are trying to expand the definition pointlessly, and annoying people in the process.
I don't think the churches or religions of the world are accurate or true, and I do not accept the concept of a deity as it has been presented to me. Does that make me an atheist, even though I have the sense that there is more than what we have here, even if I can't quantify or define it?
I am not trying to expand the term, i am using it correctly.
Atheism = "non belief in existence of god"/"not accepting the claim that good is true"
Agnosticism = not claiming knowledge of a claim, regardless of the belief in the claim or lack there of.
Yes, i may annoy people in the process, but that is not the goal, and people do get annoyed when people point out they are wrong, or using a term incorrectly.
And yes, if you don't believe in a god, i would call you an atheist, because you are one (now, if you believe there is a god, but can't define it in anyway, you are not an atheist, but i would ask why you believe in something you can't even begin to define as a concept).
You are perfectly free to believe there is "something" more than what we have here, be it aliens, fairies, supernatural multidimensional sock eating birds, whatever.
Atheism, only answers to one claim, do you believe a god, or gods, exist.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
And then I kept reading and read some of the comments section. I delved too deep and now my brain has an Anger Balrog and I can't do anything about it.
He couched it in the "I was working along side them." But someone in the thread found his dad was an oilman and IF he worked along side them it would have been more as a master than a fellow worker, and that was probably why they just seemed so darned happy bossman's son was working with the help.
I think his racial comments didn't get comments because of the Deen stuff. A&E knew the smarter play would be to blow up the homophobia, write that off as just down home folks christianity and quietly hope everyone forgets he said some abhorent racist shit.
His racial comments didn't get comment because there's nothing grossly false or racist about them. He just stated what his experience growing up in Louisiana was. You can argue that there's much to it that he didn't see or experience directly, but you can't tell him that his memories of his own life are wrong. He was there and you weren't. Now if he had stated what he said as fact, or made sweeping generalizations like he did with his homophobic comments we'd have lots of news calling him a racist. But there's no good argument to have telling him that his experiences are different from the greater history.
As an example:
Say we're talking about Cold War Eastern Europe. I say that I visited Czechoslovakia in 1979 and things seemed pretty good. In fact I met a lot of happy people and the government seemed helpful and well run. My comments sound untrue and insensitive because they ignore the greater historical context and the well documented instances of oppression of the population by the government. But you can't tell me I'm wrong. I was there, you weren't, and that's what I remember. Any attempt to tell me I'm wrong falls flat because it amounts to you telling me that what you saw that one time on the History Channel is more true than my experience. It might be more accurate but (especially for me) it's not more true.
I live in the south. People claiming that things weren't so bad during the Jim Crow isn't that uncommon from stupid old white people who never had to deal directly with the shittiness of Jim Crow. It usually says more about the person spouting the claim than anything about where they lived. What he is claiming is extremely unbelievable and more plausibly explained by the usual racial injustice blindness exhibited by many white people everywhere.
Except he didn't even limit his argument to just explaining his memories that are probably tainted by his blindness like most white people from that era.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson claims. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotten with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash."
He adds, "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
He is using his memory to say that things were better during an extremely oppressive age while all that government welfare ruined everything. That is the point of his rambling.
The guy not seeing any mistreatment of black people does not equal that there was no mistreatment going on where he lived for example.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I believe there may be a God.
I also believe there may not be a God.
Ergo, I am agnostic, not atheist. I do not have a belief there IS a god, but I don't think anyone claiming to be an atheist is going to say they believe in the possibility. They may accept the possibility. That doesn't describe my beliefs. I am not an atheist.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
Not trolling, just fed up how people often seem to think being branded an atheist would somehow be insulting, no matter how accurate the word would be.
I mean, i understand how it might be inconvenient if you are a priest, but outside that...
And if you lack even the concept of god, you pretty much are atheist be definition.
Of course people have such insane and stupid concepts of god, that "what is god", is a perfectly valid question to ask of a religious person.
And I'm fed up with atheists who cannot conceptualize a middle ground position between theist/religious and agnostic and argue tirelessly that I belong to the same philosophical mindset that they do. I absolutely guarantee you: I do not have the same mindset about God or religion as you do. I do not technically "believe in God" but our philosophies are as unalike as possible.
Posts
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
Not trolling, just fed up how people often seem to think being branded an atheist would somehow be insulting, no matter how accurate the word would be.
I mean, i understand how it might be inconvenient if you are a priest, but outside that...
And if you lack even the concept of god, you pretty much are atheist be definition.
Of course people have such insane and stupid concepts of god, that "what is god", is a perfectly valid question to ask of a religious person.
Quantum-religion!
People with agendas seek to control and police the usage, but there's no need. They're already long-established terms.
I feel like you are trying to expand the definition pointlessly, and annoying people in the process.
I don't think the churches or religions of the world are accurate or true, and I do not accept the concept of a deity as it has been presented to me. Does that make me an atheist, even though I have the sense that there is more than what we have here, even if I can't quantify or define it?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's weird to say they're well-defined and long-established terms when you're not using them correctly. Atheism is in it's most common definition merely the absence of a belief in God(s). The amount of certainty of that view can vary from person to person, indeed one can easily claim that they can not be certain in the slightest but yet still not belief in God.
Agnosticism deals with a different issue. Here the question is not about belief but about the possibility of true knowledge. It's about the justification of a belief, rather than the belief itself. The agnostic position is that it's either impossible or highly difficult to actually be sure of anything, to actually know what is true with regards to God(s).
I also immediately regard anyone claiming theoretical terms are well-defined or clear with suspicion. It feels like you're ignoring vast amounts of shit to be able to claim that.
Free speech has consequences. By the public and A & E not standing up against his bigoted opinions only means its acceptance about those opinions. Bad opinions spread when they're not fought against.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's a strange culture we live in. What the guy said was basically what the republican platform has been for the last 10+ years, and what evangelicals have been screeching on about since the early 80's. If we allow politicians and good honest christians to say such heinous shit, why is it suddenly a big deal when a reality tv actor says it?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The Duck Dynasty guy isn't any different from racist or homophobic politicians. They get criticized by the left when they do that as well. Nor is it strange that a reality star, or actor, gets into a shitstorm for their opinions.
There was the guy from alaska who said that dumb shit about his pappy's farm, but yes, you are correct.
When they fail it does blow up, see the dudes in North Carolina talking about voter rights and the gray faced rape apologists in 2012
You can still get away with saying stuff about gay people to a degree but if you add in racism that's a problem
Oddly he probably would have been far worse off if he had not disparaged gays, it's tougher to disguise racism as religious beliefs
Typically they go full on Paula Deen about misogyny, though. Which gets them roasted during elections.
I'm surprised his racist shit didn't get more attention.
He basically said black people in Louisiana in the 60s were better off because they had Jesus. That requires either being racist or breathtakingly ignorant.
Or both, actually. In fact I would be willing to bet that is the case.
A lot of modern day racism is rooted firmly in ignorance.
I think his racial comments didn't get comments because of the Deen stuff. A&E knew the smarter play would be to blow up the homophobia, write that off as just down home folks christianity and quietly hope everyone forgets he said some abhorent racist shit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, A&E has made it clear who their target audience is now. Which is fine.
http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/12/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-said-gay-people-ruthless-full-murder-2010-speech/
I admit that I'm a christian, and I don't approve of homosexuality (You want to live your life this way? fine, but don't try to force me to voice gigantic moral approval for your lifestyle. Thank you), but I will say that Phil should have been more careful. This was a giant Fustercluck of a situation that Phil started and A&E made worse.
Robertson wasn't fired. His "infinite" suspension didn't last a week. During a haitus for the tv show, no less, so all his punishment ended up being was a stern talking to by A & E. He didn't miss one day of filming, the new season was shot before he talked to GQ.
Welp.
What did you think about his comments on black people from the Jim Crowe era?
He didn't seem that concerned about lesbians or female prostitutes, either. So he's not only a bigot but a hypocrite. I'm shocked!
How did A & E make this worse?
That's not even getting into being plain and simply wrong on what the Bible says about homosexuality, or being a decent human being, the latter of which Christians seem to want to gloss over whenever they (irrationally) feel persecuted.
Yeah, that was on page 2 of the thread.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I can understand that. I try to be a decent human being as often as possible, even to people I disagree with (and their are plenty). It worries me sometimes how some christians have strayed from the bible's teachings. My mother spent several years as a children's pastor in a church in Hyde Park Cincinnati run by people who seemed to see the church as more of a business then a place to go for teaching, and worship (she hated it.)
Fought against with other opinions. I'm not a fan of enforcing my opinions by deciding those with opposite opinions will pay dearly for voicing them. This is exactly what I was saying earlier, in that it doesn't seem to be enough for some to combat bad opinions with better ones. They have tear the people down, make them go away. Usually a person doing that would make me think their own opinions and arguments are insufficent, because that's what happens when one side can't win the old-fashioned way: when they can't counter an argument, they attempt to remove the platform for said argument. But I know that's not the case here, there are plenty of ways to combat what he said. So I'm left thinking it's more an ideological thing, which isn't much better.
Essentially, I'm happy for anyone and everyone to tear into him as much as they like. I'm just wary of the whole "let us also attempt to hurt him as a warning to the rest!" bit.
They really had nothing to gain. Liberals would ridicule their shows anyways, and would not come flocking in because Duck Dynasty was canned. I'm the furthest thing from surprised at how this ended up going down.
Speaking of straying from the bible's teachings...
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
That's how free speech works. This has happened to people on the left from the right all the time. Its shitty but that's life in situations like this. People have been combating Robertson's views with arguments, as well. But they didn't have to until now since the show and Robertson was still under their radar - now they have a reason to act.
Like what? From what I've seen Robertson and his family have doubled down on their bigoted views - they're not interested in a discussion. They also have leverage over A & E so they don't have any reason to back down. Of course, even if they didn't it's possible they'd just ship to another network.
Ideology's conflicting is a thing. It's unavoidable, especially when its by a celebrity. Matt Damon's got shit on for his ideology, as well.
Losing his job was a consequence for his actions. Which didn't happen anyway so the only punishment he did get was criticism from the left. Martin Bishir got worse consequences for being less of a dick than this guy.
This show must have had some kind of liberal, non-red neck audience. Shows like this thrive on the audience laughing at the people on it so it'd lose some viewers.
@krieghund
Attempt to explain to him why Seperatism is still racism. The only way separatism makes sense is if there is some fundamental difference between the races. That having a servant class be defined by the color of their skin assumes a subservience and order which is inherently racist.
It may be better to go at this by asking what we should base separatism on so you can get out that it's still amazingly racist without saying it straight out.
I am not trying to expand the term, i am using it correctly.
Atheism = "non belief in existence of god"/"not accepting the claim that good is true"
Agnosticism = not claiming knowledge of a claim, regardless of the belief in the claim or lack there of.
Yes, i may annoy people in the process, but that is not the goal, and people do get annoyed when people point out they are wrong, or using a term incorrectly.
And yes, if you don't believe in a god, i would call you an atheist, because you are one (now, if you believe there is a god, but can't define it in anyway, you are not an atheist, but i would ask why you believe in something you can't even begin to define as a concept).
You are perfectly free to believe there is "something" more than what we have here, be it aliens, fairies, supernatural multidimensional sock eating birds, whatever.
Atheism, only answers to one claim, do you believe a god, or gods, exist.
Oh fuck me
I read the article
And then I kept reading and read some of the comments section. I delved too deep and now my brain has an Anger Balrog and I can't do anything about it.
His racial comments didn't get comment because there's nothing grossly false or racist about them. He just stated what his experience growing up in Louisiana was. You can argue that there's much to it that he didn't see or experience directly, but you can't tell him that his memories of his own life are wrong. He was there and you weren't. Now if he had stated what he said as fact, or made sweeping generalizations like he did with his homophobic comments we'd have lots of news calling him a racist. But there's no good argument to have telling him that his experiences are different from the greater history.
As an example:
Say we're talking about Cold War Eastern Europe. I say that I visited Czechoslovakia in 1979 and things seemed pretty good. In fact I met a lot of happy people and the government seemed helpful and well run. My comments sound untrue and insensitive because they ignore the greater historical context and the well documented instances of oppression of the population by the government. But you can't tell me I'm wrong. I was there, you weren't, and that's what I remember. Any attempt to tell me I'm wrong falls flat because it amounts to you telling me that what you saw that one time on the History Channel is more true than my experience. It might be more accurate but (especially for me) it's not more true.
Except he didn't even limit his argument to just explaining his memories that are probably tainted by his blindness like most white people from that era. He is using his memory to say that things were better during an extremely oppressive age while all that government welfare ruined everything. That is the point of his rambling.
The guy not seeing any mistreatment of black people does not equal that there was no mistreatment going on where he lived for example.
Stay classy Phil
Class is a sin boy!
I believe there may be a God.
I also believe there may not be a God.
Ergo, I am agnostic, not atheist. I do not have a belief there IS a god, but I don't think anyone claiming to be an atheist is going to say they believe in the possibility. They may accept the possibility. That doesn't describe my beliefs. I am not an atheist.
And I'm fed up with atheists who cannot conceptualize a middle ground position between theist/religious and agnostic and argue tirelessly that I belong to the same philosophical mindset that they do. I absolutely guarantee you: I do not have the same mindset about God or religion as you do. I do not technically "believe in God" but our philosophies are as unalike as possible.