Saturday, December 28, 2013

Make Way for Ducks

5 Comments:

Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

Phil Robertson:
1. Thinks blacks were better off under Jim Crow.
2. Thinks the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they had not accepted jesus.
3. Hates gay people. I know you'll try to tell me how holding a traditional Christian view on the subject is not homophobic, but try telling me how these comments could come from anybody not full of hate toward gays: "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."

Even for a contrarian culture warrior like yourself, this doesn't seem like a guy worth defending.

7:16 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

So KeynesianPacker: You think he should be fired?

What do you think about gay activists who call people "homophobes" simply because they oppose gay marriage?

4:07 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

No, I do not think he should be fired. He is a “reality” TV star and reality TV is (regrettably) a safe haven for idiotic, insensitive commentary. He never was fired, but the show’s ratings sure did take a hit.
The broader point I’d like to make is that the way the right-wing culture warriors like you have sprung to Robertson’s defense on the grounds of freedom of speech is blatantly phony. The right to freedom of speech is not the same the right to a TV show. Moreover, it’s hardly a coincidence that this is the instance in which you stand up for a TV personality potentially losing his job for offensive comments. Did you stand up for liberals like Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann when they lost their shows? No, you didn’t. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that you are standing up for Robertson because you tacitly condone what he said. Why don’t you just come out and say that you agree with his comments?
Yes, I believe those who oppose legalized gay marriage are either homophobes or theocrats. I can respect that some people’s religious views are against marriage equality, and I can somewhat understand that, but to think that their religious views are sufficient grounds for denying equal rights is indeed theocratic at least. And I do not respect theocrats.

12:05 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

The right to freedom of speech is not the same the right to a TV show.

But Robertson didn't call for anybody to be fired because they were gay.

People like you called for Robertson to be fired because he disagrees with you about homosexuality.

So who is intolerant?

Did you stand up for liberals like Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann when they lost their shows? No, you didn’t.

But I didn't call for them to be fired either. In fact, I didn't blog about that at all.

Why don’t you just come out and say that you agree with his comments?

Yes, I do in general agree with his comments. I do believe that a homosexual orientation is disordered, and that homosexual acts are sinful.

I believe those who oppose legalized gay marriage are either homophobes or theocrats.

So you have a right to have a negative view of people who oppose gay marriage, but other people don't have a right to a negative opinion of homosexual acts?

You are tolerant of things you think are OK, but intolerant of things you disagree with.

Robertson has a much right to express disagreement with homosexuality as you have to disagree with those who oppose gay marriage.

You politically correct types think you are privileged. You have the right to hate people with whom you disagree, but even expressing disagreement (sans hatred) over homosexuality is intolerable.

Double standard.

4:07 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

"People like you called for Robertson to be fired because he disagrees with you about homosexuality"
I specifically said that I did not think he should be fired. I also said that his comments were not limited to expressing a Christian view on the subject. What he said was hateful, pure and simple.

"So who is intolerant?"
You mean is it the person describing homosexuals as "insolent, arrogant, God-haters" or the person who finds this offensive? Hmmm. Tough question.

"In fact, I didn't blog about [Olbermann and Maher at all."
Exactly. Like I said, the right-wing support of Robertson has nothing to do with standing up for freedom of speech, otherwise you would have stood up for people like Olbermann and Maher. It's about expressing approval of what Robertson said, which is your right, but drop the freedom of speech guise. Not only is it transparently disingenuous, it is intellectually void.

"But Robertson didn't call for anybody to be fired because they were gay."
No, but you have done just that. Well I guess technically you only called for her offer to be rescinded.

"You politically correct types think you are privileged. You have the right to hate people with whom you disagree, but even expressing disagreement (sans hatred) over homosexuality is intolerable."
Nothing I have said suggests I hate anybody. Calling a group of people heartless, faithless, ruthless God-haters, on the other hand, is clearly hateful. If you really wanted to convince anybody that you view homosexuality as a sin without hating homosexuals you would have denounced Robertson's comments.

2:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home