This would be easier to reply to with nested quotes, but people can scroll up if they’re desperate to read the missing bits.
Oh I see. It’s what we didn’t write that upsets you. What kind of argument is that?
We’ll ignore “dickwad” as a bit of rhetorical color on my part, but your reaction to pretty much everyone in this thread, none of whom (to the best of my knowledge) has caused death or suffering in anyone by direct or indirect means, hasn’t exactly proved a strong defense against “hate-filled”.**
Fine. Pat’s doing very bad things in the name of Christianity. So where are these all these people you keep talking about who are cutting him slack for his religious views? You seem to be the only one banging that particular drum.
You were saying something about being patronizing?**
Sauron was making a specific comparative point in response to a specific post; the context is important. I’ve already conceded that ivylass’s first post did not address the repercussions of Robertson’s faith healing scams.
I repeat: the disagreement wasn’t over what Robertson has or hasn’t done; it was (originally) over what Spiff did.
Actually, I was referring to the thread title. Note the word “glad”.
Astounding. You extrapolate wildly from what we wrote, and then accuse us of strawmen? Like calling us all “apologists” because we aren’t happy about a person, even a scumbag like Robertson, getting cancer? Like attributing views to us based on what we haven’t said? Methinks you protest too much.
You, sir, are clearly a very angry person, and I’m not convinced it’s just Pat Robertson that’s causing it. However, that’s your business.
No. Pay attention: It’s not what people “didn’t write” it’s misrepresenting the distaste for Robertson and the resulting sense of justice and appalling hypocrisy as arising from his religious views when, in fact, it is based on his career as a faith healer.
I suspect that, in your eagerness, you failed to read the examples quoted and instead fixated on the phrase “Actually what it is is omission” without understanding what that meant.
Ok, when you write “dickwad” that’s “rhetorical color”, when I present arguments exposing Robertson’s complicity as a faith healer, that’s being “hate filled”. I get it.
You want to make is sound as if I went on a rampage against anyone who didn’t denounce Robertson. That’s not the case. Again and again I reiterated why Robertson has complicity in manslaughter like so many faith healers and, among other things, why his identification as a “Christian” (despite the number of heretical beliefs he has) probably let’s him get away with more than the average purveyor of bullshit.
Was I not shy and retiring enough in presenting my case? Perhaps I should have been more circumspect, like the people who started the “Reverend Mykeru, you are such a fucking tool” thread.
Oh, that’s probably just “rhetorical color” too.
When people, as in the examples given, soap soap Pat Robertson’s faith healing chicanery and instead frame it as a conflict with his religious views, that’s cutting him more slack than he deserves.
I cited examples of this. Your simply being dense isn’t a refutation.
That’s amusing that you cite this removed from context and in the very next item you chastize me for removing something from context even though in the original post I indicated the context. Must be more “rhetorical color”.
Hint: I’m not Spiff.
I’m still not Spiff.
No, I already explained. Framing the argument in terms of faulting Robertson for his religious views when it was his faith healing behavior and the harm it caused sets up a strawman. I had to beat on that point repeatedly until people got it.
Also, your implication that “we aren’t happy about a person, even a scumbag like Robertson, getting cancer?” so therefore I am happy about it, is just more of the same. “Happy”, “glad” “gleeful;” all have been used in describing my position, and yet you are the one claiming I am" attributing views to [you] based on what [you] haven’t said?"
Yeah, OK.
Right. I get a thread full of people distorting what I say, vituperation, grade school insults and the creation of a whole thread just to heap abuse on me and when it’s all done I’m an angry person.
Uh huh.
But even if it wasn’t for all that, let me ask you: Say we have someone like Pat Robertson who, besides his asinine pronouncements, has a history of telling people they are cured of cancer when they are not, telling people to throw away their insulin and, to top it off, if no miracle is forthcoming, that it is the sufferers own fault and he makes all the money he scams tax free and because he is what he is law enforcement won’t touch him.
Are you saying anger in response to that is inappropriate? And if that is the case, how do you differentiate your lack of anger from sheer self-centered indifference?
{ahem} To drag this thing back to the OP for a moment, I would like to chime in (as I often do):
[list=1][li]I consider Pat Robertson to be one of the most evil men in the United States today. He has used a perfectly good religion - Christianity - and twisted it to profit himself financially and politically, all while stepping on the backs of the people he’s conned into believing he somehow speaks the word of God. Along the way he has spread his message of bigotry, hate, discrimination and ignorance which I firmly believe has contributed directly to acts of violence, hate and even murder. He is vile, corrupted and dangerous.[/li]
[li]I watched my father go through 3 months of struggle with bladder and prostate cancer, and then a year later go through it for another 6 weeks. He survived and is doing quite well, thankfully, but it was a horrible experience that I’m well aquainted with.[/li]
[li]That said, I would not go quite as far to say that I am glad he got cancer, but I will say I am shedding no tears. I would also say that I am glad that he is suffering in some small way compared to what I perceive as the massive amounts of suffering he has caused others, both directly and indirectly.[/li]
[li]Barring illness, I’d much, much rather see him discredited and quite publicly humiliated so all of his followers have their eyes opened to the two-faced, lying, hypocritical, self-aggrandizing Pharisee that he is. He is robbing them only to fill their minds with ignorance and further his own selfish agenda.[/li]
[li]I will conclude by saying that I look forward to the day he dies, as society is better when the cockroaches come out into the light, are exposed for the scum that they are, and are then squashed. I’ll open a bottle of champagne and toast his passing in memory of all those he hurt during his disgusting lifetime. He chose his path, and I’ll be damned all if I’ll have an ounce of pity for a little cosmic payback.[/list=1][/li]
Now it’s not like we haven’t already covered this ground in Great Debates and [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83026”]in The Pit a while ago. I’ve said all this before. Some people think I’m scum for saying it, but there it is. Condemn and/or flame me as you will, but it’s how I feel.
