What Penn and Teller Do

[Kiless]

I'm prompted to do this because of a rather good question:

'Are Penn and Teller merely entertainers?'

And what sources would you cite to indicate otherwise? If indeed, you thought they were more than entertainers?

I have on another computer, several essays by Penn that illustrate more than just a whimsical 'bad boy' comedian, I know of the Cato institute and will go poking around there today to see what they have to say directly about the pair; I collect the 'Bull&*^t' DVDs and watch them, I've been to TAM3 and heard them speak..... where else would one go if you were indeed, thinking of demonstrating their contributions beyond sheer entertainment? I know that their books 'Play With Food', et al, are also excellent in demonstrating the thinking behind what they do. I'm also considering citing their videos too.... ah, their movie is a good one too, I think.

[jmercer]

I'm utterly ashamed to admit it, but I've never seen any of Penn and Teller's acts, movies, etc. Never.

OTOH, I didn't know anything much about them until I came here to JREF, so now I have no real excuse. :D

[Kiless]

Originally posted by jmercer
I'm utterly ashamed to admit it, but I've never seen any of Penn and Teller's acts, movies, etc. Never.

OTOH, I didn't know anything much about them until I came here to JREF, so now I have no real excuse. :D
Cool! Then this'll be good for you too! :)

[clarsct]

"Is Kiless merely a teacher?"

Yes, P&T are entertainers. Technically, so is Randi, even though he rarely performs anymore.

But are they interested in social issues? Yes. What they have to say goes beyond who they are or who they know.

I have seen some specials by P&T and they were both thoroughly entertaining. They 'showed' how they did the tricks, which was cool. I think they had a thing about critical thinking from the beginning. "See! We're fooling you! We just did. And others can, too. SO WAKE UP!"


Just my thoughts.

[Kilted_Canuck]

Last thing of theirs I saw was the "Magical Mystery Tour" which was them going around the world and showing different types of magic....and then shots of them in the hotel room complaining about the food. :p

We've known about them forever, but I have yet to see a Bull---- episode. :(

[Kiless]

Originally posted by clarsct
"Is Kiless merely a teacher?"

Yes, P&T are entertainers. Technically, so is Randi, even though he rarely performs anymore.

But are they interested in social issues? Yes. What they have to say goes beyond who they are or who they know.

I have seen some specials by P&T and they were both thoroughly entertaining. They 'showed' how they did the tricks, which was cool. I think they had a thing about critical thinking from the beginning. "See! We're fooling you! We just did. And others can, too. SO WAKE UP!"


Just my thoughts.

Yeah, that's my thought. I'm trying to see if I can find some definite resources, however. I should go dig out my articles and find the resulting links to them online, for a start.

[clarsct]

Well, can you cite where you're more than just a teacher?



I'm not sure what you're asking for here....

[Kiless]

Originally posted by clarsct
Well, can you cite where you're more than just a teacher?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here....

ARgh! It's not about ME, it's about Penn and Teller! :)

What contributions have they made to society beyond sheer entertainment value, in your mind? If the claim is 'they're just comedians / entertainers', then is that all that can be said? Or even, that they are not even reasonably qualified, in fact, to challenge people's thinking? Should possibly stay out anything that isn't for only entertainment value? Seems like a firm statement to me.

I'll go get my links for the next time I post, in my defence against this claim.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck
Last thing of theirs I saw was the "Magical Mystery Tour" which was them going around the world and showing different types of magic....and then shots of them in the hotel room complaining about the food. :p

We've known about them forever, but I have yet to see a Bull---- episode. :(

LOL! I'd like to see that, Teller wrote a bit about it on their site, I believe. Not seen BS? Oh, come on, you really should! :(

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Kiless
ARgh! It's not about ME, it's about Penn and Teller! :)


AHHH, yes. But by turning the question back on you, I am making you think. *BIGGRIN* And that is what >I< do.

What contributions have they made to society beyond sheer entertainment value, in your mind? If the claim is 'they're just comedians / entertainers', then is that all that can be said? Or even, that they are not even reasonably qualified, in fact, to challenge people's thinking? Should possibly stay out anything that isn't for only entertainment value? Seems like a firm statement to me.

I'll go get my links for the next time I post, in my defence against this claim.

Well, how does one get 'qualified' to challenge people's thinking? Is there a course? Were Socrates and Thomas Paine 'qualified'?

Sound slike an elitist argument to me. 'Why should be believe P&T? They're JUST Entertainers....'

With a sneer on that last word. It dismisses them without having to answer their arguments. Have you had problems with someone who has been using a variant on the above?

Anyone can and ought to challenge thought. Ideas should not become sacred cows.

At the very least, I would point to the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

[treble_head]

My opinion, but I know that if it weren't for Penn and Teller, I'd never be here and I would still think that man didn't really land on the moon. (not from their episode about it), but from the first season, where I wanted to know what this "Amazing Randi" was all about.

Bullsh** is an amazing show. It's died down a bit, admittedly, but it took to the front a lot of things I had been mulling over, and after careful research, they were (for the most part) right.

I always liked P&T... They made magic fun for a kid who got sick of David Copperfield and the ilk... Penn also was the voice of the early Comedy Central (which helped me get into MST3K, thank whomever...)

In any case, I feel that Penn & Teller are doing a fine job of bringing skeptecism to the masses, if even in a beat-you-over-the-head way... It gets the job done, and for me, it really helped a guy out... Thanks, guys...

[Bob Klase]

Originally posted by clarsct
Yes, P&T are entertainers. Technically, so is Randi, even though he rarely performs anymore.
[/B]

But the question was "'Are Penn and Teller merely entertainers?"

Is it your position that anyone who is, or ever has been, an entertainer will always be "merely" an entertainer?

Paul Winchell (the ventriloquist) was an entertainer. He was also an inventer who held several dozen patents including a patent for one of the first artifical hearts. Ronald Reagan was an entertainer who was also elected president. There's a long list of entertainers who went on to be many other things.

Are they all to be known as just entertainers? And even if they are, why should they be known as entertainers and not as whatever else they've been in addition?

[crimresearch]

Why do you say 'mere' entertainers?
Lots of people can do magic tricks well (or play guitar, or sing, or dance), but very few people can make all the right moves to reach and keep an international audience.

Even among magicians, P&T were standouts... with their wry 'spin' on the traditional conjurer and assistant cliche.

To then parlay that into the skeptical and critical thinking venues they have popularized takes them well out of the realm of 'mere' anything.

I mean other than being a mere writer, did Asimov ever do anything?:p

[DavoMan]

Penn & Teller are the type of guys that always have some kinda gag going. I don't doubt that when they go home at night they probably quiet down & all but the rest of the time they are nut cases.

I think they are awesome. They are really clever guys. My heroes, really. :)

[Chris O.]

P & T Lead me here. I caught an episode of BS, the one about offensive language, and then bought the first season. Watched the interview with Randi, and here I am.

[clarsct]

Wow. I had no idea so many people were here because of P&T.

I bought the first season of BS because I heard about it here.

I just recently bought the second season.

[Chris O.]

I guess that was kind of the point of the show.. reach out to people who wouldn't otherwise find this society.

[aargh57]

Perhaps one thing to site that would indicate otherwise is the amount of people they brought over here (myself included.) I was always a P&T fan, unfortunately, I never got to see too much of there stuff before I went to Vegas and caught their show. They brought my wife on stage so we became big fans of theirs.

I also dislike the argument of dismissing them because of their being entertainers rather than on the content of their message. I think the most important thing they've done is to challenge many things that no other single show will touch. I've seen a few posters here dismiss them because they think they are "blinded by their ideology" because they're libertarians. Even if it's true that they are biased (which they freely admit) name one other show that has made as many controversial episodes and at least challenged some of these quacks and frauds (have only watched one "Mythbusters" but I don't think they delve as much into psuedoscience, could be wrong though.) Anyway, I love the show and am very glad that I came to this site through them which in turn turned me on to Snopes, Quackwatch, Bad Astronomer, etc... which have all been a source of very good information and entertainment.

[CerebralWrestler]

I wonder what was up with the episode with hair. Were they running out of ideas or needed an episode filler?

I don't trust P&T 100%, they actually make me skeptical about skepticism sometimes :D.

[DavoMan]

Im skeptical of skeptism.

[sf108]

Originally posted by CerebralWrestler
I wonder what was up with the episode with hair. Were they running out of ideas or needed an episode filler?

I don't trust P&T 100%, they actually make me skeptical about skepticism sometimes :D.

Agreed. That episode was like...yeh ok. What was the bullsh11 part? Next.

That episode on people assuming there's bacteria on toilet seats was also like wtf. I'd never sit on a public toilet seat with bare-butt even knowing there's "scant" levels of bacteria on it.

And the recent "banned" episode about religious icons...were they missing a part? They started introducing this gag they pulled at a shopping center, and how people would react to their gag, but they ended up not showing it at all.

Anyone know why it was banned anyway?

[Jack of Hearts]

I am also one of those whom P&T introduced to Randi. And they did it simply by gushing over Randi in every one of their 3 books!

Just about the only "I call BS on your BS!" moment I felt they had was in their PETA episode. They had this right-wing radio pundit on saying something like "For someone to have an idea that's so dumb, they must have gone to college. Something that stupid is only attributible to higher education." I think that was a needlessly petty and typically neocon attack on intellectualism and education, and considering Teller's background especially, I don't think they needed that kind of nonsense.

Other than that, lots of fun and some good points to be made, as long as they don't go overboard with the Catopublican attitude.

[DavoMan]

PETA is pretty mental, though. I was weary of PETA even before I saw the Penn & Teller episode. I mean they confuse their moral ideas with helping animals. To me thats *********'s calling card.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clavis
Other than that, lots of fun and some good points to be made, as long as they don't go overboard with the Catopublican attitude.

I'll flip if they say "because it's in the Constitution!" one more time. That's no better an argument than "because it's in the Bible!".

But I've already aired that beef in Politics. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58601)

[Diamond]

I read some of Cato's (and TechCentralStation's) articles because they're interesting and quite informative. But they're quite variable and some ideas are so whacked out that I just get angry.

What do Penn and Teller do? Entertain us by playing with our preconceived notions about how the world works and showing us the limitations of observation. They have to be eccentric in order to be entertaining - its part of the act.

[treble_head]

I agree on one level, but I don't think they are doing what they are doing now because it's "part of the act". I have no doubt they believe (at least a lot of) what they put onto their show.

[SmooveK]

It's thanks to Penn and Teller that I found this site.

[davidsmith73]

I haven't seen any BS episodes. I looked for some reviews on this series and found this one on Amazon. Does anyone here agree with this review?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Penn and Teller's Bullshi*t is a much-needed voice of reason in the midst of the alarmist, emotionally charged know-nothings they spend their time debunking in this DVD series. What's included here is a 3-disc set that contains the entire first season (10 episodes) as well as some bonus features, most notably a bonus episode (about ghosts).

Initially, I caught Bullshi*t on Showtime and fell instantly in love with it. At last, here was a series dedicated to crushing the myths that draw in millions of non-thinking individuals. There was something almost vindicating about seeing them body-slam sensationalist after sensationalist with their rhetoric, even providing thinking America with some ammunition to battle our more, well...emotion-driven friends. I had only seen three or four installments on Showtime before buying the DVD and eagerly gobbling up all ten episodes.

Now that I've had some time with the series and have seen all the shows multiple times, something interesting has happened. The last episode I watched really got to me - an episode on second-hand smoke. For once, I thoroughly disagreed with Penn and Teller. The idiots that I normally found myself scoffing at - well, this time it was the hosts of the show. What I saw in that episode was Penn and Teller from the other side of the river. I saw them taking a very specific facet of an argument, thus pushing reams of data aside, and exploit it using arguments from the constitution applied to illogical extremes. Right away it started on a very shaky foot when they staged a scene of themselves in a restaurant with a noisy musician nearby, annoying them. "You're annoying us - let's legislate against you," they began, implying that second-hand smoke was on the same level of loud music, nothing more than an annoyance.

The most important thing to note about this argument is that there *is* legislation against loud music. It's called disturbing the peace. So apparently "annoying" habits are regularly legislated against, including the one they were trying to portray as absurd as an analogy.

Their main thread in this argument was that since there was no direct data that linked second-hand smoke to illness, second-hand smoke is therefore okay to have around. Their sub-point is that the EPA exaggerated some data in a report they issued in the 90s, and this exaggeration has been used to fuel the legislation against smoking in public. Therefore, they seem to imply that because of the bogus data, the legislation against second-hand smoke is also bogus.

To me, neither of these arguments hold any water. There is a very simple point to be made regarding second-hand smoke - we know smoking causes death and illness. The same chemicals that cause these illnesses are present in second-hand smoke. Therefore, whether or not we can prove that occasional second-hand smoke causes cancer, we do know that it contains very harmful compounds. The only difference between a non-smoker and smoker, then, is the amount of this smoke they are inhaling. Just because it's not proven that a smaller amount of smoke will cause me to die doesn't mean it's perfectly okay for it to be floating around in the air for me to breathe. If I sprayed arsenic and carbon monoxide into someone's face, they would arrest me. If I blow it into someone's face after inhaling it from a cigarette, it's legal in most areas. This is completely illogical to me. Speaking to their second point, just because the data may have been exaggerated, it doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally true.

Anyway, this exposed some of the techniques that Penn and Teller use, and I started looking for them in other episodes, even those episodes with which I wholeheartedly agreed (in other words, all of them). I found something pretty standard in all their arguments. For their opponent, they usually find the absolute most extreme camp they can find, a camp that probably represents 10% of the other side of the argument, and they use that as the face of the enemy. For example, in their episode on eating and feeding the world, whom did they choose as the antagonist? Greenpeace and a group of hippie-freakshows who only eat raw foods. Of course we're going to disagree with these idiots, therefore agreeing with Penn and Teller. We leave the show thinking that any and all genetically-altered foods should be dumped into the 3rd World, bar none.

What they don't show you are the extremely intelligent, forward thinking scientists who recognize the *legitimate* problems with this. Most notably, while genetic engineering may have saved a billion lives it has also done something else very obvious - drastically increased the population. Therefore, deaths related to overpopulation not associated with starvation - like aids, leprosy, and other illnesses - have drastically increased, inverse to the decrease in deaths from starvation, even exceeding it in some areas. So in trying to do good, we could, in the end, be killing more people. I'm not saying I totally agree with this point of view, just that it is a legitimate facet of the argument that isn't so easily dismissed with a wave of the hand like the ignorance of the losers that Penn and Teller put on camera. So be aware as you watch, that there are almost always more viable arguments against their points that they are not showing you. By consistently choosing only the far spectrum of their opponents, they safely avoid putting an intelligent adversary - which would probably fall somewhere in between Bullsh*t's POV and the extremist they've chosen - into the equation.

This doesn't mean I won't continue to watch regularly and cheer P&T on, or show these episodes to my more gullible friends who may be environmentalists or alternative medicine subscribers. Just understand that more often than not, there is a wide gap between what Penn and Teller are advocating and whom they choose to portray on their show, and in that gap lies a full spectrum of arguments for you to explore."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DavoMan]

That post was too long. I didn't read most of it. Alot of the ******** shows are specific to America. I'm not in America, so lots doesn't apply to me.

However refeering to something as being in the constitution is a very important argument from what I've seen, and not akin to the bible. It's a document which holds the American society together.

[apoger]

I have a friend who is somewhat credulous. Watching Penn and Teller has made him consider many of his views.

I can't think of higher praise.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by DavoMan
However refeering to something as being in the constitution is a very important argument from what I've seen, and not akin to the bible. It's a document which holds the American society together.

How does it do that? What do you think would happen to the US if that document did not exist?

[misawafan]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I haven't seen any BS episodes. I looked for some reviews on this series and found this one on Amazon. Does anyone here agree with this review?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...Anyway, this exposed some of the techniques that Penn and Teller use, and I started looking for them in other episodes, even those episodes with which I wholeheartedly agreed (in other words, all of them). "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually had the very same reaction as this reviewer. I still watch the show, and am a big fan of the guys. But sometimes I feel less involved with an episode than other times.

By the way, Penn used to work with The Residents back in the 70's. I think he was narrator for the Mole Show.

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
How does it do that? What do you think would happen to the US if that document did not exist?
Don't ask me. This is just what Ive seen on TV & from P&T. It looks like its the document that all the USA laws are built on. Remember I'm a kiwi boy. I got to put up with the Treaty of Waitangi. Thats the document which is supposed to keep New Zealand together.

New Zealand has grown enough so the Treaty seems unimportant. NZ seems like it is this modern western country now. Is that what its like in America then?

[TheBoyPaj]

I have no idea what America is like.I've only been there twice. But it seems that you don't know enough to say that the constitution holds the country together.

Suggesting that the country couldn't survive without it is a bit like those people who question how one can have any morals if you don't follow the bible's teachings.

[latsot]

'Are Penn and Teller merely entertainers?'

Yes. Although the word 'merely' is odd. Is there less value in being entertaining than otherwise? :-)

It may seem like a cliche but I think the very best entertainers invite us to question everything: ourselves, THEMselves, the very concept of entertainment and so on.

Look at P&T - for example, the engaging way they poke fun at themselves whilst still displaying a bewildering and gleeful mastery of magic. They do this to entertain but their message is very much "we are fooling you....you know this...right?"

Look at some of the better observational comedy such as Peter Kay (probably not known outside of the UK) or The Office. These comedians poke fun at their subjects, but also at their own delight in finding this stuff funny. This to some extent brings skepticism to a mass market. It's asking "What the..." and "Why.." and inviting us to do the same.

This sounds really preachy. It wasn't meant to be.

Cheers

r

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I have no idea what America is like.I've only been there twice. But it seems that you don't know enough to say that the constitution holds the country together.

Suggesting that the country couldn't survive without it is a bit like those people who question how one can have any morals if you don't follow the bible's teachings.
Now you're stepping over the line. It might not seem like it socially but the constitution is definately a focal point of American society if at least legally. From what I've seen & heard from Americans the country would fall apart (or drastically change) without its constitution. I'm not a yank & even I know this.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Don't ask me. This is just what Ive seen on TV & from P&T. It looks like its the document that all the USA laws are built on. Remember I'm a kiwi boy. I got to put up with the Treaty of Waitangi. Thats the document which is supposed to keep New Zealand together.

New Zealand has grown enough so the Treaty seems unimportant. NZ seems like it is this modern western country now. Is that what its like in America then?

You're absolutely correct in what the constitution is supposed to be; we are a constitutional republic. For many generations now the Dems and the Reps have only been paying lip service to it and have subverted it's meaning left and right (no pun intended).

Penn is a libertarian, probably of the big L variety. That makes him a strict constitionalist, pretty much. He makes no secret about his political views and in fact is a vocal advocate. That's mostly what they've turned their show into.

If Penn posted on this forum, he'd likely be received much as is Shane. I don't know if he'd be so doggedly obtuse but suffice it to say he'd get along much better with Shane than our conservative members and much better with our conservative members than our liberal members. That's my take anyway.

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by Kiless
I'm prompted to do this because of a rather good question:

'Are Penn and Teller merely entertainers?'

And what sources would you cite to indicate otherwise? If indeed, you thought they were more than entertainers?

I have on another computer, several essays by Penn that illustrate more than just a whimsical 'bad boy' comedian, I know of the Cato institute and will go poking around there today to see what they have to say directly about the pair; I collect the 'Bull&*^t' DVDs and watch them, I've been to TAM3 and heard them speak..... where else would one go if you were indeed, thinking of demonstrating their contributions beyond sheer entertainment? I know that their books 'Play With Food', et al, are also excellent in demonstrating the thinking behind what they do. I'm also considering citing their videos too.... ah, their movie is a good one too, I think. Most comedians are not only entertainers but sarcasts. One of the benefits of being a comedian is that you can present an argument without much debate or challenge. Yet, your argument is heard even in between laughs and applause. Of course, you better get laughs or the whole thing could back-fire. If P & T weren't such good comedians, they would be useless to their other cause.

[epepke]

If it weren't for Penn and Teller, I would never have hooked a pickle up to wall current. That's good enough for me.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by epepke
If it weren't for Penn and Teller, I would never have hooked a pickle up to wall current. That's good enough for me.

I was doing that before Penn and Teller made it cool.

[DavoMan]

What happens when you put a pickle up to a wall current? We got 240 volts here in NZ. Muahahaaha.

Anyway. Can someone please explain for me these terms:
Liberalist
Conservative
Repulican
Democrat


I have no idea what they mean when it comes to American political structure. Things are very different in New Zealand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Suggesting that the country couldn't survive without it is a bit like those people who question how one can have any morals if you don't follow the bible's teachings.

To far too many Americans, there is no difference between the Bible and the Constitution.

[Calico]

Originally posted by treble_head
My opinion, but I know that if it weren't for Penn and Teller, I'd never be here...

Same here. I've been a devoted fan of Penn and Teller since the early 80's.

Yes, they are entertainers.

I'd also call them teachers. Actually Teller was a teacher in a previous career.

They put me in tune with the BS going on in this world. Their interviews with James Randi brought me to this site and to all you lovely people.

Glad to be here!

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by DavoMan
What happens when you put a pickle up to a wall current? We got 240 volts here in NZ. Muahahaaha.

Anyway. Can someone please explain for me these terms:
Liberalist
Conservative
Repulican
Democrat
I have no idea what they mean when it comes to American political structure. Things are very different in New Zealand.

Now THAT is a tough one. Probably best left to a separate thead. Nutshelled.

Left = Liberal = Democrat (many exceptions exist)
Right = Conservative = Republican (many exceptions exist)

Most (here) would consider Tony Blair to be a hard-left liberal. He could win an election though . . . I think.

We (really) only have two political parties, Dems and Reps. They are, for all practical purposes, the same. They say different things, they act somewhat differently, the hate each other, but they are the same in outcome.

Dems favor social programs that Reps hate.

Reps favor business programs that Dems hate.

Dems favor consellotory foreign policy that Reps hate.

Reps favor aggressive foreign policy that Dems hate.

Dems favor more personal freedom.

Reps favor more personal security.

Dems favor multiculturalism

Reps favor monoculturalism.

In the end a balance is met.

Everything else is window dressing.

The smart ones (like me ;) ) love the game but remain independent in the vote. I'm conservative in more things than I am liberal but I chalk that up to my obvious ignorance (that's one I give to those on the left that post after me . . . no need to dis' me, I don't care).

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Calico
They put me in tune with the BS going on in this world. Their interviews with James Randi brought me to this site and to all you lovely people.

Glad to be here!

I wonder how lovely you think we still are after we destroy your 1st post ego and what you think is logical thinking. I want evidence that you're glad to be here. What? No evidence?

Get OUT!

Kidding of course. Welcome to the skeptic's den. Feel free to converse but be advised that if you say something as fact and don't have the references or logic to back it up, you WILL be called on it. This is what this forum is all about. If it's just your opinion, let that be known somewhere in your text.

The Politics Forum is just about the only exception. You'll still be called on every fubar but that's politics.

[Calico]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I wonder how lovely you think we still are after we destroy your 1st post ego and what you think is logical thinking. I want evidence that you're glad to be here. What? No evidence?

Get OUT!

Kidding of course. Welcome to the skeptic's den. Feel free to converse but be advised that if you say something as fact and don't have the references or logic to back it up, you WILL be called on it. This is what this forum is all about. If it's just your opinion, let that be known somewhere in your text.

The Politics Forum is just about the only exception. You'll still be called on every fubar but that's politics.

Thank you for that warm and yet, rather chilling welcome, Rob.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Did you watch the season 1 extras? THE TEETH AAHHHHHHH ITS AN ALIEN!

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Calico
Thank you for that warm and yet, rather chilling welcome, Rob.

Chilling? How chilly? Warm? How warm? How can it be both? That seems contradictory, don't you think? For both warm and cold, please specify in F or C but be sure to specify units. I'm sure there is a margin of error so specify that as well. Let's get this down first so we can continue to the important stuff. :)

[Calico]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
Did you watch the season 1 extras? THE TEETH AAHHHHHHH ITS AN ALIEN!

Yes! I was frightened!
I didn't hear a word that that person said. I just kept staring at those choppers!
:D

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Now THAT is a tough one. Probably best left to a separate thead. Nutshelled.

Left = Liberal = Democrat (many exceptions exist)
Right = Conservative = Republican (many exceptions exist)

Most (here) would consider Tony Blair to be a hard-left liberal. He could win an election though . . . I think.

We (really) only have two political parties, Dems and Reps. They are, for all practical purposes, the same. They say different things, they act somewhat differently, the hate each other, but they are the same in outcome.

Dems favor social programs that Reps hate.

Reps favor business programs that Dems hate.

Dems favor consellotory foreign policy that Reps hate.

Reps favor aggressive foreign policy that Dems hate.

Dems favor more personal freedom.

Reps favor more personal security.

Dems favor multiculturalism

Reps favor monoculturalism.

In the end a balance is met.

Everything else is window dressing.

The smart ones (like me ;) ) love the game but remain independent in the vote. I'm conservative in more things than I am liberal but I chalk that up to my obvious ignorance (that's one I give to those on the left that post after me . . . no need to dis' me, I don't care).
Thanks for the definitions. It seems you guys are really short on choices for your goverment. To me, it seems you need more political parties. What makes them opposites? Surely there is agreement by the parties on some issues. I mean there is no pure opposite when it comes to social opinion.

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
Did you watch the season 1 extras? THE TEETH AAHHHHHHH ITS AN ALIEN!
Theres season 1 extras?

[aargh57]

Rent the DVD with the last episodes on it and it should have the extras.

[DavoMan]

Rent? As-in money?:confused:

[Skepiroth]

I'm John and I'm a Bulls#$t-aholic. I own season 1 and 2 on DVD as well as copies of the episodes on my computer so I can lend the DVDs out to people in order to "spread the word" while still enjoying the show myself. Whether you like the show or not is a matter of A) taste-lots of cursing/making fun of people and B) the topic- most skeptics would like a lot of the episodes since they deal with "woo" and "I didn't know it was woo" stuff. Other shows are more political in nature. I like the majority of these shows since I am Libertarian, as are Penn & Teller.
If you watch the show, you can tell that it is made by more than two guys who are "just entertainers". They never claim to be experts on the subject of the night, but always have "experts" (in quotes because some of the woo "experts" are downright laughable) to explain both sides of the story. Furthermore, from what I know regarding the background of this show, Penn & Teller were not "drafted" to do this show because they are good entertainers. Rather, they had been dying to do a show that exposed and mocked the "Bulls#$t" that people are fed for quite some time and only within the past few years have they found a producer/network willing to make it happen.

[DavoMan]

I agree. They said that they'd been dying to do a show like ********* for ages. Ya can sorta see it coming in the way they've done their shows throughout the years.

If I ever meet P&T, I'll try & rub my ass on them. When they go 'what the fu(k?' I'll refer them to the episode on germs where they ask people to do that. :P

[TheBoyPaj]

Just seen the episode on the Endangered Species Act. What a drawn-out appeal to emotion that was.

Sad though they are, was it really necessary to spend so long detailing the living conditions of the woman in the wheelchair, complete with heart-rending piano accompaniment , simply to make the point that she has lost out due to the ESA?

And don't the purchasers of land do some sort of survey first?

[treble_head]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj

And don't the purchasers of land do some sort of survey first?

Yeah, they supposedly do. So why did WAL-FREAKING-MART get the ability to build on the same land, TWO LOTS AWAY... and she didn't?

Welcome to the American Business Model.

[TheBoyPaj]

Maybe no birds were found on the Walmart lot?

[Skepiroth]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Maybe no birds were found on the Walmart lot?

Walmart had already captured them and resorted to locking them in the store overnight to eat the insects.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Thanks for the definitions. It seems you guys are really short on choices for your goverment. To me, it seems you need more political parties.

Yep, we do. However federal and state laws make it somewhat difficult for new parties to get off the ground. That reason is strengthened by both parties instilling fear in people by telling them that it really is about voting against someone instead of for someone. When left-leaning third party candidates run, the Democrats say "we not as bad as the Republicans and if you don't vote for us then the worst candidate (the Republican one) will get elected."

Plus, a measurable percentage of the U.S. population are one-issue voters. The single issue may be things like outlawing abortion, limiting gun control, introducing prayer and scriptures to public schools, or preventing gay marriage. No matter how much they might dislike the economic policies, foreign relations views, or social program positions of a candidate, if the candidate in question agrees with that important single issue, then that candidate has earned a vote.

Originally posted by DavoMan
What makes them opposites? Surely there is agreement by the parties on some issues. I mean there is no pure opposite when it comes to social opinion.

Both parties agree on being "tough on crime." Both parties support the "war on drugs." Both parties support the embargo on Cuba because the population of Cuban ex-pats lives almost exclusively in Florida and as a result of somewhat arcane federal election laws, carrying the state of Florida is very important in trying to win the presidency.

[DavoMan]

Ahh thanks. That makes alot of sense. I don't agree with it of course, but it does fill in alot of empty bits where I didn't know stuff. Some times watching American TV I really wonder how a joe normal with average income (an actual human being who works for their cash) could climb the ladder & be president. There's all this crazy stuff going on with business deals & family & stuff. Clinton just got caught thats all :p

[Skepiroth]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Thanks for the definitions. It seems you guys are really short on choices for your goverment. To me, it seems you need more political parties. What makes them opposites? Surely there is agreement by the parties on some issues. I mean there is no pure opposite when it comes to social opinion.

You are 100% correct. This one sums it up- http://www.billstclair.com/luxlucre/Merger.swf

[DavoMan]

Cool I like being 100% correct :) Cheers I will look at that as soon as my computer works again :(

[DavoMan]

Okay well that was kinda confusing...

[Thurkon]

For their opponent, they usually find the absolute most extreme camp they can find, a camp that probably represents 10% of the other side of the argument, and they use that as the face of the enemy.

As much as I like Penn and Teller, this show has failed to live up to its potential. Some episodes are good, while others are horribly slanted. A show exposing superstitions, false beliefs, and quackery is a great idea...but they tackle too many subjects in which there is no simple answer. Unfortunately, that is their modus operandi...to expose the obvious truth and dig out the BS.

They also approach a subject with their minds already made up before the "investigation" begins. Hey, let's show the BS behind recycling! However, they failed to do it convincingly, and their interviews are one-sided and full of ad hominem voiceovers. Is this objective investigation? Hardly...it's entertainment, and as such should stick to subjects that are little less weighty and complex.

[DavoMan]

Well the research is done before the show is filmed. But I agree alot of the episodes are about social opinion rather than fact. I guess it's P&T's show and ******** isnt a very specific definition so the show can be about anything.

Some of the issues aren't quite represented properly. Such as recycling. In America it might be so but in other countries, the factors are very different. Recycling as a word doesnt mean the methods that we use to recycle.

Recycling in general isn't ********. How Americans recycle might be however.

[CerebralWrestler]

I just saw that episode Signs From Heaven. Do you know how long I was waiting for someone to say "paredolia"? :)

[treble_head]

Originally posted by CerebralWrestler
I just saw that episode Signs From Heaven. Do you know how long I was waiting for someone to say "paredolia"? :)

I dunno, about as long as i've waited for someone to misspell pareidolia? ;)

[sf108]

Originally posted by CerebralWrestler
I just saw that episode Signs From Heaven. Do you know how long I was waiting for someone to say "paredolia"? :)

That episode was good. Didn't know why they banned it though.

And did you realise they sort of cut out a segment that they were supposed to do? They showed a part where they were experimenting on shoppers in a mall with this image, but never really did. Their production has seriously downgraded since that hair episode...and that toilet segment

[tracer]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Suggesting that the country couldn't survive without [the U.S. Constitution] is a bit like those people who question how one can have any morals if you don't follow the bible's teachings.
Hence, the danger of the religion known as Americanism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/patriot.html).

[epepke]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Liberalist

A liberalist comments on liberals. Well known American liberalists include Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Repulican

A repulican is someone who pules over and over again. "Pule" is a portmanteau word combining "mewl" and "puke," from Shakespeare: "Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms." Well known American repulicans include Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

[DavoMan]

That doesnt really tell me anything.

[Skepiroth]

Originally posted by DavoMan
What happens when you put a pickle up to a wall current? We got 240 volts here in NZ. Muahahaaha.

Anyway. Can someone please explain for me these terms:
Liberalist
Conservative
Repulican
Democrat


I have no idea what they mean when it comes to American political structure. Things are very different in New Zealand.

It is kind of different over here in America. I'd use the following terms instead:

Democrat
Republican
Progressive
Libertarian

Democrat = Will infringe on social freedoms a little bit in an attempt to create a more politically correct country. However, they will not impose their religion on you. They "support the middle class" and are pro-labor. They do raise taxes because... hey they are the government, they know how to spend your money better than you do.
(note: the traditional "Democrat" is becoming an endangered species)

Republican = Will infringe on social freedoms if you happen to be a homosexual. Will give you an eerie "holier than thou" vibe if you are not a white Protestant. Have shady ties to businesses. However, other than that they support self ownership and private property. They also will lower your taxes.

Progressive = DON'T LET THE NAME FOOL YOU! This term became popular when far-left individuals, who were at the time labeled as 'liberals', wanted to distance themselves from traditional Democrats who were more centrist (especially Bill Clinton) who were also labeled as 'liberals'. They want the government's fingers in every aspect of your life. They support social engineering to create a weirdo utopia society one can only comprehend by spending some time listening to the garbage spewn forth on American college campuses. They will also tax the bejeezus out of you because the more money they make the more they hate you and want to redistrubute it to whomever they so choose.

Libertarian = The ones that make the most sense. Belive that you own your own life. The only function the government has is to stop others from infringing upon your rights.

"fair and balanced" look at American politics.

[DavoMan]

Okay so the most attractive out of those shown is the Liberals. Hmm. If I take your word for it, everybody would vote for liberals. But they dont. So there must be some pros to the other guys.

[aargh57]

"Okay so the most attractive out of those shown is the Liberals. Hmm. If I take your word for it, everybody would vote for liberals. But they dont. So there must be some pros to the other guys."

Davo,

Did you mean Libertarian? Skepiroth didn't list liberal. The Libertarian party is not one of the two major partys so they get very few votes. Also, I think his "fair and balanced" comment was said tongue in cheek.

[DavoMan]

hhhmmmm :confused:

[aargh57]

Davo,

Liberal does not = Libertarian.

I don't really know why Skepiroth listed them like he did. I think you're better off going with Rob Lister's post for an explanation. Basically, we've got two choices here. Democrat (Bill Clinton, Kerry, Jimmy Carter, etc) and Rebublican (Reagan, Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Ahnold). I don't want to derail the thread much more except to say that P&T subscribe to the Libertarian Point of View so considering how many friends they make you can see how many votes they're going to get.

[DavoMan]

Gotchya.