Troperville

Tools

What's Happening

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Shire Nomad: Was the War on Drugs example pulled for a reason? I included that case in particular because the others all leaned right or were neutral (a fact Penn noted when starting that episode with "this time, we're siding with the hippies") and I wanted to show that they weren't just Fox News watchers.

Phartman: "Fox News watchers?" Oh well, you are the open-minded one...

DomaDoma: Gratuitious insult notwithstanding, Penn and Teller are Libertarian. Editing that in.

Phartman: His or mine? Anyway, I see no reason for removing any of their conclusions, whether one agrees with them or not.

DomaDoma: His.

Shire Nomad: btw, didn't mean to be insulting; I just wanted to communicate "they get/believe their information only from the right" and couldn't think of a better right-wing equivalent for Michael Moore. (In hindsight, Ann Coulter would have worked better.)

Phartman: Believe me, I'm used to being insulted for my conservatism. It's not a huge deal to me anymore, but I know that my opponents fancy themselves more tolerant so I give them every opportunity to take back stuff like that.

Of course, Coulter is really more of an analogue for Al Franken than Michael Moore (in that it's her delivery more than her message that starts trouble), and there is no openly right-wing filmmaker in Hollywood that I know of. So pointing out that Bullshit! digs for the straight dope rather than aiming right or left is good enough, as Penn and Teller clearly don't care who they upset on either side.

Seth: Yes they are stated Libertarians - second i removed (And will re-remove) the line on war on drugs because i wanted a small illustrative list. If we add every episode we liked all five seasons will appear there. The examples we have are enough for illustrating that they take shots at the big misconceptions, ie.you yourself probably believed them (Eg.Recycling) everyone knows and has probably heard first hand the war on drugs argument that most drugs are better than alcohol and better for you than tobacco.

But your right most the examples are right wing/neutral. How about the ep where they pointed out the sexisim in not allowing women to go topfree? More liberal than most eps.

HeartBurn Kid: I think we should add back in the "War on Drugs" ep, and maybe pull out one of the others if the objective is to keep the list short (say "Holier Than Thou"). As already stated, we do need one to show that the show is actually fair and balanced in its biases, and the fact that politicians keep getting re-elected on the whole War on Drugs platform is probably proof enough that there's a good percentage of people who buy into it (at least in America), even if you and I are not among them. As for having heard the arguments, most people have heard the anti-gun-control arguments cited as well.

Seth: Fair enough, trade Holier Than Thou for war on drugs then?

Kayube: So we have a listing for this show under its actual name, yet we also have Mind Screw? What kind of sense does that make?

Seth: We have had this discussion a thousand times. We don't censor, but we avoid vulgarity. Calling it Mind Fuck is unnecessary, Mind Screw gets the whole point across. This is the actual title, there is no point changing that.

There are swear words all over the wiki, but they are mostly used for emphasis, not shock value or insults. Using it casually like in a trope name cheapens their value as tools for emphasis.


Seth: Woah there Britarse - i take it you disagree with their methods.

Seth: Removed (Again) jabs at their orientation. Look I'm religious, you don't see me injecting how anti religious some topics are (The Bible one) or the fact they are atheists into every sentence. Marking them out as libertarians (Which the best i can see from the american meaning is "You can do what you like, just don't bother anyone else") all the time is un-unnecessary since their bias is already stated.


Duckluck: I'm a little dubious about most of these "debunkings." Yes, PETA has done some bad stuff, but they've also done a lot of good and I'd hesitate to call them "evil." The right to bear arms may be in the Constitution, but no one can agree on what the second amendment even means (that's, you know, the entire reason people are arguing in the first place). Also, people have been arguing over recycling for decades and what it usually comes down to is that some recycling, like aluminum cans, is worth doing, while in other cases, plastic bottles, for instance, it's easier to just make a new one. Of course, plastic bottles come from a non-renewable resource (petroleum), so what's wasteful today may not be in ten years.

Basically, these are extremely complex issues, and it's mind boggling to see them be treated as if they have been resolved and filed away, just because someone on TV said "Bullshit" a lot. I'm also shocked that this page doesn't link to Strawman Political, but that's probably just an oversight.

Seth: Your right that is an oversight that needs to be rectified.

We aren't agreeing with them just stating their position on the issues, plus it does have some benefit looking at things from a different perspective. My only comment on it is that you should look at everything critically, even guys like this who are telling you to be more critical should be scrutinized.

You should watch the episodes in question, i don't believe PETA is evil or that recycling is useless after watching them but it does introduce some information i wasn't aware of - or you know read the wikipedia articles on the subjects, but thats like only half as entertaining.

Filby: Personally, I still think "debunked" isn't the right way to put it. Penn and Teller haven't absolutely proven that recycling is bad, which is what "debunk" entails. I'll just change the wording a little. I'll also prune the gun control bit, since it stands out too much next to the shorter examples and we don't need to know every single detail about it.

Deboss: If you want to know about recycling, I've found an eco friendly site that gives some clues. Linky. It works kind of like this from my understanding. Recycling purified metals is good because the mining, purification, and melting it into shape consumes far more energy than remelting used metals. Plastic, and glass are rarely worth recycling due to the fact that both are not biodegradable which means if as long as we don't send it to the bottom of the ocean or send it into space it's still going to be there if we run out of raw materials. On top of that future conversion and gathering processes are likely to be considerably more efficient than current ones, not to mention the cost saved on curb side pick up. Taking it to some land based dump just gets it out of the way (assuming it's not a phenomenally land poor country like Japan or something), if we run out of raw materials we can always go get it then. Paper isn't worth recycling due to the fact that it is biodegradable and trees grow back. Not only that, you don't have to decide how much tree seed to sell or replant, since nobody wants it, you can just scrape it off on site and let the trees grow back in a few years, rather than sell it for food like most crops. Most organics (food, human waste, etc) are again worth recycling into mulch/fertilizer and are already done. The simple rule of thumb, if they'll pay you for the material without any kind of government subsidizing, it's something worth recycling, if not, it isn't worth recycling right now.

Seth: Thanks for that link, always helps to get more information on this stuff. I'm not sure i agree with the organic mulch argument since artificial fertilizer is cheaper/better (IMHO) but the rest is very convincing.

Deboss: From a single issue stand point artificial fertilizer is cheaper, there are other advantages, since it triples as waste disposal (which you have to do anyway, and methane farming. Not to mention it depends on your definition of "artificial". Straight fertilizer is considered "organic" but boiled fertilizer isn't.
All right for some reason Penn was considered lawful stupid in the page. I've watched every episode and I can't remember him ever being lawful stupid. In fact I remember in the Endangered Species episode, they were showing a handicapped girl who couldn't build a house on a piece of land occupied by some endangered bird. They were out at the land and the girl thought she spotted the endangered bird at which point Penn shouted something like "Kill it. Kill it. Kill it and bury the little fucker!". When they found out it wasn't THE bird Penn said 'uh I didn't just say kill it and bury I said thrill it and marry it'.

That and there's been lots of other laws the show has railed against as being evil (and then there was their anti death penalty episode).

So until someone can give examples I've taken it off the page. -Father Time