Pat Robertson says something stupid

[Little_Nemo]

@April_R

Doesn’t that eliminate most of his audience? Lack of self awareness and intelligence among his fan base is what keeps him in business.

I’m not endorsing or defending what Robertson said. I’d like to think I made that clear by starting a thread titled “Pat Robertson says something stupid” in the BBQ Pit forum.

[John_Mace]

@Troppus

I don’t give a flying fuck what he thinks, it’s not a wife’s duty to ensure that her husband exercises the same self control he expects of her.

If you don’t give a flying fuck, then why did you respond to my post with speculation about what he might think about other aspect of a man’s behavior?

[Troppus]

@John_Mace

If you don’t give a flying fuck, then why did you respond to my post with speculation about what he might think about other aspect of a man’s behavior?

Because weak-willed people who defend him need a reality check.

[billfish678]

Okay…you got the chickens, the hens and roosters…

[Frylock]

@drewtwo99

I am a bit ashamed to see some people saying that this was a good answer. It was a terrible answer. It wasn’t even an answer to the question the poor woman asked. It was condescending to women, and it was making up excuses for the man.

In case you want to play along at home, here is a good Christian answer:

Has your husband asked for forgiveness? Has he shown sincere remorse for what he did? Has he explained why it happened in the first place, and why it will never happen again? You said that he’s been willing to go to counseling with you, and it sounds like he really wants to try to make things work.

We are all human beings who make mistakes from time to time. If your husband is sincerely sorry for what he did, and is putting in all human effort to make sure it doesn’t happen again, then for the sake of your marriage, happiness and children (if you have any), it would probably be worth it to forgive him as you have been forgiven for your sins and mistakes.

Is there any guarantee in the world that he won’t do this again and end up hurting you? No, unfortunately there isn’t. But many marriages have suffered extreme difficulties and survived, and infidelity is unfortunately a common one that can destroy a marriage, but it doesn’t always have to. Search your heart every day. Think of all the things you’ve done in your life that you’ve asked God and others to forgive you for. And try to find it in your heart to forgive your husband if he has worked hard to earn it.

(Note, this is not the advice I would personally give as I am not a Christian and don’t believe in sin or God or whatever, but as a Christian answer I think it works pretty well)

Dammit dude, speaking as a Christian, that’s pretty much perfect.

[Frylock]

@John_Mace

No. He clearly says the root cause is men’s natural horndogness. He’s telling women to quit focusing on the natural horndogness and make him not WANT to cheat.

It’s a bit of subtle, but not much. It’s the difference between saying:

*No wonder he cheated-- you made life at hmoe miserable.
*
-and-

Give him a reason to ignore his inner horndog by making life at home simply marvelous.

It’s not a subtle difference, it’s basically no difference at all. It’s the same thought expressed with two different emphases. The thought expressed in both of your examples boils down to saying that the cheating was caused by inadequate behavior on the part of the wife, together with a certain natural predisposition in the husband.

An implication of this thought, since natural predispositions cannot be changed, is that the responsibility ultimately falls on the wife. Ultimate responsibility is not the same as being the root cause. Sure, as you say, the “root cause” is the natural predisposition. But the actual responsibility is laid entirely on the wife. The man is given an excuse. It’s his predisposition.

[Frylock]

If X implies that Y could have done something to affect the probability of Z’s occuring, then X places partial responsibility for Z on Y.

In the above schema, Robertson fills in for X, Y for the woman, and Z for her husband’s cheating.

Therefore, Robertson was placing partial responsibility for the cheating on the woman.

Do you agree with that conclusion? If not, then which premise do you disagree with and why?

[drewtwo99]

Thanks, Frylock (seriously).

So if it’s so easy for a hardcore atheist like me to give good Christian advice… why is it so damn hard for a life-long Christian like Pat Robertson, especially one for whom it’s his damn job to give Christian advice.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Frylock

If X implies that Y could have done something to affect the probability of Z’s occuring, then X places partial responsibility for Z on Y.

I disagree. This would mean that, in almost every case where a person is a victim of someone else’s bad behavior, the victim bears partial responsibility, because almost always there’s something they could have done differently.

Have you ever had anything stolen? You could have done something to affect the probability of it being stolen—by keeping it in a different location, or keeping it locked up or guarded more diligently, or not owning it in the first place. Does that mean you bear partial responsibility for the theft?

[you_with_the_face]

@drewtwo99

Thanks, Frylock (seriously).

So if it’s so easy for a hardcore atheist like me to give good Christian advice… why is it so damn hard for a life-long Christian like Pat Robertson, especially one for whom it’s his damn job to give Christian advice.

I thought your advice was spot-on too. Have you ever considered becoming a televangelist?

[Frylock]

@Thudlow_Boink

I disagree. This would mean that, in almost every case where a person is a victim of someone else’s bad behavior, the victim bears partial responsibility, because almost always there’s something they could have done differently.

I didn’t say Y actually is responsible. I said that by implying the ability to influence probability, X lays responsibility on Y. For example, see below:

Have you ever had anything stolen? You could have done something to affect the probability of it being stolen—by keeping it in a different location, or keeping it locked up or guarded more diligently, or not owning it in the first place. Does that mean you bear partial responsibility for the theft?

If you were to say that to me, then you would be laying partial responsibility on me.

I should be clear that X was meant to range over people specifically. In other words, i’m talking about what people are doing to each other when they say things.

[drewtwo99]

@you_with_the_face

I thought your advice was spot-on too. Have you ever considered becoming a televangelist?

Sadly I’m far too ethical for that career path

[BrainGlutton]

Pat Robertson?! Is he still alive?!

[Ludovic]

@Thudlow_Boink

And yet, people still ask him for marital advice.

Asking a televangelist for marital advice is like… (surely we can come up with a good simile here?!)

@billfish678

Okay…you got the chickens, the hens and roosters…

I’m trying to think of a variation of “keep f***ing that chicken” since both involve still plugging away at a mostly useless activity.

[SteveG1]

Robertson is a stupid, hateful, misogynistic, misanthropic throwback.

Anything that spews out of that sphincter in the middle of his face, is stupid by definition.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

I’m trying to think of a variation of “keep f***ing that chicken” since both involve still plugging away at a mostly useless activity.

But, we need the eggs!