About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Bullshit! (The Pen & Teller variety)

Penn and Teller are very funny and smart magicians, who have devoted a significant part of their career to the debunking of nonsense. Their television show, Bullshit!, is often a delight to watch for the skeptically minded, and I have used excerpts from several episodes to shock some of my students in an introductory class on the nature of science into questioning some of their most cherished (and wrong) beliefs.

However... (Hey, nobody starts a blog entry with such lavish praise if there isn’t an “however” following suit). There are two reasons I think Bullshit! isn’t quite as good as it could be. The first one is relatively minor, though I have seen its negative effects on my students; the second one is more serious and troublesome.

The first problem is P&T’s (well, Penn’s, since Teller never talks) use of foul language. I’m not a prude, I do enjoy the occasional f* word, and I certainly wouldn’t change the title of the show. But Penn -- by his own frequent admission -- simply relishes the idea that he can abundantly pepper his commentary with f* this and mother f* that because he is on cable. Well, more power to you and your freedom, Penn, but have you considered what you are trying to do and how it may be affected by your over-boisterous manners? I assume P&T (whom I do not know personally) really mean to do some good for the cause of critical thinking, not just to make an (admittedly honest) buck. But I have seen too many of my students cringe at Penn’s expressions and in the process losing the thread of his reasoning. To put it bluntly, Penn often crosses the boundary into crassness, and crassness -- while perhaps enjoyable for the one who practices it and his close friends -- detracts from whatever broader message one wishes to convey.

OK, now for the serious problem. P&T are at their best when they criticize what they know best: they are magicians, so they -- like the Great Houdini before them -- have the professional skills necessary to unmask phony mystics, paranormalists, faith healers, astrologers and others who profit from selling bunk to a gullible public. However, I have seen too many episodes of Bullshit! where P&T seem to go in the wrong direction, dismissing good science or progressive policy as if they were just another example of telepathy or belief in unicorns. The show has presented caricatures of complex issues such as recycling, animal rights, the relationship between health and exercise, and global warming. What is going on here?

This isn’t just a matter of my personal disagreement with P&T on specific issues. I do think, for instance, that some animal rights activists cross the border into irrational ideology, and I’m sure there is quite a bit of room for discussion on which recycling programs are most effective and should be encouraged. Nonetheless, these are issues where critical thinking means presenting the complexity of the problem, taking the various sides seriously, not lampooning them by giving the mike only to the most outrageously stupid members of PETA, say. Ridicule is the appropriate option when the case truly is a slam dunk: there is no serious side to horoscopes, or magnetic therapy, for instance; accordingly, P&T’s brand of buffoonery shines when they take on that sort of target.

So, puzzled, I started to look at P&T’s background assumptions, and the lights came on immediately. As they freely admit (though not on their TV show), the magicians are staunch libertarians, with Penn being a fellow of the Cato Institute, a so-called “think tank” that pushes a pro-business, less government agenda. We all have ideological positions (I am a progressive atheist, for instance), so I am not criticizing Penn and Teller for adopting their particular set of assumptions about the role of government in society (though I do find libertarian positions either naive or disingenuous). But, again, there is a difference between debunking factually clearly false claims (UFOs, Feng Shui) and criticizing people’s positions on complex issues where values and facts intersect in multidimensional ways. Bullshit! does a great job in the first case, but it becomes a parody of itself in the second one. Pity, because I really like Penn and Teller.

30 comments:

  1. In the first season (I think) Penn and Teller said global warming was bullshit. I think that's the best example of them talking about something they're dead wrong about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post. You have characterized my thoughts about the show precisely. I love their sense of humor and they do make some good points, but far too often they let their Libertarianism get in the way of science and sound public policy. It's great to be skeptical about things until you have enough evidence to come to a conclusion, but P & T seem to often overlook or outright deny the evidence in order to live up to the name of the show. I think they need to pick their topics more carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Out of the goodness of the heart the mouth speaketh.

    Or not.

    So essentially we feel that these guys can be as irreverent as they want, just as long as they are only doing so about particular topics? Got a few sacred cows lying around here, Massimo?

    Obviously that picking and choosing "thing" does not work well. The boundaries for "decent conduct" to make such decisions does not exactly have great support inside the world view they espouse.

    NO matter who you are, if this kinda thing grates you, it always is helpful to believe that the reasons for good conduct do matter in the first place.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  4. "but have you considered what you are trying to do and how it may be affected by your over-boisterous manners?"

    This is a good point. As I was growing up in a religious household, all my mom would have to hear is something close to what she would consider offensive language, and she would order the TV turned off or changed.

    So imagine some Christian kid sitting at home and finally getting a dose of critical thinking via Penn & Teller, then the F-bomb is dropped, and he has to turn the TV off, or change the channel to "Praise the Lord". Damn shame it is!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was deeply disappointed in Penn and Teller when I saw them interviewing that clown David Horowitz for one of their "Bullshit" shows.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw a video clip which (I believe) came from Penn and Teller's show about a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. (I'm not going to tell you; you have to look it up yourself) They circulated the petition at an environmental expo of some kind.

    Although the spectacle of someone signing such a petition was quite comical (especially the person who insisted that she already knew about it) I was troubled by the underlying implication that those environmental nuts will fall for anything.

    Now I understand why.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Max, were you half asleep when you wrote this post?
    I have seen it’s negative effects...
    Why the incorrect apostrophe? The possessive is "its"; "it's" is a contraction of "it is". (I'm sure you know this already.)
    The organisation is called PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), not PITA.
    BTW, P&T are regulars at TAM, if you ever decide to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kimpatsu,

    thanks for the corrections, the post has now been re-edited. I am always half asleep when I write :) but in this case so was my editor, apparently!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am quite a fan of the show, but like Massimo I have felt at times that they do indeed go on ideological rants, which are more based on their stance on some issue than on a skeptical world view.

    For example, their episode on smoking is the one that sticks in my memory. They were making the point that the evidence, really does not show that second hand smoking causes cancer.However, the overall agreement in the medical community is that smoking is a carcinogen, and second hand smoking is problematic to say the least, for the other people. I am sorry P&T but I will have to go with the experts on this one, regardless of the one study you pointed in the show which according to you does not support such conclusion. At the end of the day P&T are not doctors, so I don't really think they are entitled to make such a statement based on their review of one study.

    Massimo is right when he points out that the two of them are libertarians.I am too, to some degree. I got the feeling that what they did not like was the idea that people were being banned from smoking in public places. That was really what was bothering them not the facts supporting or denying the ill-effects of second hand smoke.

    And regardless, an argument can be made against public smoking even if there is no evidence of it being harmful. I absolutely hate smelling that foul smell of smoke when I am having a meal. I simply cannot enjoy my meal if I am engulfed in smoke. And a restaurant's main purpose is to provide a good, meal. So, by smoking, and exercising their right to smoke, these people are in fact crushing my right to enjoy a good meal, which is why people go to restaurants. Why are these people entitled to their right to smoke, while I am not entitled to my right not to have smoke in my face in a restaurant? Obviously this simple argument can be made for other places as well, such as buses, trains, office etc.

    Smoking is a nasty habit to say the least. Why should the non-smokers be forced to live with it? As atheist we are being forced to live with God everywhere we turn, and we don't like that. This is exactly the same situation. People have rights, which they should be allowed to exercise, AS LONG AS THAT DOES NOT OPPRESS OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. And that is the case with public smoking.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TG: "..AS LONG AS THAT DOES NOT OPPRESS OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. And that is the case with public smoking."

    As would also most certainly be the case with oppression children who have not been born yet. That is the ultimate case of oppressing another human being. And if it ain't, then I guess we only care to know about what we can (a) see, perceive and (b) what happens to bother our individual conscience. And so much like the illusions presented by P and T many are willingly being TRICKED into thinking that what we absolutely know is true is not.

    Apparently one of the most effective illusion ever performed, that what goes on in to tummy, stays in the tummy.

    "Why should the non-smokers be forced to live with it? As atheist we are being forced to live with God everywhere we turn, and we don't like that. This is exactly the same situation."

    And while it is true that non-believers must feel that people who believe are like smoke in the eyes of the non-believers, it is also true that not everything that irritates you is necessarily BAD for you.

    cal

    & sheldon,
    whatever you do, DO NOT talk to me!! :) I will be so extremely upset and disappointed if you do..
    LOL

    I know that many of you will grow up to be really good men some day. That is all I am hoping for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Massimo,

    Great post. I haven't seen most episodes, but I've always been a bit torn about the show myself. Their libertarian ideology is obvious and shows through in the way they attack straw man positions or even distort evidence. But at least they are transparent about it.

    Also, for the record, they have publicly admitted to being wrong about the effects of second-hand smoke, but still (surprise) don't think government should do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Massimo were to post about extragalactic astronomy, I'm sure that Cal would find some way to twist the subject matter into a case against abortion. Just read:

    "As would also most certainly be the case with oppression children who have not been born yet. That is the ultimate case of oppressing another human being. And if it ain't, then I guess we only care to know about what we can (a) see, perceive and (b) what happens to bother our individual conscience. And so much like the illusions presented by P and T many are willingly being TRICKED into thinking that what we absolutely know is true is not."

    What a wonderful way to bring up abortion...

    Of course, needless to say, this case is extremely weak. What is being "oppressed" is a collection of unconscious cells within a woman's body. By the time of abortion, many babies' brains have not even started to develop yet.

    So, why does Cal oppose abortion? The reason is simple: she superstitiously believes that something called a "soul" exists. She doesn't like making a big point out of that, though; she knows that we're too rational for it.

    Next, she says that religion, while irritating, may not be bad for the non-religious. Oh really? I've always found superstition to have a negative effect on society, particularly when the superstition causes people to have anti-scientific viewpoints and hold misogynistic, anti-homosexual moral positions.

    In her prior post, she says:

    "So essentially we feel that these guys can be as irreverent as they want, just as long as they are only doing so about particular topics? Got a few sacred cows lying around here, Massimo?"

    We're sorry, Cal, but this isn't about "irreverence". Some beliefs, such as dowsing, voodoo, tarot, Christianity, and Wicca are completely unsupported by any sort of rational inquiry. The same isn't true for some other subjects, such as Global Warming.

    Massimo just doesn't want people putting things like Global Warming in the same bucket as things that are obviously incorrect, like your religion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I've always found superstition to have a negative effect on society, particularly when the superstition causes people to have anti-scientific viewpoints and hold misogynistic, anti-homosexual moral positions."

    You are making seriously flawed generalizations that are just senseless and do not correlate to reality as I have known it.

    My mother was just a plain (but wonderful) Finnish/Norwegian woman who was radically anti-superstitious. ALL OUR LIVES, we could only celebrate 4th of July and Easter. No Christmas (as in no Santa or materialism) Halloween etc. I use to hate it, but my parents were totally right. Truth is, kids generally have no concept of what's good for them. And obviously, some adults don't either.

    why not clarify instead which sets of religious thought do accept and promote superstitious ideas. To ramble on generally that all do is completely inaccurate.

    And Joseph, if you came across a "living" brainless or brain dead child today would you feel it okay to end its life in anyway that just gets' the job done? Brain development is just a poor criteria to decide ethics on. If it were, there would be no reason in particular to save people once they develop Alzheimer's or other mind degenerating diseases. And what is to be done then with individuals with very low IQs?
    The sword really cuts both ways on that one.

    Get a conscience, alright?

    JF, do I know you?
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  14. "..Christianity, and Wicca are completely unsupported by any sort of rational inquiry. The same isn't true for some other subjects, such as Global Warming."

    The earth warms and then cools, things change - big deal.

    Why in particular should anyone chase this extremly self-evident stuff all the while human kind is racing towards on towards own inevitable destruction? It is so very much like throwing a stone way out to the left all the while the real matters of the heart and life are way off the the right. Fantastic distraction, really. But we ought to ask our selves if any of it does anyone any good.

    As moral causes go, what if someone spent like 40 years freaking out about the changes in the evo. (we have had a super freezing cold winter this year, btw) and then they find out in the last 40 that they weather adjusted itself back into it's usual cycle as it always does? That would have been quite a waste of energy and resources all the while children and their mommy's in Hati are eating "dirt cookies" because the gov there is so corrupt and the price of food is so high in accordance to what people make everyday...

    The corruption of the heart of man IS central problem on the earth, not what we are doing to the earth.
    Great to be responsible about what we do with resources, but do use it for a distraction to take people off the trail about why there is REAL SELFISHNESS on the earth i n the first place.

    One thing MUST necessarily come before the other.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  15. And this is a great example and explanation of Old Testament prose. I.E. the book of Hosea.
    I don't see a single superstitious thing about it. But it is very instructive. I mean, if you can handle it.


    Counterfeit Lovers
    By Sara Freemann
    Guest Writer

    God told Hosea to marry Gomer, who by the way was a prostitute at the time. Let’s put this into today’s context. It would equate a well-known evangelist announcing his recent marriage to a popular porn star! Can you see it now?

    "Tonight on Extra - You will never guess who got married this weekend . . . The Reverend and (insert porn star name here)!"

    God asked him to do this because He wanted Hosea to illustrate the relationship between God and the people of Israel. They were chasing after all kinds of things, worshiping idols, and sacrificing their children to lifeless lumps of stone and metal.

    "For she said, ‘I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink (Hosea 2:5)."

    I relentlessly find myself pursuing counterfeit lovers: the approval of others, money, food, clothes, romantic relationships, and entertainment. Even my ministry has been a false lover.


    "She will chase her lovers, but not overtake them; yes, she will seek them, but not find them. Then she will say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then it was better for me than now.’ For she did not know that I gave her grain, new wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold (Hosea 2:7-8)."

    None of these empty lovers could ever bring me a speck of joy, peace, or hope. In fact, they tend to bring more headaches and heartaches. At the time, I did not realize how empty they were. Even though I know in my mind that they cannot satisfy, my heart still believes that they will.

    "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, will bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfort to her . . . she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth . . . And it shall be, in that day,” says the LORD, that you will call Me ‘My Husband, and no longer call Me ‘My Master . . . “I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me (Hosea 2:14-19)."

    God loves us in spite of our inability to love Him. He desires to be our only lover. Do not let anything get between you and Him! Know - not just in your head but also in your heart - that what you are chasing is not worth the One who is chasing you. The praise of man is empty. Food will leave you unfulfilled. Stuff is just stuff. Clothes and other material possessions will only drain your finances. Your ministry cannot love you back.

    So stop chasing counterfeit “lovers” who cannot complete you. Turn around and run to the God of Love. He is waiting for you with arms wide open.

    Send Sara your comments.

    More from Spiritual Life

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey! At least in this thread Cal is sticking closely to the theme. All she has written so far is Bullshit!

    why not clarify instead which sets of religious thought do accept and promote superstitious ideas. To ramble on generally that all do is completely inaccurate.

    I wouldn't imagine you have a dictionary at home, Cal. But if you do, read the entry on superstition. Or just search online for "superstition definition" and you'll get the Merriam-Webster as one of the top results. It's really simple, I'm sure you will understand it -- now if you're going to apply the knowledge (i.e. understand), that's another problem...

    Every religion IS fundamentally superstition, not just the ones that are not your religion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @The Thinking Man:
    To be fair, at TAM 4, P&T retracted their claims about passive smoking not being harmful. They said they went with the information supplied at the time when making the episode of BS in question, but have since changed their minds.
    The episode I most disliked was "Walmart hatred is bullshit", in which they had a libertarian economist explaining that child labour in the Philippines and Vietnam was desirable as it would help lift those countries out of poverty. He then went on to compare this to how children in 19th century workhouses made Great Britain the envy of the world. I found such support for child servitude unacceptable, to say the least.
    Cal: Quoting from a Bronze Age book of myths is not going to convince the rational thinkers on this forum that you know what you are talking about. Offer evidence, or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kimpatsu, thank you for pointing out the P&T retracted their second-hand smoke claims. I was not aware. As I said I am a fan of the show ( I don't have Showtime so I have to wait until it comes out on DVD to rent it), even though I do not agree 100% with everything they say.

    And can the Anonymous person please stay on topic if she is going to quote me? I was not talking about abortion, and I do not want my words to be twisted for religious reasons. If you have something to say about what I actually said please do so. Otherwise, do not quote me for something I did not talk about. BTW, there is no such thing as a soul!

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Thinking Man:
    The "anonymous person" (whose name is Cal; she signs her name att he very bottom of each post but then posts anonymusly for reasons I can't fathom) is a deluded religious nutbag whose current hobbyhorse is abortion, and so thinks that every post is on that topic. You won't get anywhere by reasoning with her, so just join in the fun of ridiculing her like the rest of us do.
    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  20. gosh, kimpat,
    if you could have made a good defense for the right to select out certain unborn children you could have done so long ago.

    Most thinking people understand that there is no good reason to get 'in the family way' if you can't afford to. The thinking person knows also that one ought to plan far ahead instead of having to take preemptive measures after a child is conceived. It is rather ridiculous that people who consider themselves "thinking" types would have to resort to plan B, C or what have you.

    I counseled with a gal in her late 40s last week. The anniversary of her abortion from 20 plus years ago came up last fall. And she is quite honestly about to lose her ever loving mind over this experience she underwent decades ago. She has three children, she is professional, but all she can think about is the child that she lost years ago. Her marriage was suffering severely last year because all she could think about was this child that is gone forever. She compounded matters by contacting her first babies dad a few weeks ago while she and her husband were separated and she was on a business trip. The rest, I don't care to get into.

    Since you have never had to be a woman who has given up her child at the request of her lover, I could care less what you think of me because you only see the world from one point of view:

    yours.

    Let's talk about the truth for once.
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cal said:
    "As moral causes go, what if someone spent like 40 years freaking out about the changes in the evo. (we have had a super freezing cold winter this year, btw) and then they find out in the last 40 that they weather adjusted itself back into it's usual cycle as it always does? That would have been quite a waste of energy and resources all the while children and their mommy's in Hati are eating "dirt cookies" because the gov there is so corrupt and the price of food is so high in accordance to what people make everyday..."

    Ok, Cal, since global warming denial was part of the Pen and Teller topic, I won't ignore you on your bullshit here.

    Evidently you know nothing about climate change over the millions of years of earth's history. There is no "usual cycle". There have been long periods of both much generally cooler and warmer climates in the earth's past. Our present Holocene epoch began about 12 thousand years ago, and which ended the previously much colder Pleistocene epoch. Human civilization as we know it has developed during the holocene and under some fairly narrow climate parameters from the perspective of geological time. If the climate changes too drastically from those parameters, then this will likely provoke a whole chain of problems for human societies.

    Do you really think it is plausible that all the energy harnessed by industrialized society and its consequent waste does not have a significant effect on the earth's climate?

    And the plight of poor people in places like Haiti are likely to get worse if anthropogenic climate change is not addressed. In fact it is poor people and poor countries that will suffer the worst consequences of climate change.

    Incidentally there is a remote sensing image of a strip of land on the border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth book. The Hiatian side is severely deforested, and the Dominican Rep. side is not. This is used to illustrate the differences in policies between the two countries. Gosh! Do you think the desperate poverty of Hiati could also be related to its' severe deforestation?!?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cal, anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of personal conviction is not data. If you are really serious about future psychological impacts from abortion, gather a serious set of women who had abortions 20 years ago (at least 1,000 people), and see whether they regret it now. You would also need to factor in possible rose-tinted hindsight as well.
    Further, gather 1,000 women who suffered spontaneous abortions (i,.e., miscarriages) 20 years ago, see how psychologically messed up they are, and then draw the only rational conclusion: that god, being the biggest abortionist of all, is a total scumbag.
    Unless, of course, spontaneous abortions are natural, albeit sad, phenomena, and gods do not exist...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cal said:
    "I counseled with a gal in her late 40s last week. The anniversary of her abortion from 20 plus years ago came up last fall. "

    Kimpatsu has an excellent point, and of course it is obvious what Cal has done here. She is "counseling" somebody that already shares her starting premise, brainwashed by their shared religion, that the abortion 20 year prior is the overblown trajedy to feel terribly guilty about. Ironic that it is the religious belief that is the source of her angst.

    Doh! I ignored my own advice and didn't ignore Cal when she was off topic. Sorry folks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Further, gather 1,000 women who suffered spontaneous abortions (i,.e., miscarriages) 20 years ago, see how psychologically messed up they are, and then draw the only rational conclusion:"

    Since categories do matter so much around here, as they should, we must all immediately recognize that there is this HUGE difference between putting our hand to our own child's throat (and choosing it) vs someone else deciding it and doing it.

    Huge difference.

    Every woman I have ever known that has done this has completely regretted it. Never met one that did not. And I don't have to find a thousand. If you actually think I would NOT tell you the truth on a matter, then that's your own deal. You have to live with your own conscience.

    But you know quite well that I always tell you guys the truth. And I only expect that you will do the same.
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I ignored my own advice and didn't ignore Cal when she was off topic. Sorry folks."

    You SHOULD be sorry. Really, I mean..if I person can't talk about two illusionists who are not holding to the PRINCIPLES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE, what can you talk about?
    LOL!!!!

    astoundingly funny. :)
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  26. Doh!! Here I go again, feeding the troll, agian, sorry...

    Cal said:
    "HUGE difference between putting our hand to our own child's throat (and choosing it) vs someone else deciding it and doing it."

    Fetuses don't have throats, just as tadpols are not frogs and don't have legs. Oh, and catepillars don't have wings either. I had eggs for breakfast this morning, but it has been over a week since I ate any chicken.

    Part of the point about comparing miscarriages to abortions is that for the many women who have had miscarriages, they don't equate it to the loss of losing a child they carried to term and raised for a period of time. That is because when a child is born it takes on the status of a human being, a person. A status far different than the tadpole like organism that is PART of a woman in the first few months of pregnancy.

    Tell us Cal, how many fetuses have you known that have any personality?

    "Every woman I have ever known that has done this has completely regretted it. Never met one that did not."

    Again, Cal your selection process is inherently flawed. This is because we tend to interact with people we share at least some things in common with. And this is even more so if a woman is sharing personal things with YOU. Think about it, would a woman who had an abortion and didn't feel the way you expected her to feel about it even bother to share that info. with you? Of course not. And if she did, and you started your self-righteous b.s., then she would probably end up punching you in the mouth.

    "But you know quite well that I always tell you guys the truth."

    No Cal, I have suspected that you have lied many times, and have said so before, because you have at times pulled out the most convenient anecdote. But if it matters, I do believe you this time. I am sure that all the women in your church, or those who come to you for "counseling" feel very bad about their abortions.

    By the way Cal, here is a blog post on women who don't feel bad about their abortions so at least you know that they exist.

    http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/24/6617/

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Every woman I have ever known that has done this has completely regretted it. Never met one that did not."

    Depends on the definition of "meet". I remember, long ago, you and a reader discussing this here in Massimo's blog. She insisted she did not regret her abortion. To which you kept, rudely as usual, insisting that deep down she did regret, she just didn't know it, or something to that effect... With "counselors" like that, who knows what the women really felt or said?

    ReplyDelete
  28. S "No Cal, I have suspected that you have lied many times, and have said so before, because you have at times pulled out the most convenient anecdote."

    When and where? Name a time and a comment.

    S "Think about it, would a woman who had an abortion and didn't feel the way you expected her to feel about it even bother to share that info. with you? Of course not. And if she did, and you started your self-righteous b.s., then she would probably end up punching you in the mouth."

    Oh, and why? I just mainly ever listen to people tho that might come as a surprise. Then I offer help from where ever the person needs it from. Simple as that. Shel, you don't know my temperament or way of handling people at all. I may be a lot more willing to "fight" with guys (obviously), especially if I think they are behaving like cowards. That certainly does not mean I would ever have it out with another female or make her feel less than human.

    For your education's sake, I had to look up the NM NARAL site for something unrelated to abort services recently. The sheer amount of misrep they do on key issues is mind boggling. Practically every answer here to key issues is completely incorrect or very, VERY questionable. I could explain to right away why the first answer is not true, but I will wait to see if you challenge it first.

    "NARAL New Mexico - Right to Choose Education Fund"http://www.prochoicenm.org/assets
    /files/002.pdf.

    Is abortion safe?
    Yes. During the first 15 weeks, abortion is ten times safer than going
    through pregnancy.

    Are most religions against abortion?
    No. Most major Protestant and Jewish denominations favor
    abortion choice. For more information please visit www.rcrc.org or
    www.catholicsforchoice.org

    Does having an abortion affect a woman’s ability to have
    children in the future?
    No. According to the Centers for Disease Control, abortion
    procedures performed by a doctor will not adversely affect a
    woman’s future ability to reproduce.

    Is there such a thing as “Post-abortion Syndrome”?
    No. Extensive scientific research has found no trace of it and no
    such condition is medically recognized.

    Does having an abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?
    No. Two dozen studies published in leading medical journals found
    no increased risk of breast cancer in women who have
    had abortions.

    Does emergency contraception (ECPs) cause abortion?
    No. ECPs, like ordinary birth control pills, prevent ovulation,
    fertilization or implantation before pregnancy occurs. They will not
    work once a pregnancy has begun.


    At best these answers are very imprecise if not deliberately dishonest. If you happened to be a troubled woman, and did know what to do next this all might sound very reasonable at that moment.

    ReplyDelete
  29. re: 4 attacks on colleges this week

    One might ask why someone would attack completely unarmed college or school campuses? 50 million abortions later, (for the USA) it is easy to see why someone would attack unarmed campuses.

    There is now this prevailing ethic amoungst gen y that suggests that "we" get to decide who lives and dies. And if the populace can't defend themselves, all the better.

    Look at what we have created.
    This very serious stuff.

    If it's not too late, it's time to support life.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  30. Libertarians always manage to speak sense up to a certain point, but after that their categorical thinking does them in. Most of us, I think, are receptive to complaints about outrages to common sense and individual liberty that libertarians frequently use as hooks. John Stossel of "20-20" used to do this in his "That's Outrageous" segments. But then they fail to make distinctions of degree between different situations. Campus speech codes provide an example of political correctness, but objecting to the name "Washington Redskins," for example, does not, though libertarians would say it comes from the same fascist impulse to outlaw forms of speech. If government sometimes oversteps, as Penn & Teller rightly point out to us, it does not follow for most of us, unlike for P & T, that just about all government action is overstepping.

    Libertarians have just the one note of personal liberty, and it makes for a monotonous tune.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.