• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
In both cases every PERSON involved in the relationship are consenting. And that is all that matters.
No it isn't and that is why this is begging the question. Your conclusions are true because you assume they are true in your premise. There are more things that matter in a marriage than that a sole person consents to it.

Your premise is still false and therefore all your conclusions still remain false.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
No it isn't and that is why this is begging the question. Your conclusions are true because you assume they are true in your premise. There are more things that matter in a marriage than that a sole person consents to it.

Your premise is still false and therefore all your conclusions still remain false.
I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter how non-human animals feel about you having sex with them because it doesn't matter what you do to them. I guess he thinks the concept of animal cruelty is pointless.

But he plays so many games of trying to use the other person's stance against them by over-generalizing them (and usually defeating his own stance in the process..) that it's hard to tell what he really thinks about anything. It'd be pretty hilarious if he was against gay sex between humans but okay with a human male forcing himself on a male animal of a different species.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter how non-human animals feel about you having sex with them because it doesn't matter what you do to them.
That's what he's saying for sure.

However, that has fuck-all to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality and bestiality are tied only in the sense that they involve sexual contact. They have nothing else in common. So bestiality has as much in common with homosexuality as bestiality has in common with masturbation.

His argument is:

Homosexuality involves sex
Bestiality involves sex
All things that involve sex are equivalent.
Therefore a homosexual relationship is equivalent to having sex with an animal.

He begs the question by assuming all things involving sex are equivalent because he never proves that true. Moreover, it's easy enough to prove it false. So the final conclusion is irrelevant because it relies on a conclusion stated in the premise (begging the question) which is false.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
No it isn't and that is why this is begging the question. Your conclusions are true because you assume they are true in your premise. There are more things that matter in a marriage than that a sole person consents to it.

Your premise is still false and therefore all your conclusions still remain false.
Marriage does not equal sex. Neither I nor Phil Robertson made any mention marriage

That's what he's saying for sure.

However, that has fuck-all to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality and bestiality are tied only in the sense that they involve sexual contact. They have nothing else in common. So bestiality has as much in common with homosexuality as bestiality has in common with masturbation.
Is masturbation a sexual orientation?

His argument is:

Homosexuality involves sex
Bestiality involves sex
All things that involve sex are equivalent.
Therefore a homosexual relationship is equivalent to having sex with an animal.

He begs the question by assuming all things involving sex are equivalent because he never proves that true. Moreover, it's easy enough to prove it false. So the final conclusion is irrelevant because it relies on a conclusion stated in the premise (begging the question) which is false.
I didn't say all things involving sex were equal. In fact I said exactly the opposite when I said, for example, that pedophilia would not be equal, because it involved hurting others.

Also, if homosexuality and bestiality have so little in common why are so many people jumping to the conclusion that Phil Robertson linked the 2 together? After all he also mentioned promiscuity at the same time. So why didn't anyone link homosexuality to promiscuity, or promiscuity to bestiality?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter how non-human animals feel about you having sex with them because it doesn't matter what you do to them. I guess he thinks the concept of animal cruelty is pointless.
Cruelty and consent are different things. Animal cruelty isn't wrong due to lack of consent.

Also, I fail to see how having a stallion take your in the rear constitutes animal cruelty anyway? :confused:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Exactly. I see you get it now!

A&E had all the power here and chose to suspend/fire the guy. All blame lies with them.
GLAAD deserves to be denounced too for getting all butt-hurt over some guy saying that homosexuality is a sin and that butt sex was icky.

Refusing to celebrate homosexuality is NOT defamation.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Exactly. I see you get it now!

A&E had all the power here and chose to suspend/fire the guy. All blame lies with them.
No.

Without butt hurt Glaad whining like little school girls A&E would have done nothing.

glaad doesn't allow free thought, and actively work to silence anyone thinking different.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,826
201
106
You guys still don't understand that groups from all sides behave in exactly the same way?

For another example, see Ellen and JC Penny's. You know the difference between the two scenarios? JC Penny's didn't bow to pressure.

People can talk/protest all they want; in the end, this was a decision made purely by A&E.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,826
201
106
I suppose I should state for the record that I think GLAAD is overreacting.

But, I'm not surprised. This is exactly what political groups do these days. Everybody is so quick to shout "OUTRAGE!"
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Even if you don't agree with it, what difference does letting gays marry make to you? How is you life negatively effected by it? There is a gay couple that lives across the street from me. What the heck difference does it make if they get married or not?

Also, I cannot stand Duck Dynasty but if we go around kicking everyone off TV for making rude, insensitive and retarded comments then there won't be a whole heck of a lot left on TV to watch.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,130
6
81
Nobody says the guy can't have an opinion. In this case his expressing his opinion conflicted with the image his employer was trying to project so they effectively suspended him.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences not sure why this is such a hard concept for the OP to grasp.
My thoughts exactly. Said almost the same thing myself yesterday in a "real life" conversation.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I suspect in the end A&E will be the losers in this situation as I don't see the series moving forward without Phil so they will lose millions of viewers for this show as well as other shows these viewers also watched. I also suspect there will be another network station that will pick up another series with the same people and just change the show. Then have notices every time the show comes back from a commercial stating: The comments and beliefs of persons in this show are their own and not the beliefs or feelings of the network station.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
Mr. Robertson reacts to gays.
Gays react to Mr. Robertson's vocalization of how he feels about gays.
People react to how Mr. Robertson was treated for his comments.

How is this a story? Yes the gay lobby is powerful now - its aligned groups have big money behind them (and those boys are fierce!), and we all know that money equals power in this country.

But Mr. Robertson isn't running for elected office (he may now-thanks!). Has anybody seen Family Guy or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Those shows are rife with disparaging gay comments (edit: including the religious angle). What's the difference?

Now if he was a politician and this came out, he'd be in a difficult spot.

GLAAD and the HRC have elevated this guy to the echelon of those with great influence. Give me a break!

~The ramblings of a gay hippie peace freak
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Well - it's a very distasteful legal act that most people find repugnant.
Seems to me like GLAAD is bigoted against bestial sexuals.

By saying that Phil Robertson was disparaging homosexuals, they were disparaging another sexual orientation.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If we compared your masturbation to being gay would you be offended?
Why would I be?

In fact the Catholic Church seems to say that masturbation and homosexual activity is comparative:

The Catholic Church teaches that "Masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder" and that "both the Magisterium of the Church—in the course of a constant tradition—and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Catholicism

Homosexuality is considered by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to be "disordered" in the sense that it is said to be "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil"[1] and is not directed toward what the Catholic Church believes to be the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual activity.[2][3] While "homosexual desires" are not in themselves considered sinful, "homosexual acts" are. The Catholic Church has said of homosexuality, "as in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,440
2,238
136
This is complete garbage.

When voicing an opinion pisses off hoards of gay rights groups who lobby to have you removed/fired, your freedom has been removed.

You're free to keep putting lipstick on that pig.....:rolleyes:


When voicing an opinion pisses off hoards of conservatives and conservative groups who burn your records/CD's, demand your music be banned from radio, vandalize your home, your freedom has been removed.

(Hint: The Dixie Chicks spoke out against the upcoming war in Iraq 10.5 years ago and that's the response that happened....by conservatives.)

You're free to keep putting lipstick on your pig.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY