I mostly agree with Pen & teller I have seen all the episodes and <3 em.
I personally disagree with some statements they said on the drug episode, they made it sound so simple when that isn't the case at all. They practicly said we should leagalise all drugs including the strongest and most dangerous like meth and cokaine that are extremly addictive and when you get hooked they will eather kill you or make you so depressed you will kill yourself. I don't think they know enough about the dangers off theese practicular drugs to say they should be leagalised and we should ''controll the dosage'' (like that was possible)
Is there any subjects you personally disagree with them? Please also mention why (:
Penn has some kind of idea that loving a baby is "real" love, but loving your dog is somehow fake. He often corrects himself with some kind of disclaimer, as he did in the Michael Vick video, but he still says the same thing. On the radio show he said the same, going into detail about how we only think dogs are cute because they resemble baby faces somehow. Well, we only think babies are cute because of the same evolved instinct.
He also listed among the bothersome animal facts the modification of animal species to fit our demands.
I wonder if Penn is aware that cats (jury still out on dogs) actually were not just human-engineered to meet our demands for playful critters. They were self-domesticated, meaning they evolved into their current mental state because it allowed them to live, as strays, among civilized humans.
Controlling the dosage of dangerous drugs is not such a crazy idea. Many over-the-counter drugs would be very dangerous in high enough doses. I could imagine an insomniac demanding pure sleep medication from some street dealer. But it doesn't happen, because everyone accepts that sleeping pills should come from a safe and regulated pharmacy.
Allergy medication is the same. Anyone can buy it from a legal store. The street dealers have no market share.
The level of drug prohibition is an example of excessive demands for control resulting a complete loss of control. When the government only wants reasonable control, like demanding drugs be cut to safe levels, people accept that.
I also mostly agree with them, some things I don't some things I do.
- The drug part. I don't think drugs should be legal but this is because I have that crap in my family and I've seen what it does to people. BUT I agree with them that you should be able to do whatever you want with your body, if you want to fuck up your whole life, then be my guest. But drugs destroy sooo many more lives than one. But that's their oppinion and I respect that.
- The atheism. I'm agnostic and for me it's not possible ever to prove that there is a God or not. But I also respect that because that's their belief and I will not stop them. I just admire their courage.
But then that's about it I think. There are problably some small things in different Bullshit episodes but nothing important.
I thought that they should have said that they supported the death penalty, but were against executions.
Life in prison is a poorly mislabled oxymoron it should be called death in prison. The idea that the punishment is any different is BS. Death in prison is worse in my oppinion for the guilty and prevents wrongful killing by the state. If I was a convicted murderer I would personally want to be killed in a short and timely manner than wait until nature says that it is time to go.
Scotland recently freed a freakin terrorist mass murderer because (oh no) he has cancer and it's (gasp) killing him slowly. Crap like this is why people support the death penalty. So if we are going to kill people lets do it in the slowest way possible, locking them up feeding them and waiting until they die. Death in prison is the death penalty, only no one can be blamed for nature's actions, and you can keep appealing it as long as you live.
Most disagreements that I have with Penn & Teller are over matters of taste, such as:
--I think that Bob Dylan sucks ass and owes me $70 for what I paid to watch him "perform" in 2003.
--Pets are cool. I have two dogs that I'm quite fond of. Mind you, P&T kinda recanted at the end of this one, and my understanding is that they both own some form of "pets" like fish or reptiles.
--Drinking is fun. Again, Penn has said that he could be wrong and that getting drunk could be really fun (it is), but he doesn't want to find out (which I way respect).
The only thing that I think that they have actually been wrong on for Bullshit! is cryonics. They only talked to one cryonics "broker", and not to an actual company that owns one of the facilities (the people they talked to use the Alcor facility, and Alcor has a LOT more than one customer). Also, I don't believe that the people involved in cryonics are doing it to fuck people over. They genuinely believe that it might be possible to revive someone, and are willing to bust their asses to try to do it. They also failed to mention that many cryonics consumers pay for their arrangement with a separate life insurance policy. Truth be told, I think that they "Michael Moored" that one a little.
To conclude, I'll explain why you are absolutely wrong about drugs, and why Penn and Teller have it right. As the sole legitimate owner of my body, it should be up to ME what I put into it, not you, not the police, and not the government. If I want to spend most of my time eating Cheezy Poofs while watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force and jabbing needles containing fucked up shit into my arm, it's none of your goddamn business. The bottom line is that if we aren't free to control what we do to ourselves, we are effectively property of the State. Fuck that.
I can say that I also mostly agree with what the guys are talking about.
The Gun Control episode though had a different effect.
They should have pointed out more, that it is not really about gun control, but about how kids and unresponsible people can have access to guns, although they shouldn't. The discussion about the second amendment and the constitutional right to bear arms was superfluous.
The problem for me isn't the fact that people have guns, although I don't REALLY get why someone would need an M16 for self-defense in his suburbian home, but then again I am European...
The problem is that loaded guns are being kept unlocked from children, that cannot handle the guns rationally and accidents are very likely to occur and the sensitivity towards using guns when angry about something is made easier.
And some parents tell us they "hide" their weapons.... come on ! We were all young and if you just spend one hour alone at home, snooping around in your own house, you WILL find drugs, porn and weapons hidden by your parents if you want to.
So I think, after taking at least a little psychological test (which in Europe is pretty ridiculous), you should be allowed to have guns at home, but for crying out loud, keep them locked away from your kids.
Like others have said, I disagree with them about pets. I have two cats and two ferrets and I love them all dearly. I didn't buy my male cat Neuticles, but I'm resigned to my place not being the party house because of the ferret musk and copious amounts of long white cat hair everywhere.
I'm also not 100% against the death penalty. Some people just don't deserve to live. Yes, I can be a judgmental bitch. Perhaps it's a character flaw of mine.
I enjoy wine and beer and the occasional cigarette.
I agree with a lot with P&T except on a few issues:
I DO believe in the death penalty. My grandparents were murdered by their son, my uncle. I understand both sides of the victims and believe that the death penalty should be allowed as a form of punishment. I go back and forth on whether or not my uncle should have gotten the death penalty, if the state had it, or if dying in prison was enough. My uncle was a Schizophrenic and had multiple personalities (at least 7). So, would it be okay to kill someone who's "ill" or let them die naturally?
I enjoy the various BS! episodes, and while I empathize with the viewpoints presented in the Death Penalty episode, I have some problems with the reasoning presented. Though I must admit, the episodes are quite entertaining.
The reasoning given against death penalty are basically the following:
* it's better to put NOBODY to death than to have accidentally put one innocent man to death
* death penalty is murder by society, so if you accept it, you are guilty of murder by proxy
* it does NOT deter murder
* all execution methods are cruel and unusual for one reason or another.
And here are my counterpoints:
* Better to put nobody to death than to have accidentally put one innocent man to death... Is that like the reasoning that you should never go outside if you have one chance out of whatever of having a piano fall on you? To borrow a bad saying: "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." -- Iosef Stalin
* Perhaps death penalty is necessary, like taxes? After all, there's difference between murder and justice. Why is self-defense justified then? By that logic, self-defense is also murder, or any sort of police shooting even though they saved lives taking down criminals. Sounds like an argument taken a bit too far.
* It does not deter ALL murders. That's a BIG difference from "does not deter murder". The latter implies "any". But if it detered SOME murders, would it have served its purpose? And what is the threshold? it's not as simple as "no no no" as death penalty opponents made it out to be.
* Perhaps all the methods can be considered cruel and unusual, but how is putting someone in a cage 23 hours a day be consider "normal" or "acceptable"? if you do it to animals, you'd be accused of animal cruelty. But if you do it to a human, it's "justice"? And lethal injection... It's objectable because it may be done wrong... So it's no longer objectionable if it is done right? Hmmm...
I am not suggesting these are the greatest counter-points available. It's what I came up with in 15 minutes. :D
I disagree with them about the anthropogenic causes of global climate change. To me, the science is clear on that one. But I'd expect no other comment from a couple of Libertarians.
I'm a zoo keeper and heavily involved with conservation, so a lot of people are surprised to hear that I agree strongly with them on the Endangered Species Act. While it's good that congress gives a shit at all about species and habitat loss, the ESA, like so many government programs, is run all fuckeduppedly, and it has not saved any species. The Peregrine Fund, a private NPO, was responsible for getting the publicity going to finally get DDT banned, and for captive-breeding and reintroducing peregrines (and now, many other birds as well.) Every other successful reversal of species and habitat loss was similarly spearheaded and funded by non-profits, not by government workers. SO FRUSTRATING.
Oh, and I love my pets, too. Obviously. I mean, I clean up animal feces for a living. Of course I love animals.
I didn't really think they were saying in the "Pet Love" episode that it's bullshit to love your pets. Just that you can go really overboard and become a crazy person. And you can. They had a good point there.
As for blues and jazz, I like them both, but prefer big band jazz.
You are right on the money with sci-fi. There is no other genre that is able to explore philosophical issues as brilliantly as science fiction. Unfortunately, it's kinda like clam diving in a septic tank. There are some real pearls in there, but you've gotta get through a lot of shit to find 'em. (One of my fave examples is "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress").
Now, I've gotta call you out on something. Aren't you also a bit of a socialist? I'm not bringing this up to bust your balls, but merely to point out that there is probably a lot more that you'd disagree with the guys on.