Pat Robertson on natural disasters

quote:

---

Why not just provide the evidence that shows I am wrong.

​

Already done so. Message 157 is the latest repetition of it.

---

Wrong, crashfrog.Your Message 157 was a response to ohnhai. It was not a response to me. But ohnhai was challenging a different point, namely whether the meaning of "group" implies consensus. Incidently, ohnhai's post thoroughly refuted you on that. However, meanings are notoriousl slippery, and you used that slipperiness in Message 157 to attempt to explain away ohnhai's refutation. I will leave it for others to judge who wins between you and ohnhai.My criticism was different. It was not about meaning, it was about definition. While meanings are slippery, definitions are usually precise enough that you cannot simply explain away the problems in an argument made on the basis of definition.Your turn, crashfrog.

This is simply the latest, most dishonest nonsense in a series of nonsense posts from you.We're done on this subject. If your argument relies on drawing a distinction between "meaning" and "definition", then you've already lost.

quote:

---

There are no "mainstream national news broadcasts" - unless you consider PBS and NPR to be mainstream.

​

All of the other outlets are entertainment media which present entertainment programs that they mislabel as news. Robertson appears, not because he is important, not because he is representative, but because he introduces drama suitable for these entertainment programs.

---

Oh, for goodness sake.This is not how most Americans view CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.They are certainly news outlets for the purposes of this discussion, because the majority of people in the US get their news from one of them.Now, let me also say that I do agree with your assesment overall, but I think that this is irrelevant.The perception of the general public is NOT that CNN is "infotainment" only.

quote:

---

I expect that most of Jazzns's friends already know how he feels about Robertson. Why is that not sufficient speaking out?

---

What about his Church's pastor? What about the national association his church may be a member of?For all I know, his denomination might contribute to Pat's causes.

quote:

---

Sure, there are some people who are quite obviously not christian -- Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps for example -- but who masquerade as christians. I don't hold that against those of my friends who are christians.

---

...and neither do I.But comparing Fred Phelps, who is a joke, with Pat Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson, who each have the ear of the President, are each powerful, wealthy businessmen, one with a popular, well-known international television platform, have each been asked to represent the Christian viewpoint on national mainstream television news programs, is silly.It's not that they are any less crazy than Phelps. They are all just wealthier and smarter and much, much more influential and powerful.

quote:

---

I consider myself a mathematician. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing mathematicians who happen to be flakes. Unless they are creating a specific problem for me, it is usually wiser to live and let live.

---

What if those "flake" mathematicians were also pretty powerful, and started gaining influence over our government, and started to take it upon themselves to speak for you, saying that the "flaky" way they do mathematics was the way ALL mathematicians do math.And just because I want to make sure you saw that I answered this...

quote:

---

How can they be active in vocally opposing Robertson, while at the same time they practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-23-2005 01:57 PM

You are behaving just like a creationist, crashfrog.You have been unable to provide the evidence to backup your claim. So you are simply declaring victory and walking away.Shame on you.

quote:

---

You and crash are a riot. You have both stated to creos that evo is not necessarily against Xianity, and there are Xians who are evos.

---

And that is true.

quote:

---

But now all of a sudden you guys pretend Robertson can speak for all Xians

---

Isn't that exatly what Robertson claims to do?My point isn't if Robertson actually DOES speak for all Christians.He clearly doesn't.But what I do not understand is why the supposed majority of Christians who do not agree with him are not more vocal (or seemingly vocal at all) on a national or international level.Why do they let Pat take the liberties with their voice that he does?

quote:

---

and so the Bible must be inerrant and literal as he says?

---

Don't put words in my mouth again.I am not claiming this, Crash is.Oh, and way back in page 4 or so of this thread, I replied to a little bit of one of your posts...

quote:

---

I will ask you the same thing that I asked Crash, if someone said that since you are an american you must be for Bush and everything Bush has done would that be correct or incorrect?

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-23-2005 01:56 PM

And what then, is your point? Are you asserting that Jazzns should get his own TV network, and spend billions on advertising to attract a viewership, just so that he can counter what is said by Pat Robertson on those outlets.To me, that seems unreasonable.Or are you asserting that Jazzns should stop calling himself Christian, so as to distance himself from Robertson? By extension, you would presumably require all Christians who disagree with Robertson (and I expect that is the overwhelming majority) to stop calling themselves Christian.You are wanting to make Jazzns into a puppet, with Robertson pulling the strings. Whenever puppetmaster Robertson calls himself by one name, then puppet Jazzns is expected to dance to that tune by renouncing the name and adopting a different name for his beliefs. You will have to take that up with Jazzns. It isn't up to me to know these things. I would vote against those politicians at the next election, and I would try to persuade my friends and colleagues to do the same.It is not my responsibility to publically denounce a flake mathematician. I would not need to persuade my fellow mathematicians that he was a flake, for that would already be obvious to them. It is my responsibility, as a citizen and as a voter, to work against incompetent politicians who have demonstrated poor judgement.

Hello nwr I don't see it that way at all. Jazzns took offence at being lumped in with Pat Robertson because Robertson is a Christian and he (Jazzns) is a Christian. To some degree that is a valid conclusion. However, that is the way people think, have always thought, and in general, will think for a long time. When he rails about that he might as well be pissing in a fan, because he is going to get it all over himself. As I read the point this is responding to, you did not really answer. Here is my clarification: Assume those flake mathematicians had the ear of the government and were getting policy made as they desire. (The president effects a lot of policy without approval of congress) Assume that you voted against the president, but he continues to work with these flakes. Assume the media presents the flake's views to the exclusion of your views. Assume masses of people believe the flake despite the obvious evidence that refutes the flakes.Would these assumptions / clarifications modify your position any?

Several searches of mine turned up nothing more than a city in China.
Who are the Xians?

an abbreviation of Christians using the X as a symbol for Christ.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

It is not my responsibility to publicly denounce a flake mathematician. I would not need to persuade my fellow mathematicians that he was a flake, for that would already be obvious to them. It is my responsibility, as a citizen and as a voter, to work against incompetent politicians who have demonstrated poor judgment.

​

As I read the point this is responding to, you did not really answer. Here is my clarification: Assume those flake mathematicians had the ear of the government and were getting policy made as they desire. (The president effects a lot of policy without approval of congress) Assume that you voted against the president, but he continues to work with these flakes. Assume the media presents the flake's views to the exclusion of your views. Assume masses of people believe the flake despite the obvious evidence that refutes the flakes.

​

Would these assumptions / clarifications modify your position any?

---

There isn't much I can do about the media. I can tell you for a fact, that many members of the public find fake mathematicians more credible than real mathematicians. I can't do much about that either, except on a one to one basis with a few friends and acquaintances.It is not up to the public to be able to assess what is fake mathematics and what is real mathematics. I can't expect that of a president, either. But I can expect a president to appoint good knowledgable advisors, and to seek their advice. So the main responsibility here would be on the President.Sure, if the AMS (American Mathematical Society) and/or the MAA (Math. Assoc. of America) were to call for donations for a campaign of public education, I would probably give. But it would be no surprise if such a campaign had little effect on the public.

quote:

---

And what then, is your point? Are you asserting that Jazzns should get his own TV network, and spend billions on advertising to attract a viewership, just so that he can counter what is said by Pat Robertson on those outlets.

---

No.But he could be vocal by writing to advertizers, writing to Robertson, joining protest groups, contacting his regional and national church officials to join or help organize getting the real word out by raising money for a TV commercial (kind of like the commercial for inclusiveness and against the rejection of people from some churches that CBS refused to air not too long ago), etc.

quote:

---

It is not my responsibility to publically denounce a flake mathematician.

---

Not you personally, but you would certainly not "live and let live", would you?

quote:

---

I would not need to persuade my fellow mathematicians that he was a flake, for that would already be obvious to them.

---

But what if there was a sizeable, very vocal minority of mathematicians that was pretty powerful and was much better than you and your "real" mathematicians at promoting their "flaky math" to the general populace?

quote:

---

It is my responsibility, as a citizen and as a voter, to work against incompetent politicians who have demonstrated poor judgement.

---

But what about the threat to what the public believes about mathematics? What if they have never heard of your version and have only seen the flaky math on TV?

quote:

---

It is not up to the public to be able to assess what is fake mathematics and what is real mathematics.

---

What if it were true that the majority of people in the country were mathematicians, or at least believe in the math god?

If it were true that the majority were mathematicians, then most of them would already recognize who are the fake mathematicians. There wouldn't be much of a problem, even if the press portrayed it differently.Incidently, there are different schools of mathematics, most notably platonism, intuitionism and constructivism. These schools have serious disagreements about how mathematics should be done. But they generally respect one another, and they usually agree on what is a fake mathematician.

quote:

---

If it were true that the majority were mathematicians, then most of them would already recognize who are the fake mathematicians. There wouldn't be much of a problem, even if the press portrayed it differently.

---

Well, wouldn't there be a problem if people who believed the flake mathematicians were in control of all branches of government, and there were several very powerful, prominent flake mathematicians who have convinced a radical, vocal minority of flake "oldtime" mathematicians (or people who believe in the way math "used to be done" and don't agree with the "new math" ways of you and everyone you know)?

quote:

---

Incidently, there are different schools of mathematics, most notably platonism, intuitionism and constructivism. These schools have serious disagreements about how mathematics should be done. But they generally respect one another, and they usually agree on what is a fake mathematician.

---

And do any of those opposing schools ever allow a flake mathematician to write textbooks, give the keynote lectures at major national conferences, or help set mathematics standards in national school curricula?If this started to happen, wouldn't all of the platonists, intuitionists and constructivists protest as a group, and loudly?Look, I think I am pretty tired of repeating the same argument only to have you ignore it and restate your original claim over and over again.

This would be a political problem, not a mathematical problem. There isn't a lot that individual mathematicians can do about it, except in the way they vote. That's a strange question. There isn't any censorship. Fake mathematicians can write whatever books they want to write. There arguments won't be with mathematicians, they will be with the publishers who must decide whether to accept the manuscripts.The major math conferences are usually refereed affairs, so flake mathematicians would not be invited by respectable conferences. A conference that did invite flakes as keynote speakers would not be considered respectable.As for school curricula, that's a political matter. Sure, I would be concerned. I'm involved in EvC because of my concern of the science curriculum. No they wouldn't, because they are not an organized group. They are a group by virtue of common interests, not on account of any organization. I don't think I have been ignoring your argument. I have been disagreeing with it.