Duck Dynasty Robertson's rape/murder fantasy

[Derideo_Te]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

 

[peach174]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

 

[peach174]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

Yes it was meant to.
He is talking about right and wrong and those that think there is no judgment.
A parable is a short, succinct story that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It is a type of analogy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

 

[Moonglow]

This is just surreal. And those are supposed to be Christians to whom Ducky Duck talked?

Just weird.

After a couple of pints of Duck Dynasty brand wine...

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

Yes it was meant to.
He is talking about right and wrong and those that think there is no judgment.
A parable is a short, succinct story that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It is a type of analogy.

You "believe" that there is a "judgment". You have no evidence that a "judgement" exists.

The "lesson" that we have here is that PR has a sick and twisted mind to come up with a "parable"as vile as the one that he did. It was a window into his "soul" for want of a better word and it was ugly.

There was nothing "moral" about that story IMO.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Luds needs an endless supply of thorazine, applied intravenously 24/7.

Sounds like you speak from experience.

 

[peach174]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Yes I am. Words have meaning.
You are the on who tried to say he talked in the 1st person, when he was talking in the 2nd person.
You are the one that is trying to make it into a bad thing which it isn't.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Luds needs an endless supply of thorazine, applied intravenously 24/7.

Sounds like you speak from experience.

She does, poor thing.

Now, back to the OP:

Mr. Ducky Duck decides to tell a fantasy that is so gross, it would not be presentable on prime-time TV, but somehow, it's ok to tell other Christians...

 

[koshergrl]

Luds needs an endless supply of thorazine, applied intravenously 24/7.

Sounds like you speak from experience.

She does, poor thing.

Now, back to the OP:

Mr. Ducky Duck decides to tell a fantasy that is so gross, it would not be presentable on prime-time TV, but somehow, it's ok to tell other Christians...

Claptrap, is that you?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Phil Robertson Of 'Duck Dynasty' Reveals Bizarre Atheist Rape And Murder Fantasy
Speaking at a Christian event ...

Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters," Robertson said in audio from the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast, obtained by Right Wing Watch. "Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him."

Robertson continued:

"And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'

Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.'

If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'"



How many of you "christians" will defend this vile, sick man's words?

You have defended his hatred for gays and his stated desire to force young girls into "marriage" with older men but can you really defend THIS???

And before you start with the usual lies, listen to the audio at the link above, or if you would rather hear it at a RW site, go to this link:

Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed Right Wing Watch

Either way, you cannot lie that he did not say this.

And if duckboi said he was a Christian and accepted Jesus as his savior he could also claim no harm done.

Oh, wait.

Convenient, isn't it.

They don't rape, torture and murder because they're scared of the afterlife BUT, if they do, they're forgiven and still get to go to heaven.

You are still wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Yes I am. Words have meaning.
You are the on who tried to say he talked in the 1st person, when he was talking in the 2nd person.
You are the one that is trying to make it into a bad thing which it isn't.

Raping children and beheading women is a "good thing" in your opinion?

/shakes head sadly

 

[peach174]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

Yes it was meant to.
He is talking about right and wrong and those that think there is no judgment.
A parable is a short, succinct story that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It is a type of analogy.

You "believe" that there is a "judgment". You have no evidence that a "judgment" exists.

The "lesson" that we have here is that PR has a sick and twisted mind to come up with a "parable"as vile as the one that he did. It was a window into his "soul" for want of a better word and it was ugly.

There was nothing "moral" about that story IMO.

I don't have to have evidence. Judgment Day will happen whether you believe it or not.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Luds needs an endless supply of thorazine, applied intravenously 24/7.

Sounds like you speak from experience.

She does, poor thing.

Now, back to the OP:

Mr. Ducky Duck decides to tell a fantasy that is so gross, it would not be presentable on prime-time TV, but somehow, it's ok to tell other Christians...

Key word fantasy, the retard that posted it is trying to convince everyone that Phil actually wants to do that what he says.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

Yes it was meant to.
He is talking about right and wrong and those that think there is no judgment.
A parable is a short, succinct story that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It is a type of analogy.

You "believe" that there is a "judgment". You have no evidence that a "judgment" exists.

The "lesson" that we have here is that PR has a sick and twisted mind to come up with a "parable"as vile as the one that he did. It was a window into his "soul" for want of a better word and it was ugly.

There was nothing "moral" about that story IMO.

I don't have to have evidence. Judgment Day will happen whether you believe it or not.

Yep