Debunking the web, one uneducated corner at a time.

Month: December, 2013

The true argument in support of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson

The uproar lately in the media has been on the suspension of TV show Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, for equating homosexuality to bestiality and promiscuity, and calling it a sin. Many of the people rushing to support Mr. Robertson and cry infringement of free speech aren’t arguing for free speech at all. Given that the vocal majority of these people are also those who call for boycotts for people saying things they don’t agree with, or demand television programs adhere to their religion or politics, they aren’t purveyors of free speech at all.

The rallies of “next they’ll come for your free speech” isn’t a battle cry to speak up to protect the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It really is a deep-seeded fear that they will be called bigot as well.

See, most of the people in support of Phil Robertson’s words agree with his beliefs: that homosexuality is a sin, and leads to bestiality and promiscuity, even though this is not the case. They are even the kinds of people who will pick and choose the parts of the Bible they subscribe to, while ignoring similar parts that would also make their lifestyle, personality or ideology a sin.

What they’re arguing is that if Mr. Robertson’s beliefs get him labeled a bigot, what’s to stop people from calling others who agree with his words bigots? If they take the focus off the intolerance of homosexuals and say it’s an attack on free speech, or religion, then they can continue their bigoted beliefs without being held accountable for them.

And that’s what most of this is about.

Not free speech.

Intolerance and hatred.


Pascal’s Feint

This is something I’m labeling to better describe the all-too-common dishonest theist trick in online discussions.

Similar to where a person argues that believing in a god has only benefits and no downsides, whereas not believing has all the downsides and no benefits, Pascal’s Feint is when a theist argues that someday, everyone will have to go before his or her deity of choice and accept the consequences, and then they will know whether the theist was correct. This is usually the end of a discussion, where the theist runs, thinking he or she is victorious because, due to his or her beliefs, after death he or she will win.

Pascal’s Feint should be included as a logical fallacy of this specific version, and not be considered a forum trope like Godwin’s Law.

%d bloggers like this: