Author Topic: Episode #33 - Guilty Admission  (Read 9705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul Ganssle

  • Objective Hitler
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3615
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2007, 11:11:43 AM »
Quote from: "Iron Man"
The fact that Penn Fraser Jillette feels naturally compelled to be polygynous doesn't mean the rest of humanity necessarily is. Also the fact that psycho fundies are running around trying to force naturally polygynous people to feel guilty about it, doesn't mean everyone who is monogamous is doing it out of fear of retribution by some invisible guy in the sky.


See, that's not what I got from that episode.  In that episode, I felt that they were not saying, "You should not be monogamous", just saying, "monogamy is just a kink, just like any other specific sexual behaviour."  I think they were making the case that monogamy is not the only option, as Family Values people would have you believe.  I also get the impression, from his radio show (which I am sure you listen to, because I heard your obituary on Friday), that he is monogamous with his wife.  In a year of programs, he hasn't mentioned anything to the contrary. and he's not exactly the kind of guy who would keep it a secret.

Quote from: "Iron Man"
I also hated the episode on capital punishment. Not because of the conclusion - I don't think capital punishment is necessary - but for different reasons.

Capital punishment is wrong because they might screw up the actual execution? Give me a break guys. :roll:


Here I agree with you that their conclusion was valid and that their methods were not great, but I felt that they made at least a two-pronged attack: 1.) people are human and people screw up, and there's no going back once you kill someone and 2.) it is wrong to kill another human being for any reason whatsoever, and therefore the government doing so makes us all implicit murderers.  I don't agree with #2, because I don't think that anything is objectively morally right or wrong, and there are instances where I would kill people without regret.  Number 1 is much more valid in my opinion, because it's very much true.  They had the example of the guy who was on death row for a crime comitted while he was in prison, and a bunch of people have been exonorated by DNA evidence at close to the last minute.  That reason, as well as the idea that I don't think the government should be deciding who dies are the two main reasons I don't like the death penalty, and I think that they were covered very well in that episode.
quot;if you looat the world and think there is a God nothin make sense but if you see it fro a naturalistivc perspectiove all the shti goin on is exactly what youd expect-"  -The Always Eloquent Richard Dawkins

Offline IRON MAN

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
    • http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/member.php?u=1292
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2007, 11:17:47 AM »
Since it originated in antiquity, I'd suppose it's about time that circumcision came up for review.

Firstly, if it had no cultural impetus, you wouldn't dream of doing something so downright arbitrary and bizarre.

On the other hand, I personally think of each family as a sovereign dictatorship within a countrywide, (sometimes global), inter-subjective federation.  In which case, the only way to make an argument for denying a parent's right to make that choice, (and therefore impinge on the sovereignty of his family), is from the angle that it is a human rights abuse, or other violation of the implicit "federation charter".

In the absence of any such definitive argument, I feel the best way to deal with circumcision is by not practising it yourself, pointing out how arbitrary, stupid and unnecessary it is, but allowing other people to do as they wish within their own family even though it may indeed, (in some objective sense we cannot know or adequately define), constitute a human rights abuse.  In which case our only recourse is to allow freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas between these sovereign entities to work it's magic and hopefully, ultimately eliminate this primitive practise.

On the other hand, (and it's ironic that I'm sounding a bit like Tevye here), from the angle of body modification, I would also think it arguable that if you could do a safe surgical procedure on your child that would give them benefit, (say a 5% improvement in their vision), that while being debatable, does not seem entirely unreasonable either.  

Cosmetic justifications are obviously a great deal more debatable than beneficial ones.

At any rate I've gotta go with the Libertarian conclusion that in the absence of a definitive case either way, the best political option is to allow individuals to assume personal responsibility for their course of action and its accompanying consequences to both themselves and their own children.


By the way, what the hell was this thread acutally supposed to be about anyway?
i]I suck at archaic languages.  I don't understand Latin et al.[/i]
________________
IRON MAN

Offline 2112

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1494
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2007, 12:10:28 PM »
Quote from: "IRON MAN"
Quote from: "2112"
I don't know if I trust P&T's episode on recycling. It seems like whenever they talk about an issue that has real political implications they start to spew as much BS as the people they are making fun of. Just look at their enviromentalism and second hand smoking episodes. That being said, their episodes on the supernatural are not to be missed.  8)


I certainly don't agree with everything they say, and it's good to be skeptical of everything.  

But if you can't back that up with anything other than the fact they have an overt political opinion, you need to start looking at your own motivations.

In other words you should be able to find fault in their logic.


I guess that the fault I find in their logic is that they say if something must be subsidized by the government it is automatically bad. I feel that alternative energy should be subsidized because it will help us out a lot in the future and there isn't a real economic incentive to invest in it at the current moment. P&T are saying that since recycling cannot support itself that it is a waste. Although I haven't done very much research into this topic, I am skeptical about their opinion because others who use the same argument, i.e. the anti-alternative energy crowd, are wrong.
Science probes, it does not prove.
-Gregory Bateson

My Blog

Offline IRON MAN

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
    • http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/member.php?u=1292
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2007, 12:35:52 PM »
Quote from: "Paul Ganssle"
See, that's not what I got from that episode.  In that episode, I felt that they were not saying, "You should not be monogamous", just saying, "monogamy is just a kink, just like any other specific sexual behaviour."


I'm glad to know that at least someone got that impression.  I just thought that saying things like "the traditional American family doesn't exist and probably never did" gave a strong impression that monogamy as a natural compulsion does not exist either.  I mean why wouldn't monogamy result in a so-called traditional family?

I know the key-word here is "traditional", as to say, that was what most American families once were, (which is obviously not the case), but it still gives a strong impression that the entire concept is artificial when compared to human nature or something.

Maybe I'm just over-reacting, because as a monogamous atheist I hear that sort of argument all the time made by other atheists, who think it is exclusively some kind of artificial religious construct.

Quote
I think they were making the case that monogamy is not the only option, as Family Values people would have you believe.


Yes I know it's tilted in one direction because of the natural tilt of belief in the other direction - something we can thank religion for, (ironically probably originally started by a guy like me who thought his natural subjective inclination was objective reality).

And I know where Penn is coming from, but if I'm not going to issue Michael Moore or Al Gore a free pass for leaving false impressions, I'm not gonna let someone who likes goddamned jazz get away with it either.

Quote
I also get the impression, from his radio show (which I am sure you listen to, because I heard your obituary on Friday), ...


Ha.  You heard that.  It's funny, I don't send much stuff in - especially lately, (the show is on at 5 or 6am here), but I get about 80% of the stuff I do send on air.

Goudeau didn't read out the other obituary I sent after that:

Quote
To: Michael Goudeau <pennradio>

Subject:  How about writing other people's obituaries?

John Edward

I'm John Edward,
 
I'm getting a name that starts with a 'J' ...

Sylvia Browne

My name is Sylvia Browne, please don't mourn for me, I've gone to the other side after dying peacefully in my sleep.
 

 
IRON MAN
Australia.


Quote
... that he is monogamous with his wife.  In a year of programs, he hasn't mentioned anything to the contrary. and he's not exactly the kind of guy who would keep it a secret.


Well I must admit he's got me wondering, and for someone who doesn't keep a lot of secrets he hasn't explicitly confirmed it either way.  I also don't consider that some kind of "open" marriage would be out of the ball park.

At any rate, I figured it's his business, and if he doesn't want to bring it up that's fine with me.

Quote
Here I agree with you that their conclusion was valid and that their methods were not great, but I felt that they made at least a two-pronged attack: 1.) people are human and people screw up, and there's no going back once you kill someone and


There's no going back once you take away 20 years of someones life, freedom and youth, destroy their career, and smear their reputation either.  But at least you get a chance to say "sorry" which will no doubt make them feel a whole lot better.

The point is, the fact that an innocent man may be punished has zero to do with what punishment a court should assign.


Quote
2.) it is wrong to kill another human being for any reason whatsoever, and therefore the government doing so makes us all implicit murderers.  I don't agree with #2, because I don't think that anything is objectively morally right or wrong, and there are instances where I would kill people without regret.  Number 1 is much more valid in my opinion, because it's very much true.  They had the example of the guy who was on death row for a crime committed while he was in prison, and a bunch of people have been exonorated by DNA evidence at close to the last minute.  That reason, as well as the idea that I don't think the government should be deciding who dies are the two main reasons I don't like the death penalty, and I think that they were covered very well in that episode.


I don't like the idea that the government makes these decisions, but that is not my primary reason.

I look at it this way ...

If you were on an island with 10 other people, and one of them turned out to be a psycho serial killer, (and for the purposes of this exercise we can eliminate any doubt of guilt by saying that everyone witnessed the guy do it, he is insane, uncooperative and completely unrepentant).  Is it moral to keep the guy incarcerated and force the remaining people to tend to his needs for the rest of his life?

What if 3 out of the remaining people resent having to work that much harder to keep this guy?  Resent having to watch him, feed him, clothe him, risk him escaping and killing them and their friends when the threat could be eliminated?  Goddamn they could be living their lives with no such restrictions, why should they suffer for his crime?

How much force are you prepared to use to make them participate in this one man prison idea on moral grounds that really in a philosophical sense have no definitive answer?

You have the force of the majority.  What are you going to do if they flatly refuse?


This is why I say not having the death penalty is a luxury we can afford in a modern society.

Because the proportionate number of psychos is so low, and our countries are so wealthy, resulting in a relatively low cost to each individual, we can collectively choose to pay the price required to perpetually avoid ever having to make that moral choice.

That's not a definitive answer about that moral choice either.

If I was on that island I would advocate killing the guy, and I'd prepared to carry it out the sentence.

This is why I believe that political philosophy must adapt to the reality, and there's plenty of "him or me" situations that bend to this kind of reasoning, and invalidate religious moral values that state, "killing is always wrong", or some other such oversimplified maladaptive nonsense.

It's also why I also don't look down my nose at any individual state, or country that employs the death penalty.  It's a morally ambiguous situation and the result is precisely what I expect - a peppering of states that allow it among those who don't.

I also think this is one of the most impressive expressions of state sovereignty in America - as it would be very easy to try to make something like this a federal issue.
i]I suck at archaic languages.  I don't understand Latin et al.[/i]
________________
IRON MAN

Offline slashnull

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2007, 01:00:36 PM »
The Sylvia Browne obituary is pricelesss :)

Offline Cay

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Local Recycling
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2007, 03:53:42 PM »
Thanks for all your comforting words.  One thing about recycling here in the Portland, Oregon metro area  is that you pay based on the size of your garbage can - the bigger the can, the more you pay.  Probably true other places??  Every customer gets enormous recycling and yard debris containers that are emptied each week along with the garbage. Obviously your fee covers some of the recycling costs (which are subsidized by the gov't,) but it only makes financial sense to separate.  

I'd love a show about what personal habits can really make a difference in protecting the environment.

Offline EricNau

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2007, 02:50:20 AM »
Sorry to revive an old thread, but here goes...

I started listening several months ago, but I'm still in the process of catching up. In this episode (33), it is claimed that blood is not magnetic (nonferrous). I tried to confirm this through some quick googling and searching in wikipedia, but couldn't find a single confirmation. In fact, wikipedia claimed quite the opposite: that hemoglobin was ferrous while transporting oxygen, and that fMRI machines used a magnetic field to lineup the oxyhemoglobin molecules.

Any clarification is greatly appreciated.

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8744
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2007, 09:56:52 AM »
Quote from: "EricNau"
Sorry to revive an old thread, but here goes...

I started listening several months ago, but I'm still in the process of catching up. In this episode (33), it is claimed that blood is not magnetic (nonferrous). I tried to confirm this through some quick googling and searching in wikipedia, but couldn't find a single confirmation. In fact, wikipedia claimed quite the opposite: that hemoglobin was ferrous while transporting oxygen, and that fMRI machines used a magnetic field to lineup the oxyhemoglobin molecules.

Any clarification is greatly appreciated.


http://www.revisemri.com/blog/2006/mri-blood-iron-attraction/

What you want to google on is "blood not ferromagnetic". You'll get loads of stuff.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline jday

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2007, 10:57:28 AM »
Quote from: "EricNau"
Sorry to revive an old thread, but here goes...

I started listening several months ago, but I'm still in the process of catching up. In this episode (33), it is claimed that blood is not magnetic (nonferrous). I tried to confirm this through some quick googling and searching in wikipedia, but couldn't find a single confirmation. In fact, wikipedia claimed quite the opposite: that hemoglobin was ferrous while transporting oxygen, and that fMRI machines used a magnetic field to lineup the oxyhemoglobin molecules.

Any clarification is greatly appreciated.


Blood is ferrous (i.e., contains iron). Blood is not ferromagnetic (i.e., a strong form of permanent magnetism).
sum ergo cogito

Offline EricNau

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Episode #33 - Guilty Admission
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2007, 07:03:25 PM »
Quote from: "jday"
Blood is ferrous (i.e., contains iron). Blood is not ferromagnetic (i.e., a strong form of permanent magnetism).

Oh, duh!

When I was Googling, I was searching for the keyword "ferrous' (using it as a synonym for magnetic), when what I really meant was ferromagnetic!

Thanks guys!

 

personate-rain
personate-rain