Skip to comments.'Duck Dynasty's' black supporters
Posted on 01/15/2014 3:47:52 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
ditor's note: Yolanda Young is the author of the memoir, "On Our Way To Beautiful", and the publisher and C.E.O. of Lawyers Of Color. Follow her on twitter @yolandayoungesq
(CNN) -- As "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson returns from his brief "hiatus," he'll do so to the cheers of some surprising supporters southern blacks. Robertson was suspended from the A&E hit show for calling homosexuality a sin and equating it to bestiality in a GQ profile. Receiving less attention were his comments that black people were happier before the civil rights movement.
Media have focused on two camps in the controversy. On one side are Robertson's predictable supporters, who include white evangelicals, southern Republican politicians and Fox News. On the opposing team are LBGT activists and progressives
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Note: Yolanda Young DOES NOT like Duck Dynasty. She is lamenting that not ALL blacks think like her.
Well, except for this part:
Robertson was suspended from the A&E hit show for calling homosexuality a sin and equating it to bestiality in a GQ profile. Receiving less attention were his comments that black people were happier before the civil rights movement.
Actually he did not equate homosexuality with bestiality. He was asked to identify what sin was. Both qualify.
One thing these morons don’t understand is that under segregation, blacks didn’t spend twenty-four hours a day lamenting the fact that they were second-class citizens. They got on with their lives, and if they didn’t have all the privileges of the white classes who oppressed them, they at least had jobs, and families, and communities and faith and moral standards and all of the good feelings that those things provided them; things which, incidentally, are in very short supply amongst them in these enlightened days.
“Actually he did not equate homosexuality with bestiality. He was asked to identify what sin was. Both qualify.”
That’s actually what equate means.
No, that is not what equate means.
Securities fraud is a crime.
Murder is a crime.
I didn’t not just equate securities fraud and murder. However they are both clearly crimes.
She’s drank the leftist Kool-Aid and is a racist, just like her Massahs at CNN.
Depends on what the definition of “is” “is”... (sarc)
“Securities fraud is a crime.
Murder is a crime.
I didnt not just equate securities fraud and murder. However they are both clearly crimes.”
Yes you did as you have compared them and classified them both under crimes. Should you choose ‘violent crimes’ as the descriptor, then it would not have been a statement equating the two.
Poor thing is so desperate to hang on to victim status that she completely ignored what he said and went on to be offended anyway. Phil didn’t say their lives were all peachy keen, remember he was out there picking right along side of them. What he said was before the “civil rights” movement the black family was STRONG, with high morals, and they were able to face hardship because of love. Civil rights ear brought welfare that destroyed the black family (you could only get welfare if there was no man in your house so men left). It’s the destruction that he’s talking about, but most people are too young to remember. Strong fathers, uncles, grandfathers were role models for kids. I guess it depend on what you think happy means. To me, loving family means happy, happy, happy;.
Thats actually what equate means.
Nope, both are sins, but one is not the same as the other. Murder is a sin, but murder and fudge packing are not the same.
Pedophilia is a sin but using it in the same sentence as homosexuality does not equate the two equally ugly acts.
Nice rebuttal and rationale Dr
In other words, it wasn't the civil rights movement. It was the welfare movement that destroyed black families.
No he didn't. To equate is to reqard two or more things as equivilent. Merely pointing out that each of two things may share a single characteristic is not to assert they are equivilent. If I point out that my shoe is white and that a star is white I am not saying that shoe is equivilent that star.
Rednecks come in black too.
No, he didn’t. A person is a mammal, a hamster is a mammal. That does not make them equal. It makes them both examples of what is a mammal. Robertson gave examples of what he considers a sin.
Fuzz seems like a weird lurker to me.
I play basketball
Michael Jordan (of the Chicago Bulls) plays basketball
Am I “equal” to Michael Jordan? I think not. (for one thing I’m better looking. lol )
To equate two things means to declare them as equal. They are the same in *all* senses.
But just putting two things into the same class does not equate them. It just says they are the same in *one* sense.
So for instance the statement:
"Sarah Palin and Obama are both politicians."
does not mean that Sarah Palin and Obama are physically equal, morally equal - or in fact equal in any way except that they are indeed both politicians.
You must learn to distinguish between "two things being equal in all ways" and "two things being equal in one way".
Until you do so you will struggle to follow even the simplest political or historical discussions.