| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't understand it, so I'll just ignore it," is one of the absolute worst guiding philosophies you can have.
Not quite as bad as the "I don't understand it so I better destroy it" philosophies. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First and foremost Pat Robertson is a business man.
He, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and those like them all feed on people's misery and fear. They know damn well that D&D, or any RPG for that matter, isn't real but they do know that there are people out there who will listen to almost anything they have to say so they run with it. They put the fear into people's mind so they can be better controlled. If I spin you a line of bull that you end up believing then you listen to me more and more and more until you basically believe anything that comes out of my mouth.
The more people that listen and believe, the more their pockets are filled.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, it is always best to judge people on their own respects, but it is also foolish to think that you won't be judged by others based on the company you keep.
Hmm, so to use your example... Harry Hay is still championed by the left. Harry Hay supported Communists and NAMBLA, so you judge the gay rights movement by the 'company they keep', NAMBLA and Stalin.
OR you're saying I should not trust my neighbor Layla because she's Somali, and we've had Somali terror attempts here in Columbus. I *am* keeping an eye on her, but to make sure she doesn't get grief from people like you.
Am I the only one who sees how absurd that is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are outright saying that it's ok to 'judge you by the company you keep' I say that's hogwash.
OK, you and five acquaintances walk into a store. Shopkeeper says, "what do you need?" and one of your acquaintances pulls out a pistol and demands he empty the register. You had no idea this person was going to do that, but you all stand there while he robs the store, and all then leave the store with him, and have lunch with him later on. None of you call the cops or turn him in.
But you didn't rob the store, so the storekeeper should be happy to see you, if you and the other four non-pistol-wielders walk in the next day.
There comes a point where, if you're in someone's company and they blatantly do something you don't agree with, you have to do something if you want to disassociate yourself from it. Even if it's only one member of a much larger group.
Wel if it's me I'm going to grab the gun and pistol whip the snot out of my 'friend'. The Shopkeeper is judging you by your actions (or inactions in your example)
Exactly my point. If Westboro says "All Christians hate gays and want to boycott soldiers' funerals," people look to see what the other churches' response is going to be. A lot of those other churches, realizing that inaction was a choice there, decided to take action, and staged protests against Westboro.
As a result, Westboro is NOT considered representative of Christianity as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rationality doesn't really exist on either far wing. Yay for ideology! And the use of "right wing" and "left wing" as well as conservative and liberal are often misused at least how they are defined in political science.
And the thing most people don't realize if you far enough left...or right you end up in the exact same place.
|
You are outright saying that it's ok to 'judge you by the company you keep' I say that's hogwash.OK, you and five acquaintances walk into a store. Shopkeeper says, "what do you need?" and one of your acquaintances pulls out a pistol and demands he empty the register. You had no idea this person was going to do that, but you all stand there while he robs the store, and all then leave the store with him, and have lunch with him later on. None of you call the cops or turn him in.
But you didn't rob the store, so the storekeeper should be happy to see you, if you and the other four non-pistol-wielders walk in the next day.
There comes a point where, if you're in someone's company and they blatantly do something you don't agree with, you have to do something if you want to disassociate yourself from it. Even if it's only one member of a much larger group.
I think this analogy is a little off when it comes to comparing Christians to Pat Roberston and his brand of religion.
A better example would be 5 people wearing Boston Red Sox hats and rob a place. I come in the next day wearing a Boston Red Sox hat and he is not happy to see me. Understandably he may be triggered by seeing that red Sox hat and may view me with suspicion because of what just happened. But I myself had no knowledge of what those previous people did and have no real relationship with those people other than be fans of the same sports team.
Christians are so varied from one group to another. Their beliefs are mainly in God and the son of god and a holy spirit and stuff like that. But my church the Episcopal church has I feel been on the right side of these sorts of issues from the beginning supporting gay rights and marriage before it was common place. No group is perfect and I certainly would not claim it to be we always need to do better and not be complacent. But I think all the good that is done far outways the things we can do better at. I would prefer not to be lumped in with other less open minded religious groups. I can certainly understand why many people do lump us together ... but that does not make it right and I feel obligated to say something much like I would stand up for anyone who I felt was being downtrodden.
As I write this perhaps this is a bit strong because I don't think you mean to downtrodden on the religious folk at all. You have a valid point that other groups who disagree with what is being said by those calling themselves Christians should speak out against them. I think they do when they can. But in the scheme of things they have many people they look to take care of and spending time fighting fringe groups is not time well spent. Most churches want to help people and spend their time and limited resources doing that. I have met you and I like you so I responded to your post while trying to respond to others I think are less open minded and understanding of others when it comes to religion than yourself. If I came across incorrectly I apologize. I was trying to address numerous thoughts at once.
If I came across incorrectly I apologize.
Not at all; your post was remarkably cogent, I thought. I suspect that if you, personally, knew that a guy in a Sox cap robbed a store the day before, you might be a little less blase about walking into the same store the very next day wearing a Sox cap, and might even go a little out of your way to avoid looking like you were about to hold the place up again -- you struck me as being generally quite considerate of others.
Overall, in my experience you, and most people who belong to your "brand" of Christianity, not only disagree with the likes of Robertson, but also do a pretty good job of demonstrating it. But I've met you personally, and as you point out, that makes a difference. Because sometimes I think of all the other churches that maybe aren't quite so distant from Robertson -- back to our parable, imagine a bunch of local teenagers who all wear Red Sox caps and all hang out in that store all the time, not robbing the place, but loitering and not buying anything. Sooner or later, the storekeeper will learn to negatively associate Sox caps -- which is arguably neither rational or fair on his part, but understandable -- unless he gets to know you personally and learns that you are an exception.
In any event, for participants on the thread, I would think your post did exactly that -- it seems unlikely that anyone here will ever associate you with Robertson, and because you specifically named your church as well, it seems likely some of that immunity will rub off on them, too, by the same association principle.
P.S. If I haven't been clear, let me just say point-blank that I enjoyed meeting you as well, and share your kind regards.
Ugg. Things like this give all of Christianity a bad name, when only a fringe element actually believes this. Its like Jack Chick running around with his head cut off because of 15 year old kids saying, "I cast magic missile, for...3 damage!"
You're totally going to be condemned to an eternity in Gehenna for having dared to say the words magic missile. I wish that these Jack Chick/Pat Robertson types would focus on more important issues.
Awww, man, a kid killed Jack Chick with a magic missile? That's going to throw new kindling on that fire. By the way, anyone check if it was a maximized magic missile?
Pat is just a cooky old man who's pretty much lost any real credibility (I mean how else could you have an article devoted to your controversies?). His thoughts may be paranoid, over generalized, and misinformed, but to compare him to a group that actively comes to protest your funeral is a bit extreme.
Awww, man, a kid killed Jack Chick with a magic missile? That's going to throw new kindling on that fire. By the way, anyone check if it was a maximized magic missile?Ugg. Things like this give all of Christianity a bad name, when only a fringe element actually believes this. Its like Jack Chick running around with his head cut off because of 15 year old kids saying, "I cast magic missile, for...3 damage!"
You're totally going to be condemned to an eternity in Gehenna for having dared to say the words magic missile. I wish that these Jack Chick/Pat Robertson types would focus on more important issues.
I think it was both quickened and maximized and followed up with another maximized one for go measure.
Awww, man, a kid killed Jack Chick with a magic missile? That's going to throw new kindling on that fire. By the way, anyone check if it was a maximized magic missile?Ugg. Things like this give all of Christianity a bad name, when only a fringe element actually believes this. Its like Jack Chick running around with his head cut off because of 15 year old kids saying, "I cast magic missile, for...3 damage!"
You're totally going to be condemned to an eternity in Gehenna for having dared to say the words magic missile. I wish that these Jack Chick/Pat Robertson types would focus on more important issues.
Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated. I even have a movie coming out.
Oh, Pat Robertson. Go home, you're drunk.
|
|
Funny enough, a friend and I were talking about how many life skills one can pick up from "D&D" and Star Trek.
Little things like:
How to lead effectively
How to be a good teammate
How to be proactive/plan ahead
Strategy/tactics
How to act with honor and valor
Appreciation for math and science
How to accept others as they are
How to adapt to new cultures
I wonder how 'demonic' that might be...learning positive life skills from Pathfinder. LOL
Funny enough, a friend and I were talking about how many life skills one can pick up from "D&D" and Star Trek.
Little things like:
How to lead effectively
How to be a good teammate
How to be proactive/plan ahead
Strategy/tactics
How to act with honor and valor
Appreciation for math and science
How to accept others as they are
How to adapt to new culturesI wonder how 'demonic' that might be...learning positive life skills from Pathfinder. LOL
Unfortunaly the last two are thing that people like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick would consider to be 'negative' life lessons.
|
|
Not sure how far I'd go to say DnD/ST teaches you most of those things, but I do think it teaches you to be more creative, be a better storyteller, improve interpersonal skills, work on improvisation etc.Funny enough, a friend and I were talking about how many life skills one can pick up from "D&D" and Star Trek.
Little things like:
How to lead effectively
How to be a good teammate
How to be proactive/plan ahead
Strategy/tactics
How to act with honor and valor
Appreciation for math and science
How to accept others as they are
How to adapt to new culturesI wonder how 'demonic' that might be...learning positive life skills from Pathfinder. LOL
Yeah gonna second that. Being able to count out squares and by fives for movement is hardly math. God only knows what science is shown in D&D. Honor and valor? Half the time you're looting corpses. Accept others as the are tell the freshly more corpses.
Pat Robertson is a bit out there but yeah...so are some gamers. It's storytelling and collaboration ill give you that.
|
|
Appreciation for math:
"My damage mod's what again, Dad? And what do I add again to know how much damage I did? Why do I add that number there that I wrote down?"
"Let's break it down. You normally have a STR of 15, and you're using a +2 flaming mace, and you've just cast Bull's Strength last round, so..."
"The minotaur tries to resist your spell. What does he need to roll to resist it, son?"
"Um..."
"Let's add it up together."
Science/Physics:
"Mom, why doesn't the alchemists fire kill the dry plant creature thing?"
"Well, first of all...you missed. So it only takes 1 point of splash damage."
"How did it get splashed if I missed?"
"You see, this square was hit, but these squares get splash. Let's go in the kitchen and I'll show you how it works using a square map and a glass pan."
Honor/valor:
There are groups that are less "murder hobo" than "CG PCs with LG tendencies roaming about righting wrongs". And I once played with a group of paladin characters who had serious qualms about taking items from dead opponents. YMMV, and all.
Teamwork:
Why else have a monk, a sorceror, a barbarian, and a rogue all travel together if they didn't have to work together well enough to get Teh Phat Lootz they'd never be able to acquire alone?
AURGH! Can't believe I forgot about creativity and several of the other great points. *headdesk* (Duncan Hills, I've run out of your coffee and your tea isn't strong enough!)
Total agreement that Pat Robertson's been on this subject for years, and not because the "D&D destroys lives" thing is necessarily true. And yes, gamers can be nutjobs too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've met a few of those over the years. Which is why I seldom talk about gaming with other people even if we're all standing in the bookstore looking at the same gaming book filled shelf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Math does come up in D&D. Once, we thought of using the "Stone Shape" spell to form a bridge over a chasm. If we want the bridge to be long enough to span the gap, and wide enough for us to cross it safely, will it be thick enough not to break? We have 15 cubic feet with which to work...
Also, the one time in my life that I ever found a use for trigonometry, it was to determine the length of a "diagonal hex", for gaming purposes. If you want to cut from the middle of one hex across the side to the next hex, how many hexes does that make? To determine the answer, I drew a triangle on a hex grid, and used the law of sines. (Just for the record, the answer is the square root of 3.)
As for science, I learned about several species of dinosaurs from D&D.
And of course, reading books in general, including game manuals, can help your vocabulary. As I child, I read the Basic D&D rulebook, which taught me words like charisma, melee, morale, scenario, and requisite.
I'll confess that even as an adult, I learned a few words from D&D manuals, such as prestidigitation (although I later realized that I had heard the word before), demesne, and eschew.
And when I taught my son, who was 4 years old at the time, to play Basic D&D, he also learned a lot of words, some of which (such as dexterity and initiative) he incorporated into his conversations on other subjects.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Math: Distance from the PCs to the enemy atop that 60 foot wall that's 210 feet away? Pythagorean theorem to the rescue!
I thought the 700 Club had gone off the air because all the people on it had died of old age and bitterness.
I guess hatred really does make you strong.
"Evil lives long" is the term I always liked best.
What bothers me most is that there are actually people - I assume gamers? - in this thread, trying to qualify what this man has said by bringing up fringe elements that may or may not even exist.
Don't defend anything Pat Robertson says. Don't ever try to qualify him or lend any credence at all to what comes dribbling out of his mouth. Pat Robertson is a mean old lying charlatan who bilks money from scared old ladies by putting the fear of an invisible sky man into them. He is wicked incarnate. We do not pretend what he says is true.
You might want to sound intelligent and wise by playing on the fence with this and saying offhand things like, "yeah, but what about people who play video games and ignore their kids?" Well, firstly I'd like to see some evidence of that, but even if it were true, how rare is it in comparison to any blanket statement Robertson might make to vilify EVERY PLAYER of EVERY GAME HE DOESN'T LIKE, anywhere, everywhere, all the time?
You can't qualify him and you cant make a comparison. He is a liar, a greedy, delusional man, and an all-around snake oil charmer.
Anyway, it is a very typical thing for people to do. They take the one extreme example (like Todd Akin), and then use that person to paint the entire group as being "horrible people." That is what they did with the case of Bink Pulling, who committed suicide because his character died. The thing is, Bink already had mental problems. But the media and some far-out-there-in-Cthulhu-ville "Christians" used his tragic death to paint all RPGs as bad.
There's a difference, though. I don't recall ever choosing Mr. Pulling to represent me or to make decisions on my behalf. I do recall a number of people choosing Mr. Akin to represent them.
I think it's quite fair to judge a person by the leader he chooses to follow.
There comes a point where, if you're in someone's company and they blatantly do something you don't agree with, you have to do something if you want to disassociate yourself from it. Even if it's only one member of a much larger group.
This strikes me as a rather silly position. If, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a press release denouncing what Pat Robertson said, would you know about it? I hear the same thing from people claiming that "All Muslims must support terrorism, because I've never heard any of them denouncing it." (Newsflash: They do, but the people who say that don't go out looking for it.)
Besides, if I went around denouncing and distancing myself from every stupid thing that some TV preacher said, I wouldn't have time for anything else. There's about 2 billion Christians in the world; why should I be held accountable for everything they say and believe?
Or maybe I'll take your tack and just assume that any atheists I meet from now on support mass murder, until I hear them specifically denounce Mao and Stalin.* Sound fair? On second thought, I think I'll assume people I meet are fair and reasonable until they themselves say or do something to suggest the contrary.
*Gross exaggeration
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, if I went around denouncing and distancing myself from every stupid thing that some TV preacher said, I wouldn't have time for anything else. There's about 2 billion Christians in the world; why should I be held accountable for everything they say and believe?
You're not accountable for everything they say and believe. But you are grouped with anything they say and believe in the name of their religion, in others' minds.
For instance, if a guy who happens to be Christian robs a car because he is a professional car thief, no one is going to (with any credibility) accuse you of being accountable for that theft. However, if someone who happens to be Christian commits genocide and, when asked why he did it, points to the same holy book you believe in and says, "Because that book said it was the right thing to do," Christians had better make damned sure they denounce that, because someone who doesn't know any better might get the idea that this holy book really does encourage that kind of atrocity.
Or maybe I'll take your tack and just assume that any atheists I meet from now on support mass murder, until I hear them specifically denounce Mao and Stalin.
How many atheists are you familiar with who committed mass murder in the name of atheism?
For that matter, how many atheists are you familiar with who committed any crime in the name of atheism?
And, beyond that, what possible reasoning could there be behind lumping atheists together as having anything in common with one another, beyond simply not believing in a deity? Their atheism is a lack of belief, not the presence of a massive set of core tenets of faith.
Or maybe I'll take your tack and just assume that any atheists I meet from now on support mass murder, until I hear them specifically denounce Mao and Stalin.How many atheists are you familiar with who committed mass murder in the name of atheism?
For that matter, how many atheists are you familiar with who committed any crime in the name of atheism?
And, beyond that, what possible reasoning could there be behind lumping atheists together as having anything in common with one another, beyond simply not believing in a deity? Their atheism is a lack of belief, not the presence of a massive set of core tenets of faith.
And there goes this thread. Nothing good ever comes of this approach.
Admittedly it started with the Mao & Stalin bit, but you don't have to bite at the bait.
This is a thread about Pat Robertson. We're already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many atheists are you familiar with who committed mass murder in the name of atheism?
For that matter, how many atheists are you familiar with who committed any crime in the name of atheism?
And, beyond that, what possible reasoning could there be behind lumping atheists together as having anything in common with one another, beyond simply not believing in a deity? Their atheism is a lack of belief, not the presence of a massive set of core tenets of faith.
Oh, so you don't like it when people lump atheists together based on that one incredibly broad label? Well, guess what?
I don't like it either. That was my point.
There have been billions and billions of Christians throughout history. Many were great humanitarians. Some were mass-murdering Nazis. Likewise, there have been billions of atheists throughout history. Many were great humanitarians. Some were mass-murdering communists. And while many gamers have even founded charities, a few have snapped and committed suicide or gone on crime sprees because they got too involved in their character.
But it's the bad ones that always make the news. As G. K. Chesterton said of newspapers, "They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complex picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual." If you go through life assuming all Christians think like the Westboro Baptist Church or Pat Robertson by default, you're going to end up with a very skewed and cynical view of the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pat is just a cooky old man who's pretty much lost any real credibility.
I wish, but it's more accurate to say that he retains credibility with a segment of the population that has never put much store in evidence-based credibility in the first place. And the sad part is that while that population is not as large as it was at Robertson's heyday, it's still disturbingly large. And there are plenty of other groupings within American Christianity that are, intellectually, barely a hop, skip, or jump from cooky Pat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so you don't like it when people lump atheists together based on that one incredibly broad label? Well, guess what?
I don't like it either. That was my point.
I'm not sure if you didn't read what I said, or didn't understand it, or what.
There have been billions and billions of Christians throughout history. Many were great humanitarians. Some were mass-murdering Nazis. Likewise, there have been billions of atheists throughout history. Many were great humanitarians. Some were mass-murdering communists.
And yet there is a difference between someone who happens to be part of a particular group doing something awful, and someone who happens to be part of a particular group doing something awful in the name of that group.
If you go through life assuming all Christians think like the Westboro Baptist Church or Pat Robertson by default, you're going to end up with a very skewed and cynical view of the world.
I don't think anyone believes this. The beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and Pat Robertson are extreme, even by fundamentalist Christian standards. But there are plenty of less extreme Christians who still hold viewpoints that I consider indefensible, and who hold those viewpoints because of their identity as a Christian.
Imagine, for a moment, that there exists a cult of pineapple-worshipers. They worship pineapples. And while their love for pineapples is unmatched, most of them are totally non-violent about their faith in everything that is pineapple.
Imagine, then, that you grew up in an area where the only pineapple-worshipers around subscribed to a fringe belief that any non-believer who eats a pineapple is evil, and must be punished, and these particular pineapple-worshipers commit horrible crimes in the name of their pineapple-y religious beliefs.
If the vast majority of your exposure to pineapple worship was these violent radicals, it would be totally reasonable for you to believe their religion to be dangerous (despite this being untrue). They believe in things that are repugnant to you, and they believe those things because of their faith. If you met a non-violent pineapple-worshiper, you would probably assume that they believe some of those repugnant things as well, simply because you haven't had enough exposure to the non-violent sort to understand that the ones you grew up around were extremists.
That's what we're talking about. A lot of people only see the extremists, or the fundamentalists, because they receive the attention, and they - justifiably - begin to worry that there is something essential to Christian belief that causes its followers to behave in a repugnant manner. That's something we need to push back at. We need to make it very clear that those people do not represent what is essential to Christianity, that they are so far gone that they disgust other Christians, and that our beliefs are approachable and make sense, from a moral and ethical standpoint.
Yes, it's not particularly pleasant to be forced to denounce people who purport to share your beliefs, but that's okay. Being Christian isn't supposed to be easy, and we've paid a high price for acting like it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best to note, there is a considerably sound theory that WBC is actually a litigation scam rather than a belief system. They make money by goading people into physical assault, then suing them.
The less media attention they get, the better. Once you understand their real intentions, it becomes a lot easier to ignore them.
To that end, using them in any conversation about religious belief is like judging the value of email based solely on spam.
Well, 99.98% of all email today IS spam, so...
To that end, using them in any conversation about religious belief is like judging the value of email based solely on spam.
Agreed.
Being Christian isn't supposed to be easy, and we've paid a high price for acting like it is.
Also, this. ^^^
Best to note, there is a considerably sound theory that WBC is actually a litigation scam rather than a belief system. They make money by goading people into physical assault, then suing them.
The less media attention they get, the better. Once you understand their real intentions, it becomes a lot easier to ignore them.
To that end, using them in any conversation about religious belief is like judging the value of email based solely on spam.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, they get tons of coverage, and relatively few people are aware of the fact that they are, at this point, some of the most experienced free-speech lawyers in the country. To a lot of people, they just look like crazy Christians.
Prosperity Gospel is what I think they call it. Pathetic.
It's like creating a backronym.
Here's what we want to believe, so what do we need to do to the Bible to make those beliefs appear legitimate?
Fourth century. Nicea. Emperor Constantin.
I hereby pronounce you all Discordian!
- Umbral, Mome of Eris