Breaking News: Pat Robertson Says Something Extremely Offensive

[Florence]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/pat-robertson-atheist-women-were-likely-raped-and-thats-why-they-reject-jesus/

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why? What is it about Pat Robertson that makes anyone still care what he has to say? He's like that racist old guy in your family that gets drunk on Thanksgiving and starts using racial slurs. Why is America incapable of doing what the family does; ignoring the crazy old. I am quite convinced senility kicked in years ago for dear old Pat, but for some reason the media still keeps giving him a platform to make his sexist, racist, homophobic voice heard.

Is it the train wreck factor? Is it just because people like me will continue to stare slack-jawed, barely able to believe that someone actually thought that was something worth wasting oxygen to say? Is it because there are legitimately people out there who listen to these senile ramblings and think "Yep, man, Pat's got it. That is so true." As much as the first option makes me feel guilty for perpetuating this garbage, the second option is frankly terrifying. I know there are some terrible people out there (see: my last thread about Fred Phelps dying), but enough to support this old geezer's continued career?

Or is it a combination of the two? Is the problem that there are actually people out there that agree with him, and then people like me just pile on to the problem by staring like the man just lit his own head on fire.

I suppose if Honey Boo Boo has an audience, I shouldn't be surprised that Pat Robertson does too, but still...

Also, why is THIS PARTICULAR old person's offensive ramblings more tv-worthy than all the other old people out there who ramble about stupid crap?

[Sabby]

Also, why is THIS PARTICULAR old person's offensive ramblings more tv-worthy than all the other old people out there who ramble about stupid crap?

Because people know his name now, so headlines are more likely to grab you. "Pat Robertson says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" is much more effective at luring readers then "Samuel Jones says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" Who the hell is Sam Jones?

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I'm answering the question of "do people actually listen to him?" The answer is....Yes. I have an uncle that will listen to and agree with anything that someone Republican or communicating what are supposedly Republican 'ideas' says. He takes every word that Rush Limbaugh says as gospel. He will nod his head and agree and oft times go off on some tangent about some piece of propaganda that has no validity or can't be supported by any concrete evidence. When asked to site his source he shrugs a shoulder, closes his eyes and replies 'Joe Source'. He's not someone that wears a tinfoil hat, but he's about one step away from it.

I've been angered by his ignorance on some issues, like his often speeches about black helicopters and secret plans to put microchips in us all. But I've also learned to nod my head and just tune him out. Because no matter how many times I try to show him an article that debunks or says that whatever it is that he's terrified or angry about this time didn't become law or is just purely fiction he tells me how 'if they do it in California....'

It's frustrating and a bit scary there are individuals out there that will blindly follow or agree with whatever someone biased, racist, sexist or whatever else says. But unfortunately it happens. Not much can be done about it accept trying to inform them or tune them out.

[gaggedLouise]

more likely to grab you. "Pat Robertson says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" is much more effective at luring readers (---)

Hell of a pick-up line, in a rather too literal sense.  :D

[Sabby]

Not actually a Pat quote, but I have heard those exact words before.

[Florence]

I'm answering the question of "do people actually listen to him?" The answer is....Yes. I have an uncle that will listen to and agree with anything that someone Republican or communicating what are supposedly Republican 'ideas' says. He takes every word that Rush Limbaugh says as gospel. He will nod his head and agree and oft times go off on some tangent about some piece of propaganda that has no validity or can't be supported by any concrete evidence. When asked to site his source he shrugs a shoulder, closes his eyes and replies 'Joe Source'. He's not someone that wears a tinfoil hat, but he's about one step away from it.

I've been angered by his ignorance on some issues, like his often speeches about black helicopters and secret plans to put microchips in us all. But I've also learned to nod my head and just tune him out. Because no matter how many times I try to show him an article that debunks or says that whatever it is that he's terrified or angry about this time didn't become law or is just purely fiction he tells me how 'if they do it in California....'

It's frustrating and a bit scary there are individuals out there that will blindly follow or agree with whatever someone biased, racist, sexist or whatever else says. But unfortunately it happens. Not much can be done about it accept trying to inform them or tune them out.

Ugh, I have to deal with my own mother. She's not... the worst. I mean, my aunt (her sister) is a lesbian, and the two of them seem to usually get along pretty well; so its not like my mom... ya know... 'hates' other people. She doesn't hate gay people, black people, middle-eastern people, etc... but she just has this... dated outlook on things.

She is seriously incapable of telling a story involving a black person without EXPLICITLY referring to them as as such. "So there's this black guy at work..." Regardless of whether their ethnicity has any actual baring on the story she's telling. She also has a habit, usually after a few drink, of making a point to try having a heart-to-heart with me about how one day the terrorists are going to come and try conquering America, and they're going to try to take away everything I love because they hate my freedom. I've... just leaned to nod and agree until she's done talking. She knows I don't agree with any of it.

Worst of all, she thinks Fox News is actually news.

How she managed to give birth to a pansexual, gender fluid, Buddhist, liberal is just one of those strange mysteries of life.

[Oniya]

Ugh, I have to deal with my own mother. She's not... the worst. I mean, my aunt (her sister) is a lesbian, and the two of them seem to usually get along pretty well; so its not like my mom... ya know... 'hates' other people. She doesn't hate gay people, black people, middle-eastern people, etc... but she just has this... dated outlook on things.

My mom once said 'I'm not prejudiced.  I just don't think blacks and whites should interact socially.'

Mind you, she got married in the 50's, when interracial couples were still illegal in the state of Virginia.  Even knowing this, I still gave her the 'WTF, Mom!?' look.

[Ephiral]

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

[Kythia]

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

Testify!

But yeah, I think this is spot on right there.  Pat Robertson is a bad person.  I disagree with Pat Robertson.  Therefore I'm a good person.  QED motherfuckers.

[Valthazar]

What is it about Pat Robertson that makes anyone still care what he has to say?

Pat Robertson is a crazy guy, but often times, I think he is genuinely trying to convey a legitimate Christian perspective, which just comes out in the most hurtful manner due to his outrageously offensive analogies.

A viewer apparently called in to ask why an atheist coworker was “openly hostile at the mere mention of God” when she tried to “bring her to Jesus.”  Pat Robertson replied with, “Maybe she had an abusing father, somebody who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible,” the TV pastor continued. “You just never know what’s going on in somebody’s childhood.”

Clearly his comparisons are baseless, but in all fairness, I think his point is that a difficult childhood and other negative prior influences in one's upbringing might make them defensive towards welcoming God into their lives.

[Mathim]

I happen to have a penis and I am frankly very openly hostile to the mention of God too, especially when someone comes along trying to proselytize me against my will; I must have been raped, eh, Patty?

It's like the entire bible and history of Christianity just completely got relegated into people's blind spots. Stories of god ordering his chosen peoples to kill other tribes and leave alive only the young female virgins specifically for the purposes of rape should shut guys like Robertson right the hell up (given the inference that it's likely the followers of the good book would be the guilty parties of rape), yet you come at them with evidence of these kinds of atrocities from their most sacred of texts in order to debunk the ridiculousness of their position and they'll claim they're being taken out of context or that it's just 'old testament' stuff and that it doesn't apply anymore, as if that is any possible rational justification or excuse to ignore it.

Dogmatic belief is the definition of intolerance and intransigence. Of course people like Robertson are going to say these things, because anyone not like them is a sworn mortal enemy, what do they care if they make these accusations, however harmful and painful? We deserve it, that's very clear, according to that belief system. But there's only one solution, and it ain't gonna happen. Those on the business end of Robertson's serpentine tongue just have to suffer since we have no imaginary friend to ask, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" At least we're not expecting an answer and can't be disappointed when none comes.

Pat Robertson is a crazy guy, but often times, I think he is genuinely trying to convey a legitimate Christian perspective, which just comes out in the most hurtful manner due to his outrageously offensive analogies.

A viewer apparently called in to ask why an atheist coworker was “openly hostile at the mere mention of God” when she tried to “bring her to Jesus.”  Pat Robertson replied with, “Maybe she had an abusing father, somebody who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible,” the TV pastor continued. “You just never know what’s going on in somebody’s childhood.”

Clearly his comparisons are baseless, but in all fairness, I think his point is that a difficult childhood and other negative prior influences in one's upbringing might make them defensive towards welcoming God into their lives.

Which is also completely baseless. Frankly a tough life/childhood has had the opposite effect on almost everyone I've ever met.

[Valthazar]

Which is also completely baseless. Frankly a tough life/childhood has had the opposite effect on almost everyone I've ever met.

I'm not saying I agree with him - I strongly disagree with him.  But just as you frankly suggest that it has has the opposite effect on everyone you have met, I believe Robertson has the right to espouse his views as well.

The manner in which he conveys that point is highly offensive, and his analogies are beyond ridiculous.  But the underlying message itself is something he is entitled to hold.

[gaggedLouise]

The most well-known "politicizing media evangelist" of Sweden, Rev. Ulf Ekman (who once studied in the USA under Kenneth Hagin - and before then was a fervent communist) recently became a convert to Roman Catholicism; he's been a charismatic pentecostalist for decades. I would totally love to read a conversation between him and Pat Robertson.  ;)

[mj2002]

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why?

Well, why did you post this?

[Mathim]

This is why I didn't major in psychology; I can devote my entire life to studying why people believe and say these crazy nonsense things but I'll never find a resolution. We talk about them because they still amaze us even though this brand of lunacy is not by any means new. That's my theory.

[Florence]

Well, why did you post this?

Mostly to ask this question.

...

...

... ow, my head hurts, I can't go down this line of thinking anymore.

[Retribution]

It is similar to why people watch reality TV, look at car wrecks, you get the idea.

[Blythe]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/pat-robertson-atheist-women-were-likely-raped-and-thats-why-they-reject-jesus/

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why?

I think a better question is not so much "Why do we keep talking about him?" but "What is it about someone like this that is this compelling to so many people, whether we are discussing positive or negative opinions of them?"

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

And this would be the answer to that second question. Because lowest-common-denominator morality is seductive in its relative easiness to pursue. It provides quick gratification and validation for those that need that sort of thing to "prove" they are good people without doing the actual work of being a good person.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I thought about this thread a bit and I realized that it's not just about Pat Robertson. It's about all the people out there that will blindly follow any individual that is part of a certain group, party, or spouting ideas that 'seem' to fit into whatever world they live in. My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

There is no reason for that hate. Yet, reason won't work on those individuals.

It's just how some thongs are. Unfortunately.

[Ephiral]

I thought about this thread a bit and I realized that it's not just about Pat Robertson. It's about all the people out there that will blindly follow any individual that is part of a certain group, party, or spouting ideas that 'seem' to fit into whatever world they live in. My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

There is no reason for that hate. Yet, reason won't work on those individuals.

It's just how some thongs are. Unfortunately.

That's a large part of it, yes, and it basically boils down to "We're still pretty damn close to monkeys, so we tend to form tribes instinctually." The problem is that the landscape has changed - the guys from the next village over aren't necessarily outsiders. So we look for new ways to define our tribal borders, and cling to them hard. In the southern Evangelical community of the last thirty or forty years, it's abortion, gays, and God, in roughly that order of priority. And, like the monkeys, we're both ruthless and vicious in rooting out any member who 'betrays' the tribe by crossing those boundaries.

[Kythia]

In the southern Evangelical community of the last thirty or forty years, it's abortion, gays, and God, in roughly that order of priority.

At the risk of going off topic, I read a fairly interesting article the other day limiting it to the low end of that 30 or 40 years you mention.  Haven't looked in to it any further, but it rings true to me.

[Valthazar]

My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

I agree with you, but I think it is more noticeable when the individual or entity (such as Pat Robertson) represents views that go markedly against mainstream opinion.  There are equally as many on the other end of the political spectrum who turn a blind eye or express frustration to those expressing a more conservative perspective.

[Ephiral]

I agree with you, but I think it is more noticeable when the individual or entity (such as Pat Robertson) represents views that go markedly against mainstream opinion.  There are equally as many on the other end of the political spectrum who turn a blind eye or express frustration to those expressing a more conservative perspective.

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer. But in the divide you're talking about, one side has built its entire public presentation around enabling, encouraging, and pandering to this mindset, and the other has not. Hence, this mindset will be much more prevalent on one side than the other.

[Valthazar]

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer. But in the divide you're talking about, one side has built its entire public presentation around enabling, encouraging, and pandering to this mindset, and the other has not. Hence, this mindset will be much more prevalent on one side than the other.

I wasn't talking about any specific public figure, I was just speaking generally about people of all political persuasions.  One of the things I like about E is that people are respectful of differing political perspectives, but I have been on other forums where people simply ignore or become angry when someone expresses conservative viewpoints.  On that same token, there are many conservative forums, where people will ignore or become angry to more liberal viewpoints.  It is unhealthy and achieves nothing.

[Oniya]

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer.

'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.'

Of course some people might call me a Marxist for saying that.

[Ephiral]

I wasn't talking about any specific public figure, I was just speaking generally about people of all political persuasions.  One of the things I like about E is that people are respectful of differing political perspectives, but I have been on other forums where people simply ignore or become angry when someone expresses conservative viewpoints.  On that same token, there are many conservative forums, where people will ignore or become angry to more liberal viewpoints.  It is unhealthy and achieves nothing.

I wasn't talking about any specific public figure, either; I was referring to general trends. In conservatism, there is a strong trend toward anger, fortress mentality, othering the enemy, outright lies to advance an agenda, and bigotry.* This trend is very directly encouraged by most of the public-facing elements of conservatism as a movement. While "othering the enemy" happens a lot in politics anyway, institutional encouragement of it is much more prevalent on the conservative side of the fence. Progressivism has its institutional issues, too - but they're largely centered around trying to be too big-tent to actually be effective and an ongoing fascination with warm fuzzy New Agey bullshit. As a direct result of this, one should expect to find more angry, bigoted people who refuse to listen to anything an outsider might say among conservatives - a trend that certainly appears, at first blush, to be borne out by reality.

*This is not to be taken as a statement that all conservatives are guilty of all, or even any, of the above. There are intelligent, basically reasonable people within conservatism; they just appear to be rare, apathetic, or ineffective enough that they cannot fix the trends.

[Valthazar]

You're entitled to your perspective, but the institutional issues you raise are present at both ends of the spectrum.  The pundits in the media are more interested in getting people to become antagonistic to one another, than in developing intelligent solutions.  The media panders to both liberals and conservatives on hot-button issues in order to gain support on issues that largely have very little to do with economics, public policy, or infrastructure.  Ending abortion is a galvanizing issue in movement Conservatism, just as ending perceived racism is a galvanizing issue in Liberalism. 

To many conservatives, it is unimaginable and unthinkable to kill a fetus.  This makes some conservatives angry and bigoted in their dealings with those who disagree.  To many liberals, it is unimaginable and unthinkable that a woman's choice over the fetus growing inside her would be hampered by society.  This makes some liberals angry and bigoted in their dealings with those who disagree.

We see some conservatives who openly threaten to kill (and have killed) abortionists, just as we see some liberals erupting in violence after the Trayvon Martin ruling.

While I fall in neither the liberal nor conservative category, the point is that all of us - whether liberals or conservatives - are ultimately decent people, who are simply being conditioned to focus on areas of disagreement rather than share the many things we have in common.

[Ephiral]

You're entitled to your perspective, but the institutional issues you raise are present at both ends of the spectrum.  The pundits in the media are more interested in getting people to become antagonistic to one another, than in developing intelligent solutions.  The media panders to both liberals and conservatives on hot-button issues in order to gain support on issues that largely have very little to do with economics, public policy, or infrastructure.  Ending abortion is a galvanizing issue in movement Conservatism, just as ending perceived racism is a galvanizing issue in Liberalism.

Riiight. Show me the progressive news outlet that sued for (and won!) the right to outright lie to its viewers. Show me the liberal radio and print empires built on the premise that all outsiders are murderous heathens, so send us money. Show me the members of goddamn Congress on the progressive side who casually drop statements about how certain people don't deserve rights, or victims aren't really victims. Conversely, show me the conservative fact-checkers, who call out bullshit where they see it regardless of what team it's on. Show me the conservative media outlet that pushes policy even remotely connected to established and well-documented reality. Show me the conservative leaders who actively push people to get a wider perspective on key issues, including examining anything but the craziest version of the other side's perspective.

Yes, there is some crap on both sides, but it's hardly the even distribution you claim.

To many conservatives, it is unimaginable and unthinkable to kill a fetus.  This makes some conservatives angry and bigoted in their dealings with those who disagree.  To many liberals, it is unimaginable and unthinkable that a woman's choice over the fetus growing inside her would be hampered by society.  This makes some liberals angry and bigoted in their dealings with those who disagree.

You can start by defining "bigoted", with the stipulation that I will reject any definition that includes "stating that adult human beings should have human rights". Once you've done that, let's see how big "some" is on each side. You already know how this will look.

We see some conservatives who openly threaten to kill (and have killed) abortionists, just as we see some liberals erupting in violence after the Trayvon Martin ruling.

While I fall in neither the liberal nor conservative category, the point is that all of us - whether liberals or conservatives - are ultimately decent people, who are simply being conditioned to focus on areas of disagreement rather than share the many things we have in common.

The difference: Nobody encouraged the violence around the Martin ruling from on high. In fact, I don't recall a single mention that didn't condemn it. On the other hand, active promotion of violence against LGBT people is a big thing in conservative circles. (Active promotion of violence against doctors who perform abortions has died down somewhat since courts made it clear that that shit won't fly because doctors keep turning up dead.)

It's kinda hard to focus on - or even find - common ground with someone who says you should be killed for the crime of existence, let alone any of the other very popular and very toxic policies in the conservasphere.

EDIT: Also worth noting - in fact, already noted in this thread: The widespread hatred for abortion in at least the Evangelical community and, I believe, the wider conservative community is about thirty years old - a decade before that, abortion freedom was considered a major victory for religious freedom and to be protected strongly. Why did that change so quickly, do you suppose?

[Valthazar]

You have a very legitimate opinion on this matter - but realize that it represents the liberal viewpoint.  If we had an openly conservative poster here, you'd likely see him or her suggest that it is liberals who always twist the facts.  It's no different than being on a debate team, and comparing strategies as to who can smear the other viewpoint the best.

A lot of these issues tend to be very subjective in nature - depending on how someone chooses to view it.  It is unlikely that people will be able to respect differing viewpoints on many of these issues anytime soon.

[Ephiral]

You have a very legitimate opinion on this matter - but realize that it represents the liberal viewpoint.  If we had an openly conservative poster here, you'd likely see him or her suggest that it is liberals who always twist the facts.  It's no different than being on a debate team, and comparing strategies as to who can smear the other viewpoint the best.

A lot of these issues tend to be very subjective in nature - depending on how someone chooses to view it.  It is unlikely that people will be able to respect differing viewpoints on many of these issues anytime soon.

Oh, stop with the patronizing bullshit already. We counter viewpoint bias with evidence, which I have explicitly requested. (A casual observer can easily point out the inverted examples of everything I was looking for.) You have a very unfortunate tendency to dodge straightforward questions, Valthazar, and it will never fly with me. Do you have an example of even one of those things, or are you just making shit up when you say "It's all equal, everyone does it the same!"?

[Valthazar]

Nothing I said was patronizing - I stated twice that I respect your perspectives.  I realize you hold some strong views on these issues, and nothing productive is going to come out of me attempting to debate socially conservative viewpoints, which I myself don't even hold.  Perhaps someone else who actually feels strongly about these views would be a better person to debate with.

[Iniquitous]

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Thought I’d answer that request. And since I am seeing an intolerance of the opinion of others in this thread atm, I am only going to ask how we went from discussing Pat saying something offensive to this bickering and incivility.

[Oniya]

Liberal or conservative - if one goes into a debate with the attitude that the other person is going to misrepresent things, it's very rare that anything productive occurs.  This is one of the primary problems in the US Congress today.

Let's not make it a problem here.

[Ephiral]

Nothing I said was patronizing - I stated twice that I respect your perspectives.  I realize you hold some strong views on these issues, and nothing productive is going to come out of me attempting to debate socially conservative viewpoints, which I myself don't even hold.  Perhaps someone else who actually feels strongly about these views would be a better person to debate with.

Trying to "educate" someone on what their viewpoint is can't help but come off as patronizing. You may want to consider that in the future.

Thought I’d answer that request. And since I am seeing an intolerance of the opinion of others in this thread atm, I am only going to ask how we went from discussing Pat saying something offensive to this bickering and incivility.

Holding 'civility' as sacred is kinda one of the issues on the progressive side. I see no reason to show any special deference or respect to falsehoods or those who perpetuate them - in fact, from my perspective, it's rather disrespectful to the general public to allow people to feed them bullshit without challenging it. That said, out of respect for you and Oniya, I'm done on that particular tangent.

[Iniquitous]

Trying to "educate" someone on what their viewpoint is can't help but come off as patronizing. You may want to consider that in the future.
Holding 'civility' as sacred is kinda one of the issues on the progressive side. I see no reason to show any special deference or respect to falsehoods or those who perpetuate them - in fact, from my perspective, it's rather disrespectful to the general public to allow people to feed them bullshit without challenging it. That said, out of respect for you and Oniya, I'm done on that particular tangent.

I was mentioning in reference to E's rule of civility. You've come across as very hostile and rude. I am not sure if you realize how you come across, but it is a bit off putting to see you attack someone else's opinions just because you do not agree with them.

[Ephiral]

Just want to state this publicly: You're right, IO. My second-to-last post was over the line, and getting self-righteous about it doesn't help. I apologize, and will not continue this discussion further in thread.

[mj2002]

I thought about this thread a bit and I realized that it's not just about Pat Robertson. It's about all the people out there that will blindly follow any individual that is part of a certain group, party, or spouting ideas that 'seem' to fit into whatever world they live in. My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

There is no reason for that hate. Yet, reason won't work on those individuals.

It's just how some thongs are. Unfortunately.

Education. Education. Education.

A proper education is the best way to make sure people like this become less numerous over time.

[Iniquitous]

Education. Education. Education.

A proper education is the best way to make sure people like this become less numerous over time.

Assuming, of course, that the government run school system isn't indoctrinating our children.

[Oniya]

Education can come from a lot of places - especially if you answer the questions 'why' and 'how' whenever they're asked.  Getting them a library card at an early age also helps.

(Heck, if I had relied on the schools in this district for the little Oni's education... *shudder*)

[Valthazar]

Oniya is right, it really all comes down to the parents.  There are many important life lessons which are omitted in the K-12 curriculum - the lack of which results in students falling into certain common traps, which may then influence future voting patterns.

Money management is rarely taught.  Many kids graduate not knowing how to write out a check, or develop a monthly budget.  Lacking these skills is likely to lead to students being in a bad spot financially as adults or in massive debt.  One can imagine how this may influence their political and economic views.  In addition, K-12 schools really don't teach a lot of life lessons regarding presentability, the importance of a positive attitude, entrepreneurship, etc. (lessons which parents really should be teaching).  These traits are critical in gaining jobs and opportunities in life.  In fact, I would say these lessons are more vital than many academic subjects currently being taught in K-12.

Without a good parental influence, the school system ultimately fails students in the long-term.  So to that end, I can see why some say the K-12 system (exclusively by itself) is ill-preparing students, and leading them down a biased path.

[Oniya]

What it mostly comes down to is instilling a sense of curiosity and a desire to learn instead of shutting it down.  Once they want to learn new things, it's just a matter of giving the sponge something to soak up.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

Education is exactly what needs to happen.

I feel a step in the right direction, would be presenting only facts when it comes to politics. And not the opinions of someone who read the opinions of someone else who got those opinions from someone else that was listening to someone who paraphrased something that was in a memo from the desk of so and so.  That may be an exaggeration. However, when my uncle starts his spewing of propaganda, I look up what he's spewing and I try to find something that will prove or debunk his claims. Very rarely has anything he's said been 100% true. It most usually, thankfully, turns out to be something that is very outdated or something that is an opinion and not a fact or perhaps a portion of something else.

Oh, Oniya. When I think of the crummy curriculum in the schools I attended, I shudder to think what it's like now.

[Healergirl]

Why does what Pat robertson say matetr?

Well, because he has a popular TV show, The 700 Club.

That is the practical answer.  Not very satisfying on the meta level, but there you go.

[Septembr]

It's probably his offensiveness that gives him an ego boost and the attention he seeks to begin with....who knows...I pay him no mind though....to each his own....

[ANewMan]

I don't see anything wrong with saying some stupid. It's just stupid.

[BeeJay]

Can anyone really say they are surprised that a fundamentalist Christian said something bigoted and ignorant? I mean the entire doctrine behind Pat Robertson supports and lays down rules for treating wives as chattel, owning and beating slaves, beating and stoning children, forcing raped women to marry their rapist, etc. ad nauseam. I would have been surprised if he were capable of making a moral statement at all.   

[Oniya]

Whoa... necro-thread... 


*plants a line of chompers*

[Alsheriam]

Can you feel that good ol' Christian love?

[Oniya]

I can't believe that anyone cared enough about Pat Robertson to reopen a thread that hadn't been posted in for almost three months.

[Ironwolf85]

Facts:
Pat Robertson is a dipshit, but he's a rich religious dipshit, therefore people think he matters. Shocker, he's just a dipshit.
This thread got a necro-dig because of the atheist thread above.
The guys at FOX who poured billions of hours of screen time into saving Twinkies, and waging a war on "turrisum", didn't lift a finger to refund the space program.
Republicans have a shitty long term political plan.
Hilary is running in 2016
The middle east is at war with itself.
Guardians of the Galaxy came out today (HECK YEAH)
Many Americans are overweight.
It rains in England.
Germans make good beer
Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world.
China is overpopulated.
and people LOVE sex.

That will be all.  ;)

[BeeJay]

I'm sorry. I didn't look at the date for the last post. Is thread necromancy against the rules?

[Ironwolf85]

Nothing offical but it's considered bad form it it's months old.
So I guess we do taboos about practicing the dark arts on software at least.  ;)