That statement would make sense if the people who control the water did not control the pipes in individual buildings.
It would be like pouring clean tap water into a dirty glass and then saying it’s not potable.
It seems to me that they save the worst of their vitriol not for the people who are simply self-deluded, but for rip-off artists and high-profile hypocrites.
For example, they pulled no punches against the woman who, as a PETA officer, is publicly opposed to animal testing of any kind, but who, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, privately acknowleges that she probably wouldn’t be alive without the animal testing that made insulin therapy possible.
Given the vast amount of utter crap on TV these days P&T are a breath of fresh air. When cable channels have John Edwards (TBDITU) on hour-long shows then P&T are needed.
Sure they aren’t always right but they call bullshit on a lot of things that need to have bullshit called on them. All in all, it’s very fun and even important show.
Not sure I understand your point here. Isn’t that exactly the case?
Yes, it would. I think you lost me somewhere.
The water that comes into this building may be as pure as a fresh Himalayan stream that’s been blessed by God’s own Clean Water Faeries. Once it’s passed through the pipes, however, ain’t no way I’m drinking it. I buy bottled water because the alternative is far worse.
(To be fair, I buy bottled water once in a while, and fill the bottle often from the bubbler.)
I’m not sure that makes her a hypocrite. Just because I would not favor annexing Nuevo Leon, doesn’t mean I think we ought to give California back.
I think it makes her a hypocrite. She wishes to deny other persons the conceivably life-saving benefits that might be derived from animal testing when she herself regularly partakes of such a therapy.
But we can argue that in great debates sometime.
I thought one of the problems was that the insulin she currently uses, or had used in the past, was produced from animals. It’s been a while since I saw that episode.
Marc
I’m sure she would have opposed animal testing in the creation of insulin had she been alive at the time. There’s no point in pretending insulin therapy doesn’t exist. Calling her a hypocrite is akin to me calling you a hypocrite because you oppose slavery but enjoy touring the Great Pyramid.
Not really. That would be an apt comparison if you were then against any future feats of engineering. Put another way, you’ve used an extreme example but that doesn’t make it effective. It is hypocritcial to oppose animal testing all while benefiting directly from it. Perhaps if they were to provide a reasonable alternative it would be more palatable but they either haven’t or are unable to.
I knew a girl who did something similiar when I was in grade school. She was really weird and I guess people were ignoring her…so she dumped a carton of chocolate milk over her head. Girl was nuts.
Penn and Teller? Penn strikes me as a very miserable, unpleasant person. And he’s talking out of his ass on the tap water-I went on vacation with a friend to this house they have up in Clarion, where it is NOT safe to drink the water-it’s got amoebas or whatever in it.
To be fair, they did end that episode pointing out their own excessive indulgances, so it’s not quite a case of blatant hypocrisy.
That said, while I generally agree with P&T about 65% of the time, I won’t deny that they also have a fairly obvious slant that requires viewers to take their show with a grain of salt. The episode that bugs me the most in this regard was the one about “liberal bias” in higher education, as the bulk of the show focused on one incident from one university, and they seemed all too eager to support the right-wing watchdog spokesgoon’s comments without question. But that’s just me.
And it seems like a few of the more recent episodes have been more fluff than substanance as well. I can’t believe they spent an entire half-hour on the interdepartmental squabbling over the WTC Memorial design. I mean, yeah, interesting story and all, but who the heck really cares? If it wasn’t for Gilbert Gottfried doing his post-9/11 schtick in the beginning, I’d have completely blown off the episode.
For more on this, try listening to the interview from Penn’s radio show with Patrick Moore (who appeared in that episode of Bullshit!). You can download it here.
I don’t ALWAYS agree with the views put forth on Bullshit!, but I usually do. I think in each episode they make it clear that they have a specific viewpoint. I feel it’s important to recognize exactly what question they’re asking, before you decide whether or not their answer is right.
For example: Gun control. They were against it. Freedom, second ammendment, cold dead hands, all that. But one of their main point boiled down to this: some day, we may have to violently overthrow the government (hey, it happened before) and we can’t have the very people we may have to fight telling us that we can’t have weapons.
So, okay, that point makes sense, given the speciifc context of their viewpoint. But from MY viewpoint, as a Canadian with no great love of guns, I’m gonna respond with “that assumes the American revolution was a GOOD thing…”
As for the general question in the thread title, no I don’t think Bullshit! is bullshit. They’re usually pretty clear about presenting facts as facts, and opinions as opinions. Sure some of the opinions get a lot better treatment then the others, but you can still hear both sides if you listen carefully.
thwartme
Then becoming a stage magician was maybe not his best idea ever.
If the people in your municipality are not at arms with your local Water Board for delivering non-potable water to your homes: you guys must have drunk too much of that water already!!
There’s insulin available today which doesn’t directly affect animals. If she’s truly opposed to animal testing, is her only way to avoid being a hypocrite to kill herself?
Isn’t a better comparison something like “how can you be against fur coats? Your great-great-grandfather survived a harsh winter with a fun coat, without which he would have died and you never would have been born”. Is one really not allowed to condemn something that saved his life and he has no control over, without being a hypocrite?
It might be. I just wasn’t sure.
Well, it depends: how old was this woman when she was diagnosed with diabetes, and how long ago was that? Prior to the early '80s, the only way to get insulin was to harvest it from the pancreas of a pig or a cow. Which was generally fatal to the pig or the cow, as you can imagine. If she was an adult diabetic prior to the invention of synthetic insulin, then she was actively complicit in the slaughter of animals for medical research every time she bought a new supply of insulin. That would definetly make her a hypocrite. If she was a child at the time (and thus not able to make her own medical decisions) or did not develope diabetes until later on, then it’s more difficult to make charges of hypocrisy stick.
Callous, cold-hearted, inhuman bitch still fits, though.
I totally disagree. P&T are very active and and devoted to sceptic organizations such as the JREF.
Like others here, I agree with P&T’s Bullshit! for the most part, but not on every single thing. However, I find it refreshing that they’re out there willing to call BS on stuff. We’re constantly inundated with psychic this, medium that, Jon Edwards (TBDITU) etc, on TV. It’s nice to see that someone with a major network show is willing to publicly call utter bullshit on that kind of crap. Scepticism shouldn’t be relegated to some backwater messageboard of the enlightened.
I think the point of BE SCEPTICAL was best made on the second hand smoke episode. I’m really not sure if I agree or not, but again, it’s nice to at least hear a counterpoint. Hear some ask, “Cite, please?” (well, they don’t say please). When the cite that’s brought up is always a single, flawed study you’ve gotta call them on it, regardless of your own opinion on the matter.
Isn’t it that Doper way?
I haven’t see many of those shows, mainly because Penn and Teller (mostly Penn) are just so damn mean and arrogant. The show is so blatantly one-sided that you can’t seriously call it educational. It’s basically just a blog made for television.
Granted, I disagree with some of their opinions, but the above still stands even when I agree with them. I totally agree with Penn’s stand on gun control. The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that we can replace the old government with a new one, when the need eventually arises. Still, Penn is such a raging asshole that I would hate to actually have him on my side during a debate. Penn is like Howard Dean or Rush Limbaugh: he may have good opinions, but he’s such a jerk that most people can’t stand to listen to him long enough to hear them.
And I totally agree with Guinastasia’s assessment of him as a very miserable person. He’s the kind of guy who it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if I heard that he killed himself.
I’ll tell you what I’ve noticed about Penn and Teller’s Bullshit series. Like many in this thread, sometimes I agree with their viewpoint, and sometimes I do not, but the more I know about an issue the less likely I am to agree with them. To me this indicates a shallow kind of opinion, with no real nuance or depth, but they are filming a 30 minute infotainment program, so depth is not going to be their strong suit.