Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[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.

Why won't you answer PB?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

It seems to me you're under the impression that you can ask endless questions of me without addressing any of the points I raise. That's not what I consider a dialogue.

We have a definition of propaganda that may be applied to all of these in your list. In looking at your list and applying the definition, I can plainly see different answers for the different items. I suggest you apply the definition, and see what answers you come up with, and then I’ll tell you my answers.

Keep in mind the definition of “propaganda” has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Also keep in mind it has nothing to do with your support of a cause or doctrine; propaganda may be used either for or against a cause you support.

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me you're under the impression that you can ask endless questions of me without addressing any of the points I raise. That's not what I consider a dialogue.

Where I grew up it was called chicken s***

 

[President Bush]

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.

It seems to me you're under the impression that you can ask endless questions of me without addressing any of the points I raise. That's not what I consider a dialogue.

We have a definition of propaganda that may be applied to all of these in your list. In looking at your list and applying the definition, I can plainly see different answers for the different items. I suggest you apply the definition, and see what answers you come up with, and then I’ll tell you my answers.

Keep in mind the definition of “propaganda” has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Also keep in mind it has nothing to do with your support of a cause or doctrine; propaganda may be used either for or against a cause you support.

I don't consider anything on my list above to "be propaganda". As I don't consider the Surgeon General's warning to "be propaganda".

I was attempting to carry your claim that the Surgeon General's warning "is propaganda" to its logical absurdity by asking if your definition of what propaganda "is" can be applied to what may be be parallel situations. Carefully chosen, of course.

(Have quit dealing with Randfan as he seems to consistently misinterpret/misunderstand my points. Working within my limited time available while trying having a successful dialogue with you guys here I have had to prioritize and conclude he is either incapable of understanding what I am saying or employs being deliberately obtuse as a strategy in his arguments.

Probably he is just too excitable to take the time to consider what genuine points others may have. And I genuinely don't have time (right now) to sit here and try to format intelligible responses to (what I consider to be) Randfan's confabulations. Who wants to read that crap anyhow, referring to past posts and how one was misconstrued, I said this you said that, etc?)

I wouldn't still be sitting here posting on this thread if I didn't find the subject interesting. Though totally disinterested in going in circles with you over what we disagree on. "Grandstanding for lurkers" may seem like fun until one realizes that what lurkers there are have already concluded that reading what we're writing is a bore.

That said, I am confident that I've made quite valid points on this thread. Just can't tell what effect, if any, they've had on your argument.

Though your definition of what constitutes 'propaganda" seems to have changed. Whereas you started by (seemingly) saying that information offered with no counterpoint "is propaganda" it now seems that any information offered by "doctrine" is "propaganda".

So I have pursued that in the questions I raised in the opening quote here.

What points which you have raised do you think I fail to address?

As far as propaganda being used either for or against a cause one supports: of this I have no doubt.

As far as propaganda having nothing to do with truth or falsehood I am not so sure. That could be just me, as employing propaganda when what one says is true is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned (though it seems a condition that such a thing - saying what is true - is necessarily ironic, as what is "true" needs to be discovered by each person for themself).

To say one is employing propaganda when twisting the facts seems obvious.

 

[RandFan]

(Have quit dealing with Randfan as he seems to consistently misinterpret/misunderstand my points. Working within my limited time available while trying having a successful dialogue with you guys here I have had to prioritize and conclude he is either incapable of understanding what I am saying or employs being deliberately obtuse as a strategy in his arguments.

?



Translations, "damn, he got me".

Probably he is just too excitable to take the time to consider what genuine points others may have.

What points? I took the time to carefully consider AND addressed each and every point you made. You on the other hand have been ignoring points and refusing to answer questions almost from the start.

And I genuinely don't have time (right now) to sit here and try to format intelligible responses to (what I consider to be) Randfan's confabulations.

Rhetoric.

That said, I am confident that I've made quite valid points on this thread. Just can't tell what effect, if any, they've had on your argument.

More rhetoric. Confidence is not proof. All the woo-woo's on the forum are confident that they have made quite valid points. Confidence isn't argument.

Hey, my questions were simple and straight forward. Why not take a moment to answer them?

"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.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, and you didn't answer this question PB.

Let me ask you this question, if your doctor suggested a new medication that 90% of the population found made them miserable and they didn't think the benefits were worth the way it made them feel would you think it appropriate for your doctor to tell you?

 

[RandFan]

Wrap Up:

You argue that the surgeon generals warning is not propaganda in part based on two propositions.

1.) The surgeon General's warning is targeted to smokers there is nothing about smoking that smokers don't already know.

2.) The information is about things that are subjective i.e. pleasure.

The problem is that I thoroughly rebutted both of those points.

As to the first:

1. It is demonstrable that the warning is clearly targeted to non-smokers. I made that argument in this post. It is clear because most everyone including non-smokers are familiar with the Surgeon General's Warning.
2. When someone starts to smoke they may not know all of the positive aspects of smoking.
3. There is no reason to assume that smokers will know that smoking can control appetite and prevent weight gain.

As to the second:

Clearly doctors impart information that is subjective to their patients. That is clearly an appropriate thing for doctors to tell their patients and you know this which is why you won't answer my questions because it demonstrates clearly that you are wrong.

So, by all means, continue to be arrogant and pompous and simply declare that you make valid points and can't be bothered to address my arguments and questions. Doing so makes it is clear to anyone reading these threads that this is not true and that you are disingenuous in your argument.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't consider anything on my list above to "be propaganda". As I don't consider the Surgeon General's warning to "be propaganda".

I was attempting to carry your claim that the Surgeon General's warning "is propaganda" to its logical absurdity by asking if your definition of what propaganda "is" can be applied to what may be be parallel situations. Carefully chosen, of course.

Well, okay, but at some point you should consider explaining why you don’t think it’s propaganda. So far you keep raising issues that don’t relate to the dictionary definition.

(Have quit dealing with Randfan ….

Which seems to me grossly unfair to Randfan.

That said, I am confident that I've made quite valid points on this thread. Just can't tell what effect, if any, they've had on your argument.

Though your definition of what constitutes 'propaganda" seems to have changed. Whereas you started by (seemingly) saying that information offered with no counterpoint "is propaganda" it now seems that any information offered by "doctrine" is "propaganda".

I believe I have already addressed this in a previous post.

What points which you have raised do you think I fail to address?

Most importantly the actual dictionary definition of “propaganda” as well as commentary on the other forms of propaganda raised. Tell me, do the AIDS posters and the Victory Bonds posters qualify as propaganda to you?

As far as propaganda having nothing to do with truth or falsehood I am not so sure. That could be just me, as employing propaganda when what one says is true is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned (though it seems a condition that such a thing - saying what is true - is necessarily ironic, as what is "true" needs to be discovered by each person for themself).

The systematic propagation of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating the doctrine.

Yeah, a lot of stuff fits that definition. Essentially anyone who has an opinion who works to propagate that opinion. They can propagate that opinion with factual truth, they can mix truth with emotionalism, or they can put out a message that mixes all kinds of logical fallacies and outright deception. Propaganda has its negative connotation because it doesn’t exclude the fallacious or the deceptive.

Consider the AIDS poster with the little boy. Is that true?

Factually? Yes. It is virtually impossible to get AIDS from a hug, and it does counter the image of AIDS sufferer as a homosexual or drug user.

At the same time, the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are not little boys who want hugs. Is that honest?

To say one is employing propaganda when twisting the facts seems obvious.

I would add that people who “twist facts” may not realize they are twisting facts. Especially in political discourse, it’s quite possible they believe you are the one who is twisting facts.

 

[President Bush]

Well, okay, but at some point you should consider explaining why you don’t think it’s propaganda. So far you keep raising issues that don’t relate to the dictionary definition.

I think consider such information on a health issue to be propaganda. Though I believe that you are the one making a claim - that the Surgeon General's warning is propaganda - not I.

Which seems to me grossly unfair to Randfan.

That said, I am confident that I've made quite valid points on this thread. Just can't tell what effect, if any, they've had on your argument.



I believe I have already addressed this in a previous post.



Most importantly the actual dictionary definition of “propaganda” as well as commentary on the other forms of propaganda raised. Tell me, do the AIDS posters and the Victory Bonds posters qualify as propaganda to you?



The systematic propagation of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating the doctrine.

Yeah, a lot of stuff fits that definition. Essentially anyone who has an opinion who works to propagate that opinion. They can propagate that opinion with factual truth, they can mix truth with emotionalism, or they can put out a message that mixes all kinds of logical fallacies and outright deception. Propaganda has its negative connotation because it doesn’t exclude the fallacious or the deceptive.

Consider the AIDS poster with the little boy. Is that true?

Factually? Yes. It is virtually impossible to get AIDS from a hug, and it does counter the image of AIDS sufferer as a homosexual or drug user.

At the same time, the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are not little boys who want hugs. Is that honest?



I would add that people who “twist facts” may not realize they are twisting facts. Especially in political discourse, it’s quite possible they believe you are the one who is twisting facts.

That cartoon posters (WWI stuff, AIDS poster, etc) are generally propaganda is nothing new.

Calling health information propaganda is. Where is the image in the Surgeon General's warning?

That you claim such information to "be" propaganda is the only issue I have with your definition of the term propaganda.

Why do you consider the words Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema to be propaganda?

 

[RandFan]

Why do you consider the words Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema to be propaganda?

Oh, that's easy, because it fits the definition.

prop·a·gan·da (pr

p

-g

n

d

)
n.

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

1. Getting people to quit smoking is a cause of the Surgeon General.
2. The Surgeon General is systematically propagating information to further that cause.
3. The cause reflects the views and interests of the Surgeon General.

QED. It just doesn't get any easier.

Now, are you going to answer my questions?

 

[RandFan]

An opposing point of view

From Wikipedia there are a number of sites with opposing view points related to smoking. While I don't necassarily agree with them it should be noted that there are contrary opinions. Wikipedia ostensibly takes a neutral point of view and so is obligated to include this information.

From one of the links at the wikipedea site.

Chapter 6: The Propaganda Machine

Beginning in the early 1950's, the American Cancer Society started to wage war against smoking. Later, the government took up the cudgel and, today, there is a government agency, the Office of Smoking and Health, dedicated to stamping out smoking. Unfortunately, the government propaganda is often predicated upon assertions which are simply untrue. In many instances, these are examples of the "LaLonde effect".


Marc LaLonde was formerly the Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare. He argued that health messages should be vigorously disseminated, and should be "loud, clear and unequivocal" even if unsupported by scientific evidence. If a particular study showed that smoking might be related to a particular disease, it made no difference to LaLonde whether the study was seriously flawed, or not. He felt that releasing the study was always justified, if it would convince people to stop smoking, since everybody knew that smoking was bad for people.

The LaLonde effect is by no means new. As early as 1955, J. Neyman wrote an article in Science Magazine, entitled "Statistics - servant of all sciences". In the article, he commented upon a statistical study of smoking and cancer and concluded that the study was possibly flawed. None-the-less, he felt obliged to remark, in a footnote, that "A referee warns me that in spite of the fictitiousness of the figures in Table 1 and in spite of the emphasis on the methodological character of my remarks, the `tobacco people' may pick up the argument and use it for publicity purposes" 12 .

Every year, the government releases figures on the number of "smoking related deaths" in the United States. The most recent figure is 470,000, although Congressman Waxman recently said 500,000. Most people assume that there is some scientific basis to that figure. Not so! The government "scientists" simply take a flat percentage of the number of people who die from a particular disease, and assume that to be the number whose death was caused by smoking. There are no autopsies, no studies on actual human beings.
Dr. Bernard M. Wagner, the editor of Modern Pathology, recently wrote, "Are there 450,000 smoking-related deaths per year in America? Maybe...but no human beings are ever studied to find out". Wagner went on to say the biggest obstacle to knowing what is actually going on is the low autopsy rate in this country, about 10%.

 

[Mycroft]

Calling health information propaganda is. Where is the image in the Surgeon General's warning?

Where in the definition of propaganda does it say an image is required? An image doesn’t make it propaganda. What makes it propaganda is that it’s information that is systematically propagated to advance the cause of anti-smoking.

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

That you claim such information to "be" propaganda is the only issue I have with your definition of the term propaganda.

Then show me the part of the definition that excludes Surgeon General’s warnings.

Why do you consider the words Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema to be propaganda?

I can’t answer this any better than what RandFan said. He’s right, you know.

 

[President Bush]

Where in the definition of propaganda does it say an image is required? An image doesn’t make it propaganda. What makes it propaganda is that it’s information that is systematically propagated to advance the cause of anti-smoking.

You invoke WWI and AIDS posters... images. Thought you might have has a purpose in this.

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



Then show me the part of the definition that excludes Surgeon General’s warnings.

You are the one making a claim: that the Surgeon general's warning is propaganda. Up to you to back the claim I believe.

I can’t answer this any better than what RandFan said. He’s right, you know.

I have him on ignore. Can you answer questions addressed to you, Mycroft?

 

[RandFan]

I have him on ignore. Can you answer questions addressed to you, Mycroft?

Dear Ed what a pompus jerk.

He demands that you answer his questions after refusing to answer mine.

Would you do me a favor Mycroft, would you post a quote or two of mine?

 

[Mycroft]

You invoke WWI and AIDS posters... images. Thought you might have has a purpose in this.

So after seven pages of harping on the definition of "propaganda" you thought somehow that the definition was somehow unimportant to me?

No. I used posters as examples because they are easy to find on google and there is no dispute that they are propaganda, but remember it's my first example, the Surgeon General's warnings, that started this argument.

You are the one making a claim: that the Surgeon general's warning is propaganda. Up to you to back the claim I believe.

Time and time again it’s said and demonstrated how it conforms to the dictionary definition. If after being presented with that evidence multiple times you still want to claim that it’s not propaganda, then it’s up to you to say why the dictionary definition should not apply in this case.

I have him on ignore. Can you answer questions addressed to you, Mycroft?

I recommend you take him off ignore. Your questions have been answered and elegantly. If you choose not to see the answers, it’s only because you choose not to.

 

[RandFan]

I recommend you take him off ignore. Your questions have been answered and elegantly. If you choose not to see the answers, it’s only because you choose not to.

Thanks, I appreciate that. That's actually better than quoting me. There are none so blind as they that won't see.

 

[Mycroft]

Dear Ed what a pompus jerk.

He demands that you answer his questions after refusing to answer mine.

Would you do me a favor Mycroft, would you post a quote or two of mine?

Sure, which ones?

 

[RandFan]

Sure, which ones?

Nah, that's fine. I think his behavior speaks volumes.

 

[RandFan]

Coming to a theater near you

Propaganda anti-propaganda. Kinda like anti-revolutionary revolutionaries.

Thank You For Smoking

 

[President Bush]

So after seven pages of harping on the definition of "propaganda" you thought somehow that the definition was somehow unimportant to me?

No. I used posters as examples because they are easy to find on google and there is no dispute that they are propaganda, but remember it's my first example, the Surgeon General's warnings, that started this argument.

OK, fine. The images of propaganda posters have nothing to do with you claiming that the Surgeon General's warning is propaganda, then.

I like this propaganda poster better anyhow.

As for your dictionary definition of the term... I disagree that this definition would include an informational health warning such as Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema. To assume that this definition includes the Surgeon General's warning is begging the question.

The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Glad we got that straight.

Time and time again it’s said and demonstrated how it conforms to the dictionary definition. If after being presented with that evidence multiple times you still want to claim that it’s not propaganda, then it’s up to you to say why the dictionary definition should not apply in this case.

If you wish to interpret the dictionary definition which you've quoted broadly enough to include the Surgeon General's warning, then (as I asked you earlier) would you also consider the James Randi Educational Foundation (in its mission to promote critical thinking) as engaged in propaganda? How about the Hippocratic Oath?

Those two (very broadly speaking) read as "doctrines" to me.

Likewise the the systematic doctrine (reflecting the views of those advocating such a doctrine) invoked in the oft-translated words: my hovercraft is full of eels.

I recommend you take him off ignore. Your questions have been answered and elegantly.

Show me please.