Post by: Firethorn on August 09, 2008, 06:38:59 PM
Good Episodes so far:
Gun control
Peta
College 'diversity'
Patriot act
I'm watching the patriot act right now, and this line made me sit up:
"Camera's can't stop terrorists. Weapons, civilians with weapons on the plane, would have stopped the terrorists." - referring to 9/11.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 09, 2008, 08:12:57 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 09, 2008, 08:16:09 PM
Show seems to be just what it purports to be: an amusing exposure of bullshit of all kinds. That almost never a bad thing.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 09, 2008, 08:17:17 PM
Post by: Firethorn on August 10, 2008, 07:37:24 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 10, 2008, 07:46:37 AM
Observe.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 10, 2008, 07:54:35 AM
IMO, a conservative is someone who leans libertarian, but I have found that "conservative" means different things to different people.
I like the show also. I just don't know if I will be keeping showtime much longer.
Post by: Bigjake on August 10, 2008, 08:27:06 AM
Post by: Declaration Day on August 10, 2008, 09:33:49 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 10, 2008, 02:02:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4
Kind of changed my views on "patriotism" and flag-burning.
Post by: yesitsloaded on August 10, 2008, 02:07:10 PM
Post by: lupinus on August 10, 2008, 02:09:45 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 10, 2008, 02:26:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4
Kind of changed my views on "patriotism" and flag-burning.
Kind of changed my views on "patriotism" and flag-burning.
Yeah, I saw a shorter version of that bit on West Wing. Not bad at all.
As for the left/right/libertarian issue, I think we make a grave mistake when we think of a vast array of political and social and economic ideas and principles and ideals as some kind of linear system. It isn't, even remotely. I'm far left on some issues, far right on some issues, incredibly centrist on other issues. Some of the things most people on here hold dear and also very important to acquaintances of mine who self-identify as liberal democrats.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 10, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on August 10, 2008, 03:43:54 PM
I'm going to Vegas next month and will catch their show at the Rio.
Post by: Firethorn on August 10, 2008, 04:07:13 PM
As for the left/right/libertarian issue, I think we make a grave mistake when we think of a vast array of political and social and economic ideas and principles and ideals as some kind of linear system.
Well, I think we realize that a bit more, what with our relative embrace of alternative political parties.
Post by: Dntsycnt on August 10, 2008, 04:13:41 PM
Post by: atomd on August 10, 2008, 04:29:25 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 10, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Well, I think we realize that a bit more, what with our relative embrace of alternative political parties.
Yeah, I was mostly restating what is usually obvious, kind of in response to what read to me a bit like "are they with us or against us?" in the thread title. And there is a whole lotta "We're the right!" going on from time to time, here and in other places.
Heck, I know large family of very conservative Catholics that was very liberal on most social issues and were Dems for year--until abortion became a political issue. Within a couple of years, several family members turned completely around and embraced every single Repub. position--even those that were very much not in line with their former thinking on the subject, and the Church's teachings. It's frustrating when people get so hung up on having the correct allegiance that they let it swamp their brains. Folks like P&T are pretty good at avoiding that. Trouble is, when you're a performer, your primary concern is to entertain. As a voter, there are more complex concerns.
Washington was right...
Post by: Ben on August 10, 2008, 07:12:54 PM
Video here:
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2820013&referralPlaylistId=playlist
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 10, 2008, 09:23:02 PM
Quote
Penn was on Redeye the other night and said, "We're as far right as you can go with money and as far left as you can go with sex".
Video here:
Video here:
I don't want to see a video of Penn going far-left with sex. Or anywhere else with sex, thank you very much.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 10, 2008, 09:27:14 PM
One of my favorite shows. See the ones on Conspiracy Theories, The Bible, College, in addition to those previously listed. They're all great.
Actually, the Bible episode proved that even Penn and Teller can be gullible and intellectually lazy on some issues, their clear thinking on other issues notwithstanding.
Post by: Iain on August 10, 2008, 09:43:09 PM
Actually, the Bible episode proved that even Penn and Teller can be gullible and intellectually lazy on some issues, their clear thinking on other issues notwithstanding.
All that demonstrates is that when you know about an issue you spot their flaws. When you don't know about an issue - you don't.
A friend of mine with a physics degree read Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything and said that the book covered everything really well - except the physics.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 10, 2008, 09:53:34 PM
But, yeah, it's also possible that a dedicated anti-gunner might find a mistake here or there in their gun rights episode.
Post by: alex_trebek on August 11, 2008, 03:27:21 AM
Yes, Both are. Although I believe the quiet one (Teller ?) is the more gunny type of the two.
Yeah it's always the quiet ones.........
I like this show. I think they are more traditional conservatives. I think a lot of people are more conservative than they think, they just are aren't neo-cons (and neither am I).
Post by: Dntsycnt on August 11, 2008, 05:04:15 AM
A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there. I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view. Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective. They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.
I like your argument. "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me." Yeah. It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 11, 2008, 05:45:08 AM
A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there. I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view. Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective. They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.
I like your argument. "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me." Yeah. It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion.
It is sort of like when I see liberal Democrats comment on what conservatives think. Often enough, their comments don't address my position on the issues at all.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 11, 2008, 08:32:31 AM
A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there. I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view. Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective. They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.
I like your argument. "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me." Yeah. It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion.
Huh? I was talking about those who HAVEN'T studied the topic with any depth. I'm not expecting Penn and Teller to be born again, I'm just saying their arguments are shallow. If they scratched beneath the surface, they might at least quit beating at straw men, and have a half-way respectable argument.
Post by: Iain on August 11, 2008, 09:42:33 AM
So you've got one you spotted. I've got one I spotted. Think if we keep looking we might find that the show is only great if you agree with their angle and don't examine things in too much detail? Like say, most opinion based television - entertaining, but that's about it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 11, 2008, 12:15:18 PM
OK, it's been a while since I saw it. I just watched it again, and I'll have to restate that their Bible episode was almost a monument to fuzzy thinking, intellectual laziness and intellectual sloppiness. I say almost, because it was only ten minutes long. Yeah, Iain, a short popular presentation has its limits, but surely they could have done better. It's just laughable.
Just to hit a few highlights:
Half the show is an interview with some un-named guy who obviously has no clue. No, I'm sorry, the two accounts of the creation of Man are NOT some kind of faith-breaking contradiction. Not even close.
No, literal does NOT mean what you think it means, there, stud.
Then, he objects that there is no evidence of anyone named Moses, other than in the Bible, but that just doesn't count, so his argument doesn't even rise to the level of a respectably illogical argument from silence.
Better yet, he objects that there is no evidence that the Hebrews wandered in the desert for forty years.
What evidence does he expect a bunch of nomads to leave behind, that would survive the intervening thousands of years, and other nomads that tracked all over their stuff? We didn't even find the Dead Sea Scrolls for two thousand years, and those boys stayed in one place for I think a couple of centuries. Then Penn (or whichever is the big one) informs us that Jesus claimed he would heal the sick, but he "only cures the ones he happens to bump into." Despite being contrary to any evidence we do have, what exactly is his objection here?
/Rant off.
To be fair, yes, they did cover a couple of points that were harder to deal with. But if they were hoping to debunk the Bible, they simply failed.
Post by: Dntsycnt on August 11, 2008, 03:36:16 PM
Was it really ten minutes long? I thought all their shows were an hour (with commercials).
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 11, 2008, 07:00:30 PM
And the video I saw just now was a ten-minute bit on YouTube. I think I saw a longer version a couple of years ago.