Pat Robertson on natural disasters

Oh, so my statement is false, now, is it? And you would know that how? Since you don't apparently know the definitions of the words I used?There's one discussion that I refuse to have, nwr - what words mean. It's an insufferably boring topic of discussion. I won't be drawn into it by you, and your attempt to portray yourself as the "winner" here is laughable. The idea that you can "challenge" a statement that contains its own evidence, that is self-evident, isn't credible.Like I said, we're done with this.

if you had a group of Evos and Creos standing on a street corner arguing about the origin of life, they may be a group but there sure as hell wouldn’t be a consensus.

quote:

---

You were wrong crashfrog. You made a false statement.

​

Oh, so my statement is false, now, is it? And you would know that how? Since you don't apparently know the definitions of the words I used?

---

On the contrary, I do know what the words mean, and I have checked the definitions. That's how I know your statement is false.

quote:

---

There's one discussion that I refuse to have, nwr - what words mean.

---

Too late, crashfrog. That's another false statement. You have been discussing what words mean for several rounds. Here are some of the statements that you have made:

• Well, every group has a consensus, by definition. (Message 139)
• "Group" - more than one person. (Message 141)
• The evidence is in the statement, in the meaning of "group", like I said. If you don't understand how having a group of people means that they have a property called "consensus" that you can refer to, then you don't understand the meanings of those words. (Message 145)
• The evidence is the definition of "group", as I said in the statement. If you're not aware of how these words are defined then the appropriate course of action for you is to consult a dictionary, not level spurious charges of evasiveness. (Message 147)

quote:

---

There's one discussion that I refuse to have, nwr - what words mean. It's an insufferably boring topic of discussion. I won't be drawn into it by you, and your attempt to portray yourself as the "winner" here is laughable. The idea that you can "challenge" a statement that contains its own evidence, that is self-evident, isn't credible.

---

Yes, crashfrog, it is insufferably boring. But you started this in Message 139, where you were debating with Jazzns.No, I am not trying to portray myself as a winner. I am trying to persuade you to do the honorable thing, and admit that you made a mistake. If you are really really honorable, you will also apologize to Jazzns for using that false statement in your debate with him.

quote:

---

Like I said, we're done with this.

---

We will be done as soon as you admit your mistake. Until then, we are not done.

No, name calling will not change the fact that I am right. And before you start saying "sophistry" was namecalling, you would be wrong on that too. It was a proper term for what you are engaged in.You are engaged... pretty much admitted openly by yourself... in a game of rhetoric, where you defend your position using compelling language and with some logical statements, but no consistent application of logic. Most importantly you avoid dealing with any analysis of your own position. I already said there was something that Jazzns shares with Robertson. I have agreed that there is some set doctrines which define Xians. What I have been explaining and showed quite explicitly is that beyond those doctrines commentary from one Xian will have no meaning regarding other Xians. It was right there in the Wiki entry.Jazzns does share some basic doctrines, but the rest of the doctrines they hold as separate denominations of Xians, means they are in fact quite opposed to each other.Here is an analogy. Everyone in the US military is US military personnel. However each department may actually be opposed to each other. Members of one may feel the other group is useless and lesser. And when a leader of one dept talks, his comments mean NOTHING with regard to the others in the military. That certainly sounds mature. Unless you would be threatened with overt violence, why would you lie? I have already said that that is fine. Certainly a black person, or a Jew, or a communist, might want take into consideration what a local group of rednecks who could be KKK or Nazis might feel is connotated by their group and act accordingly.But what that does not do, is shift the onus to the victim of their ignorance. The people who have made the error are the ones who stereotype because they do not understand something properly. The intellectual onus is on them to correct their own position.Yes, it may take a reaction from the people they have stereotyped. That is what Jazzns did. Indeed I am not Xian, and that is what I did as well.But instead of admitting that your definitions are wrong, you steadfastly demand that Jazzns is wrong and must change his own language to fit your worldview? Yep. But in a practical sense that is almost meaningless. When he goes on to define country and I go on to define country, other than the name of "America" and it being in the same nation as that where the same group of men founded the US, there is no real connection at all.Thus when he speaks for "Americans" he does not speak for me. He speaks for those within the subset of American ideals he has. While what I say he declares as unAmerican as I find his statements.I think I am done here. I have already presented clear evidence to you and you have essentially ignored it. That you can believe all Xians can be conceived of as being part of a basic group that agree meaningfully with each other when you have a guy suggesting large sections contain the antiChrist (that would mean are not Xian), that is less than honest.Give up rhetoric, use logic. Yes they have some defining agreements, but the differences make them logical and practical opponents.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes, if you are able to chat, meet me in the EvC chatroom ASAP..thanks...Phat.

Unfortunately the Chat function doesn't appear to work for me. I am actually going to eat lunch soon, and will be busy most of the rest of the afternoon. If it isn't urgent, just ask me what you want here. If it's urgent (or private) email me. I will check my email after lunch.I guess I have to figure out how to get the Chat thing functioning with my system.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A consensus is not when everybody agrees; it's a description of the plurality view of the members of a group in regards to a subject.So, yes, by definition, you would have a consensus. That consensus would be determined by whether you had more evos or creos standing there.

Satisfaction is not going to be possible for either of us, nwr.You're unwilling to recognize the fundamental truth of my statement; and you won't be satisifed until I've debased myself before you.Neither of these outcomes is going to occur. Like I said, we're done, and we're way off-topic. Next time I suggest you make it way less personal.

Because formal logic doesn't apply, Holmes. This isn't a syllogism we're making here; it's an attempt to convince others of our position, to present it in compelling ways.Symbolic logic is not an appropriate tool for informal discussion. The appropriate tool is called "rhetoric", defined not as "sophistry", but as "the act of argumentation through language."If you want to deal in formal logic, I'm sure you can probably find a math forum for that. This is not that forum.And your attempt to equivocate on the term "rhetoric" isn't funny. Another one of your abortive "jokes", I suppose. Contradiction. You can't share, and yet be totally opposed. You can be mostly opposed, but Jazzns claims total opposition, which is incoherent. To avoid being threatened with overt violence.Sorry, I didn't realize that I needed your permission to decide what information I choose to reveal about myself. Yeah? Because the military sure as hell doesn't see it that way. Do you know that soldiers are not allowed to excercise in political speech while on duty or in uniform? They believe that the comments of a soldier in uniform do mean very much in regard to others in the military. It's not yet clear to me that my "definitions" are wrong. In this very thread, Jazzn has been acting exactly like the other Christians he opposes - spurious charges of bigotry against his religion, insular thinking, refusal to grapple with evidence. He's much more like PAt Robertson than he's prepared to admit. Would that that were so. Equivocation on the term "rhetoric"? And I'm the one who's less than honest?

I'm not looking for satisfaction. I am looking for honesty. It seems unlikely that I will see that honesty. Your statement was false, and clearly false. The record stands, crashfrog. It is there for anyone to read. You can change that by posting a retraction. Nobody else can change it.As the record now stands, nobody can take your posts seriously. You know a lot, and you have a lot to contribute. But you refuse to admit that you have made a mistake. That's a serious flaw in your character.When you post something in the future, nobody will be able to tell whether you are stating it from your knowledge, or whether you are making it up and stubbornly refusing to admit that you were mistaken.All you have done is discredit yourself.For the record, this is in reference to messages 139-153, 158, 160 in this thread.This message has been edited by nwr, 10-23-2005 09:57 AM

This statement is absolutely false. I have, in every instance that I've been mistaken, recognized that, publically and promptly. So now I'm wondering if this is simply projection on your part, because now that you've been informed of your error, I doubt you're going to admit your mistake.The flaw is yours.

I have already said symbolic logic is not for discussion, but rather analysis before one discusses. I guess you are back to not reading my posts.Unfortunately rhetoric is sophistry when all you are doing is simply arguing for your side through language, and not arguing in order to reach a logical conclusion on a topic. One is weaving a pleasant tapestry of words which may have no logical compulsion, but sound pretty good. The latter involves critical examination of one's own position as well as that of one's opponent, to ensure logical consistency throughout. I didn't equivocate. Rhetoric does not require well examined positions, that is evidence and consistent logic throughout, to be effective. It certainly does emphasize style over substance in order to convince an opponent, rather than empasizing substance so that one can actually reach a solid conclusion that might be the opposite of what one initially thought was true.Faith and Canadian Steve and Rrhain are perfect examples of rhetoric. I wish I had their silver keyboards. Unfortunately they all ultimately failed at logic and evidence. Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between "quite" opposed, and "mostly" opposed. It seems to me both suggest not total opposition.Jazzns may claim total practical opposition to Robertson. Here is an analogy. They could both believe in Jesus, yet maintain Jesus was a man who lived long ago, and another that he is a God standing next to me right now with a clown outfit. That they both believe in Jesus makes them share one theoretical belief, that a guy named Jesus is important, but in all practical ways they are opposed. The first guy's Jesus cannot be the second guy's Jesus.Again I have already posted clear evidence to you that Xian denominations may have vastly different beliefs, despite some similar terms. Who said you needed my permission? I simply suggested I thought that lying outside of avoiding threats of violence would be a bit immature. It was an analogy and for some reason you decided to extend it beyond its scope. When did I say anything about military and political speech? I was discussing how commentary from a subunit of a larger unit, may have nothing to do with, and can be opposed to another subunit. You have not countered my example.You let me know when a Naval commander's orders reflect orders to all other members. Or better yet, that a Naval commander's derision of overemphasis on spending for the Army, is a reflection of "military" opinion on how money should be spent. Check the mirror. You defs are wrong. This has already been explained to you and I gave you a neutral source to prove that. That you continue to suggest that your definition of Xians could be correct in light of the evidence presented is astounding.To defend your position you have called people names and displayed insular thinking to a degree that if used properly would be great for an icebox. I mean refusal to grapple with evidence? What evidence? I presented evidence. Where was your grappling? Equivocation? That charge made no sense. Did you mean semantics? I was separating terms, not confusing two together.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But you refuse to admit that you have made a mistake. That's a serious flaw in your character.

​

This statement is absolutely false. I have, in every instance that I've been mistaken, recognized that, publically and promptly. So now I'm wondering if this is simply projection on your part, because now that you've been informed of your error, I doubt you're going to admit your mistake.

​

The flaw is yours.

---

Sorry, crashfrog, but you are still mistaken.To repeat, here is the statement you made in Message 139: When you say "by definition", you are saying that the definition of "group" is such that you can, with the use of logic, demonstrate that it implies a consensus. Your use of "by definition" is a very explicit claim.If you want to show that I am wrong, it should be easy. Simply produced a widely accepted definition of "group", and present the logical deduction to show that the definition implies consensus.I asked you to do that back in Message 140. If you are right and I am wrong, then why all of the bluster and evasion? Why not just provide the evidence that shows I am wrong.I will retract what I said about your character flaw. I may have misjudged you. It is possible that you have a different character flaw, one that is more serious. I think you truly believe you were right all along. And if that is so, then you have revealed that you are incapable of recognizing when you have made a mistake, even when that mistake is glaringly obvious, and even when that mistake has been clearly pointed out to you.Prove me wrong, crashfrog. I would welcome that. But to prove me wrong will require clear evidence and a clear logically constructed argument. You won't be able to do it with bluster and rhetoric alone.

I've already reached the logical conclusion. That's what I've been defending the whole time, the logical conclusion. And no, it's not sophistry. It's called "discussion." You know, what we do here.If you're looking for something else, then perhaps you'd be better off at another forum. "Quite", to me, suggests "total". "To the extreme." "To the maximum possible." This is your weak area, Holmes. Understanding how the language you choose to use will be understood by your audience.If you meant "less than total", then we agree. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe you can explain to me the difference between a "theoretical" and "practical" belief.And moreover, consider that your two examples have more in common in regards to their belief in Jesus than they do with a third person with no belief in Jesus. Vastly different compared to what? The myriad internal warring factions within their narrow little faith? Granted.Compared to the range of religious and cultural belief exhibited by all individuals, not just Christians? "Vastly different" is not how I would describe that. Compared to all people, not just Christians, the whole of Christianity still encompasses a fairly narrow range of doctrine. Nonsense. Polite, considerate persons lie all the time. "No, that doesn't make you look fat." "Oh, great, another tie!"Rather it's improper, hurtful honesty that is universally recognized as a sign of immaturity. But we're quite off-topic. I'm not all that interested in defending myself against yet another personal attack from you. Via a false example. Look, it's not my fault. You tried to illustrate something you believe to be true with an example that is objectively not true. That means you have to come up with another example or your point is unsupported.Discussion. The supporting of points, and the rebuttal of those points by challenges to the evidence presented in their favor. You gave an analogy as evidence, good try, but your analogy turned out to be false. Discussion. It's what we do here, remember? Hey, that one was actually funny. I'm sorry if I misread you, but the dripping derision in your tone implied that, once again, you were equivocating on the term "rhetoric", implying "sophistry" when I've been using it to mean "argument via language."

Already done so. Message 157 is the latest repetition of it. Again, absolutely false, for reasons already described. I could hardly be incapable of recognizing error when I've repeatedly done so in the past.Now, are you going to retract your mistake? Magnifying the original charge, as you've just done here, does not constitute a retraction, so once again, it's pretty obvious that you're accusing me of something that you're guilty of, yourself.