It’s been a schizophrenic past couple years for Alan Chambers. He never seems sure of how many queers his ministries have straightened out. On Monday in an Exodus press release Alan was quoted:
“The lives of thousands of former homosexuals, like me, verify that homosexuality is not an immutable trait”
Funny. Just last year the order of magnitude was “hundreds of thousands.”
Then today on CBN’s NewsWatch today; when asked how “successful” Exodus has been Chambers gave this deceptive answer:
“There are literally hundreds of thousands of men and women like me who testify to the truth that change from homosexuality is possible.”
[Download Audio] (Try a different browser if yours doesn’t work.)
Oh, but in the second quote the people are just testifying to the truth.
Can I get a witness? Mmm-hmm. Preach it.
See–there were several thousand people joining me there.
Disputed Mutability pointed out the fallacious thinking in the first quote in a comment on my blog today–we have rights for religious people, but religion is a highly mutable trait. Who says that all rights are based on only immutable traits?
Chambers’s comments don’t necessarily contradict each other. ‘Thousands’ is a general term that could mean hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands or less.
Wow you’re pathetic AB, any rational person can see through Alan.
Alan tailors his statements for audiences. If it’s a friendly audience like CBN it is “hundreds of thousands” (drives up the donations from scared old ladies with social security to burn).
If it’s a public policy press release, then it’s simply thousands (unverifiable but not too over the top).
He’s tempered it as of late because he knows we’re paying attention.
Well Scott, I’m not going to take your personal insult too seriously, and I’m definitely not going to respond in kind. Technically, I think I’m correct that Chambers’s two claims don’t necessarily contradict each other.
Scott,
Calling someone “pathetic” is getting too personal. A comment about the absurdity of the claim is fine, but please try to avoid personal insults. Thanks.
ab,
Assuming for a moment that even one of Chamber’s statements are true, do you have any verifiable reference to illustrate that fact? If not, the point is moot anyway.
David Roberts
No, I certainly don’t have any evidence that either of Chambers’s claims is correct, nor did I claim that I had.
My point was just that there is no use in trying to catch someone in a self-contradiction when their statements are general enough that they can charitably be interpreted as non self-contradictory.
I’ve been asked a couple times why it matters that Exodus President Alan Chambers’ claims exgays number in the “thousands” and then turns around and claims “hundreds of thousands.”
There exists a mathematical concept called order of magnitude which Wikipedia defines as:
Since “hundreds of thousands” has two more zeros than “thousands” the difference in order of magnitude is 2. But I realize this “2” doesn’t mean much to some mathematically challenged readers so I’ll illustrate just how big of a difference it can make.
And that my friends is why an increase in the order of magnitude by a factor of 2 matters.
If hundreds of thousands of ex-gays testify about change being possible, why do I always see the same ones over and over?
“Technically, I think I’m correct that Chambers’s two claims don’t necessarily contradict each other.”
thanks, ab
you’ve illustrated clearly the sort of “truth” that the ex-gay ministries and their allies champion.
It doesn’t matter if it’s honest, only that you can later say that it was technically “true”.
Yes, “hundreds of thousands” is a subset of “thousands”, but it is dishonest to use the two interchangably.
I think that ck presented a better defense of Chambers’ numbers: Thousands have changed and hundreds of thousands can witness to it.
However, the problem with this justification (and yes I know ck wasn’t trying to justify) is that the question asked to Alan was how successful Exodus is. The answer implies that hundreds of thousands have reoriented. And his deliberate use of “like me” is an intentional effort to confuse the listener.
Chambers, like ab, believes that honesty is less important than effect and that as long as you can parse a sentense and find a way that it is not 100% technically unsuportable, you can say it.
(“I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski” comes to mind)
Well, yes Timothy. He didn’t have sex with that “woman”She was a “Young Lady”. Not a “woman”. See the difference? As a gay liberal, you probably don’t. Because you are homosexually brainwashed. And cannot spell, normal and natural.But I wish you would stop telling that unTruth.
“And cannot spell”
That part’s true, alas.
Posted by: Brady at June 9, 2006 11:52 AM
Brady, haven’t you heard of the miracle of the bread and the loaves? With God, anything is possible! A few ex-gays can turn into thousands or hundreds of thousands, for the GOP to feed upon. Er, I mean. Maybe that metaphor isn’t apt.
Or is it?
Ooh, my bad.I’ve just heard she was an ex-Young Lady.No, not a Woman. Not, quite, yet, actually, a Woman. But we can all pretend, can we not?Go on. Pretend. I need you too, please… squeeze hard and pray. She will be an actual Woman some day. Not just an ex-Young Lady.Ooh. Owh. Stop. I just prayed so hard I popped a blood vessel in my eye. Damn that stings. Worse than, well, let’s not go there…
ck… mmmmm, GOP buns….Oh no. STOP right now. Falwell just walked past. Arghhhhhh!!!! My eyes! My eyes!
grantdale and Timothy- no, what he actually said was “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” See, as exgay organizations parse the definition of “change” so it means whatever they want it to mean, Clinton parsed the definition of “sexual relations” to exclude blowjobs.
yep, that was my point (but I didn’t get the quote exactly right).
It’s how some religious folk think about truth. They are caught up in the legalistic idea that lying is SIN. But as long as the words they are saying are not technically untrue then they are following the commandment “thou shalt not lie”. But they completely ignore the underlying principle.
Do they really think God was saying “thou shalt be sneaky when trying to deceive others”? Or do they just think God is so stupid that they can say “yeah I said stuff to deliberately deceive others but that’s not technically lying, God, so you can’t count that against me. Ha ha. Fooled you”?
The “hundreds of thousands have testified” remark is an outright lie. The number is closer to 10. The same 10 year after year. And all of those are getting paid to say it.
Poor “Alex.” They couldn’t even be bothered to get his name straight.
Timothy said:
It’s how some religious folk think about truth. They are caught up in the legalistic idea that lying is SIN. But as long as the words they are saying are not technically untrue then they are following the commandment “thou shalt not lie”.
I think you are giving them too much credit Timothy. I suspect a lot of them know they are lying but it’s for a “just cause” and so the ends justify the means.
David Roberts
Has anyone noticed how much Alan Chabers looks like one of The Pet Shop Boys.
I apologise in advance for my illiterate contribution.