Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[President Bush]

The word agenda need not be a list of things to be done. Sometimes it refers to an organized plan to accomplish a goal. Usually it could be said that the CDC has a plan, or an agenda to limit the spread of infectious disease.

Sometimes the word agenda is used in a sinister sense, as in hidden agenda, but the CDC is pretty open about their plans and goals, nobody is surprised by their plan to limit the spread of infectious diseases.

Just like nobody is surprised by the Surgeon General’s agenda to combat smoking by disseminating propaganda against it.

Are you suggesting, then, that the CDC is egaging in propaganda?

Propaganda may be true. We’ve been over this many times.

Propaganda may also be a part of a program to educate. They’re just not interested in a full education.



No, and nothing I said would suggest that.

You’re use of “larger plan” seemed to imply a plan with greater goals than simply to stop people from smoking. I see no evidence of that, and don’t see how it would be relevant to our discussion either way.



So? It’s still propaganda.

There is no rule against true propaganda. One could (and should) argue it even makes for more effective propaganda. Few things can cool a persons ardor so much as learning that the information they used to make a decision on was false.



RandFan has already documented the weight-loss benefits of smoking. If you doubt that nicotine is a stimulant, I can suggest this link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=nico...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The smoking cure to hiccoughs is anecdotal and comes from my personal experience. If you’re skeptical, I’ll discard the assertion as I don’t see it as critical to my argument.



Can you define “need” as you use it here?

The Surgeon General gives all the information that is “needed” to decide to quit smoking. On the other hand, if you want to know all there is to know about smoking, the Surgeon General will not provide you with all the information you “need”. You would remain ignorant about the stimulant effect of nicotine, the pleasurable effects of smoking, how it enhances the flavor of beer, and how it can help you lose weight.



The issue under discussion here isn’t if smoking is good or bad. We all agree that it’s bad.

The issue under discussion here isn’t if the Surgeon General should continue its anti-smoking campaign. We all agree that he should.

The issue under discussion here isn’t if the Surgeon General’s anti-smoking campaign is true or not, we all agree that it is true.

The issue under discussion here is if the Surgeon General’s anti-smoking campaign fits the definition of propaganda, and so far you’ve been unable to show that it doesn’t except to make arguments based on smoking being bad, that the anti-smoking campaign is the right thing to do, and that it’s all true.

You need to stick to the issue.

Come up with a way to make these "positives" of smoking compensatory to the what the Surgeon General offers in his warning.

 

[Mephisto]

Maybe this will help clear things up?

I'll be honest and admit that I haven't fully kept up with this thread, but I do have another Dubya quote that might shed some light on the current discussion. I guess we've all agreed that propaganda doesn't necessarily have to be negative and that Bush likely doesn't know the repercussions of using the word so liberally, but I'm wondering how anyone can/will apologize for this statement:
________

I asked them the other day, would it be okay if I cut a 30-minute tape, a piece of propaganda, no questions, just here -- here it is, here's 30 minutes of me talking. Please run it, not only across your airwaves but run it internationally, if you don't mind. I've got something to say about the conflict and our fight against evil. They said, no, they're not going to do that. If I'm going to get on the news, they've got to ask me questions.
-- Apparently feeling more and more comfortable with the idea of being a dictator, press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nov. 13, 2001

 

[RandFan]

Are you suggesting, then, that the CDC is egaging in propaganda?

Do you have an example?

Come up with a way to make these "positives" of smoking compensatory to the what the Surgeon General offers in his warning.

Are you daft? This has nothing to do with the definition of propaganda.

 

[RandFan]

I'll be honest and admit that I haven't fully kept up with this thread, but I do have another Dubya quote that might shed some light on the current discussion. I guess we've all agreed that propaganda doesn't necessarily have to be negative and that Bush likely doesn't know the repercussions of using the word so liberally, but I'm wondering how anyone can/will apologize for this statement:
________

I asked them the other day, would it be okay if I cut a 30-minute tape, a piece of propaganda, no questions, just here -- here it is, here's 30 minutes of me talking. Please run it, not only across your airwaves but run it internationally, if you don't mind. I've got something to say about the conflict and our fight against evil. They said, no, they're not going to do that. If I'm going to get on the news, they've got to ask me questions.
-- Apparently feeling more and more comfortable with the idea of being a dictator, press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nov. 13, 2001

Could you clarify the point?

 

[RandFan]

"Needed"? Are you daft? Please to show the definition of propaganda that says anything about "needed"? And who the hell are you to decide what is "needed"?

I realize you are far too pompous and arrogant to answer my questions or to address my arguments but I'm going to ask them anyway. If anything it demonstrates how vacuous your position is that you can't bring yourself to answer direct questions.

Hypothetical:

• There is a new drug that could relieve anxiety and depression for people with bi-polar disorder.
• A scientific study is in progress to determine side effects and efficacy.
• Negative aspects of drug are believed to be minor but are scientifically undetermined.
• Positive aspects of drug are believed to be significant but are scientifically uncertain.

Questions:

1. Should prospective participants of study be told of potential negative aspects?
2. Should prospective participants of study be told of potential positive aspects of drug?

Bear in mind that the postivie aspects of the drug are subjective.

How about PB, care to answer the questions?

 

[RandFan]

You didn't answer my question!

If your doctor suggested a new medication that 90% of the population found had made them unhappy, depressed, miserable or sad and that those people didn't think that the benefits were worth the negative aspects, would you think it appropriate for your doctor to tell you even if the experiences were subjective?

Would you please have the decency to answer my question?

Still no answer. A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Mephisto]

Could you clarify the point?

Yes, my point being that Bush has used the word propaganda rather freely and in the last instance I quoted, it came quite a bit closer to the more traditional definition of propaganda. Maybe he DOES know the negative connotations and STILL uses the word. Is he just being honest, or still being stupid?

 

[RandFan]

First off, I have tried a number of assumptions and can't get your meaning no matter what I try. Let me ask some questions so I'm at least be straight before we discuss your proposition.

...in the last instance I quoted, it came quite a bit closer to the more traditional definition of propaganda.

Are you talking about Bush or Putin?

Maybe he DOES know the negative connotations and STILL uses the word. Is he just being honest, or still being stupid?

I never thought that Bush didn't know the negative connotations. But what does this have to do with the point at hand.

You still need to clarify. Could you provide a link? That might help.

 

[Mycroft]

I asked them the other day, would it be okay if I cut a 30-minute tape, a piece of propaganda, no questions, just here -- here it is, here's 30 minutes of me talking. Please run it, not only across your airwaves but run it internationally, if you don't mind. I've got something to say about the conflict and our fight against evil. They said, no, they're not going to do that. If I'm going to get on the news, they've got to ask me questions.

Okay, so Putin wants to make a 30 minute speech and have the media broadcast it because he wants to talk on an issue.

That sounds pretty normal. Our own POTUS does that sometimes too.

The press response also sounds pretty normal. I can understand them not wanting to cede too much control to the administration.

-- Apparently feeling more and more comfortable with the idea of being a dictator, press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nov. 13, 2001

I don't understand this. How is he acting like a dictator? He asked for something and didn't get it. Further, what he asked for was the opportunity to convince his constituents as well as the international community of the rightness of his policy, which is not the behavior of a dictator who simply does what he wants while relying on force to make people accept it.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you suggesting, then, that the CDC is egaging in propaganda?

They don't propagate propaganda that I'm aware of. I only said they have an agenda, and then we discussed what "agenda" means.

Now the CDC could utilize propaganda to advance their agenda. What if the CDC were responsible for the many AIDS posters we saw back in the 80’s and 90’s? It would certainly have been appropriate for them to warn people about methods of transmission, as well as educate people on how it’s not transmitted.

Remember this poster?

I never saw this one, but it’s definitely propaganda, but it’s also true.

That comes from this website:

http://www.avert.org/postershist.htm

It’s all propaganda. It also happens to be true and beneficial.

Come up with a way to make these "positives" of smoking compensatory to the what the Surgeon General offers in his warning.

Why?

Let’s look at the definition of propaganda again:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Where in that definition does it say there has to be “compensatory positives” to the Surgeon General’s warnings? I don’t see it anywhere.

Maybe a more simple definition would help:

Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause:

See? Nothing there about if the doctrine or cause is right or wrong, just that the material that advances it is disseminated.

 

[Mephisto]

Okay, so Putin wants to make a 30 minute speech and have the media broadcast it because he wants to talk on an issue.

The problem is that was a Bush quote, not a Putin quote.

Further, what he asked for was the opportunity to convince his constituents as well as the international community of the rightness of his policy, which is not the behavior of a dictator who simply does what he wants while relying on force to make people accept it.

I think it's going to take a lot more than a 30 minute audio tape to convince the world that Bush knows what he's doing. I also think that the prepared tape (which I don't doubt he actually had ready) was an effort to get away from answering questions, especially since his Russian audience wouldn't be screened first.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is that was a Bush quote, not a Putin quote.

Would you please provide a link? The context of the quote is not clear. I know that it is in your head and you assume everyone else should just get it but we don't. The request is not unreasonable Mephisto. You have provided a quote with a dateline as a Putin press confrence.

Help us out here.

 

[RandFan]

You still need to clarify. Could you provide a link? That might help.

First PB and now Mephisto. I'm in ignore function hell.

Oh well, I don't take myself that seriously. I guess PB and Mephisto don't take the argument too seriously.

 

[President Bush]

They don't propagate propaganda that I'm aware of. I only said they have an agenda, and then we discussed what "agenda" means.

Now the CDC could utilize propaganda to advance their agenda. What if the CDC were responsible for the many AIDS posters we saw back in the 80’s and 90’s? It would certainly have been appropriate for them to warn people about methods of transmission, as well as educate people on how it’s not transmitted.

Remember this poster?

I never saw this one, but it’s definitely propaganda, but it’s also true.

That comes from this website:

http://www.avert.org/postershist.htm

It’s all propaganda. It also happens to be true and beneficial.



Why?

Let’s look at the definition of propaganda again:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Where in that definition does it say there has to be “compensatory positives” to the Surgeon General’s warnings? I don’t see it anywhere.

Maybe a more simple definition would help:

Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause:

See? Nothing there about if the doctrine or cause is right or wrong, just that the material that advances it is disseminated.

I think you're waffling again, Mycroft. Because now you seem to be saying that no "positives" need be addressed (that smoking helps smokers to lose weight, that smoking has value as a stimulant, etc) for the Surgeon General's warning to be propaganda.

Earlier you stated:

The Surgeon General gives all the information that is “needed” to decide to quit smoking. On the other hand, if you want to know all there is to know about smoking, the Surgeon General will not provide you with all the information you “need”. You would remain ignorant about the stimulant effect of nicotine, the pleasurable effects of smoking, how it enhances the flavor of beer, and how it can help you lose weight.

I'd suggested that you come up with a way to make these "positives" of smoking compensatory to the actual science the Surgeon General offers in his warning. But doing so (it seems) would be quite problematic for your argument. Can't say I blame you for not attempting it.


So let me ask some new questions...

What if a particular smoker had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer most likely brought on by his heavy smoking. His doctor recommends (based on the same science informing the Surgeon general's warning) he quit smoking immediately.

Is his doctor employing propaganda? Why would he do such a thing? Does his Code of Ethics act as a systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause?

Is it the Hippocratic Oath propaganda?

You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred:

That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members.

That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.

That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice.

That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it.

That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.

These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.

Sounds like a doctrine to me.


Leaving all that aside, I have an entirely different question. That smokers often gain weight after they quit smoking has been suggested by you as being one of the positives the Surgeon General neglects to mention in his warning. That this "positive" isn't mentioned is what makes that warning not information but, rather, propaganda.

(I'm assuming that you've changed your mind back to this point of view now that the heat is off.)

Could maintaining that the act of not gaining weight has value, itself, be a form of propaganda?

Today's study in JAMA indicates that being overweight, as opposed to obese, actually saves 86,000 lives.


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2005/0003436025&EDATE=

Tell me, given this, how not being overweight (overweight as a result of having quit smoking) can be considered one of the "positives" which the Surgeon general neglects to mention in his warning on cigarette packs. Helping to define that warning as propaganda. Following your argument as presented on this thread it now appears probable that you are a victim of propaganda as you seem to advocate that not being overweight is somehow to be desired.

It's all propaganda. Isn't it, Mycroft? Even the James Randi Educational Foundation represents a systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause:

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.

* Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

* Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

* Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.


http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html

Thanks for cueing me in.

 

[Mycroft]

Would you please provide a link? The context of the quote is not clear. I know that it is in your head and you assume everyone else should just get it but we don't. The request is not unreasonable Mephisto. You have provided a quote with a dateline as a Putin press confrence.

Help us out here.

Got it:

Press Conference by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin
The East Room

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-3.html

Q A question to President Bush. His advisors expressed concern over the situation with the freedom of speech in Russia. But after September 11th, it would seem to me that the situation is changing somewhat in the United States, too. There are special rules for covering -- anti-terrorist operation, bin Laden is denied any opportunity to present his views in the media, quite appropriately, in my view. And so on and so forth.

The authority of the special services have been extended, and there have been rumors that some of your members of your administration went to Hollywood explaining to them a few things. Where is the line in the sand where -- beyond which it is impossible to cross, delineating a voluntary restraint on the part of the media and --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. First of all, I have been trying to tame our press corps ever since I got into politics, and I've failed miserably. (Laughter.) They get to express their opinions, sometimes in the form of news -- (laughter) -- any way they want to.

I asked them the other day, would it be okay if I cut a 30-minute tape, a piece of propaganda, no questions, just here -- here it is, here's 30 minutes of me talking; please run it, not only across your airwaves but run it internationally, if you don't mind; I've got something to say about the conflict and our fight against evil. They said, no, they're not going to do that. If I'm going to get on the news, they've got to ask me questions.

And so we extended the same courtesy to Osama bin Laden. He doesn't get to just cut a 30-minute tape where he may be calling his soldiers to action, where he is definitely condemning all Jews, Christians, threatening individuals, to be able to put a 30-minute propaganda tape on the free airwaves. And we made that suggestion; we didn't dictate, we just suggested. And some of the news organizations -- or all the news organizations readily agreed that was a responsible posture to take. And for that, I'm grateful.

But the press in America has never been stronger, and never been freer, and never been more vibrant. Sometimes, to my chagrin, and a lot of times to my delight. But whoever thinks that I have the capability, or my government has the capability, of reining in this press corps simply doesn't understand the American way.

It reads a lot differently seen in context.

 

[RandFan]

Got it:

Press Conference by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin
The East Room

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-3.html

It reads a lot differently seen in context.

No kidding. Thanks, very much. The world looks very different when you assume the very worst or the very best of anyone or anything.

ETA: It really is a great point. I doubt he wrote it it is so good. Bush is pointing out that he CAN'T simply make the press carry his water. Bush clearly knows full well what propaganda is and it fits perfectly with what he is saying.

In the end it is up to the press what to print and not the president.

 

[RandFan]

"Needed"? Are you daft? Please to show the definition of propaganda that says anything about "needed"? And who the hell are you to decide what is "needed"?

I realize you are far too pompous and arrogant to answer my questions or to address my arguments but I'm going to ask them anyway. If anything it demonstrates how vacuous your position is that you can't bring yourself to answer direct questions.

Hypothetical:

• There is a new drug that could relieve anxiety and depression for people with bi-polar disorder.
• A scientific study is in progress to determine side effects and efficacy.
• Negative aspects of drug are believed to be minor but are scientifically undetermined.
• Positive aspects of drug are believed to be significant but are scientifically uncertain.

Questions:

1. Should prospective participants of study be told of potential negative aspects?
2. Should prospective participants of study be told of potential positive aspects of drug?

Bear in mind that the postivie aspects of the drug are subjective.

Rhetorical. It doesn't advance your argument. Considering that you don't answer questions and that you don't address arguments it is easy to understand why you would choose rhetoric over logic.

I wonder if I will ever get a response?

 

[Mycroft]

I think you're waffling again, Mycroft. Because now you seem to be saying that no "positives" need be addressed (that smoking helps smokers to lose weight, that smoking has value as a stimulant, etc) for the Surgeon General's warning to be propaganda.

That’s right.

We can list the positive aspects of smoking in order to show that the Surgeon General’s warning is one sided, but being one sided isn’t necessary to being propaganda.

Think of the WWI era propaganda poster urging people to buy Liberty Bonds. What’s the other side to that argument? If the war was to be won, it had to be financed, and that means selling those bonds. One can imagine an alternative message urging people to spend their money on sunny vacations in Mexico instead, but would that alternative be “compensatory”? Of course not. The WWI ere propaganda poster is still propaganda despite the absence of an equally strong argument against it.

Think of the AIDS poster with the little boy. I Have AIDS. Please hug me. I can’t make you sick.

The child-like art and simple message combine to form a powerful emotive message that’s propaganda to put a sympathetic face, a sick child, on AIDS. It worked too, that and other campaigns did a great deal to change public perceptions of AIDS sufferers.

Was there an alternative viewpoint at the time? Well, yes. The alternative viewpoint was that AIDS sufferers were mostly promiscuous homosexuals and drug users who shared needles; exactly the elements of society many people would have been happy to just let die.

But was this alternative viewpoint “compensatory”?

No. The AIDS poster and related campaigns had truth on their side. The truth is that while most sufferers of that disease were homosexual men or drug users, not all of them were. And more, it really is very hard to catch AIDS from ordinary contact.

What about the condom poster? What’s the alternative message to that one? Bareback feels better? Condoms are a hassle? Are those “compensatory” to the protection offered by a condom?

Again, we have propaganda that shows a truth. Condoms do protect against AIDS, and an effective propaganda campaign that gets the message out, gets it repeated again and again in front of a lot of people has been critically important in slowing the spread of AIDS.

So, do I need “compensatory” counter-messages to buying Liberty bonds, to the boy with AIDS, and to condom use among gays in order to demonstrate these are all propaganda? No, all I need to do is remind you that often propaganda serves causes we agree with, and very often they use the truth in presenting their message.

So let me ask some new questions...

What if a particular smoker had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer most likely brought on by his heavy smoking. His doctor recommends (based on the same science informing the Surgeon general's warning) he quit smoking immediately.

Would the doctor do that? Cripes, it’s terminal lung cancer. If we know the guy is going to die anyway, why make his last days miserable fighting nicotine withdrawals?

Is his doctor employing propaganda? Why would he do such a thing? Does his Code of Ethics act as a systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause?

Honestly, in that scenario I think the doctor is irrational. The damage is already done, the guy is going to die, let him have his cigarettes. Are we imagining his cancer will magically go away if he refrains?

Sounds like a doctrine to me.

Yes, the Hippocratic Oath is a doctrine. A doctrine may be positive too.

Could maintaining that the act of not gaining weight has value, itself, be a form of propaganda?

Sure. I think a lot of people would agree that our societies concepts of ideal body image is the product of propaganda. How similar are the people we see on television or in movies to the people we know in day to day life? Not very similar, if you ask me. Many people will agree that television, movies, and advertising combine to create unrealistic expectations of us.

It's all propaganda. Isn't it, Mycroft? Even the James Randi Educational Foundation represents a systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause:

You’re starting to get it. Yes, James Randi has a doctrine. Why do you think he’s spent so many decades debunking the frauds? People gather together at these TAM conventions every year because they all share the same doctrine. After all, what is a doctrine?

”A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.”

Nothing in there about being untrue.

Ciao.

 

[President Bush]

That’s right.

We can list the positive aspects of smoking in order to show that the Surgeon General’s warning is one sided, but being one sided isn’t necessary to being propaganda.

Think of the WWI era propaganda poster urging people to buy Liberty Bonds. What’s the other side to that argument? If the war was to be won, it had to be financed, and that means selling those bonds. One can imagine an alternative message urging people to spend their money on sunny vacations in Mexico instead, but would that alternative be “compensatory”? Of course not. The WWI ere propaganda poster is still propaganda despite the absence of an equally strong argument against it.

Think of the AIDS poster with the little boy. I Have AIDS. Please hug me. I can’t make you sick.

The child-like art and simple message combine to form a powerful emotive message that’s propaganda to put a sympathetic face, a sick child, on AIDS. It worked too, that and other campaigns did a great deal to change public perceptions of AIDS sufferers.

Was there an alternative viewpoint at the time? Well, yes. The alternative viewpoint was that AIDS sufferers were mostly promiscuous homosexuals and drug users who shared needles; exactly the elements of society many people would have been happy to just let die.

But was this alternative viewpoint “compensatory”?

No. The AIDS poster and related campaigns had truth on their side. The truth is that while most sufferers of that disease were homosexual men or drug users, not all of them were. And more, it really is very hard to catch AIDS from ordinary contact.

What about the condom poster? What’s the alternative message to that one? Bareback feels better? Condoms are a hassle? Are those “compensatory” to the protection offered by a condom?

Again, we have propaganda that shows a truth. Condoms do protect against AIDS, and an effective propaganda campaign that gets the message out, gets it repeated again and again in front of a lot of people has been critically important in slowing the spread of AIDS.

So, do I need “compensatory” counter-messages to buying Liberty bonds, to the boy with AIDS, and to condom use among gays in order to demonstrate these are all propaganda? No, all I need to do is remind you that often propaganda serves causes we agree with, and very often they use the truth in presenting their message.



Would the doctor do that? Cripes, it’s terminal lung cancer. If we know the guy is going to die anyway, why make his last days miserable fighting nicotine withdrawals?



Honestly, in that scenario I think the doctor is irrational. The damage is already done, the guy is going to die, let him have his cigarettes. Are we imagining his cancer will magically go away if he refrains?



Yes, the Hippocratic Oath is a doctrine. A doctrine may be positive too.



Sure. I think a lot of people would agree that our societies concepts of ideal body image is the product of propaganda. How similar are the people we see on television or in movies to the people we know in day to day life? Not very similar, if you ask me. Many people will agree that television, movies, and advertising combine to create unrealistic expectations of us.



You’re starting to get it. Yes, James Randi has a doctrine. Why do you think he’s spent so many decades debunking the frauds? People gather together at these TAM conventions every year because they all share the same doctrine. After all, what is a doctrine?

”A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.”

Nothing in there about being untrue.

Ciao.

The James Randi Educational Foundation in its mission to promote critical thinking is engaged in propaganda? Yes or no.

The Hippocratic Oath is propaganda? Yes or no.

The promotion of the idea that weight loss or that not gaining weight is desireable is propaganda? Yes or no.

I'd say more, but I've no time to do so.

 

[RandFan]

The James Randi Educational Foundation in its mission to promote critical thinking is engaged in propaganda? Yes or no.

I don't think so. Randi has provided both sides of many arguments. I'm not at all sure why you chose this example. I'd ask you to clarify but apparently you won't answer tough questions.

The Hippocratic Oath is propaganda? Yes or no.

Why would you suppose that it is? I can't find reason to suppose so. I suppose an argument could be made but I don't see it.

The promotion of the idea that weight loss or that not gaining weight is desirable is propaganda? Yes or no.

I can't answer without more detail. Can you provide an example?

I'd say more, but I've no time to do so.

Could you respond to my reasonable questions of do they threaten you in some way?