Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Question of the Day #43: BULLSHIT!

TV's Mr. Neil Permalink   21 comments

Image hosting by PhotobucketYou guys watch Bullshit, right? Have Penn & Teller ever been wrong?

Post a Comment


21 Comments:

At 5/13/2006 3:35 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Well... Penn and Teller take a skeptical position, so they're not so much advancing their own arguments, just pointing out the flaws in others'. And often their position is just informed by their political opinions(libertarian/anarcho-capitalist), so it's really not something you can be "wrong" about. For example, their position on the Boy Scouts was that it was bullshit for them to take money from the government and still actively discriminate.

 
At 5/13/2006 8:24 PM, Blogger The Jolly Nihilist declaimed...

I agree with P+T between 85 and 90 percent of the time. I thought their recent show on the Death Penalty was among their best work ever. Just a devastating critique of an atrocious system.

That said, I took issue with their PETA show. Penn said something like, "Teller and I would personally kill every chimpanzee on the planet, to save the life of one junkie with AIDS."

I do not endorse speciocentricity of that type. I see no more "value" in humans than any other animal or plant species. I think evolution and Universal Common Descent reveal an inherent equality in all of life, at least in terms of intrinsic worth (certainly not "fitness," of course).

 
At 5/13/2006 9:25 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

Well, there was the BS on Smoking.

 
At 5/14/2006 12:01 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Shut up, liberal asshole. People like you hate science just as much as right-wing whackos. All the research proves that second-hand smoking in public places does not affect other people's health, but whackos like you will deny it to your tombstone.

 
At 5/14/2006 2:11 AM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5/14/2006 2:26 AM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

Note: Deleted first post due to grammatical errors.

Tremblay, did you even bother to glance over the link (to the Skeptic’s Dictionary) I sent you? If so, you’d realize there were genuine academic and scientific concerns over the smoking episode. The fact that you just claim something, without any sources to back it up, is really poor arguing. I’d expect something better from you. Ever since you deconverted from Objectivism, you’ve been rather intolerant and immature. Slinging insults doesn’t back up your arguments either. Furthermore, I’m not a Liberal, but a Social Democrat (NDP). I'd say every ideology that has cultish followers may have members who deny facts to support their worldview, not just Liberals, Conservatives, or Socialists, but also Libertarians. Your failure to acknowledge this illustrates, to me, a level of selective thinking.

 
At 5/14/2006 3:03 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Furthermore, I’m not a Liberal, but a Social Democrat (NDP)."

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more crass and despicable. Do you have any redeeming quality at all ? Do you have some good friends ? I mean, you've gotta have SOMETHING good in your life...

 
At 5/14/2006 12:20 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

Thanks for ignoring almost every point I made and unleashing a personal attack.

 
At 5/14/2006 1:16 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Well, I already noted that you are a very sad and crass individual with no redeeming values that I can see so far. Or maybe that's just the impression you want to give in order to be even more annoying.

 
At 5/14/2006 1:22 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

I noted how Bullshit! presented a libertarian spin on scientific research (political spin on science is never god) and how the Skeptic's Dictionary noted it. You unleash a character assignation and think that is all you need to do to refute my argument.

 
At 5/14/2006 3:02 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

"I mean, you've gotta have SOMETHING good in your life..."

Why yes, I have many good things about me. For one, I refutted some arguments. http://improvedblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/evil-humanist-conspiracy-to-secularize.html

 
At 5/14/2006 9:24 PM, Blogger Trepkos declaimed...

"All the research proves that second-hand smoking in public places does not affect other people's health, but whackos like you will deny it to your tombstone."
I have a problem believing this. Walking through a cloud of smoke makes me cough and causes my eyes to water, and it is much worse for those that I know who have asthma, as it often triggers an attack.

I would buy that short-term exposure of a healthy adult is non-existant or negligible, but it is counter-intuitive to me to think that breathing in a cloud of pollutants (no matter they are) has no effect on the twenty-two percent (as reported by the cdc) of the population that has asthma or some form of COPD.

 
At 5/14/2006 10:24 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

There's a reason why you're called LIE-berals.

 
At 5/15/2006 4:47 AM, Blogger mdf1960 declaimed...

Sure, some people have an allergic reaction to smoke, just like some people have an allergic reaction to cats or peanut butter or perfume. That's not what the debate on second hand smoke is about.

 
At 5/15/2006 4:58 AM, Blogger mdf1960 declaimed...

NDP voters support the government robbing people and redistributing their income to various parasites. That's "humanism" for you.

 
At 5/15/2006 3:15 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"NDP voters support the government robbing people and redistributing their income to various parasites. That's "humanism" for you."

Well said, although calling union bosses "parasites" is too generous. All humanists believe in theft, threatening violence, and general misery - they just use the term "humanism" as a cover for their psychosis.

 
At 5/15/2006 5:31 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

You have offical praised schoolyard insults, personal attacks, and other immature notions. Well done, you ranter. Like the sophists of old, "when argument fails, use rhetoric!"

 
At 5/15/2006 5:43 PM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

Before you make another personal attack/trolling comment, based entirely on delusional strawmen, I should state that humanists don't have a specific policy on economics. So, you're pathetic attempt to generalize fails. But, I've tried reasoning. You'll probably respond by making more of an ass of yourself in front of your libertarian friends.

 
At 5/15/2006 9:22 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

If it rains, will you get wetter if you run through it to your destination or walk? This is a question that has no answer due to the fact that there are too many variables unaccounted for. The second-hand smoke issue is the same. There are genetic factors, and other health variables that will forever preclude the kind of blanket "definitive proof" that some skeptics are demanding. My Great-aunt smoked until she was 89 years old and died of a stroke. Andy Kaufman died of lung cancer at 35 without ever smoking. He often spent time in smoke-filled rooms. Relevant? Possibly, but possibly not. No, there is no definitive proof. Either way.

 
At 5/18/2006 7:37 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

From what I can recall, humanism does not specifically propose a government, although many humanists are statists.

We cant expect market anarchy to be a prevalent beleif among atheists. Its easier to get rid of god than the state within ones mind. Lets play nice people.

 
At 5/26/2006 1:15 AM, Blogger D.R.M. declaimed...

"From what I can recall, humanism does not specifically propose a government,"

That's right. Although, Tremblay doesn't seem to realize this.

 

<< Home