20 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75It seems obvious that the ungodly wish to remove any idea that their unrighteous deeds are sin and an abomination to God. The evilution idea has given the atheists bold ideas of not only removing the truth and morality of God from public schools but also from the general public.
So a question I'd still like more comments on is what has changed in the last few decades that if someone comments on the Bible and God's views and commands on such things as this gentleman responded to, now get the negative knee jerk responces we see with his condemnation by many, when in the past most would have supported it?
One said most are now ...[text shortened]... nd and no longer accept those old ways of thinking.....
What does this new enlightenment mean?
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou mean like trying to silence everyone who opposes your perspective, wow, that's progress, so where's your apology, you stated he was a racist and not a shred of evidence can be found in his text to support your claim, is this the new morality, to misrepresent and fabricate lies about people who oppose your perspective? How is that superior to telling the truth?
It means that superior secular morality is steadily winning out over inferior religious 'morality'.
Lets ask stellspalfie Prophet of the New morality
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - ouch
20 Dec 13
I this blog post about an Islamic extremist being given air time on the BBC might be relevant:
http://bit.ly/JK3kuX
I don't know much about the specifics of either story but it does seem to me like the Duck Dynasty producers got it right and the BBC got it wrong.
If you think Phil Robertson should not have been sacked then you must also think it is fine for the BBC to provide a platform for Anjem Choudary.
It is not a restriction of someone's free speech to refuse to give them use of your publicity machine.
--- Penguin.
20 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75I'll ignore your abuse.
I never said anything of the sort and had NO motives other then what I asked.
I don't understand, I'm not saying you said anything! I'm saying you avoided the question. As is always the case Galveston, you bring pointless controversy down on yourself because you start a thread or make a comment without first researching what your leadership would have you say if you get questioned.
Do you even read my posts or just knee-jerk into calling someone names?
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by PenguinThat depends on what the BBC believes about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I this blog post about an Islamic extremist being given air time on the BBC might be relevant:
http://bit.ly/JK3kuX
I don't know much about the specifics of either story but it does seem to me like the Duck Dynasty producers got it right and the BBC got it wrong.
If you think Phil Robertson should not have been sacked then you must also think it is ...[text shortened]... n of someone's free speech to refuse to give them use of your publicity machine.
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Penguin"It is not a restriction of someone's free speech to refuse to give them use of your publicity machine."
I this blog post about an Islamic extremist being given air time on the BBC might be relevant:
http://bit.ly/JK3kuX
I don't know much about the specifics of either story but it does seem to me like the Duck Dynasty producers got it right and the BBC got it wrong.
If you think Phil Robertson should not have been sacked then you must also think it is ...[text shortened]... n of someone's free speech to refuse to give them use of your publicity machine.
--- Penguin.
Based on my own experience entering into contracts, there is almost certainly a contract between the parties, into which they freely entered, that states the company's (and his) right to terminate/suspend the contract at will, and this is well known to the right wing manipulators of public opinion. This whole free speech whining is just manipulation of a segment of the public that is ignorant of how business works.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by JS357the right wing manipulators of public opinion
"It is not a restriction of someone's free speech to refuse to give them use of your publicity machine."
Based on my own experience entering into contracts, there is almost certainly a contract between the parties, into which they freely entered, that states the company's (and his) right to terminate/suspend the contract at will, and this is well known to t ...[text shortened]... whining is just manipulation of a segment of the public that is ignorant of how business works.
Is it exclusively the so called right wing who are guilty of manipulating public opinion.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieblimey, lets break this down in simple terms for you. the guy did not have the freedom to say what he wanted when he was on the duck show. the producers edit out anything they may find unsuitable (or not entertaining). so the show is not a platform for him to express his views. im guessing you and galvastrop had no problem with this set-up before his sacking.
I see, so being suspended from your job for some things that you said in an interview is now no longer a form of censorship or punishment for the things you said, interesting, what is it then?
No your analogy is nonsense, another totally absurd and ludicrous attempt, next you will be making up illustrations of neo nazi skinheads working in immigration or the ministry for culture.
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
he expressed those opinions outside of the show. the network found them offensive. you have already agreed that they had the right to sack him (not that they were right). so they sacked him.
at no point were his ability to express his 'offensive' views changed. he couldnt say it on the show before, he couldnt say it on the show after....
so the network have not removed any freedoms he had to speak. if they feel his opinions are in direct conflict with their own then they have taken the correct approach.
although you and galv dare not speak of analogies that may include blood transfusions (suddenly claiming that the transfusions have become the main point, when clearly they are not). i think everybody else on here would understand if your church sacked an elder who publicly went against church policy (even though we might agree with him).
its clear that you and galv avoid answering the hypothetical questions because you know you are wrong and only defend this guy because he has said things you agree with, biased thinking.
i have another hypothetical for you, i know you love them.
naomi campbell was dropped by peta (who she did anti-fur advertising) when she was seen wearing real fur in her own time. in your opinion were peta in the right or wrong?
Originally posted by stellspalfiesigh, he was not expressing his personal points of view on the show Einstein, nor using the show as a platform for those views, he gave an interview for a magazine. Umm they did not sack him, they suspended him.
blimey, lets break this down in simple terms for you. the guy did not have the freedom to say what he wanted when he was on the duck show. the producers edit out anything they may find unsuitable (or not entertaining). so the show is not a platform for him to express his views. im guessing you and galvastrop had no problem with this set-up before his sa ...[text shortened]... she was seen wearing real fur in her own time. in your opinion were peta in the right or wrong?
so suspending him in direct response to those views is what, commendation, right gotcha, nooooooo, its a form of punitive action, a form of censorship, yes, for what? telling it like it is.
Conclusion, we now have reached a point, where gays are allowed to express themselves, without censure, without punitive action, on the public highways, in the form of parades as openly and freely as they like and where an individual, in an independent magazine cannot likewise express himself openly and without punitive action on the part of his employers, that's the reality!
Naomi Campbell was acting untruthfully and hypocritically, this man has not acted in any such manner, in fact, he spoke honestly and openly and truthfully. That is the reality.
This man should become folk hero! up there beside Robert Bruce and Diego Maradonna and William Wallace.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesigh, he was not expressing his personal points of view on the show Einstein, nor using the show as a platform for those views, he gave an interview for a magazine. Umm they did not sack him, they suspended him.
sigh, he was not expressing his personal points of view on the show Einstein, nor using the show as a platform for those views, he gave an interview for a magazine. Umm they did not sack him, they suspended him.
so suspending him in direct response to those views is what, commendation, right gotcha, nooooooo, its a form of punitive action, a form ...[text shortened]... n should become folk hero! up there beside Robert Bruce and Diego Maradonna and William Wallace.
thats the point! if he wasnt voicing his views on the show and he is still able to voice his views in magazines and his private life then nothing has been censored. the avenues he had to express his views remain the same, neither increasing or decreasing. nothing has been censored.
you can certainly argue he has been punished. but punishment isnt the same as censorship. censorship is the removal of a persons ability to voice their opinion. if he had said it on the show and they had bleeped it out, you could argue it was censorship.
if the company had said 'if you say anything like that again we will sack you' you could argue he was censored, because then they would be still using him but dictating what he can and cannot say. but they didnt their purpose was not to be associated with a person with his opinions. they have at no point told him to keep quiet. telling him to keep quiet is censorship.
Originally posted by stellspalfieA&E could have continued editing out anything they wished without taking any of them off the show. There was no problem with that as I see it. However, they were unable to edit what they said to a magazine. The gay rights group should have taken this issue up with the magazine for printing these comments instead of A&E as I see it. But they were seeking punishment.
blimey, lets break this down in simple terms for you. the guy did not have the freedom to say what he wanted when he was on the duck show. the producers edit out anything they may find unsuitable (or not entertaining). so the show is not a platform for him to express his views. im guessing you and galvastrop had no problem with this set-up before his sa ...[text shortened]... she was seen wearing real fur in her own time. in your opinion were peta in the right or wrong?
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/will-the-bullies-at-glaad-pressure-ae-to-take-duck-dynasty-off-the-air/
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsa+e apparently have strong connections with gay rights, hence their decision to suspend him. it became a moral issue for them (regardless if you agree with them or not). i agree that he has been punished, but i dont accept that his punishment was censorship, unless they bring him back from suspension with orders to keep his mouth shut.......then you can all cry censorship.
A&E could have continued editing out anything they wished without taking any of them off the show. There was no problem with that as I see it. However, they were unable to edit what they said to a magazine. The gay rights group should have taken this issue up with the magazine for printing these comments instead of A&E as I see it. But they were seeking punishment.
if he had said jews are like animals, i dont think you, robbie or galv would have problem with him being suspended. its only because he has said something you agree with that you defend him. not taking into consideration that the popular view, by the majority is that its just as bad suggesting gay people are like animals as saying jews are like animals.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfiedude he has been suspended from his job because of those comments, that is punitive action and a form of censorship, why? because while he can continue to express his perspective he would probably end up losing his job, therefore its indirect censorship but a form of censorship never the less, so while gays can openly frolic around this guy cannot express his opinion without fear of losing his job, thats the reality.
[b]sigh, he was not expressing his personal points of view on the show Einstein, nor using the show as a platform for those views, he gave an interview for a magazine. Umm they did not sack him, they suspended him.
thats the point! if he wasnt voicing his views on the show and he is still able to voice his views in magazines and his private life ...[text shortened]... opinions. they have at no point told him to keep quiet. telling him to keep quiet is censorship.[/b]
Originally posted by stellspalfieYou are believing the slant put on it by the Gay activist group. You need to read carefully what the magazine reported he said. It did not say what you said. By the way A&E were already using religious censorship by editing out "in Jesus" from his prayers from the show. This was supposed to be a reality show. A&E did not want true reality.
a+e apparently have strong connections with gay rights, hence their decision to suspend him. it became a moral issue for them (regardless if you agree with them or not). i agree that he has been punished, but i dont accept that his punishment was censorship, unless they bring him back from suspension with orders to keep his mouth shut.......then you can ...[text shortened]... is that its just as bad suggesting gay people are like animals as saying jews are like animals.