Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 32 of 302 (252818)
10-18-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jazzns
10-18-2005 10:17 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hi Jazzns:
As someone who has been reading along, but up to now unwilling to participate in this particular thread, let me see if an outside neutral agent (myself) can help explain what I think Crashfrog is trying to say. Note that I am in no way claiming that my interpretation is correct, but rather this is just how I read it.
I do believe that Crashfrog does understand what you are saying, but I'm not so sure that you understand his point. When you make statement s like this
Jazzns writes:
There are good Christians out there who don't like the bad rep and terrible things that other people do in the name of God. As much as such a thing is hated though it is those folks right to believe how they believe and to call themselves Christian.
I have to sit back and say to myself: “Why do you think this way?” Sure, I guess it’s their right to “call” themselves a Christian. Is simply claiming to be a Christian good enough to become one? If not, and ones actions are considered as well, shouldn’t you guys point out . LOUDLY...the very Unchristian-like things Pat Robertson has done? I mean come on Jazzns, what must someone do to be considered NOT a Christian?
That is the kind of thing that I think helps to help make Crash’s point. What I believe he's trying to say is that while he doesn't necessarily believe that you personally agree with Pat Robertson, by not publicly condemning what he says, you passively endorse his views. By not saying "I know a Christian, Mr Robertson...and you are no Chirstian" (sorry, but I couldn't resist ), then you do accept him into the Christian club and his views become yours as well. It really is that simple.
Look, when Pat does something that one might view as a positive thing (and nothing comes to mind right now . ), the Christian Community applauds his actions. For the same reason they (the Christian Community) need to publicly condemn him when he makes outlandish statements as well. And yet they don't. Why his he still on TV? Why do people still send him money? Why are his views supported by many that call themselves Christians? Any guesses Jazzns? I think we both know the answer, and it goes a long way towards supporting Crash’s point.
Do you understand what we're trying to get across here. If Pat Robertson does not hold Christian views, then it is up to you and all other Christians to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is no Christian. And make no mistake . he definitely claims to be a Christian. Personally, if I were lumped into a category that included this nut case, I would vociferously cry foul . and I would demand that my leaders, the leaders of my Church also condemn and speak out against him. But we do not see this happening do we? Where was the Christian outrage when he endorsed murder? Where was the Christian outrage when he blamed 9-11 on homosexuality ? Where was the Christian outrage when he claimed that God brought the Tsunami upon Indonesia, and the Hurricanes upon the Gulf States?
If you want to claim membership in a group calling themselves “Christians” then you need to understand that Pat Robertson claims membership in that group as well, and since he has a rather large platform from which to speak, he probably voices his Christian view point to far more people than do you yours. So either he is a Christain and speaks for the group, or he is not a Christian, and his words should not be accepted as such. Which is it Jazzns? If it's the former then why are you complaining? If it's the latter, then why is he allowed by the Christian Community to continue? That's what Crashfrog is trying to get across (I think...if not, sorry Crash).
So, no, I don’t think you’re an evil person, nor do I think Crash holds that view. What we’re trying to tell you is that unfortunately, because your “club” lets people like Pat Robertson claim membership, you are indeed lumped together with him and his ilk. You can allow him to stay, or do all that you can to exclude him, but it’s up to you (Christians) to take up the cause. And so far the Christian voice in opposition has been nothing but quite...so what are we left to assume...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jazzns, posted 10-18-2005 10:17 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 10-18-2005 5:20 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 10-18-2005 5:32 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 37 of 302 (253027)
10-19-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jazzns
10-18-2005 5:32 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Jazzns:
Jazzns writes:
First off, although I still disagree with you I would like to thank you for keeping it civil.
Thanks...you too. I love this kind of stuff (debate)
Jazzns writes:
FliesOnly writes:
I mean come on Jazzns, what must someone do to be considered NOT a Christian?
Not believe in Christ as a deity. That’s it....that is also .....the point.
I will not dispute the first half of this. However, I disagree with the last part . I think it's not the point. The point, as I understand it is as follows: When someone claiming to be a Christian says it’s ok to murder the freely elected leader of another country, or that the thousands of people killed as a result of the 9-11 attacks deserved it because some people in this Country are gay, or that Katrina was retribution on New Orleans because some of the people in that city are considered evil (judgment...how very unchristian like), don't be surprised when non-Christians consider Christians to be evil people. That's the point.
Jazzns writes:
There is little difference between that and saying that I passively endorse Osama Bin Laden because I consider myself Arab and yet do not "publicly" condemn him.
Not true . there’s a huge difference . see below.
Jazzns writes:
Osama does not speak for all Arabs, Pat does not speak for all Christians.
But Osama does not claim to speak for Arabs...he claims to speak for Muslims and Al Qaeda. And I am of the opinion that members of those particular "groups" that do not speak out against him DO INDEED endorse his views...rightly or wrongly...that's the point!
Jazzns writes:
The fatal flaw is that there is no such thing as a Christian club.
Ok, "club" was a poor choice of words. What would you call them...a community? Seriously...I have no idea.
Jazzns writes:
Moreover, even if there was, default acceptance based on inaction is still invalid IMO.
I disagree. Look, if someone joins the KKK because they like the hoods and enjoy getting together to have a few drinks and eat cookies...fine. But when a cross is burned or racist remarks are made by the leaders of that group...to sit back a claim that "hey...I'm not like that" is a bit ridiculous. Now, I know that you're probably going to claim that Pat Robertson is NOT your leader...but if you think that, then you are missing the point. He certainly his a leader in the Christian Community...and when he speaks, many people assume (correctly or incorrectly . it does not matter) he speaks for that community...like it or not.
Jazzns writes:
Because he has the right to be on TV and speak his mind. I care more about his right to do that then I do about any of this.
So do I. And neither Crashfrog nor myself are saying he should be denied that right (maybe he shouldn't remain tax exempt...). What we're (or at least I'm) saying is that he is speaking for the Christian Community and if the Christian Community doesn't agree with him then they should say so. Hey, some Christians probably agree with every word he says...but I also hope that a goodly number do not. Of course, no one knows because no Christian leaders that I know of have spoken out against his words.
Jazzns writes:
FliesOnly writes:
Why do people still send him money?
Because in general people are stupid especially Christians.
FliesOnly writes:
Why are his views supported by many that call themselves Christians? Any guesses Jazzns?
See previous.
Ah...but see, I'm a bit more cynical than this. I think that at the grass roots, down home, country bumpkin level, you are correct. However, on a much broader scale...a National scale...I believe that the deafening silence we "hear" has more to do with the political sway and power Pat Robertson has than it does to do with stupidity. They (other Christian Leaders) are afraid to alienate Pat Robertson because of his close ties to this Administration.
Jazzns writes:
He is a Christian. Maybe I didn't make that clear before. I am not disputing Pat's "status" as a Christian. I am only disputing that characteristics prescribed by folks like Pat are ubiquitous among Christians. This is an issue of generalizations and stereotyping, not validity.
I'm not saying it's valid...I'm saying that, like it or not, that is how it is perceived...so don't complain when people lump you together with him. That is the point I have been trying to make.
I thought that that was what this was all about. Crashfrog basically lumped all Christians into one group and you said that that wasn't fair. We've been trying to tell you that maybe it isn't fair...but tough shit dude (and I mean that in a fun...high on dope sorta way )...that's how it is.
Jazzns writes:
What about those of us Christians who do not belong to a church and have no "leaders"?
Speak out in other ways. Send letters to the TV stations that broadcast his show. Send letters to the Gov pointing out the political aspect of his tax free organization. Let people know that he doesn't speak for the Christian community and doesn't seem to portray himself as a very good Christian. I don't know...you tell me.
Jazzns writes:
More generalizations but despite that it has been my experience that what the leaders of most churches would do would if it was important would be to address the situation to their congregation. That IS their "public".
I agree. And this "Christian public" should do some of the things I listed above. But it sounds to me as if you’re saying that to be a proper Christian, you should just sit there and keep your mouth shut.
Ok, to be a Christian all one has to do is accept the Deity of Christ. Fine, I can agree with that...it takes very little effort to call yourself a Christian. But what about actions, do they not count for anything? To be a Christian by name is one thing...apparently a very easy thing...but to live as a Christian? Hey, I don't know, but it seems to me that asking for our Government to murder someone we don't like is not very Christian (just to mention ONE of the things Pat Robertson has done). But as long as he accepts Jesus as his savior he is a Christian? Far be it from me to judge, but...well...fine...he's a Christian.
Jazzns writes:
Also, it is the attitude of many Christians that they are not to be the judges of the hearts of men.
I'm not asking you to judge his heart...I'm asking you to speak out against his actions.
Jazzns writes:
Despite the unfortunate failure to do so on many occasions, outrage is something that many Christians, that I know at least, try to avoid as part of doctrine.
Ok...again maybe my choice of wording was poor. But are all Christian really suppose to just sit idly by, while another one says on national TV that it's ok to murder someone?
Jazzns writes:
False dichotomy. He can both be a Christian, say what he does, and also not be accepted by many who are also Christians.
See, this is where I think you are not quite understanding what I'm trying to say. Those of us who don't claim to be Christians often adopt a poor view of Christians because of people like Pat Robertson saying and doing the things they say and do. That's a fact of life and if you (a Christian) don't like the association, then you should do something about it, OR not get upset when the association is made.
Jazzns writes:
Once again, fatally you create a Christian "community" that does not exist. That IS my point.
Bull, Jazzns. To say that there is no Christian Community is a bit naive. YOU may think that none exists, but a great many other people (including myself) do. This is what I (we?) have been trying to get across.
Jazzns writes:
Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wants to as an American.
Never claimed otherwise. And I suppose he also has to right to say whatever he wants in the name of a Christian, so don't be upset when I assume all Christians feel that way (I don't, but only because I know Pat Robertson...many others do not).
Jazzns writes:
Assume what you like.
I will. And don’t you get upset about those assumptions. That's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 10-18-2005 5:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 11:21 AM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 48 of 302 (253434)
10-20-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 11:21 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Jazzns writes:
Sure that is your point. Mine is that such a stance is stereotyping by definition.
I disagree. It becomes a stereotype only after I learn that there are others in the group that do not fit my notions or ideas of what I thought constituted a member of that group. If no Christian(s) speaks up . .
What if I said that I think Pat Robertson speaks for a majority of the Christians in this Country. Would that still be a stereotype? Would that be acceptable to you? What if I said he only speaks for Eastern U.S. Christians, or most Southern White Christians, or what ever?
Jazzns writes:
Stereotyping + condemnation then equal bigotry.
And here is your error...as I see it. A bigot is someone that holds strong to their stereotypes or opinions, despite evidence to the contrary. But how am I to change my opinion if no one tells me my mistake . if no one shows me evidence to the contrary? Get it? You call me a bigot but yet you don't tell me why (Actually you personally have been telling me why...but in this sense by "you", I'm speaking of this non-existent Christian Community).
If there really is no “Community” then I guess these subcultures (the “American, right wing, fundamentalists Christians” which you say “are a subset of the American Christian population and furthermore the world Christian population”) need to speak up for themselves, as these subcultures, or continue to be associated with Pat Robertson.
Jazzns writes:
But that does not make the perception any less wrong or any less bigoted.
Maybe so...BUT IT"S STILL THE PRECEPTION! That's all I'm saying. I am not saying that I agree with it. I'm not saying that those are my views. All I have been trying to say is that if Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian (and says and does the things that he says and does), then how am I to know that all the other people also claiming to be a Christian don't agree with him UNLESS THEY FRIGGEN TELL ME OTHERWISE?
Here’s the way I see it. If Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian and then says something outlandish such as . oh . I don’t know . maybe that he thinks that the U.S Government should murder a certain individual in another Country . or that Christians should all pray to God, asking that he strike dead a Supreme Court Justice (guess he needed to be a little more specific on that one) . and I say “Wow, them there Christians sure is an ornery bunch a nut jobs”; don’t call it a stereotype or call me a bigot until you show me otherwise. I mean hey, you’re the one that claims to also be a Christians so why shouldn’t I associate you with Pat Robertson. If you disagree with his position and remain silent, how am I to know?
Again, let me just make it clear that I kow you personally do not endorse or agree with Pat Robertson because you have told me so. My postion is that I do feel he speaks for quite a few Christains in this Country (perhaps even a majority) and it is to these groups I am referring. For all I know, you are the lone exception to the rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 11:21 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:28 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 5:33 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 81 of 302 (253625)
10-21-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Silent H
10-20-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
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?
How would they know otherwise, unless I told them that I was a member of another party that opposes Bush's policies? So if I remained quite...then "yes" they would be correct.
As a matter of fact, it has happened to me on more than one occasion . but I SPOKE UP and corrected their perception. It wasn’t very difficult at all and it didn’t bother me in the least to do so. I’m from America and in this Country we do elect our leaders so I understood why they may have felt the way they did. But I corrected their perception Holmes.
Holmes writes:
So a person with negative experiences of a racial group gets to say bad things about every member of that racial group as a whole, until one of them speaks up to that person to disprove that person's ignorance?
In a sense...yes. Of course, the "victim" should put some effort into seeing if his view always holds...so pleading ignorance cannot be justification in and of itself. But how do you think stereotypes get started in the first place Holmes?
Also, what if the experiences are all positive? Does that make a difference to you, or is it only when someone says something disparaging about others that it becomes a stereotyped?
Holmes writes:
Sorry but a stereotype is a stereotype. It is an overgeneralization regarding a group based on basically irrelevant criteria.
And who decides what is and is not relevant? You? I've always hated how people pull out the word "stereotype" whenever they feel they or others are being criticized. You don’t like what I say about Christians so rather than address the issue, you blow it off and say I’m stereotyping them. Who gets to identify the statement as being stereotypical? When does something stop becoming an accurate characterization and start becoming a stereotype? How is someone to know if they’re stereotyping or not? If the sum total of all my experiences with a certain group have led me to make a decision on their character, is that a stereotype or an accurate representation of the group?
Look, to start with, I never said that I felt that all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. I jumped into this mess solely to say that I felt that Jazzns wasn’t seeing Crash’s point. Now I’m considered a bigot and Christian hater. All I've been trying to say is that if other Christian leaders do not speak out against what Pat Robertson said, then don’t be surprised if people start assuming that all Christians agree with him. Sorry, but welcome to planet Earth. That’s what many people do . they lumped people together . they stereotype . they assume things . wake up and face reality.
I swear, if Christian leaders would put half the effort into speaking out against Pat Robertson as you do trying to convince me that I’m a bigot . this wouldn’t even be an issue.
You know what . fine . continue to assume that I stereotyped all Christians into one “nut ball” group based on what Pat Robertson has said. You and Jazzns are free to be of that opinion...I could not fucking care less because . THAT’S NOT THE POINT. The point is, is that people will be people, and if you don’t care that others link you to Pat Robertson . fine. But if you do, then YOU have to speak out. Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick . has this really been that difficult to understand?
Let me put it another way. This is the conclusion I have come to based on this thread:
“Most major subunits of a group calling themselves Christians, seem (with the exception of Jazzns) to be of the belief that it’s ok to murder the leader of another Country if they don’t like him. While, personally, I’d like to think that this is not true, I did see a well known Christian leader make this very comment on National TV, and have yet to see or hear any other Christian leader(s) denounce his words. Now, not denouncing his words in and of itself is not the reason I make the afore mentioned assumption . but the fact that they KNOW they are being associated with his words and the fact that many of them are indeed well known public figures and have the means to denounce him in a large public forum, but as of yet have done nothing, does lead me to believe that perhaps they do agree with what he said.”
How was that?
Holmes writes:
Robertson is not just a Xian, he is also a prominent US leader and a rich white person and a human being. Do all of those groups have to distinguish themselves as separate? If not, then why do all Xians have to?
Well . let’s think about this for a moment, shall we Holmes. What is the debate about? Is it about how rich white guys are being linked to Robertson . .no it isn’t. It this debate about how prominent US leaders are being linked to Robertson’s words . no it isn’t. So do you think these groups need to speak out to prevent themselves from being linked to Robertson’s word? Personally, I don’t...but hey, that’s just me . good ole bigoted FliesOnly.
Look all I am saying is if Pat Robertson, a well known Nationally recognized Christian Leader says it's ok to murder someone and other Christians make no attempt whatsoever to distance themselves from his remarks...knowing that by also claiming to be Christians, they may very well be associated with those words...then shut the fuck up when that association happens. That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm not the one that said it was ok to murder someone...the Christian leader Pat Robertson did. It's not my job to interview every other Christian on the planet to see if they agree or disagree with his statements.
Holmes writes:
He represents specifically one ministry within an evangelical community that is a Protestant denomination of Xianity. It seems that if one is to claim something other than stereotyping, comments related to that specific ministry would be the only appropriate ones.
You cannot be serious. He represents a whole helluva lot more than that Holmes. Why do you think he broadcasts his show out over the airwaves? Are only card carrying members of his evangelical Protestant community allowed to receive his signal? I think not. When he makes his statements, does preface them with a disclaimer stating that they are meant solely to represent the views and opinions of his evangelical Protestant followers? Of course he doesn’t . so don’t make such ridiculous statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 10:15 AM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 11:28 AM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 92 of 302 (253677)
10-21-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 5:33 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Jazzns writes:
What caused you to assume they were the same to begin with? That is the problem. Are all Democrats the same? Are all Republicans the same? They believe similar things right?
But when members of these groups feel they are being incorrectly characterized...THEY SPEAK UP!
Jazzns writes:
Yes I do get it but I still think you have it backwards.
So what...it's still the perception I have (actually, that is not true...remember, I'm only trying to show you why others may feel this way). That's the point.
Jazzns writes:
Only because you are grouping them as such by default based on ignorance. I am sorry but ignorance is not a very good defense for bigotry because you could just as easily be ignorant and not bigoted.
Sigh...so what! I agree, it's a piss poor defense...but people in the real World do it all the time.
If you really don't care that people lump all Christians together, then why are we in this debate? If you do care...all I have been trying to do is show you WHY others may have that opinion.
I somewhat get the impression that you may believe that I hold that opinion. Remember, I do not. I'm smart enough to know that there probably are many Christians out there that disagree with Pat Robertson. At the same time I am a bit surprised by the fact that none of them are speaking up. It's not like this is the first time that Pat Robertson has said something very unchristian-like, and Christians have remained completely silent.
Think for a second on what you are asking us to do. Pat Robertson has made repeated statements that I assume you (and many other Christians) disagree with. But when does that end? That is to say...what is the magic number that would justify the assumption that...well...that he must be speaking for certainly a majority, if not the entirety, of Christians?
Jazzns writes:
In this case we are talking about a lack of evidence to the contrary. The stereotype is being held with the only positive evidence being Pat Robertson and his statements.
Not quite true...but I understand and somewhat agree with your point. However, the lack of any response from other Christian leaders cannot be ignored...based on his many statements and not just the one about Chavez...you must take into consideration his history of making outlandish statements. That is the point as I see it.
Jazzns writes:
Why do you start from a position of a stereotype? Before you apply all the adjectives that Pat brings to that stereotype, what caused you to create that stereotype to begin with? That is what I am talking about.
I was a blank slate in regards to Christianity. Pat Robertson and his TV program opened my eyes to the Christian World. If you don't like the "stereotype", voice you opposition, but don't get pissed off at me.
Jazzns writes:
Why are you assigning me his position by default? Pat's beliefs are Pat's beliefs? Why because we both call ourselves Christian is it the default to make us the same? There are few better examples of stereotyping.
Hey, I just landed on this Planet and only receive the 700 club . I am not sure what you are talking about.
In truth, maybe it's because he is my only basis of comparison. No one else has stepped up to the plate and said "Wait...not all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. We do not endorse his views. We do not condone his actions. We are not members of his Christian group."
Let me see if repeating this one more time will finally get you to see my point.
You and Holmes can certainly hold the view that for me to lump all Christians together is a classic example of a stereotype. So what?
Wouldn't it be more prudent for you to ask: "Hey FliesOnly, why do you hold this view"? Instead though, you get upset when I lump you all together. My response (in case you curious) would be something like..."Well Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian. You claim to be a Christian. Many thousands of others in this Country claim to be Christians and I'll bet a great many of them in some way or another or at some point in time have agreed with and endorsed Pat Robertson. What evidence do I have to help me conclude that this particular example is any different. How am I to know if they agree or disagree with his position unless they tell me otherwise?"
You’re saying that it’s unfair and incorrect of me to assume that all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. Don't you think it would be just as ridiculous for me to assume that no other Christian agrees with him? Isn't that still a stereotype? Isn't that still incorrect? I think you and I both assume that certainly some Christians agree with Pat Robertson. So what am I left with. Do I arbitrarily say that I will now assume that every other Christian I meet agrees with Pat Robertson? Maybe I'll just assume that only white Christians agree with Pat Roberson. How am I suppose to know which Christians agree and which Christians disagree with Pat Robertson unless someone tells me? Now, you personally have told me that you do not agree with Pat Robertson, so great...good for you. One down and millions to go I guess.
You know something though (and maybe this will surprise you), when I get together with other people and the topic of religion comes up . I ask then their views on Pat Robertson.
See, I’m making the attempt to see how other Christians feel because they sure as hell aren’t putting any effort to find me and explain their position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 5:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:08 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:45 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 96 of 302 (253737)
10-21-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
10-21-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
They would not know... either way... that is the point. To label you as pro Bush because you are an American is to commit a logical fallacy. Those that do so cannot plead that there ignorance is rational. They are ignorant and they made an error.
You're missing my point. I don't fucking care if it's alogcal fallacy! George Bush is our leader and he does speak for our nation. So if George Bush speaks for my Country, and someone else assumes he is therefore speaking for me...I simply correct them...logical fallacy or not.
You seem to think in unrealistic terms Holmes. It's pretty cut and dry to me. There are three possible assumptions to make when Pat Robertson . a self proclaimed Christian . shoots off his mouth.
One: All Christians agree with Pat Robertson.
Two: All Christians disagree with Pat Robertson.
Three: Some Christians agree while others disagree with Pat Robertson.
Question: Which one has supportive evidence?
Answer: None of them because no Christian leaders have spoken up, one way or the other.
I think we can agree that the second option is just as ridiculous as the first, leaving option three as the most valid choice. Ok...how do I know which groups agree with him and which groups disagree?
I guess there’s a forth option, which would be to make no assumptions . to remain vacuous and form no opinion...but seeing as how we’re trying to debate real issues about real people in the real World . let’s not bring that one up for serious consideration.?
Holmes writes:
When a person is caught using a stereotype should it not be that person who admits his mistake and apologizes and learns to be more careful in the future, and not insist that others dispel his mistakes before they happen in the future?
This seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. I won't know of my error until someone points it out. Have you seen any well known Christians (those with a platform similar to Pat Roberts) get up and denounce him? I sure haven't, so how am I to know I am in error?
Holmes writes:
My question to you is why is the fact that stereotypes can occur and argument that they are not fallacious and acceptable?
And the friggen point I have been trying to make is who gives a fuck if they're fallacious? Stereotypes exist. If you don't want to be stereotyped it seems to me that you have a couple options. First, you can attempt educate the individual that is stereotyping you, or second, you could blow them off (in the figurative sense of course ) and not give a shit what they think of you.
Ok...so how could the Christians out there educate us poor ole dumbies? Gee, maybe they could speak up and show us why we are mistaken in our assumption(s). Yet they do not. Nor do they go for the second option. Instead they get pissed off when I lump them together.
FliesOnly writes:
I've always hated how people pull out the word "stereotype" whenever they feel they or others are being criticized.
Holmes writes:
You are now putting words in my mouth, many many many words in my mouth. That little rant had nothing to do with my post. You will note that my definition was quite neutral and could be positive or negative. They are both erroneous.
Sorry Holmes...I did not intend for you to take this as you did. It was a general comment about certain other unrelated issues in my home town where the term "stereotype" is being tossed about rather loosely. My mistake and sorry for the misunderstanding..
Holmes writes:
Neither did I call you a bigot, though now that you mention it you sure seem to be. But that's okay, I do not like Xianity, probably even the type that Jazzns practices.
Well apparently you do not read my posts. Otherwise you would know that I am not in disagreement with Jazzns. I am simply playing devils advocate to help him see why people might lump all Christians together (and to point out a rather simply remedy). But hey, thanks for assuming I'm a bigot...I guess it shows I'm making my point.
Not everyone on the planet is as brilliant as you Holmes. Many people do not have access to computers and probably wouldn't know how to work one if they did. Television, on the other hand is a huge medium for dispensing information. It's unfortunate...but for many people it may very be the ONLY way they get their news.
But you know what...who fucking cares right. If they think Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians, they're just stupid stereotypical bigots right? Never mind that if other Christians leaders would actually speak up and denounce Pat Robertson this wouldn't be an issue. No, it's much, much simpler to ...wait...it's much more simple to simply stereotype these people? That seems rather odd.
Holmes writes:
That was the same (ie as odious) as the comments I have heard from Canadian Steve regarding Islam. I do not expect Muslims to have to protest and announce they are not terrorists, and in fact change their name away from Islam, in order to understand many are against the militant Islamic factions and not terrorists.
Fine . you do not think that Muslims have to protest and announce they’re not terrorists. Guess what . neither do I (and if you read my posts you would know that). But yet many do! They see themselves being portrayed incorrectly and offensively and they don’t just sit there and cry about now do they. No . instead they speak up and denounce terrorism and militant extremists claiming to be Muslims. So I guess I'm not sure how you can make the comparison to what I said and what Canadian Steve says . what ever that might be because honestly...I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Canadian Steve's opinion of Islam.
Holmes writes:
No, but if you are going to be a reasonable person then it is your duty to practice logic and become informed based on evidence. You shouldn't have to ask each and every person to disconfirm your errant presumption about them.
Where is the evidence and how do I become informed. Maybe by reading/seeing/hearing other prominent Christians leaders denounce Pat Robertson. Now, assume for a moment Holmes that I have no access to the internet or a computer. Instead, TV serves as my primary (overwhelmingly so) source of news. I'm pretty much fucked...aren't I. Guess I'll just have to remain a dumb, ill-informed, uneducated bigot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 11:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:36 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 97 of 302 (253747)
10-21-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
10-21-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
If YOU do not understand who he represents, and can't spend a couple minutes to disabuse yourself of a mistaken notion, then that is your problem and not anyone else's.
Arrrg! Let me try this AGAIN. Fine Holmes...it's my fucking problem. Great. The point I have been trying to make is that there really are people like this in the real World Holmes. Maybe they don't exist in whatever fantasy land you live in...but in my World, people make assumptions like this all the time.
The question, then, is "what do we do about it?" Apparently your answer is to call them ignorant bigots. Mine, however, is to tell them why they are mistaken. And to do that, those that feel stereotyped should speak out. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
I'm not saying that people that lump all Christians together are correct, or justified for doing so. I simply saying that it happens all the time, and the "cure" is simple. SPEAK OUT!
If you are stereotyped and don't speak out, then shut the fuck up about it.
Jazzns has done so repeatedly and unless I'm mistaken here, he understands that I do not associate him with Pat Robertson (and I never did).
Holmes writes:
I still don't get why you and Crash are defending ignorance.
I am doing no such thing, Try reading all of my posts in regards to this topic.
Holmes writes:
Why would it be prudent to ask why you hold the view you do, when it is obvious. You are mistaken.
I fucking give up.
Holmes writes:
The prudent thing to do is to first correct your ignorance regarding the facts (Robertson is not just a Xian but leader of a specific subset antagonistic with other factions and so patently does not speak for all Xians),
Again...I fucking give up.
Holmes writes:
Isn't the prudent thing for you to do is not use an argument from incredulity and instead recognize that if you are about to take a position on a topic you should do a little bit of research first?
And again...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:44 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 184 of 302 (254406)
10-24-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jazzns
10-21-2005 4:45 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hi Again Jazzns:
Man, I go away for the weekend, only to come back today and find that I am waaaaaay behind on this thread.
FliesOnly writes:
I somewhat get the impression that you may believe that I hold that opinion. Remember, I do not. I'm smart enough to know that there probably are many Christians out there that disagree with Pat Robertson.
Jazzns writes:
No and if I came across to the contrary then I apologize. I assumed a certain rapport that must not have truly been there.
Thank you...you're assumption is quite correct. This is also why my arguments have been lacking.
Jazzns writes:
I am not getting pissed off at you. Please forgive me if you think that I was. That being said you did not answer my question. Why is the stereotype the default?
I should apologize as well. I'm replying to both you and Holmes...one of whom doesn't get it, and I admittedly get frustrated.
Now, to answer your question as best as I can:
Because that's what happens. Despite Holmes' utterly amazing and superhuman ability to make no judgments or assume nothing about other people, most of us mere mortals can't help but make assumptions and often times stereotype people as well.
And I must also admit that I feel that Crashfrog does make a perfectly valid point when he speaks of Christians belonging to a "group". However, I will not get into that here...that's for you and Crash to hash out.
Jazzns writes:
Why is the stereotype the default?
Again, what are my choices? Ok, let's start here...I heard the Christian Pat Robertson say we should kill Chavez. I find out you’re a Christian. I have two choices. First, I could assume you agree or second, I could assume you do not agree (or I could be like the utterly amazing and ridiculously intelligent "Holmes" and assume nothing whatsoever). At the same time, I "notice" that I have heard no other Christian leaders denounce Pat Robertson. I guess I lean towards option number one.
Let me give you a real World example. I eat lunch almost everyday with the same few individuals (all friends). A couple (one in particular) lean far more right than I do. Politics and religion often come up as a part of the lunchtime conversation (mainly because I love to argue ). When I brought up the topic of Pat Robertson, those that I know are religious, and would consider themselves a Christian, said nothing? What should I assume at that point? I gave them an option...speak out against or agree. Instead they said nothing. Sorry Jazzns, but in that case I chose option two. We have since "worked it out...but the point is, is that by remaining silent I assumed they agreed with him. Was that wrong of me? I think not because at that point I believe it is impossible to NOT assume something, so why should it be any different in this debate?
Jazzns writes:
Again you did not answer my question. I didn't ask the question to guide the conversation. I was hoping for a direct answer. What you considered an answer only talks about your first impression. It does not answer, again, why do you default to the arbitrary grouping?
Because my first impression has been my only impression. I know that Holmes has been saying that others within Pats organization and some other religious leaders have spoken out. But not really. I'm talking about mainstream, well known leaders. Where have they been?
Jazzns writes:
Why wouldn't you give those millions the benefit of the doubt instead of arbitrarily assigning them equivalently to Pat? Please answer directly.
I'm not a very religious person. I don't claim to be a Christian. I'm not well versed in the Bible. All I know is that Pat Robertson does claim to be all of the above. When he makes statements that he says are supported by his religion and the Bible, why is it so hard for you to see why I would assume that others claiming to be Christians would agree with what he says? And again, despite what Holmes has told me, I have not seen a huge uprising in the Christian community speaking out against what he says (over and over again). I feel, at times, that I am left with no other choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:45 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 11:57 AM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 185 of 302 (254433)
10-24-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
10-22-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Crashfrog writes:
It doesn't make any sense. Jazzns believes that he can identify as part of a group, but that people shouldn't consider him a part of that group. It's nonsensical.
Holmes writes:
The only thing nonsensical is your argument. He identified himself as part of a large group with many different, and sometimes conflicting, denominations. He is right that he should not be lumped in with a specific branch of that large group.
How hard is that to understand?
Maybe I can finally make my point here and you'll understand what I have been trying to tell you. I no longer associate Jazzns with the words of Pat Robertson. "Why?", you ask. Well, he told me so. Do I expect every Christian out there to personally notify me to let me know their stance on Pat Robertson? Of course not. However, the association has been made...therefore remaining quite, to me, is a passive endorsement. My opinion was made only after I heard nothing.
As mentioned earlier by Crashfrog . Pats organization does publish and distribute literature to churches around the world. Personally, I'm a bit curious to know how many churches out there knowingly or unknowingly subscribe to his publications. Also, would receiving and distributing this stuff be an important measure of “acceptance” to you?
You keep harping on Crash, telling him that Christians as a whole share many beliefs, but also differ in some ways. I think we all know that, Holmes. At he same time then, doesn't that kind of "force" them to differentiate themselves from groups with which they disagree? How are we to know what they agree about and what they differ on? Why is it wrong to assume that when a Christian leader makes a statement, he speaks for all Christians?
Certainly there are things that Pat Robertson says that all Christians agree with...correct? How am I to know when he speaks a truth for all and when he speaks a truth for his particular subset? Perhaps in the examples we have been discussing it could be argued that the differences are obvious. But again, how do we know where to draw the line between understanding when he speaks a “truth” for all Christians and when he speaks on some other level?
Is it your argument that when Pat Robertson says something outlandish that I should assume he speaks for no one other than his particular subset? We both know that he reaches FAR more people than just his 700 club members. I suppose that one could argue that the proper thing to do would be to assume that no one other than his particular subset of Christians agree with him . until, IMHO, an association has be made or the question has been asked . justified or not. Then they should speak out. That is what I have been trying to say throughout this thread. Jazzns seems to have gotten that long ago, yet you still think that I lump all Christians together.
Here's a situation that I would think is not all that far fetched. What if I was together with a group of Christians and I say something along the lines of: “Boy that Pat Robertson sure is a bit nutty . not a very good Christian.”, and they just sat there and stared at me. What am I to think. Now personally, I would then be of the opinion that they agree with him. I know that you are superhuman and would make no assumptions, remaining completely vacuous. Me . well I’m not that amazing. He's a Christian, they're Christians. He said something as a Christian, and I point out how outlandish and unchristian it sounded. They sit there and stare at me. Hmmmmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2005 11:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 11:40 AM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 10-24-2005 11:50 AM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 10-24-2005 5:05 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2005 10:36 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 189 of 302 (254498)
10-24-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Silent H
10-24-2005 11:57 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
I can't get off a plane, talk to two foreigners, then fly back and tell people I know what people from country X are like.
(This one is really going to piss you off.)
But you can if you want. What's to stop you? Would it be a correct assumption...probably not? But it could also be true. And if the two people you happened to talk to where major political players and no one voiced an objection, then that's one more strike against them. Now keep you panties on Holmes...I am not suggesting that your assumption would be valid or correct. Just that it could AND DOES happen all the time. Sure, the people of the Country of which you spoke are under no obligation to correct your assumptions, and perhaps you are an ignorant bigot for saying whatever it is you said. So what...you still said it and others may adopt your attitude, until nobody wants to go there any more. All because you were an asshole and made disparaging remarks about their Country. Nice job Holmes.
Holmes writes:
I feel sometimes like people's rationalizations for their ignorance is going to make my head explode.
As much as I'd like to see that, I'm first going to try this one more time. Who knows, maybe I can put out the fuse out before it reaches the bomb.
This all started with a group lumping. One Christian made a statement and all Christians were lumped together with that statement. I do not now nor did I then endorse that association...but I understood where it was coming from because I live out here in the real World...in a very poor and very conservative region. Not to stereotype, but a good number of people in my neck of the woods who are not 700 club members or evangelical Protestants did agree with Pat Robertson. So you see, he does reach beyond just his followers.
Some people here seemed stunned that such an association could be made. While it certainly is not justified (are you reading this Holmes...I'm agreeing that it is not justified) it is still done.
I have been trying for some time now to get you to stop calling me ignorant and making the assumption that I agree with the idea that all Christians agree with every word Pat Robertson says. All I have been doing is trying to help Jazzns see why people might make such an assumption. And while I do not agree with the assumption . many other people do . right or wrong, ignorant or not, bigoted or not.
You seem to think this all about you being right and me being wrong. For me, that is not what this has been all about. Instead, I've simply been trying to say that people do this very thing all the time. And while I do not necessarily agree with everything Crash says...some of what he says does makes sense and HAPPENS all the time.
I will also say this: I did get a Hoot out of your saying that Jessie Jackson should be applauded and used as an example of a well known, national figure denouncing Pat Robertson. Ha...good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 11:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Jazzns, posted 10-24-2005 4:24 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 191 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 4:53 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 199 of 302 (254766)
10-25-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by NosyNed
10-24-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Context used to "stereotype"
Hi Nosy:
NosyNed writes:
I'm astonished that you know so few Christians; or, perhaps, you live in a part of the world with a concentration of the worst sort of them.
You'd be amazed by the amount of needle deflection on the "Pat-O-Meter" in my neck of the woods. By the same token though, with the exception of some family members, I do not really know that many Christians. Or, at least, not on a level to which I would refer to them as friends (certainly less than a dozen)
NosyNed writes:
From the Christians I know well, I don't have to ask what they think of Pat Robertson and never have. I just know that they will disagree with him on almost everything. The only areas of agreement would be just enough to make them all Christians.
On a related note, I will tell you that I was once stunned when two Christain friends told me their stance on gay marriage (hell, I'm still stunned). I never would have guessed they would feel the way they do. So, in my opinion, not asking could be a mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 10-24-2005 5:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024