1. Comment #44694 by konquererz on May 25, 2007 at 7:30 am

This is one of my favorite episodes of Bullshit. To see people that everyone looks up to be just as human as me gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Not to see them as not perfect, but to show that me and you, just being us as ourselves, can still, despite all of our faults, impact humanity for the better. Its doesn't take a saint to do something good for your fellow human beings, you just have to have the will to do so.

Other Comments by konquererz

2. Comment #44734 by PeterK on May 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

Good stuff, but the foul language isn't necessary--even for emphasis purposes.

Other Comments by PeterK

3. Comment #44735 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 8:34 am

An excellent episode of "Bullshit!". Depressed me no end - never mind they didn't say anything I didn't already know - as the subject always makes me wish we had real-life heroes as perfect as our imagined ones.

Also enjoyed the fact they "let slip" the video of Hitchens being more interested in his glass of whiskey and fag over answering a question. No one's perfect, hmm? =^.^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

4. Comment #44744 by Alric on May 25, 2007 at 8:43 am

This was a very good episode. Trylu enjoyed the Bible and fundamentalism episodes. However, I became disinterested in BS after the second hand smoke and hybrid car episodes. They were way off the mark on those.

Other Comments by Alric

5. Comment #44753 by Rtambree on May 25, 2007 at 8:56 am

Season One and Two were great, then something happened for Season Three and beyond. It just got stupid, trivial and opinionated, like a right-wing shock-jock rant. It attacked positions that nobody held and the its use of silly gimmicks was getting tiresome. I think I gave up after about Season 4.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #44766 by ksskidude on May 25, 2007 at 9:06 am

PeterK

Why does foul language upset you?

I thought this episode was great! I have the first season on its way through netflix. I am looking forward to it. Especially the one on recycling.

Other Comments by ksskidude

7. Comment #44780 by franciebrady on May 25, 2007 at 9:26 am

I read that the reason they refer to a lot of the people on the show as "assholes" and "fuckers" is because if they were to refer to them as "liars", they could be sued for slander, while "assholes" and "fuckers" is merely namecalling for which they cannot be sued.

Other Comments by franciebrady

8. Comment #44785 by TIKI AL on May 25, 2007 at 9:32 am

As a person who has stood in our Arizona pool during a monsoon lightning storm with the longest metal pool pole held on high begging "god's" wrath to materialize, I found the lightning rod hardhats amusing.

I do this when my perpetual fiancee's godbot sister is over in an effort aimed at megachurch cult retrieval.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

9. Comment #44820 by cassdenata on May 25, 2007 at 10:45 am

That is a good episode, I may rent these. It is sad that the more skeptical I become, the more my cherished cows get demolished. I've come to realize that organic farming isn't strictly about what is best for the environment but is based on some naturalistic spirituality, in some instance but not all. I've become extremely jaded on alternative fuels which can be energy intensive, food replacing and causes of deforestation. But I think the most important thing is to value the truth above all and wherever it leads you. It is important not to simply give up when your pre-conceived notions are destroyed or damaged. There are still ways to farm that are better for the environment, while still providing food for billions but they are based on practical and intelligent applications, not fear of the 'unnatural'. There are good alternative energy sources, that can at least replace some fossil fuel usage.

Other Comments by cassdenata

10. Comment #44894 by Riley on May 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm

They mentioned the recycling "myth". I've heard this now from many in the skeptic community and I don't know what to believe.

This: recycling myths or this: anti-recycling myths



Other Comments by Riley

11. Comment #44902 by hkphooey on May 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I have just down loaded and watched the P & T Bull show on the Bible and creationists. It is great and even RD gets a mention in the same breath as Darwin.
I am a uk resident born and bread and hope they show this excellent show here very soon, we really are missing out.

Other Comments by hkphooey

12. Comment #44953 by ricey on May 25, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Recycling and other environmental issues aren't bullshit: but they rely on collective participation. An economist might consider individual recycling in the same light as he/she considers individual voting - one person making an effort here and there isn't going to change anything.

One vote never swung an election - you may as well have stayed at home. Just one person recycling re-useable material may as well dump it in a landfill.

It's collective effort that makes the change; or lack of collective effort that maintains the status quo.

If you believe that one person's efforts aren't important then collective effort is impossible. If you think that, don't ever use your right to vote again.

Other Comments by ricey

13. Comment #44964 by MelM on May 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I urge Hitchens to complete his estimate of faith by proclaiming that "Faith is a vice." He almost says it but not quite; it needs to be said and it's a short, provocative summary of a central issue.

Other Comments by MelM

14. Comment #44968 by Scott McMeekin on May 25, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Another of many great episodes of PnT. I really enjoyed it, and if the information in it is correct it opened my eyes about these figures. I'd like to read more about the evidence the program was based on. Time to consult the Holy Googleness!

Have a great weekend all! =D

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

15. Comment #45015 by fishfrog on May 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm

This was great. I had no idea about the Dalai Lama. I want a hat with a lightning rod.

I could use some help at clipmarks.com
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/willhelm/
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/n2sooners/
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/joaaron2468/

Other Comments by fishfrog

16. Comment #45020 by cacahahacaca on May 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Wow! This is by far the best P&T episode I have ever seen. Not just the content was great, but the way it was put together was also excellent. The little bit with the scales showing how the lesser of two evils is still evil, for example, was simple yet very pleasing to watch. Great job!

Other Comments by cacahahacaca

17. Comment #45045 by mjwemdee on May 26, 2007 at 2:49 am

Comment #44964 by MelM:

I'm confused. If we label faith as 'a vice' doesn't that re-introduce the concept of sin? And wouldn't that then be playing into the theist's worldview?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

18. Comment #45075 by chapstick08 on May 26, 2007 at 6:03 am

Since Penn & Teller are not right-wing activists, it is hard to believe they were espousing right-wing ideology. They both consider themselves libertarians and therefore do not fit on the left/right political spectrum. Perhaps their show did deteriorate to the level of its appellation, I just doubt this to be one of the reasons.

Other Comments by chapstick08

19. Comment #45113 by The Buxter on May 26, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Penn and Teller is great.
Of course it's much more style than content, but sometimes it's better to get the message out bluntly and oversimplified, than not at all.

On more controversal topics, such as recycling and hybrid cars, they may be right or they may be wrong - but that should encourage people to research things for themselves. If you believe in PnT blindly... Now that would be ironic!

BTW, this part was great:
"[the Vatican has mother Teresa] booked on the express train to saint-hood. They're not stupid! Well... They're not that kind of stupid..."

Other Comments by The Buxter

20. Comment #45129 by ricey on May 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Just watched it again ... Penn and Teller are a force for good in this world. Christopher Hitchens is a mesmerising speaker, even when drunk.

Christianity, MT style is an affront to decency. This should be made compulsary viewing in all RC faith schools (they can edit out the F**ks).

Finally, the Dalai Lama bears a striking physical resemblance to the late Dr Hunter S Thompson, US writer of note and freind of C Hitchens and associate of Penn - Fear and Loathing on the P&T show?

Other Comments by ricey

21. Comment #45134 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on May 26, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

22. Comment #45181 by OhioAtheist on May 26, 2007 at 5:37 pm

avatarComment #44964 by MelM:

I'm confused. If we label faith as 'a vice' doesn't that re-introduce the concept of sin? And wouldn't that then be playing into the theist's worldview?

Why on earth should it? Theists have no monopoly on morality, and in fact we play into the religious reactionaries' hands much more by buying into the myth, even for a second, that they do.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

23. Comment #45195 by Old_Pollution on May 26, 2007 at 7:55 pm

I was mildly surprised to see they missed out the small matter of 1.2 million murdered Tibetans when discussing the pros and cons of the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

Other Comments by Old_Pollution

24. Comment #45198 by Shuggy on May 26, 2007 at 8:18 pm

TIKI AL:

As a person who has stood in our Arizona pool during a monsoon lightning storm with the longest metal pool pole held on high begging "god's" wrath to materialize

Didn't someone called Franklin prove that lightning is a purely materialistic phenomenon? I think if you'd been struck you'd have got exactly what you des^h^h^h would expect, without any help from any god/dess/es.

Other Comments by Shuggy

25. Comment #45319 by MrEmpirical on May 27, 2007 at 6:57 am

I love how they started to refer to Mother Theresa as "Mother Fucking Theresa". I know it's crude language, but they do it in such a funny way.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

26. Comment #45320 by TIKI AL on May 27, 2007 at 7:01 am

And didn't someone called Homer say, "Like I ever get what I want."

Besides, I only used a pole. Next time I'll try a tinfoil kite on bailing wire. Thanks for the suggestion!

Other Comments by TIKI AL

27. Comment #45376 by VoxMoose on May 27, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Penn and Teller are great entertainers and, to the degree they get people questioning basic assumptions about their lives, I think they are doing a great service. I do love the show and watch it whenever possible. Also be sure and see their epic stage show at the Rio in Las Vegas. But Bullshit!, viewed beyond a form of "skeptically-minded entertainment" (e.g. if used as a source of actual information), is overrated. In this context, they have a clear ego-driven agenda and frequently come across as embarrassingly bombastic and ill-informed.

In some ways, they are like the Michael Moores of the libertarian skeptics movement. They ask the right questions, but essentially preach to the converted and reach conclusions through a series of argumentative fallacies and manipulations to make their point. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Both are entertaining, but Michael Moore isn't the one claiming to champion reason and clear thinking.

As an example, take Penn's quote (about TGD, on the right sidebar of RD's website) "If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed." The comment is funny and witty (especially if you enjoyed TGD, as most of us here did). But Penn's comment highlights this Michael Moore-like thinking. The statement is manipulative and essentially nonsensical to a rationalist. As a bit of reasoning, it is a fallacy, representing a false dichotomy. Sure, it makes for a funny blurb on a website advertising a book, but my point is that their entire Bullshit! show is built off of such quips.

I recall at The Amazing Meeting 2006 how Penn sheepishly admitted that the message of their second-hand smoke episode was incorrect (i.e. second hand smoke isn't harmless). But to see them present the material on Bullshit!, you would think that to disagree with them on this issue was an assault on the very foundations of reason and free will.

In some sense, they are a classic reminder of how easy it is to misframe information. How ambition, ego, and just the desire to be right (or the desire for the other guy to be wrong), distorts the thinking of even the best intentioned and hardened rationalists.

All that said, I found this episode wonderfully iconolclasic.

Other Comments by VoxMoose

28. Comment #45678 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 11:50 pm

TIKI AL wrote:

As a person who has stood in our Arizona pool during a monsoon lightning storm with the longest metal pool pole held on high begging "god's" wrath to materialize ...

Next time I'll try a tinfoil kite on bailing wire.

Going for a Darwin, are we? Pity they're all posthumous.

Other Comments by Shuggy

29. Comment #45936 by james767 on May 29, 2007 at 4:48 pm

they're definitely abusive and entertaining when you agree with it what they say.


But the facts are a bit fictitious. For example the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he wants the Tibetans to have a democracy. He would like the Dalai Lama lineage to stop with him. this is part of the record this is unreasonable to believe otherwise.

their episodes for full of factual flaws and innuendo and conflation of ideas. They're nothing but entertainers to think otherwise you might as well believe in the tooth fairy or Peter Pan.

Other Comments by james767

30. Comment #45940 by retrotransposon on May 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

With mother theresa and Ghandi, I must admit these are the facts that I never knew.

But I think the "facts" relating to the dalai lama is misleading and are just used to spice up the show.

1. The Dalai Lama was only 15 when he fled Tibet, so if there is a lama class in Tibet who enjoyed the good life at the expense of the the rest of the population, it wasnt his fault anyway, and I dont think its true that he wanted to restore this.

2. The reference to Tibetans having yucky barley and yak tea is misleading too. This is their traditional food. Its like saying that we have yucky hamburgers and yucky fizzy drinks (in this sense, i probably think barley and yak tea gives a lesser chance of a heart attack)

3. As james767 has point out in #45936, the dalai lama has repeated stated that he wants tibet to have a democracy or rather autonomy, similiar to what the system that Hong Kong is under now.

4. I am no buddhist, but i feel that the dalai lama actually preach good stuff. Sure everyone is not perfect, but the sort of buddhism that the dalai lama is preaching is rather a form of philosophy rather the a religion.

Other Comments by retrotransposon

31. Comment #45948 by james767 on May 29, 2007 at 6:32 pm

http://www.tibet.com/future.html

Legislative Power:
The legislative power of the Tibetan Government will be vested in the two chambers, namely the House of Regions and the House of People. Bills passed by them must receive Presidents assent before becoming law. The House of People will be the highest law-making body. It will consist of representatives directly elected by citizens from all constituencies, which will be demarcated in accordance with population distribution. The House of Regions will consist of members elected by the assemblies at regional level. A limited number of members (the number to be specied in the Constitution) in this House will be nominated by the President.

Executive Power:
a) If the parliamentary system of government is adopted, there shall be a President and a Vice President elected by members of the two national-level Houses and regional assemblies.
b) The executive power of the government, under the parliamentary system, will rest with the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers formed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must be from a party or any other group constituting majority of members present in the House of People. Failing this, all the members of the House of People will elect the Prime Minister.

Judicial Power:
For the purpose of interpreting and upholding the Constitution, as well as for ensuring impartial adjudication of cases involving the State or individuals, there will be a judicial organ which is independent of the other two organs, legislative and executive, of the government. There will be a Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial and appellate court of justice.


No More BullShit form Penn & Teller's

Other Comments by james767