DO YOU REMEMBER...BLASTS FROM THE PAST.

"DUCK DYNASTY" CONTROVERSY, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. PT 1.

( FIRST PUBLISHED ON 12/22/2013.)

This past week the A&E network announced that it was suspending Phil Robertson, star of their reality T.V show "DUCK DYNASTY", indefinitely. This action was in response to statements made by Robertson in a GQ MAGAZINE interview to be published in January. Quotes taken from the interview, which indicate the he believes Homosexuality to be "Sinful" and not "Logical", were reported in different media outlets to have offended Same-Sex rights activists and groups.

What is written in the above paragraph is considered to factually accurate, and neither Robertson or GQ has claimed any inaccuracy in the words or quotes reported to be in the body of the interview, or that certain statements were taken out of context. So where is the controversy?

It is amazing that no matter how apparent the flawed reasoning of certain individuals can be, there are those who will seek to justify it. The following is a prime example;

ACCUSATION- BY SUSPENDING ROBERTSON, A&E HAS VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Question- Did Robertson make these statements?

Answer- Yes, that is not in dispute.

Question-- Are Robertsons comments protected by the 1st amendment,

in that he cannot be prosecuted or punished criminally?

Answer- Yes, his words are protected.

Question- Because A&E suspended Robertson, his Constitutional Right to

Freedom of Speech has been violated.

Answer- Absolutely not.

To even have to address this issue is silly, for it has been covered and ruled upon (Judicially), many times.

However, certain political pundits and commentators are trying to score points with the public at large by claiming that the "DUCK DYNASTY" star has been punished contrary to Constitutional Law.

The simple answer to this claim is the following; TO HAVE YOUR RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR EXPRESSION VIOLATED, IT MUST DONE BY AN ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. PRIVATE CITIZENS OR GROUPS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN THIS PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Legally, there are restrictions in how an individual may exercise their right to freedom of speech. Slanderous or Libelous statements can lead to legal sanctions, but that is because the truth of these claims are called into question. Time, Place and Location is also a factor when judging whether or not one has the right to speak or act freely, but that is because such acts may infringe upon the rights of other individuals.

Look for PT 2.

LOGIC. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE- BOOGEYMAN OF THE IRRATIONAL, AND THE SELF-SERVING. PT 2.

Before We Take a look at History, lets examine a Current ISSUE THAT OFTEN HAS A VERSION OF THE THE SLIPPERY- SLOPE ARGUMENT USED BY ONE SIDE TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION.

Does This Look Familiar;

BILL OF RIGHTS.

Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

GUN CONTROL VS RIGHT TO OWN, OR POSSESS FIREARMS.

Yes, this is a Topic I have Covered in other Posts, but here were going to look at it from Different Angles.

HERE ARE 3 VERSIONS OF ARGUMENTS USED AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS THAT ARE PUT FORTH TO ESTABLISH NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS.

THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO OWN AND KEEP GUNS, AND IF THIS RIGHT IS VIOLATED THEN NONE ARE SAFE.

THAT IF WE OUTLAW GUNS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, IT WILL LEAVE THE CIVILIAN POPULACE DEFENSELESS, AND GIVE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT A BIG ADVANTAGE.

ANY REGULATIONS ARE JUST THE FIRST STEP IN GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY ALL FIREARMS.

To Analyze the VALIDITY AND TRUTH OF the Above ASSERTIONS, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

-  DO THEY CONSTITUTE DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT?

-  Are They Making ASSUMPTION(S) OR DRAWING CONCLUSION(S) BASED IN REALITY, OR ARE THEY JUST CASES OF "SCARE TACTICS,'' APPEALING TO EMOTIONS AND PRECONCEIVED IDEAS TO DRAW IN PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SUPPORT?

LOOK FOR PART 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. HOW CAN WE FIGHT TERRORISM? PT 4.

ANOTHER CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST RECRUITS.

THE POWERLESS PAWN.

Perhaps you are an Individual, who through Indoctrination and Constant Reinforcement, believes that a "HOLY WAR" to Destroy the Enemies of God is an Absolute Necessity.  ( This can be used by any Faith, Religion, or Belief System, for it is a Generic Judgment that allows you to plug in the Deity of your choice.) Perhaps by Living in a Isolated Community, where there is no chance to Interact with others who might look at the World Differently, your frustration at not being able to "Make a Difference" becomes a constant thought in your mind.

Along with this, you also happen to Occupy One of the Lowest Rungs on the Social Ladder in the Culture you Inhabit. YOUR GENDER, ANCESTRY, FINANCIAL STATUS, OR EVEN DISABILITY PREVENTS YOU FROM HAVING ANY SAY, INFLUENCE, OR IMPACT ON YOUR LIFE, THE LIVES OF THOSE AROUND YOU, AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

However, One Day a Person of Power and Prestige approaches you with an Interesting Offer. Contrary to what you think, or have been told by others, you have the Capability to do Great and Wonderful Things. In Fact, GOD NEEDS YOUR HELP TO CARRY OUT HIS HOLY WORD ON EARTH.

You are Naturally Flattered with this Attention by someone of such Importance, and the IDEA THAT GOD NEEDS YOUR HELP IS A DREAM COME TRUE. YOU ARE NO LONGER A NOBODY TO BE IGNORED AND PUSHED TO THE SIDE, BUT A PERSON TO BE ADMIRED AND LOOKED UPON WITH GREAT RESPECT.

Of Course there is a catch...

LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 4.

ARGUMENT #1.                                                 ARGUMENT #2.

PREMISE 1.                                                      PREMISE 1.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                ALL CHRISTIANS ARE 

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                             ANTI-SCIENCE.    

PREMISE 2.                                                      PREMISE 2.      

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                     IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE, 

IN GOD.                                                            YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                        SCIENTIFIC METHOD.             

                                                  

CONCLUSION.                                                CONCLUSION. 

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                  THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A

HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT                CHRISTIAN, YOU DO NOT

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                           FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                      METHOD.

                                     (REPRINTED FROM PART 2.)

IN #1, THOSE CONSIDERED ANTI-RELIGION OR ANTI- GOD ARE SUBJECT TO FALLACIOUS REASONING BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO DEFINE "RELIGION" AND "GOD" SO NARROWLY, THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR STRICT AND SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF SCRIPTURE ARE ATHEISTS. YET, WE FIND THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN SCIENTIFIC FIELDS ARE CONFIRMED THEISTS, BUT DO NOT MIX THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH WITH ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.

In Argument #2, we find a Conclusion that, Essentially, Attacks a Section of Humanity that Adheres to More Traditional Religious Beliefs than those in the First Argument. However, like in the first example, we find those who try to use a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY CONCLUSIONS THAT DO NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY, AND ARE ULTIMATELY REVEALED TO BE UNTRUTHFUL.

An Analysis of the Second Argument begins with the Premise:

"ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-SCIENCE."

THIS IS AN ASSERTION THAT MUST BE DEFENDED, AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT PROPER DEFINITIONS OF "CHRISTIAN" AND "SCIENCE" BEING PUT FORTH TO JUSTIFY THE WORDING IN THE FIRST PREMISE.

IF WE TAKE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE:

"TO BE A CHRISTIAN, ONE MUST ACCEPT THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AS BEING THE SON OF GOD."

AS A PROPER DEFINITION FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING:

WHY DOES SUCH A DEFINITION AUTOMATICALLY PLACE THOSE WHO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE, INTO AN ADDITIONAL CATEGORY OF BEING "ANTI-SCIENCE?"

THE ANSWER USUALLY REVOLVES AROUND THE FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING...

LOOK FOR PT 5.