*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1588
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2013, 06:28:14 AM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2013, 06:33:05 AM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I'm not sure anyone actually does.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2013, 06:33:47 AM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

They got their vowels mixed up in the first word and thought it was just a different name for Game of Thrones.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2013, 08:52:35 AM »
Old Southern white Christian guy doesn't like teh gay. Film at 11.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2013, 12:11:58 PM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3138
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2013, 12:19:36 PM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.
What? The comments were made in GQ magazine...

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2013, 12:27:32 PM »
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.
What? The comments were made in GQ magazine...

then it's GQ's fault.

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2013, 12:59:33 PM »
Meh.
A silly thing for him to say, honestly.  When you're in the spotlight of the public eye, you no longer have freedom of speech.  I'm shocked that this wasn't explained to him when the show was first created.  Or maybe it was and he just slipped.

In any case, what he said was foolish and may have just killed his career on television.

Every man has the freedom to speak his mind.  They are not, however, immune to the consequences of what they say.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2013, 01:23:34 PM »
Quote
you no longer have freedom of speech

yes you do. You just don't have the freedom to have an international platform to speak from.

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2013, 01:29:36 PM »
Quote
you no longer have freedom of speech

yes you do. You just don't have the freedom to have an international platform to speak from.
But freedom of speech means that you can say what you want (within reason) without consequence.  Telling a bank teller that you're robbing them isn't covered but saying you like bank robbers is.

When you get onto the national stage, your opinions have real and very sharp consequences.  If Justin Beiber went on stage and said "I hate Christians", his career would likely be over instantly.  Not because he did something illegal, but because his freedom to express his opinions is now weighed against the nation's opinion.  It's not much different than being in a strict Muslim country and talking about women's rights.  Or protesting gun violence at an NRA meeting.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2013, 02:41:08 PM »
Their Freedom of Speech is the same as ever, just now there are larger consequences for being "offensive".  Your analogy about speaking on women's rights in a strict Muslim country is not very apt though.  Dissent is most definitely allowed in the USA.  Yes it may ruin your career, but it will not visit punishment by the government.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3138
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2013, 06:07:46 PM »
But freedom of speech means that you can say what you want (within reason) without consequence.

No, it doesn't. There are always consequences.
LD, your definition of Freedom of Speech is really weird and just.. wrong. It was never about saying what you want without consequences, ever. You are legally allowed to voice your opinions but there will always be consequences to that. You can't just call your boss an asshole and not expect to get fired.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 06:18:22 PM by rooster »

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2013, 06:11:52 PM »
Freedom of consequence

*

Offline Sean

  • *
  • Posts: 2235
  • Shitty liberal.
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2013, 06:20:59 PM »
And that freedom will never be the same.
Quote from: sandokhan
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2013, 07:04:22 PM »
Then how do you define freedom of speech?  If the government put people in jail for voicing anti-american opinions, that's just a consequence right?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2013, 07:11:41 PM »
Well there are laws against hate speech. Usually the consequences to Free Speech are judged fairly nebulously along the lines of "does the speech impinge unnecessarily on another's rights and is the consequence appropriate to the free speech."
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2013, 07:12:16 PM »
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion. 

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2013, 08:54:30 PM »
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2013, 09:25:38 PM »
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2013, 09:33:19 PM »
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.