Duck Dynasty shitstorm

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Lastly, if you feel so strong about your right to do what you want and your freedom of speech, walk into a Mosque and start telling them that homosexuality is normal and start teaching their children that "it's natural". I'll have lots more respect for you then.

You should talk to someone that has served in Afghanistan.

[WOTR]

I'm really not certain where the conversation turned to a Mosque or pedophilia... and I do not know that you answered the question.  Can a group of homosexuals put an infomercial on television depicting gay sex as normal, or does your wish to protect the morals you hold out for your country override their freedom of speech?  You may have observed that I have no problem with people saying it is unnatural, unclean, fitly, sinful, disease causing, immoral, wrong or anything else (and broadcasting if if they so choose.)  As you said, you have the right to say that and tough shit in regards to the feelings of others.  I am wondering where the right of expression ends- is it where you become uncomfortable?

Being as you brought up the idea that it is strictly the unnatural act of anal intercourse that is upsetting and not religious teaching, what about straight guys who like women?  I work with one fellow who is straight as anything and loves nothing more than a woman's ass (yes, he apparently prefers it.)  Is he any better or more natural than a man who loves another man?  Shall I condemn him as an unnatural pervert because he likes an orifice made to excrete waste or is he borderline because at least it is a womans ass and not a mans?

[Quick Karl]

You should talk to someone that has served in Afghanistan.

A person would have to be out of their mind to be a homosexual and volunteer to go fight a war in an Islamic country - that's like sticking your head into a furnace then crying cause your face got burned off and life is unfair.

[Quick Karl]

I'm really not certain where the conversation turned to a Mosque or pedophilia... and I do not know that you answered the question.  Can a group of homosexuals put an infomercial on television depicting gay sex as normal, or does your wish to protect the morals you hold out for your country override their freedom of speech?  You may have observed that I have no problem with people saying it is unnatural, unclean, fitly, sinful, disease causing, immoral, wrong or anything else (and broadcasting if if they so choose.)  As you said, you have the right to say that and tough shit in regards to the feelings of others.  I am wondering where the right of expression ends- is it where you become uncomfortable?

Being as you brought up the idea that it is strictly the unnatural act of anal intercourse that is upsetting and not religious teaching, what about straight guys who like women?  I work with one fellow who is straight as anything and loves nothing more than a woman's ass (yes, he apparently prefers it.)  Is he any better or more natural than a man who loves another man?  Shall I condemn him as an unnatural pervert because he likes an orifice made to excrete waste or is he borderline because at least it is a womans ass and not a mans?

You will have to ask the networks and their advertisers, and then The Supreme Court - there is no way I would ever tune in. Anal sex is unnatural, whomever is doing it - it is what they do to you in prison to degrade you, when you are weak.

In my humble opinion, anal sex is just about that, degrading another human being, whether they like it, or not. Sure you have the right to do it if you want, but that isn't going to change my mind, nor silence me.

[Sambo]

What was the question from GQ anyhow?

I think maybe GQ should be held to some account.

[Unquenchable Angst]

Yeh cuz as long as as it's a with consenting bitch over legal age, I don't see how dude/dog love has anything with homosexuality. Now a dude and dude dog, that 's just gross. I know, I'm a hater.

Lost a sip o' sarsaparilla on that one nearly outmanose..

[Unquenchable Angst]

sometime out on those lonely nights on the prairie that mare's hiney looks mighty enticing , you have a new perspective on what 'looks can kill' means.

[WOTR]

You will have to ask the networks and their advertisers, and then The Supreme Court - there is no way I would ever tune in...

Fair enough... I asked only because so often I see people want freedom of speech so long as the line is drawn where they are comfortable (and this is on both sides.)  I may try to get back later to pose a question about freedom of speech, advertisers, special interest groups and capitalism... but it is a long argument and I have somewhere to be shortly.

[Sambo]

Fair enough... I asked only because so often I see people want freedom of speech so long as the line is drawn where they are comfortable (and this is on both sides.)  I may try to get back later to pose a question about freedom of speech, advertisers, special interest groups and capitalism... but it is a long argument and I have somewhere to be shortly.

When you have things like libel and defamation suits being the norm why is free speech regarded as an absolute? 

[Quick Karl]

sometime out on those lonely nights on the prairie that mare's hiney looks mighty enticing , you have a new perspective on what 'looks can kill' means.

Are you saying bestiality is "natural"? 

Nah, I'm pretty sure you are adding some comic relief  But there is no doubt that somewhere along the way, some kook has tried it.

[Quick Karl]

When you have things like libel and defamation suits being the norm why is free speech regarded as an absolute?

As you well know, freedom of speech was enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect your right to speak against government and not wind up in prison over it. For about the first 200-years of America's History, that, and the Second Amendment, in fact all of the Amendments, were pretty easy to comprehend. Suddenly, in the last 50-years or so, they've become ambiguous to a certain segment of America that is unsatisfied with America.

[georgesucks]

Duck Dynasty Sucks. A & E SUCKS. Any show that is hosted by noory SUCKS.

[DanTSX]

When you have things like libel and defamation suits being the norm why is free speech regarded as an absolute?

Libel and defamation suits are not the norm here.  In fact, they has been an increasing trend in favor of the defendant over the past 20 years.

I am aware that in Canada, there are far less guarantees to free speech.  Particularly offensive free speech.  But not recalling enough specifics at this time to speak to anything in particular. 

I think that you may have become conditioned to not fully understand how people get away with this type of expression down here.   

I'm not singling you out specifically.  I have seen evidence of this in other non-USA posters as well.  My conclusion is that the thought police are in effect and behavior is being modified as a result.

[DanTSX]

You will have to ask the networks and their advertisers, and then The Supreme Court - there is no way I would ever tune in. Anal sex is unnatural, whomever is doing it - it is what they do to you in prison to degrade you, when you are weak.

In my humble opinion, anal sex is just about that, degrading another human being, whether they like it, or not. Sure you have the right to do it if you want, but that isn't going to change my mind, nor silence me.

It is indeed about degradation.  Many women enjoy degradation.

But it is fun.  And it feels good.

But I only do it to women.

[Sambo]

Libel and defamation suits are not the norm here.  In fact, they has been an increasing trend in favor of the defendant over the past 20 years.

I am aware that in Canada, there are far less guarantees to free speech.  Particularly offensive free speech.  But not recalling enough specifics at this time to speak to anything in particular. 

I think that you may have become conditioned to not fully understand how people get away with this type of expression down here.   

I'm not singling you out specifically.  I have seen evidence of this in other non-USA posters as well.  My conclusion is that the thought police are in effect and behavior is being modified as a result.

We're all conditioned. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an opinion that is contrary to the times. I'm just not sure it should be asked for as it has no relevance in a society where people are free. Free, not anarchic. A respect for civility and basic human rights is not an encroachment on another person's freedom under the context of a civil society. The debate can surface often but for it to be a lasting circular confusing mess is a bit regressive.

[DanTSX]

We're all conditioned. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an opinion that is contrary to the times. I'm just not sure it should be asked for as it has no relevance in a society where people are free. Free, not anarchic. A respect for civility and basic human rights is not an encroachment on another person's freedom under the context of a civil society. The debate can surface often but for it to be a lasting circular confusing mess is a bit regressive.

The debate itself is what set's that society's boundaries.  Better to be a part of the conversation than to do nothing.

But our roots are (here at least) to allow people to be as weird as they desire to be, and that must be respected as well no matter how much it angers us.

Freedom is always a double-edged sword.

[Sambo]

The debate itself is what set's that society's boundaries.  Better to be a part of the conversation than to do nothing.

But our roots are (here at least) to allow people to be as weird as they desire to be, and that must be respected as well no matter how much it angers us.

Freedom is always a double-edged sword.

When it's abusive to another's constition, a form of discrimination that can create systemic marginalization and harm then it needs to be thwarted.

We are socially engineering our nations day by day, and I think we can debate and reason day by day as well, and rules will be established. Some more lasting so hopefully we came focus on other issues.

Infringements on people's civil rights should take more of a front stage and not be branded as an invention of the left. The politics of people's business is really a big distraction from real political discourse. The going-ons of our governments.

[Quick Karl]

When it's abusive to another's constition, a form of discrimination that can create systemic marginalization and harm then it needs to be thwarted.

We are socially engineering our nations day by day, and I think we can debate and reason day by day as well, and rules will be established. Some more lasting so hopefully we came focus on other issues.

Infringements on people's civil rights should take more of a front stage and not be branded as an invention of the left. The politics of people's business is really a big distraction from real political discourse. The going-ons of our governments.

Who gets to decide who is more offended?

[DanTSX]

When it's abusive to another's constition, a form of discrimination that can create systemic marginalization and harm then it needs to be thwarted.

But this occurs all the time, for all sorts of reasons.  Homosexuality is just one of many.  Is it more worthy than other targets of discrimination? 

[DanTSX]

Who gets to decide who is more offended?

That too.

Thats why I assert that offensiveness has to be tolerated as a byproduct of the system.

You cannot force acceptance.  But you can teach the tools to accept.

We need to change how this duck guy's grandkids would answer that question.  Not criminalize  or penalize him for his legitimate belief and free expression.

[Sambo]

Who gets to decide who is more offended?

Phil can be as offended as he allows himself to be, but why should anyone have to hear it? Perhaps in his church and in his home he can go on all he wants. I'm sure he's said worse in those environments. That alone is saddening because it is wasted energy focused on other people's business. You can't "logically" equivocate two consenting adults choice with pedophiles or sheep shit chicken fuckers.

Find me something that you can actually equivocate to a gay couple and should exercise the right to protest and denounce?

[Sambo]

You cannot force acceptance. 

Forcing acceptance means to change thought. Thought police. Sure this is wrong. Albeit when you voice said thoughts it becomes action. In this case the inverse inaction does nothing to impose thought. All it imposes is a limit of expression for the greater good and in the context of civil liberty.

Should this not be sanctified so as to respect all humans? There is no slippery slope here. We won't eventuallty accept diddlers and we won't eventually accept farm fuckers. They don't have a civil rights footing

[Quick Karl]

Forcing acceptance means to change thought. Thought police. Sure this is wrong. Albeit when you voice said thoughts it becomes action. In this case the inverse inaction does nothing to impose thought. All it imposes is a limit of expression for the greater good and in the context of civil liberty.

Should this not be sanctified so as to respect all humans? There is no slippery slope here. We won't eventuallty accept diddlers and we won't eventually accept farm fuckers. They don't have a civil rights footing

You are offending farm fuckers - violating your own protocol. Who are you to declare their civil rights invalid?

[Sambo]

I'm not sure why bestiality is illigal. I suppose someone can argue the right to fuck animals, so long as the act doesn't take place in public.

Where did I hear that it's highly stimulating to cut a live chicken's head off and to stick your dick in to it's chest cavity while it's still twitching and warm.....

[Marc.Knight]

You are offending farm fuckers - violating your own protocol. Who are you to declare their civil rights invalid?

In this case it is more a matter of animal rights.

[Marc.Knight]

I'm not sure why bestiality is illigal. I suppose someone can argue the right to fuck animals, so long as the act doesn't take place in public.

Where did I hear that it's highly stimulating to cut a live chicken's head off and to stick your dick in to it's chest cavity while it's still twitching and warm.....

Now you did it.  Starting new fads in the middle of the night.

[Yorkshire pud]

Fair enough... I asked only because so often I see people want freedom of speech so long as the line is drawn where they are comfortable (and this is on both sides.)  I may try to get back later to pose a question about freedom of speech, advertisers, special interest groups and capitalism... but it is a long argument and I have somewhere to be shortly.

I asked a few pages back why there was moral outrage over Janet Jackson showing her tit at the superbowl; and the networks (and presumably all and everyone) were deluged with the offended (real or imagined) complaining at the fall of civilisation. She was only expressing herself. So  assume those who think Phil the beard is only doing the same had no problem with JJ showing her tit?

I think though that everyone accepts the euphemism of 'wardrobe malfunction' has to rank up there as one of the most toe curling ever; it wreaks of 'Oh no, does not compute, a female breast on TV, they (the audience) can't handle it, save them from themselves'... Top tip TV execs; Grow up, underneath all that clothing guess what, we're nude.

[WOTR]

I asked a few pages back why there was moral outrage over Janet Jackson showing her tit at the superbowl; and the networks (and presumably all and everyone) were deluged with the offended (real or imagined) complaining at the fall of civilisation. She was only expressing herself. So  assume those who think Phil the beard is only doing the same had no problem with JJ showing her tit?

I think though that everyone accepts the euphemism of 'wardrobe malfunction' has to rank up there as one of the most toe curling ever; it wreaks of 'Oh no, does not compute, a female breast on TV, they (the audience) can't handle it, save them from themselves'... Top tip TV execs; Grow up, underneath all that clothing guess what, we're nude.

On this one I have to disagree (somewhat.)  I only disagree because public nudity is still illegal and there is not a warning prior to the superbowl so you have people of all types / ages and sensibilities watching it.  Put the warning (or possibly the promise?) of nudity at the half time show and I have no problem.  The same goes for my theoretical gay instructional infomercial.  Let people know what is coming and then they can chose if they care to watch it.  I do not know that I want to be surprised if I am sitting down and watching a football game with my grandparents (or my young nieces) and suddenly be faced with topless women or pantless men...

When it's abusive to another's constition, a form of discrimination that can create systemic marginalization and harm then it needs to be thwarted.

We are socially engineering our nations day by day, and I think we can debate and reason day by day as well, and rules will be established. Some more lasting so hopefully we came focus on other issues.

Infringements on people's civil rights should take more of a front stage and not be branded as an invention of the left. The politics of people's business is really a big distraction from real political discourse. The going-ons of our governments.

Oddly enough I agree with much of this.  Civil rights are extremely important and are not an "invention of the left."  However, I still have lots of left over beliefs from my somewhat anarchist / punk days.  I do not consider it important that Karl be kind and i do not consider it important to stop somebody like Fred Phelps from speaking his mind.  I do not care to demand that others think in a manner that reflects my own. 

The only real line that I draw is when somebodies actual rights are infringed on.  If you apply for a job and are refused because you are black / female or gay it is one thing.  If you are refused rent or freedom it is a violation... If you are insulted or your feeling hurt because somebody is speaking their mind and relaying their thoughts it really is tough luck.  (Yes, I realize that often if somebody dislikes a group and speaks against them they are likely to refuse the job / accommodations; but I do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to curtail their right to speak and think what they want in order to attempt to influence their behavior.)

[Yorkshire pud]

On this one I have to disagree (somewhat.)  I only disagree because public nudity is still illegal and there is not a warning prior to the superbowl so you have people of all types / ages and sensibilities watching it.  Put the warning (or possibly the promise?) of nudity at the half time show and I have no problem.  The same goes for my theoretical gay instructional infomercial.  Let people know what is coming and then they can chose if they care to watch it.  I do not know that I want to be surprised if I am sitting down and watching a football game with my grandparents (or my young nieces) and suddenly be faced with topless women or pantless men...

You see, I accept what you're saying and I fully understand your reasons for why you'd take umbridge. I think though that such laws have come about (and it's similar but not as restrictive in the UK) because of the (mainly) western conventions and immaturity when it comes to anything to do with human beings' bodies and sex in general. It stems from puritanical stifling of such. Is it any wonder that some kids grow up screwed up into very screwed up adults when possibly their first introduction and ongoing experience of adult nudity is trawling the net aged 6 and finding hard core porn because their parents have neither any thought or control over what their kids are looking at?

It's probably the same over there, but over here, kids are exposed to such stuff far too early, and without their parents' knowledge or consent. Most sensible parents don't have the hang ups about answering (if they can honestly) their children's questions about their bodies. I've been married more than once, and my second wife (a GP) was fielding such questions from her daughter from aged three. She explained in a way that was easy for her to understand, and she went away satisfied with the answer until next time she needed to know something...and that was all through her life.
My lad's mother had two kids from a previous and unlike a lot of boys of his age (unless they have sisters as he did), he too had his questions answered regarding reproduction and human bodies. The point is, because it wasn't made a big deal to either of them, it wasn't a big deal insofar as embarrassment was concerned. So yes, there are nudity laws, but they stem from oppression and perpetuating a feeling of being ashamed of nudity.
It isn't of course universally western, several European countries are quite laid back about nudity, conversely several middle and far eastern ones are puritanical, some not.

[WOTR]

You see, I accept what you're saying and I fully understand your reasons for why you'd take umbridge. I think though that such laws have come about (and it's similar but not as restrictive in the UK) because of the (mainly) western conventions and immaturity when it comes to anything to do with human beings' bodies and sex in general...

No doubt about it... and lets face it- a short glimpse of a nipple is not the end of the world.  I have very little doubt that the main reason for the law are western conventions and it probably ties in with religion and puritans in some ways as well.  Perhpas one day it will not be viewed as a big deal- but right now it is still the law (most places.)

Oddly enough, in Vancouver, British Columbia and Ontario, (and, I believe New York state) women are free to walk around topless if they choose.  I am thankful that most do not (I always figure it is the 70 year old toothless 350lb whales who are most likely to want to do this.)  In those provinces, cities and states it should not cause an uproar...

I still maintain that I do not care to be watching topless women with my mother and it is even less appealing to watch outright nude men or women with my sister, nieces or grandparents...  Perhaps I am still oppressed- but I like the oppression...  I used to work as a doorman and on ladies night there were some guys who would do a "helicopter" nude... I never had a problem with it... I knew what was happening, the women came to the bar to watch the helicopter impression as well as the really crappy dancing and that was the point of the evening for them.   I just do not want to be sitting there relaxing with my nieces, flipping through the channels and catching a close-up of a guys schlong whipping around.  I may be oppressed and it may not make sense... I just do not care to see it and am happy that broadcast standards (presently) do not allow for such things unless I specifically ask for it and pay to watch it...