originaly by; iampunha
Why should anyone feel remorse for their opinion? Oh Wait, I get it!! If you dont share that opinion then it is the wrong opinion. Whatever joker.
Tee
[quote]
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru
What I was talking about is, whether religiously motivated or not, the practical effect of Robertson and his ilk on people. Whether it is religiously motivated, or motivated by a desire to please the flying saucers from the planet of the sex goddesses is besides the point. The point is for whatever reason, someone who tells people they are cured of cancer or has them toss their medication is a scumbag.
I agree. But for the problem of “intent”. The intent is to heal.
[quote]
No. I really have to disagree with that assumption. The intent is not to heal. The intent is profit. I don’t want to sound condescending here, but honestly, when you think a faith healer is trying to heal it shows a glaring lack of knowledge about what a cynical little game they play.
I made the analogy before, but perhaps I should expand on it a bit: You can’t assume that John Edwards or James van Praagh really intend to talk to the dead. Why? Because you can’t simultaneously “talk to the dead” and practice “cold reading” which is what they do. The nature of what they do precludes sincerity.
Same goes for faith healers. First, they routinely have their shills canvass the audience beforehand to get information that the faith healer can then claim came to him via divine intervention. The do things like putting people who didn’t come in wheelchairs into wheelchairs to have them miraculously stand. At the same time they stay far, far away from people who come with their own, customized wheelchairs because of the unlikelihood of them getting out of it. Nothing is more heartbreaking than the hard luck cases being segregated out of the audience and not being allowed near the healer.
All those things Robertson has done before he switched to the safer shotgun approach via television. It’s the same thing as Uri Geller on a radio show having people hold their stopped watches. A certain percentage of them, warmed in the hand, will work again, if briefly. Maybe somewhere a lady in Cincinnati is being cured of cancer. Maybe not. Who knows. Maybe she dies, but as long as she sends in her check, everything is peachy for the faith healer.
But all the tricks and cons of the faith healers described above preclude sincerity. The con man deludes others but is not deluded himself. Peter Popoff was fed information through a radio reciever in his ear. He didn’t think his wife giving him the cribbed information was the voice of God. The guy scamming people at Three Card Monte knows exactly what he is doing, or it wouldn’t work.
And if Robertson et al were sincere they would not repeatedly ignore requests for one, just one, documented case of divine healing.
Well, yeah, when you decide to be non-judgemental it’s hard to judge. However, the more you find out about these guys the less non judgemental you can be. I refer you to James Randi’s book The Faith Healers or the link I have posted previously in this thread.
Who? Certainly not the faith healers, who are a cynical bunch. I would suggest the people who seek out faith healers at the expense of more empirically founded cures are not well served. And a faith healer that has someone throw away their medication and that person dies is guilty of manslaughter.
True, at which point they can go to a faith healer, a shamen or have someone coat them with bat guano. It doesn’t make a difference. But we are not talking about just these people. We are also talking about people with terminal illnesses who would survive longer and in less pain where it not for faith healers and people who have chronic conditions (such as diabetics or people with failing eyesight) who are either bilked or have their conditions worsened by the intervention of faith healers. When I talked about people going through the trash after a faith healer’s “crusade” and finding medication that the faith healer convinced people to throw away, I wasn’t making that up: High blood pressure medication, insulin, digitalis. I wonder how those people made out. What do you think?
Again, if they are that terminal it might make little difference. However, if they have treatable cancer and get latrile, that makes a difference. And faith healing is no better than any other quackery. Of course, it has the added nastiness of blaming the sufferer for their own demise, which latrile and enemas don’t do.
Actually, as somone reported, Robertson is apparently using his condition as a money-making opportunity, a la Oral Roberts’ “give me $8 million or the 900 foot tall Jesus will kill me”. What makes you think that a sociopath (and honestly, you have to be one to prey on people like a faith healer does, with malice aforethought and premeditation and apparently with little fear of the divine retribution they preach) has an especially good learning curve?
The proof is in his actions and apparently it’s business as usual.
And maybe, armed with real information about what a man like Robertson is and what he does, so will you.
Incidentally, it would be nice to be able to edit my posts when I forget a close quote or two. Well, hopefully people can figure out where they go above.
The ability to edit would be really nice, I’ve been there…oh well.
You’ve made a superb case I think against faith healers. On this board I’ve participated in one or two faith-based threads that involve, I guess, the ‘better living through gospel’ theories. I’m already convinced that even without claiming miraculous healing properties, faith can often be used as a weapon against those who aren’t living it. PR is obviously such an aggressor.
I just wanted to point out that Polycarp is not, and I believe his invitation to participate up there (in GD) in those particular threads was sincere. It would mean a lot to have this issue of ‘how one should feel about Pat Robertson’s cancer’ should be put to bed already - perfectly natural as far as I can tell to feel a bit of justice there, but some people have a nature that is truly non-judgemental without being condescending. Guess you have to be there to see it though. So…don’t know if there’s a Voice of Reason convention in Orlando or something this week, they ain’t here at the moment though so you’re stuck with me…peace, please. Ok? 
Reverend Mykeru vs iampunha and the rest of the free world.
Hey! This place is way more entertaning than the drollery ya get at Great Debates!
Being a realitivly newbi , and assuming that the good Reverend is the enternet Godzilla, could someone explain the sock puppet and VB code references…that is if ya could lay down the axes long enough to assuage my ignornance?
Because I have better things to do with my time than teach a pig to sing.
Happy posting. I hope, for your sake, that you don’t take this attitude outside the pit.
Preview is your friend. There’s a reason for the saying on this board (if not others) “Preview twice, post once.” if you’re curious as to why editing of posts is restricted to those with moderator (or higher) status, feel free to email one. They’ll be able to explain a lot better than I will (plus it’s Official Word, as opposed to “IIRC, …” which is pretty much the best I or any other non-mod can do).
Preview is your friend. There’s a reason for the saying on this board (if not others) “Preview twice, post once.” if you’re curious as to why editing of posts is restricted to those with moderator (or higher) status, feel free to email one. They’ll be able to explain a lot better than I will (plus it’s Official Word, as opposed to “IIRC, …” which is pretty much the best I or any other non-mod can do).
Preview is your friend. There’s a reason for the saying on this board (if not others) “Preview twice, post once.” if you’re curious as to why editing of posts is restricted to those with moderator (or higher) status, feel free to email one. They’ll be able to explain a lot better than I will (plus it’s Official Word, as opposed to “IIRC, …” which is pretty much the best I or any other non-mod can do).
Mykeru:
Look, as somebody who’s posted here for several years, and likes it here, I was offering you, as a “newbie” to this board, the unsolicited advice that part of the rules here govern tone and are discretionary, on the supposition that you were here because you wanted to engage in dialogue with other members of a message board and might not have caught on how things are done here. In particular, about 50% of what you’ve said, excluding your characterization of Pat Robertson, would have gotten you banned immediately if said anywhere but in this particular forum.
You’re under no obligation to listen to a thing I have to say. I’m under an obligation to myself to try to help other people. But you’re more than welcome to be an asshole who insults even people who agree with you and read snide innuendos into other people’s remarks.
Have fun. While it lasts.
Oh, and if the other boards you’re so anxious to compare favorably to this one are so wonderful, why are you wasting your time here? Because you got banned from them for being the kind of asshole you’re being here, perhaps?
Get the fuck back there. And don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out; it might injure the severe case of hemorrhoids you are obviously suffering from.
… or three times.
iampunha
That’s a nasty stutter you got there.
Polycarp
This being the post wherein Polycarp drops the majesterial posturing and cracks a six pack before he posts:
Should I bow now or save a big genuflect for the end?
Read: Arbitrary. Big surprise there.
I caught on how things are done here rather quickly, what with being villified and pitted within a half dozen posts. Perhaps you should expand your prepared speech to include others as well.
I don’t think your problem is that I don’t “engage in dialogue” because I obviously do. Your problem is that I don’t agree with you and I respond in kind to your insults. Perhaps the fact that you have posted here for years gives you the “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” right to insult without response in kind, but as I’m just a clueless newbie on this board who, not knowing how it works around here, deals on the level of reciprocity. Silly fucking me.
Again, I caught onto the tone of the BBQ Pit immediately. Thanks for the tip. Would you care to be specific and quote some of that 50%? I will bet you it is not unsolicited and is, in fact, response in kind. Go ahead, scroll back to my very firsts posts and the vituperative, and graphically insulting response I got and tell me where the banning starts and how many years/posts one has to have to be a prick and remain unbanned?
Ditto
And if you can work in being patronizing and deploy a backhand insult or two, that’s just icing.
Woo-boy. There’s a big pot-kettle-black Mr “No insult intended”. I would recommend that if you are going to talk the talk you also walk the walk to at least give the appearance of consistency.
Straight Doper thinly veiled threat #35. Collect the whole set.
And the 1,000th iteration of “love it or leave it”.
I was banned from the Ann Coulter forum after one post for discussing Ann Coulter without masturbating as I type. I hope that’s not a requirement here.
You think I’m an asshole. I think you are a pedantic prick whose thin veneer of “decency” is easily scratched. We are even.
Yes, I am sure you would love it if everyone who disagreed with you just buggered off.
Now, Dopers, I really must ask: What the fuck is this ass fixation you people have? It’s all about ass and rectum and hemorrhoids with you people.
If I was a Freudian I would be appalled. As it is I am mildly perturbed. Especially the combination of Catholic saints and clergy with ass fixations.
I honestly do not have any idea how that happened…
Mykeru, FWIW, this makes at most a half dozen times I’ve seen Poly flame someone on this board at all. In more than two and a half years, and closing in on 3 (lurked for a bit).
Think about that.
One of the main requirements here is something similar to that, though I doubt you’ll find in the TOS or FAQ:
Don’t expect us to masturbate to your every post. You aren’t the first nor will you be the last to come here believing your posts to be The Word of The Internet God. The only thing you’re missing from that is the English Nazi syndrome.
Far better for us to insult our BBQ Pit door with your ass than to cause it to come into contact with that thing two feet higher in front of your body … tell me, why does it have a pork chop tied below it?
Rev: Forget I asked.
Ass fixtations, penis fixtations…I just figure it’s a male thing, you know, it could happen anywhere that has an abundance of testosterone…whole threads sometimes…
:smack:
You keep going on about these “Robertson apologists” who cut him slack. Is this a general rant, or are you referring to someone in particular in this thread? Because I’ve gone back through it again, and fail to see anyone (well, maybe ivylass’s first post) who has said anything remotely complimentary about the man.
Who’s to say we haven’t?
Again, no one’s arguing that Robertson isn’t lower than dog vomit on the chain of existence. Oddly enough, it’s the “being glad at cancer” we’re offended by. Now if Robertson were caught on camera fellating a rent boy in a leather bar, that would be funny. Cancer is just sad, no matter who gets it.
jr8
That’s because you were using “remotely complimentary” as your filter. Actually what it is is omission.
For example: You posted on 02-14-2003:
Maybe others lack sympathy for Robertson because he is a “hate-filled dickwad” but I am not others. I have specifically said again and again that I don’t lack sympathy for Robertson due to his public pronouncements, religious or political, but because of his complicity in suffering and death due to his practice of the con known as “faith healing” In fact, I said in the very first sentences of my very first post:
Pretty clear, huh? Not Pat’s religion. If he was doing the same con for Zeus I would feel the same way.
But that’s too difficult for people, so you find that Sauron, replying to another like-minded poster writes:
Or from Ivylass:
Again, make it sound as if Robertson just talks about Jesus, rather than telling people they are cured of cancer.
Then iampunha:
Well, I don’t know where he got “worshipping” Robertson, because I didn’t use that term that I remember, and I even did a text search to make sure I didn’t phrase it that way, so its addition seems to be a little strawman touch. What I said was that people were being apologists, in this case by omission whereby people attempt to frame dislike of Robertson in terms of disagreement with his religious beliefs rather than because of his actions as a faith healer.
Actually that’s one of the strawmen being deployed, you use the other in this very post of yours:
Coupled with the soft soaping of Robertson as a preacher and not a con man is the claim that I am expressing “glee” at Robertson’s cancer. To quote you: “Is this a general rant, or are you referring to someone in particular in this thread?” because you can’t be referring to me. What part of “Well, I don’t exactly have glee over Pat Robertson’s condition” didn’t you get? Nowhere did I express glee. What I expressed was a lack of sympathy for his condition considering how he has treated the sick and desperate throughout his career and his hypocrisy in seeking medical care rather than leaving himself to the ministering of “Dr. Jesus”.
Get it? Two strawmen:
-
That disgust at Robertson is ideologically motivated, not a result of his actions in advancing pain, suffering and death and
-
Talking about me being “gleeful” which is a word used by other posters and which I disavowed in my very fucking first post.
Fuck him and his prostate.
I need no justification for my opinion on the matter.
Clint in Wichita
Wouldn’t that tend to massage his prostate?
Oh, urgh.
LOL!
I guess it would.