Penn & Teller's "BS" -- Yay or Nay?

[GrandMasterFox]

They specifically decried emotional arguments, then brought that woman who was at a mass shooting there. An explicitly emotional argument.

I'm not sure that would count as an emotional argument, her story (if I recall correctly) was that someone started shooting people and she had a gun but left it in her car because she was required by the law.

The point was that if the law was not in effect, she would have kept her gun and might have changed the outcome.

Just because she was in tears talking about the incident is not something I would equate with an emotional argument.

 

[dudalb]

Penn Jillette has a video blog in which he freely speaks his mind on a wide variety of topics. Here he has every opportunity to address issues that don't make the cut for the show. Yet on such a highly controversial --and frequently requested-- topic as Scientology, his complete silence is notably.

Bitter fact is a number of people very high up in the Entertainment industry drink the ROn Hubbard Kool Aid. Cruise is the most notorious, but there are people MUCH more powerful then Tommy who are devout COS members. But because they are in management they have a much lower profile. I guess Penn does not want to offend them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure that would count as an emotional argument, her story (if I recall correctly) was that someone started shooting people and she had a gun but left it in her car because she was required by the law.

The point was that if the law was not in effect, she would have kept her gun and might have changed the outcome.

They had just dismissed the whole set of Kids accidentally shoot themselves or someone else as emotional arguments. If those kids didn't have a gun no shooting. OF course that is an emotional argument in their minds because you are playing on the emotions around dead kids. Playing on the emotions around dead parents, that is not an emotional argument.

Just because she was in tears talking about the incident is not something I would equate with an emotional argument.

So they wrongfully dismissed accidental child shootings as an emotional argument then? They were being dishonest either way, I am just wondering which way you are considering them to be dishonest.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bitter fact is a number of people very high up in the Entertainment industry drink the ROn Hubbard Kool Aid. Cruise is the most notorious, but there are people MUCH more powerful then Tommy who are devout COS members. But because they are in management they have a much lower profile. I guess Penn does not want to offend them.

His stated position is he feels south park gave them as good a send up as they could hope for.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

They had just dismissed the whole set of Kids accidentally shoot themselves or someone else as emotional arguments. If those kids didn't have a gun no shooting.

Umm... Not really. They could have jumped off a roof or a die in a car accident or any number of things or even obtain one in an ilegal manner.

Disposing the gun in this instance may or may not affect the situation at all. There is no real evidence on that matter.

In that woman's story, there is a big difference because she had a gun and just because of the law kept it in her car. Without the law, she clearly would have had the gun in her hand.

Now you'll note that even Penn stated that it's possible she might have made things worse, but either way the outcome would have been different.

That's where the difference lies. One case is backed by evidence and the other isn't. So no dishonesty what involved on this matter.

 

[dudalb]

Penn Jillette has a video blog in which he freely speaks his mind on a wide variety of topics. Here he has every opportunity to address issues that don't make the cut for the show. Yet on such a highly controversial --and frequently requested-- topic as Scientology, his complete silence is notably.

Bitter fact is a number of people very high up in the Entertainment industry drink the ROn Hubbard Kool Aid. Cruise is the most notorious, but there are people MUCH more powerful then Tommy who are devout COS members. But because they are in management they have a much lower profile. I guess Penn does not want to offend them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Umm... Not really. They could have jumped off a roof or a die in a car accident or any number of things or even obtain one in an ilegal manner.

Disposing the gun in this instance may or may not affect the situation at all. There is no real evidence on that matter.

In that woman's story, there is a big difference because she had a gun and just because of the law kept it in her car. Without the law, she clearly would have had the gun in her hand.

Her parrents might have been killed in a car accident comming home from the restaurant, or died of food poisoning from what they ate at the restaurant, adding a gun in this situation may or may not affect the situation at all.

That's where the difference lies. One case is backed by evidence and the other isn't. So no dishonesty what involved on this matter.

Neither side is backed by evidence. That is the problem there is no hard evidence on either side.

The difference here is actually quite clear you can name all kinds of tragedies that removing the gun from removes the tragedy. They rejected that as an emotional argument then say that adding a gun might remove a tragedy and that is a good argument? Talk about moving the goalposts. But is it good to see how many people fell for their BS.

 

[Checkmite]

His stated position is he feels south park gave them as good a send up as they could hope for.

Is that a copout or what? How many other topics has south park lampooned that PTBS didn't seem to mind making shows about?

Scientology is a multibillion-dollar scam that literally ruins peoples' lives, and PTBS does episodes about recycling and bottled water.

I think dudalb hit it on the head. P&T are simply afraid of offending them.

 

[Chris L]

P&T are simply afraid of offending them.

Not beyond the realm of possibility, though I'd like to think not. The church makes too good a target to ignore otherwise.

 

[Emet]

Not beyond the realm of possibility, though I'd like to think not. The church makes too good a target to ignore otherwise.

Here's an article from 2007, where Penn was interviewed:

Scientology would seem to be a natural subject for "BS," and Penn and Teller long contemplated tackling it. From the Showtime point of view, it was dangerous territory — the Church of Scientology is notoriously litigious.

Penn was a little bummed about being beaten to the punch, but now he wonders how much "BS" really could have done with Scientology. " 'South Park' can play a cheerleader role," he says. "Like with Ouija boards, where everybody knows it's bullsh-- and you just join in. But I always like there to be some sort of revelation, some really surprising information. And everyone who's not a Scientologist already knows it's bullsh--."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1569435/20070911/story.jhtml

 

[Robin]

I remember there was an episode on environmental movements.

They very properly mocked the BS from Greenpeace.

But then they propogated the BS from the Cato Institute.

Seems to me that if you are going to be against BS, you ought to be against all BS.

I know Penn has been on the payroll at Cato at some point - but that should surely be reason to mock them even more mercilessly!

 

[Emet]

<snip>
I know Penn has been on the payroll at Cato at some point - but that should surely be reason to mock them even more mercilessly!

They are both "research fellows" at the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/people/penn-jillette

http://www.cato.org/people/-teller

 

[Checkmite]

Penn was a little bummed about being beaten to the punch, but now he wonders how much "BS" really could have done with Scientology. " 'South Park' can play a cheerleader role," he says. "Like with Ouija boards, where everybody knows it's bullsh-- and you just join in. "

Except PTBS had an episode about Ouija boards.

But I always like there to be some sort of revelation, some really surprising information. And everyone who's not a Scientologist already knows it's bullsh--."

For instance, most people believe in those breast/penis enlargement aids; and I must admit that I was taken aback by the shocking revelation in the Feng Shui episode that...something. Also the surprising revelation in the profanity episode that *cough*.

Although I suppose I'm barking up the wrong tree anyway. 30 minutes of Penn making dick jokes about Scientologists likely wouldn't accomplish much, it's true.

 

[Dinwar]

They had just dismissed the whole set of Kids accidentally shoot themselves or someone else as emotional arguments. If those kids didn't have a gun no shooting. OF course that is an emotional argument in their minds because you are playing on the emotions around dead kids. Playing on the emotions around dead parents, that is not an emotional argument.

Hey! What do you know? Penn and Teller's show works! You've realized that emotional arguments are crap, and are questioning the argument. Not saying it's P&T's doing entirely, but it certainly seems to be the point you're harping on about.

And I'm being dismissive for a reason. P&T often use emotional arguments--IN ADDITION TO other lines of evidence. I note that you're arguing against one specific argument--not that this is bad, just that you're ignoring the rest of the show. The rest of the show does give data, and logic, and a coherent line of reasoning (you've got to wade through the profanity and such to find it, but it's there). This is distinctly different from many of arguments from their opposition (not all, just many), which rely on emotion entirely.

There's a difference between emotional appeals as your sole argument, and emotional appeals intended to drive your argument home.

ETA: You're in danger of falling for the Fallacy Fallacy. Just because the argument includes a fallacy doesn't mean that the argument is wrong. The conclusion can be right, despite the entire chain of reasoning being wrong (continental drift comes to mind).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey! What do you know? Penn and Teller's show works! You've realized that emotional arguments are crap, and are questioning the argument. Not saying it's P&T's doing entirely, but it certainly seems to be the point you're harping on about.

It had nothing to do with P&T.

And I'm being dismissive for a reason. P&T often use emotional arguments--IN ADDITION TO other lines of evidence.

So you have to expect loonies like them to be total hypocrites? Or are they just so blinded by their ideology that they fail to see the hypocrisy when they engage in it?

I note that you're arguing against one specific argument--not that this is bad, just that you're ignoring the rest of the show. The rest of the show does give data, and logic, and a coherent line of reasoning (you've got to wade through the profanity and such to find it, but it's there). This is distinctly different from many of arguments from their opposition (not all, just many), which rely on emotion entirely.

Ah the rest of the show where they essentially praised Tim McVeigh? After all what greater patriot have we had in modern america than someone who fought back against the government like they advocate?

There's a difference between emotional appeals as your sole argument, and emotional appeals intended to drive your argument home.

The whole ep was evidence free.

There is a lot of BS from both sided in gun control, it is just that they buy the BS from one side and so feel they have to propagate that BS.

 

[pgwenthold]

Is that a copout or what? How many other topics has south park lampooned that PTBS didn't seem to mind making shows about?

Scientology is a multibillion-dollar scam that literally ruins peoples' lives, and PTBS does episodes about recycling and bottled water.

I think dudalb hit it on the head. P&T are simply afraid of offending them.

OR it could be that they know that the producers/exectives/big whigs in charge of putting their show on the air would never put a show about Scientology on the air. Therefore, why go through the process of making one?

In fact, that has basically been Penn's response to the question of why. They have been told to not make one, because it won't be shown.

Making TV shows costs money. Why spend the money if there is no hope that someone will buy it?

 

[Chris L]

OR it could be that they know that the producers/exectives/big whigs in charge of putting their show on the air would never put a show about Scientology on the air.

The fact that the people with the money are worried about such things should worry the rest of us. There can't be THAT many COS members in their audience demographic, so the pressure must be coming from COS people in positions of power. A very troubling thought.

 

[pgwenthold]

The fact that the people with the money are worried about such things should worry the rest of us. There can't be THAT many COS members in their audience demographic, so the pressure must be coming from COS people in positions of power. A very troubling thought.

I don't disagree.

 

[Emet]

OR it could be that they know that the producers/exectives/big whigs in charge of putting their show on the air would never put a show about Scientology on the air. Therefore, why go through the process of making one?

In fact, that has basically been Penn's response to the question of why. They have been told to not make one, because it won't be shown.

Making TV shows costs money. Why spend the money if there is no hope that someone will buy it?

There's also the issue of potential litigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_legal_system

 

[Dinwar]

It had nothing to do with P&T.

I was being somewhat sarcastic. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

So you have to expect loonies like them to be total hypocrites? Or are they just so blinded by their ideology that they fail to see the hypocrisy when they engage in it?

Perhaps it could be....Oh, I don't know.....They've come to a different conclusion than you? No, couldn't be that.

I'd have to watch the show again, but I've rarely seen an episode that is completely evidence-free. I've seen some that are evidence-light, but to say that the whole episode was prasing a murderer and evidence-free is likely hyperbole, at best. You may disagree with the evidence. You may question the validity, or the conclusions drawn from it. But that doesn't mean that there's no evidence.