92 replies to this topic

[Kazoo]

I laughed. Then I was sad. Then I laughed again. Then I was sad.

I hope this was acting.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Maybe you better get your facts straight then?

http://dictionary.re...rowse/charlatan
a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

Edit: A fraud or con artist is a charlatan, but not all charlatans are con artists.

What about quacks? Because that was clearly also part of that definition.

You do know the word charlatan itself comes from people who used to sell medicine in some French village 100s of years ago. So the way you are using has lost it's original sense and is not the way most people use it today. But good to know.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

What about quacks? Because that was clearly also part of that definition.

What about it?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quack

Quote

You do know the word charlatan itself comes from people who used to sell medicine in some French village 100s of years ago. So the way you are using has lost it's original sense and is not the way most people use it today. But good to know.

Did you know cretin comes from the word christian?

But really I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you unaware that words and language evolve?

[supervike]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

But really I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you unaware that words and language evolve?

Certainly you know the point.  The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics.  It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Edited by supervike, 04 December 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[Rlyeh]

supervike, on 04 December 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Certainly you know the point.  The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics.  It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Exactly.
Many who practice quackery are just as fooled into the belief as their customers, it doesn't make them a con artist.

http://www.quackwatc...s/quackdef.html

[Leave Britney alone!]

supervike, on 04 December 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Certainly you know the point.  The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics.  It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Good point.

I am not the one who focused on the word con in post #9. It was such a clever trick it took me away from my original point: Except in this case the actors might actually believe the roles they play. It becomes modern mythology, a part of the psyche, a bit bigger than your average con.

Those were my comments and still are on this issue and had nothing whatsoever to do with his. So when he asks, "Where did I imply they didn't? A charlatan doesn't necessarily mean a con artist, just someone peddling foolishness as knowledge."

You didn't imply it, those were my original thoughts on the issue.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Exactly.
Many who practice quackery are just as fooled into the belief as their customers, it doesn't make them a con artist.

http://www.quackwatc...s/quackdef.html

Still hammering the same angle with wanting to introduce and debate the definition of words even providing a link to yet another defintion.

Please, I simply don't believe in all cases there is a profit motive and if this is true then they are not charlatans or quacks in the way most people understand those words, they have something to do with profit while fooling others.

The main point is simply I don't believe in all cases they are trying to fool anyone much less make a profit, they really believe it. A part of their psyche breaks free and becomes a "demon". They are not simply acting in a fake manner in some instances.

Of course there are plenty of exorcism circuses out to make a show and money, this could very well be one. Not going to be definitive except to the fact that I disagree with your quick judgement on the matter, nothing is definitive from our distance.

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Please, I simply don't believe in all cases there is a profit motive and if this is true then they are not charlatans or quacks in the way most people understand those words, they have something to do with profit while fooling others.

Most people who can't read or use a dictionary, apparently.

Continue beating your straw man.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 December 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Bling]

Back to the video.....I think it's incredibly sad that this guy feels he has to go through such an ordeal. Being gay does not equate to being possessed by a demon - any fool knows that, but once in the clutches of fanatical religious folk clearly his mind has been brainwashed. Either that or he has other issues or wants the attention. Either way, it's pretty shocking that these things are even going on in this enlightened world.

[Leave Britney alone!]

The main point is simply I don't believe in all cases they are trying to fool anyone much less make a profit, they really believe it. A part of their psyche breaks free and becomes a "demon". They are not simply acting in a fake manner in some instances.

Of course there are plenty of exorcism circuses out to make a show and money, this could very well be one.


I see no strawmen here.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Bling, on 04 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Back to the video.....I think it's incredibly sad that this guy feels he has to go through such an ordeal. Being gay does not equate to being possessed by a demon - any fool knows that, but once in the clutches of fanatical religious folk clearly his mind has been brainwashed. Either that or he has other issues or wants the attention. Either way, it's pretty shocking that these things are even going on in this enlightened world.

I don't find some opinions enlightening themselves.

No one truly has a right to say what cultural practices belong in this world or not except those within those very cultures. Only from the inside can culture legitimately be changed. Not through a colonialist mindset of dictating that other societies and segments of our society should do things exactly as we do when we had our our chance to grow, have internal debates, change, and so forth. Others must be allowed this.

Boiling things down to fanatics, brainwashing, and other stereotypical antireligious accusation is a very simplistic approach.

Opinions that shade these people as wrong, are opinions which are wrong themselves. I agree they do need to change and there is plenty of suffering. Encouraging that change and understanding them is better than just ridiculing them, that doesn't help. And it doesn't matter if someone spent a few years in such a place and ran away, they are no longer part of the culture and cannot effectively change it from the outside.

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Bling]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

I don't find some opinions enlightening themselves.

No one truly has a right to say what cultural practices belong in this world or not except those within those very cultures. Only from the inside can culture legitimately be changed. Not through a colonialist mindset of dictating that other societies and segments of our society should do things exactly as we do when we had our our chance to grow, have internal debates, change, and so forth. Others must be allowed this.

Opinions that shade these people as wrong, are opinions which are wrong themselves. I agree they do need to change and there is plenty of suffering.

So it's ok to tell a gay person they are possessed by a demon?

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

The main point is simply I don't believe in all cases they are trying to fool anyone much less make a profit, they really believe it. A part of their psyche breaks free and becomes a "demon". They are not simply acting in a fake manner in some instances.

Of course there are plenty of exorcism circuses out to make a show and money, this could very well be one.


I see no strawmen here.

Perhaps you'd like you explain who is accusing exorcists of fraud?

[Leave Britney alone!]

Bling, on 04 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

So it's ok to tell a gay person they are possessed by a demon?

Depends on context. Someone who is part of that system and accepts such a belief because someone who also believes that told them, I see no reason to cast fingers and say someone is right or wrong. It is a part of the culture. There is another option than a quick judgmental call, it is called understanding other cultures exist.

Does telling a gay person they are possessed damaging to them, yes, should such a person realize the truth and leave that culture then bravo, but if they remain within and try to change it then that is better. Staying in and pretending while being repressed, worst thing ever.

It is a very nuanced situation. Black and white thinking doesn't allow a clear view and definitely no solution. We need to embrace them into the modern world, not cast them off as being crazed lunatics. That dialogue is an old one, us versus them, but whatever everyone has their view and this is spirituality vs skeptics after all. This is just my view.

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Arbenol68]

The joy and liberation of unquestioning religious belief.

What century is this?