Duck Dynasty Scandalz

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify my previous post: redneck is not a socio-economic class, it's more of a worldview.

It would be easy to say that a redneck is a working class southerner with a low level of education, socially and fiscally conservative politics, and an appreciation for the outdoors (hunting, fishing, muddin'😉, but there are people I'd call rednecks any day of the week who (as noted in the previous post) are much more wealthy than my family, who vote democrat, who come from Northern or Western states (Eastern Washington is apparently filled with rednecks)--in fact the one unifying trait of being a redneck is a passion for outdoorsing and an identification with a more homey, simple, small-town or even bucolic way of life.

With that in mind, the cast of Duck Dynasty certainly qualifies.

Dude...did you just analyze rednecks as a socio-political entity?

Seems legit. 👆

Rosa Parks seems a bit more attractive, though.

Other than that, it is clearly a PEEEERRFECT comparison. No flaws. At all.

Freedom of Speech...

Can get you out of job as well

#HasJustineLandedYet

EDIT:now it shows the image

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude...did you just analyze rednecks as a socio-political entity?

While rednecks are overwhelmingly conservative, I don't believe that political leaning is an essential attribute of being a redneck.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think I analyzed rednecks as a cultural entity.

While rednecks are overwhelmingly conservative, I don't believe that political leaning is an essential attribute of being a redneck.

My bad. I thought your statement about the Democrat voting stuff was a political commentary.

As a person living in redneck land, I view the social norms and political views of "rednecks" to be so varied as to render a particular voting habit fairly useless.

Oklahoma is the most conservative state in the union by voting propensity. But it is not that starkly contrasted to more liberal states. It is just a lean more this way or that way.

To make a better example, Oklahoma sometimes has a majority democratic congress. Not recently, though. Man, the GOP has been cleaning house (pun!) lately.

Who cares. No big deal. I want moooooooooo oo ooo ooooore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really don't see a difference between a network airing some ZZ Top looking fool spouting on how gays make baby Jesus cry so they won't inherit the "Kingdom of Heaven" and any given pastor on TV proselytizing and saying like comments.

Good point.

they should have picked there interviews more carefully

Cracker Barrel, after outcry, resumes selling 'Duck Dynasty' products

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-cracker-barrel-duck-dynasty-20131223,0,480592.story#axzz2oKgq4x3u

Money, money, money!

Really don't see the reason for the outcry, dude just reiterated well known religious views (gays = bad), albeit in a less intelligent manner.

Is it not okay for him to say it cos he's not a religious figure like Pat Robertson?

I don't think it's okay for a religious figure to say it.

It should be ok to say anything in response to a question. I think it should also be ok to speak your mind freely as long as your not promoting physical harm or for people to break laws, at least in a one sided forum. I don't know much at all about "the Ducks". I have no real opinion on them one way or another but from the context of which I saw this interview, it was simply one man speaking his mind in an interview. Even if the comment came during his show as conversation with another person that is also apart of the show it shouldn't be ridiculed because that is what he is being paid for. I don't necessarily agree with the guys views but it's not as though he formed a public speaking platform to spew his views.

Looking at the context of the entire interview, his launch into "gays = sin" seemed to portray sin, something evil, with a lifestyle similar to other sexual deviations from the 'hetero norm' instead of choosing something more objectively evil like humans rights violations in other countries, sex trafficking, politicians abusing public power, or domestic abuse.

When your top of the list sin assignment has to do with how people handle their own private sex lives, you just might have your priorities mixed up. Whether or not he was merely expressing his opinion, it is a troubling one. Kind of like Sutton, who backtracked after her racist tweet about Africa, I don't buy the idea that such statements aren't reflective of the individual's true feelings, unless said under circumstances such as powerful drugs or you know, torture.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Looking at the context of the entire interview, his launch into "gays = sin" seemed to portray sin, something evil, with a lifestyle similar to other sexual deviations from the 'hetero norm' instead of choosing something more objectively evil like humans rights violations in other countries, sex trafficking, politicians abusing public power, or domestic abuse.

When your top of the list sin assignment has to do with how people handle their own private sex lives, you just might have your priorities mixed up. Whether or not he was merely expressing his opinion, it is a troubling one. Kind of like Sutton, who backtracked after her racist tweet about Africa, I don't buy the idea that such statements aren't reflective of the individual's true feelings, unless said under circumstances such as powerful drugs or you know, torture.

There are a lot of people who believe just like Phil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are a lot of people who believe just like Phil.

Which is very troubling. Peace on earth, but only for those who fit your ideal.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which is very troubling. Peace on earth, but only for those who fit your ideal.

I agree.

So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

That is way I find this controversy so fascinating. If people would stop and think, maybe our society could learn something from this.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

Is it really the people that have these beliefs that are the problem or the ones that actually rally behind the soapbox? Maybe "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". Im just saying if you are confident in your own skin then you shouldn't have a problem with people thinking that. What if Chuck Norris hated gays and wanted to own slaves? I mean yes that would make him ignorant but wouldn't it be on each individual person for not being able to make up their own mind instead of just following? The people that are overly sensitive are probably more worried about what people think of them then they should be.

So in short, I disagree with his statements but I believe in his right to say it...especially if being specifically asked about it. Those who are offended shouldn't put so much stock in what an ignorant person says.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think it's okay for a religious figure to say it.

Well, you're different. Most people don't have a problem with others stating their religious views, so long as no one's rights are violated and/or harmed because of it.

Though I'm still of the opinion that when people use religion to debase homosexuality/homosexuals, it's often just a cowardly coverup cos they're just too scared to come out and just say "I hates ****", so they use god as a shield.