True Free energy devices exist,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
@polysemousncrk See: Second law of thermodynamics.. You're a moron if you think free energy is possible. It literally violates every law of phyics, and it's foolish to blame the fact that the free energy craze has gone NOWHERE in all of history on some whacky big-oil conspiracy. Come down to reality dude.
@crusaders36 Literally every law of physics? Don't think so...
(I'm not going to rule out the idea that there might be a source of energy that can be made reasonably cheaply by an individual person... but most of the free energy sites talk about how since energy is neither created nor destroyed, you can harness it from device output... entropy, anyone?)
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
you dared to be a thinker among lemmings....the pro group swam blindly up one stream and the anti swam up another blindly... never realizing that free choce and free thought are discrectionary per each sub topic and not "one size fits all"...don't despair, perhaps time will allow them to learn these truths.
I'm so against paying for planetariums and their ilk that I even refused to pay for and subsequently downloaded illegally 'Sanitarium' by Metallica... and I don't even like Metallica (I'm a Megadeth guy, meself). It's not like it's going to bother them that people are D.L.ing their music.
Sounds like planetariums have become little more than cheesy laser light shows instead of a place of learning. I haven't been to a planetarium since 1970, but I CAN say when they first became popular during the NASA/Apollo years, the presentations were very impressive and professionally done. I used to visit them a lot. Much of my understanding of the universe is tied to those visits. Sad thing if they are now just entertainment venues.
The last time I went to a planeterium I fell asleep, I got a lot more out of a 100 dollar telescope and I learned a lot more having locate all the planets and stars myself!
I'm so sick of people blaming Obama or other "Liberals" for "taking my money by gun point" for these projects when it's been going on for years by both parties presidents. I love Penn and I respect the hell out of him, but I think he's such a big drama queen when it comes to his anti-government politics.
"It's ok--you can say I want a president who will take a lot of money, at gun point, by force, from mob rule, from a lot of people, and especially from rich people because we hate them, because they're bad. We want to take all that money from them, and we want to build planetariums."
I think the funding for education is all screwed up anyway. I think before we teach children about science we should makes sure they can read and write first. I would like to see the numbers on children that can't pass a general knowledge test. If you are going to spend money I wish they would figure out where it would do the most good.
Hey catholics are not anti science,the church currently accepts all modern tenants science as mechanisms of God. I think that calling them anti science because of positions that they took centuries ago.
Not catholic, but calling anyone a cunt, even the pope, is hardly the harbinger of a strong argument.
And isn't it just as wrong to say that your belief about whom you need to talk to about religion is right, and others are wrong just the same fallacy, turned on its head that you are pointing out about their view?
Catholics were probably most considered anti science when they believed the solar system revolved around the earth because of religious beliefs (not to mention they apologized for that event in the 1990's..) .
Then there's the theory of evolution..
Basically the whole "Absolute Truth" Vs Scientific Theories deal.
Penn, the problem is, when left to their own doings, people don't give enough to charities, period. If people were giving to charities on a level to match the actual need, then government would be spending our taxes elsewhere.
Thank you for not looking anything up. Americans donate the highest percentage of their time and income to charities.
What If I was really horny and you didn't want to have sex with me. Would it be ok if I forced myself onto? Hey I can argue that you didnt give me enough sex. I proved by your logic that rape is ok
But Americans spend twice as much on religious organizations (which are unlikely candidates for the propagation of science education - well, atleast they feed the poor) than they do on educational institutions. I dont know if we'd be able to keep many of these services running without some sort of government spending. Regular copulation is not a right, but in a wealthy society IMHO people have a right to education(museums,libraries) and healthcare (extensions of one's right to liberty and life)
In theory I agree that taxes are bad, but in reality I'd say they're good. Yeah, there are lots of good folks who want to donate their money to noble causes, but the truth is that greed is a very strong force in humanity. I believe that in a taxless/regulationless environment, greedy people would prosper more and be able to take advantage of the general populace more. It's happened in the USA before, anyway. No reason to think it can't again.
Most people at least the people I know try to read deeper into thing than what is said at face value. McCain may have said simply I think government funding for Planetariums is Foolish. But what people hear or want to here is I don't want to fund things I think are frivolous. Reading more into that people then think he will cut spending on other things and since he is against planetariums he must be against science so soon we won't be teaching science in the class rooms.
Hmmm. Government funding for the school field trip to the local planetarium is a bad thing? I understand the Floyd/Laser thing being "not science", although I know as a fact, those shows are there to generate revenue that the GOVERNMENT won't! If the people want it, they should have it if they're paying for it. Problem there? I think not. To say "anti-science" for the reason you mentioned, is absurd and I agree that is the LEAST appropriate reason, given a hundred other excuses available.
It is my understanding that the VAST majority of school systems (public) are funded by STATE and not Federal funds, the federal funds come from recent laws based on "No Child Left Behind". These funds are measured based upon FCAT scores. (which is all schools are teaching for now). What ever happened to State funding or LOCAL funding of schools. DC has the worst education system in the country... keep the FED out of my childes education!
So what you mean is the FED GOV shouldn't fund education? Do I have that right? If that's the case, I'm thinking that on occasion, ANY FUNDING (preferably state) would benifit to help bring more diverse academics (astronomy, science, etc.) to rural areas. IE: Idaho might not pay for a planetarium so the FED GOV steps in... kind of like offering an alternative to "farming". I don't mind FED GOV helping to find a genius in rural Idaho to maximize his/her ability. Mandating may not be good, but?
Also, I don't think DC has the worst education simply because the FEDS are paying for it. I think that maybe they have uneducated students because of BAD TEACHERS! I don't know the "process" that brings "teachers" into a FED FUNDED education plan, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Bottom line: Planetariums (most) fund the Floyd/laser by themselves because "the astronomy" isn't drawing a crowd.
I heard this: kid 1: "Let's go hear Floyd at the planetarium!" kid 2: WTF is a planetarium?" LOL
Penn has shown himself to be the most opinionated person in the media eye. and he is certainly convinced that he is correct about everything. when you listen to him he sounds like he is preaching.
I was completely with him until I realized I don't really know where other education funding comes from or how it's dissipiated. I mean text books, dissections, petri dish incubation projects, etc... I do firstly believe the majority of planetarium education does fall into an entertainment/education group, I"m not sure it's worth killing off completely to say this is a waste of tax dolllars in terms of govt. spending/useless spending.
Lazer show? Pink Floyd? LAZER SHOW?! What freakin lazer show? Damn I'm too old (younger than Penn). I actually got a lesson about the earth, stars and all the crap! I've been robbed!
LOL, oxygen? Dude, we're not going to take oxygen, we're going to tax what you exhale after oxygen, its called CO2.
And government funded schools, hmm... I wonder why no body knows their rights... or how to control government... And I also wonder how everyone got the idea that Government should control everything... hhmmm... this is a toughy...
I also wonder why we gave up the idea of private property, you know, seeing as all rights are derived from property... hhmmm...
Anyone seen "Idiocracy"? That is one possible outcome (among many, both positive and negative) of total freedoms. At what point do we stop accepting the choices made by the majority? If the free market decides that clean water and air are worth less than factory made goods, do we simply stand back and let it happen? At the cost of OUR lives and the future of Earth? Today it's planetariums, tomorrow... what? Libraries? Oxygen? Where do we draw the line to protect the "freedoms of the majority"?
Just because we don't want the government funding something doesn't mean the "majority" won't pay for it. It's the difference between passing around a hat for charity and asking for money at the point of a gun. But the other problem is that the income tax actually takes money from a minority (the top earners) and has the majority divide it. So right now failed government programs are the fault of the majority, or at least those who claim to act on their behalf.
Good point about the Floyd. I went to the planetarium oncewhen I was a kid in minneapolis and my sister raved about it the night before, I was rather befuddled simply because I had no idea what a pink floyd was and why he was there. thought she kept referrinbg to the pink muppet in the Dr Teeth band from the muppet show. Proof that the older generations aren't opaying atention. Good work on your channel and much luck to you in future.
HEY IM CATHOLIC AND IM ALL FOR SCIENCE. I mean for fuck sakes. I believe in the theory of evolution. And I dont believe the events in the bible actually happened.
If Americans had the choice to give to science or not, they wouldn't. If businessmen had the choice to build planetarians or not, they wouldn't. (And not just planetarians, any kind of science museums)Those things wouldn't survive long in the commercial market, because businesses tailor themselves to the lowest common denominator.
Now, how many people do you know who visit a planetarium with any regularity? Also, how many of these people would go even if it was free? I personally would rather this money go to funding lab materials at local high schools.
That'd be a good idea too, except that public schools aren't exactly a fine example of liberatarian principals in action either. A die hard Libertarian wouldn't support using tax money to fund schools, because they believe in a minimal state and public education is not one of the basic functions of the government. More moderate libertarians might support some form of public education, but the idea itself is at odds with the libertarian philosophy of minimal government and free enterprise.
"I want people to give to science because they WANT to give to science, not because they're forced to."
Two key questions:
1. Do we need science? I think that's an obvious yes. An America without science would soon become victims of the rest of the world.
2. Do we trust Americans to freely donate to something they need? One could say the population as a whole isn't smart enough to take care of themselves, but then, the government is just a group of citizens, too...
If YOU want to go to a Planetarium, YOU should pay to go to one. If enough people gave a shit about them, the free markets would provide them and those who gave a shit WOULD pay. Asking everyone to pay for something because a handful of people thinks its for the greater good is absurd.
you're making the same mistake that McCain is making. The "$1000 hammer" if I know what you're talking about is a special hammer made of special materials needed to work on an airplane. Like the toilet in space, or the coffee pot in the C17, they are all made of special materials and cost a lot. You are misrepresenting things.
But then again, maybe i don't know what you're talking about.
I thought McCain was objecting to an overhead projector. The big joke was he confused a planaterium projector with an overhead projector. PS you can tell youve been posting on threads to much when you can self recongnize your straw men.
I'm not sure which "anti-planetarium" remark you're talking about, Penn. I remember McCain saying that Obama supported funding for a multi million dollar "overhead projector"which later turned out to be a planetarium projector. The problem people have with his remark is that he is misrepresenting what the money was being spent on in the first place.
I use to work in a Planetarium, and it was the most ridiculous job ever. There were 7 of us there each night, when 2 could have handled the job. I just stood around. Also, he's right, most of the stuff at Planetariums isn't science, it's Laser Floyd and astronaut ice cream and silly electric balls.
That being said, when I was in high school I fell in love with science reading Carl Sagan, and I don't think I'd be getting a Ph.D. in math right now without some inspiration. So, who knows?
I work at a planetarium where we have a Beatles laser show.
We also find the time to teach ACTUAL astronomy, and our audience sees the planetarium as far more unique and exciting than a shitty round movie theatre. Sure some planetariums may be underfunded and understaffed, but we take the time to make our shows interactive, which is essential in separating the experience from that of a movie theatre.
Penn kicks ass. I don't think the constitution says anything about the funding of planetariums, so theres no authority to allocate money to that type of program, not anti-science.
So if the Constitution said the government should pay for this, you would agree?
How about forget the Constitution, which is easy to argue against(because, no matter how right it is, it was formulated by inperfect people at a time when slavery was OK), and argue on principle? If you have those principles, of course. Most libertarians for instance don't.
Actually, the constitution was designed during a time when slaves weren't people. But the way it was written was ingenious (even if it wasn't intended) that once they were considered people, they would be enveloped into it.
The constitution is very well written, and should be followed more, instead of just having 9 people understand it, everyone should understand and be able to interpret it.
The slaves were always people-obviously. Saying otgherwise is a ridiculous mixup between reality and some people's warped view of the world.
In this case the founding father's warped view.
Anyway, I'm not knocking the Constitution, it's great, but you have to constantly remind people of the principles of reason and individualism behind it, you can't just shove it down their throat and expect them to follow it blindly, while evryone preaches socialism and religion.
I am not religious, far from it, but I am talking about how it was written in a sense that it can still be interpreted today in the way it should have been. When it was created, Slaves were not considered people, thus didn't apply. During the civil war era, Slaves = 2/3rd of a person (I believe, it was that or 1/3 its late and im at work so can't look it up) even after they were freed, second class citizens. It never means it was right, just how it was taken by those people during that time.
"Were not believed to be people" doesn't fly. They were people and they were mistreated. That's all that counts: the fact that the Constitution did not explicitly challenge that belief was wrong.
There is absolute good, and there is absolute evil: It was just as wrong then as it would be today to have slavery.
If you instead go by people's intentions or beliefs, that way you can justify anything: slavery, the Holocaust, Communism, everything.
You also shouldn't bother arguing that it was intentionally created to make it possible some day to be open for interpretation: the authors had in fact the chance to interpret it, and they chose to interpret it in favor of slavery. That cannot be called good, no matter how you spin it.
I do argue that, because that is how it was, no matter how wrong it was. People teach their children from when they were born to believe in the god they do and the book they read. People in those days taught their children Black people were inferior and were less of a people. Its not justifying their actions, it was the truth as they saw it. I NEVER once said it was how they should do it, nor do I support the actions, but it is fact that they viewed this way, that will not change.
Why does it seem that when I am trying to explain a mindset of a misguided group of people during the time, that it seems like people think I support the actions? I even said in my posts, they weren't right. Unfortunately, you can't compare the Holocaust to that either, as it wasn't a "mindset" that was taught to them since they were children, it was an excuse made up, knowing full well it was wrong, so that Nazi's can use their power. Thats a different story then this though.
As far as the founding fathers go, I'd say they did see the truth: they saw it in hundreds of years worth of human history and knowledge, both from Ancient Greece and the Western Europe ever since the renaissance.
That much is quite clear, because the Declaration of Ind. and their other writings condense the valuable lessons of those great periods of human history.
That is why the Constitution is such a valuable document, because it contains the rational principles of Ancient Greece and the Renaissance Era, and is based entirely on reason. I think those principles of reason and individual rights (contained in the Const.) are the ones which we should argue for, instead of treating a document as if it were the word of God.
Why? Because the Constitution is imperfect, while the principles it's based on are "the truth", and "good", and "right".
Agreed for the most part...but what's this stuff about if you have a religion then you're anti science? The vast majority of the great scientists were religious. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc. were all inspired to investigate because of their religions.
Those were all people from around 300 to 400 years ago. Galileo was condemned by the church for his science, and Newton quit working on science to write about religion. Besides that look at how opposed religion is to science now, with all the ignorant people hating on evolution, and to a lesser extent, big bang cosmology. I mean name some very prominent scientists now who were led by religion. I dont think the ones you mentioned were driven by religion as much as curiosity.
". Besides that look at how opposed religion is to science now" Religion has always been opposed to ideas that refute their teachings. And science has always been vocal, when it comes to refuting religion..
Dont forget one thing, one of which that most Religious folks dont acknowledge or tend to "forget"
The person who formulated the idea of the big bang, did so because he was VERY religious, and tried to use this as a view of god being a reality. The person we have to thank for one of the best scientific ideas to come up with, was himself religious. He in essence just disproved the bible in his views, but really was doing it to show that god existed.
In the second debate between M&O, McCain claimed Obama spent 3 million in tax money on an "overhead projector.." A few days later I saw a clip of McCain saying he was not at all against science. The comment was meant to be misleading on expenditures not on science. THAT is the McCain that republicans want us all, or enough of us, to vote for. "Not I" said the short lifed fruit fly.
Palin spoke of the fuit fly in like-type snark against expenditures.Idiots show themselves without idiots knowing
What a shock. A libertarian doesn't want public funding, or, as they put it, money obtained from rich people via jack-boots holding them down and demanding all their money or they'll rape their kids and roast and eat their grandmother, for planetariums.
...I believe I have an issue...and it saddens me that I'm having to defend religious folk. But just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're anti-science. It just means that they are inconsistent in their dogma. C'mon...you really think they're not capable of dissembling to the point where their religious nonsense doesn't conflict with science in their heads? I will agree that religion certainly doesn't help...but it doesn't automatically make you anti-science.
Of course it does, but the vast majority of Christians (and probably Jews and Muslims) aren't YEC. I'm not saying it's not an intellectually dishonest position, it is...however they don't see the incongruity. Therefor, they aren't anti-science...they're just being actively ignorant and unable to put courage into their convictions. Fundies make me sick, but at least they have balls...the world is full of weak-willed religious folk who won't even compare science and their beliefs.
Look at the Gallup or Pew polls and see yourself what Americans believe. Gallup: Only 13 % believe in natural selection, 45 believe in BIBLICAL CREATIONISM, So its more than you think! Since they REJECT evolution based on fairy tales, that makes them ANTI SCIENCE. Also, there is a difference betwn ignorant and "willfull ignorance" ; they (adults) have made a choice to believe in things that aren't there. As a result, our country is in an educational demise because of them.
Well, it'd be NICE if people volunteered more money towards charity...honestly, there's nothing stopping them now. But unfortunately, most people DON'T. And I'm sorry taxes might take MORE money at gunpoint from rich people who aren't starving than from poor people who are, but I honestly don't see any other solution.
Besides, I've been to that Planetarium, and I say it was worth at LEAST three million.
The pink floyd laser shows were from another generation. They are highly educational and inspiring, NO LASERS. As far as who should fund these things, it makes no sense to ask religous America to fund science; people won't do stuff unless they get something in return. Theres a few private donations anyway.
As for eliminating our tax system, AINT gonna happen. If anyone was powerful enough to do so, they would just replace taxes with"fees" and collect it for themselves.
Statists are corrupt Penn, they don't realise that supporting government is just civic religion, these 'skeptics' won't apply the same skepticism to their own irrational political delusions. Sure they'll say god is an irrational belief, yet somehow voting (a bizarre superstitious ritual) for pathological liars (politicians/priests) to head a giant criminal mafia based upon theft & violence (government) to solve social problems - is perfectly rational behaviour! Government = religion. Same crap.
Yes, not paying for science does not = anti-science!
But, the NSF and the NIH are, by far, the biggest contributors to most of the research in most fields of science.
In any case, since McCain has never blatantly said that he is cutting funding for research (sorry if that was ignorant).
If he had said that he would reduce government funding, he values other things more than the progress of science in the US (but not science itself). Also, even that would not make him "anti-science."
Thanks for clarifying the difference between being against science, and being against government funding of! 99% of arguments against fiscal conservatives are misconstrude witch-hunts instead of evaluating the pros and cons of government funding and over-taxing for projects that would do a heck of alot better if they were privately supported!
P.S.-Took my 1st grade students to a planetarium. They went in expecting planets & stars...came out horrified by Dr. Demento's "Fish Heads"!!
I fuckin' loved your radio show and love to cheer you on about the government, but to me there comes a time where you have to make a realistic, over-simplified choice:
I have been listening to your playlist. Now that I watch I see what you are doing. Your hands make a lot of noise when you talk and it is detracts from an otherwise well crafted and interesting take on the human experience. Don't change for me just thought I would share... :•)
The planetariums would serve as a more effectual form of social mobility for these welfare masses than a few magic tricks and charitable publicity events.
My problem with McCain isn't that he opposes "science" but that he's a hypocrite. He made a point about this planetarium thing as part of his "anti-pork barrel" stance. Why? Because he had to give up his "anti-bear DNA" story when he found that he'd actually voted for it.
Meanwhile, he's gone to Florida to support a MANNED MISSION TO MARS -- the biggest lump of pork in the history of the world. It'll run 300 Billion in the end for no more than unmanned probes can teach us for 1/100 the cost.
Wow!! I'd never think I'd be agreeing with Penn, atleast most of what he mentioned. However, I am a Christian, and I'm deeply in love with Science. I don't think Planetariums are important (people can download and install a free software on their computers that is actually better). I think America needs specialized schools of science, more funding to NASA, cartoons developed around science, and tax breaks for companies that fund programs that bring science to schools and the general public.
Your friend has a flawed logic, yes, but you have a flawed rebuttal. McCain was against spending money on a "3 million dollar projector". McCain was marginalizing a large Space projection system down to an office project which usually fetches for $800. This was an attempt to show Obama was for wasteful government spending.
lolollolol catholic and science in the same sentence. wheres the science supporting that god exists, or that eating wafers makes an imaginary man happy?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
show me some fucking proof on evolution idiot....there is none. Your a fuckin moron....and look like one too from your profile picture. what a tool....keep believing the lies you're being force-fed bitch!
There's no proof of evolution...except all the fossils, dna, multiple types of radiometric dating, geological evidence, feathered dinosaurs evolving into bird, and we've watched it in the present with multicellular ring species and bacteria and viruses. But there is no evidence.
I'm starting to think Penn is not an atheist as he claims but simply an anti-theist in that he hates anyone who doesn't follow his (anti religion). In a sense he's more intolerant than some of the people he bashes. Seriously if I bashed someone for being a muslim everyone would freak but it's ok if Mr. Atheist does?
That said I would like to know where I can go see a laser Zepplin or Floyd show! So long as it isn't taxpayer funded that is.
I obviously can't speak for him...but I would guess he wouldn't object to the term anti-theist. All anti-theism is is so-called "strong atheism" which is the active belief that there is no god/gods as opposed to true atheism (or weak atheism as it's called) where all you have is a disbelief. One is a passive view, one is an assertive view.
What was Obama thinking? The majority of society either doesn't have the time, money or inclination to subject their children to planetariums. That's what schools, TV and field trips are for. To keeps children out of their parents hair.
Someone needs to set this guy straight on edu.
Didn't the Catholic church fund a lot of science back in the day? Can you imagine an old school planetarium with flat planets and God's and Saints sitting in a little gated community in the sky? Oh I can.
Penns a pseudo-intellectual idiot. Only simple minded people make statements like 'Catholics are anti-science' etc.
No wonder he's upset about the election; he's made broad generalizations of each politician (based on religion) and is now upset because his narrow minded assumptions have left him in a corner. None of the candidates have labeled themselves with his right label (anti-religious atheist) so theyre all idiots.
Hes more a fundamentalist than any of the politicians.
Whoa there Penn! Don't assume all Catholics are anti science. I'm a Catholic and I am not anti science. I understand Penn is an atheist and that's fine. Not all religions put down science. The Catholic church, for example, produces some excellent scientists. And we learned 400 years ago that supressing scientific thought leads to bad things (the whole Galileo trial didn't go so well for us in the end).....So There!!
I would say sir/ma'am, you are wrong. Science by definition deals with a naturalistic view. In other words, scientist's go forth to explain natural events. Religion(all religion's) seek to explain natural events with supernatural explanations.
You are wrong about this. True about science, not true about religion. Don't confuse Bible thumpers with all religious people. Thinking people who subscribe to a religion do not question scientific evidence. For example, if I get sick I go to a doctor, not Lourdes. However, when I have a moral decision to make that has no answer in science that is when I use religion as a context.
I think Jillette just found his next Bullshit episode: "IS LASER FLOYD ACTUALLY SCIENCE EDUCATION?"
Recently I inadvertently started a heated debate about the movie Religulous, and have come to the decision that both religious zealots and energized atheists annoy me. Also, anyone who proactively disses my opinion in favor of their own. Believer. Nonbeliever. Skeptic. Non-Skeptic. Pretty much everybody pisses me off now.
Penn, please namedrop so we know who you're talking about. kthxby!
I feel you on the Skeptic thing. I myself am an avid skeptic, but I just don't think the solution is using force to educate people about it. Collectivism has nothing to do with Skepticism!
Yeah, 'cause there were no astronomers before planetariums. I've been to a few laser shows. So, why not take my money for Laser Beatles (which does exist) and use that to fund the educational shows? Foolish? Fine. I can choose to be a fool or not by paying for the ticket...or not.
Very clever people can rationalise very stupid things to themselves. Scientists are amongst the worst offenders as some believe the objectivity and rationality of science applies to individual scientists. Not so, scientists are humans first and have prejudices and bias like anyone else.
I enjoy Bad Astronomy for science and skepticism but on politics Phil (plus some vocal cheerleaders) have blinkered advocacy for the Democrats. It isn't you Penn, I had the same thoughts on reading that post.
Whether or not planetariums are great right now, they were conceived with a pretty cool purpose that could be re-realized. How about govt. support of planetariums that have a format of a min. of 80% cool science. Introducing kids to science as a bitchin' show is a program I would happily open my wallet for.
As for the politics, both candidates say they think that education is important, but I think O'Bama has stated a better position on improving American education and science.
Why hasn't anyone brought up Rev. Jeremiah Wright lately? With YOUR minister expounding such HATE, That has to be a big point in this election. If you sit passively in a pew while your minister, that married you AND baptized YOUR children, goes on with such lack of regard for others and hatred coming out of his mouth, THAT is freaking incredible. I really don't like McCain, but are we ready to elect this guy, the most inexperienced candidate ever, as leader of the free world? NOBAMA.
Obama is not anti-science, he has said that Math and Science need to be taught and wants to focus on education so we can compete. The government did not even fund the projector. BTW Penn, you need to take a trip back to Griffith Observatory, they do not have the Pink Floyd or Beatle show anymore, they teach about the planet and the Big Bang. It's a good show, go see it. They even touch on the fact that religions started because of sun worship.
well he's apparently pretty good at it since he has an emmy award winning show about his political views. Why do you listen if you don't want to hear?
Penn, charity usually has an ulterior motive - "we'll feed you if you worship our God". Tax is used by democratically elected representatives of the people. If you don't like them you can CHOOSE to vote them out.
I'll go further and say that I don't want to ever visit a government planetarium. It's for the same reason that no one wants government-cheese. Government funds come with bureaucracy , which will make it suck. I'll also never buy another "American" car (most are Mexican made now), because they get HUGE subsidies from the government. They are cheaper than a Toyota, but that's because I've
"Big-time skeptic who's been to my house... not sure why I'm not saying his name..."
Might it rhyme with "handy"?
IoEstasCedonta 8 months ago
True Free energy devices exist,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
polysemousncrk 1 year ago
@polysemousncrk See: Second law of thermodynamics.. You're a moron if you think free energy is possible. It literally violates every law of phyics, and it's foolish to blame the fact that the free energy craze has gone NOWHERE in all of history on some whacky big-oil conspiracy. Come down to reality dude.
crusaders36 1 year ago
@crusaders36 Literally every law of physics? Don't think so...
(I'm not going to rule out the idea that there might be a source of energy that can be made reasonably cheaply by an individual person... but most of the free energy sites talk about how since energy is neither created nor destroyed, you can harness it from device output... entropy, anyone?)
IoEstasCedonta 8 months ago
@polysemousncrk with all due respect, ROFL
Enginmaster 5 months ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
you dared to be a thinker among lemmings....the pro group swam blindly up one stream and the anti swam up another blindly... never realizing that free choce and free thought are discrectionary per each sub topic and not "one size fits all"...don't despair, perhaps time will allow them to learn these truths.
jedirifleman 1 year ago
I'm so against paying for planetariums and their ilk that I even refused to pay for and subsequently downloaded illegally 'Sanitarium' by Metallica... and I don't even like Metallica (I'm a Megadeth guy, meself). It's not like it's going to bother them that people are D.L.ing their music.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
Sounds like planetariums have become little more than cheesy laser light shows instead of a place of learning. I haven't been to a planetarium since 1970, but I CAN say when they first became popular during the NASA/Apollo years, the presentations were very impressive and professionally done. I used to visit them a lot. Much of my understanding of the universe is tied to those visits. Sad thing if they are now just entertainment venues.
rjworks13 1 year ago
The last time I went to a planeterium I fell asleep, I got a lot more out of a 100 dollar telescope and I learned a lot more having locate all the planets and stars myself!
MoonshineMethExpress 2 years ago
I'm so sick of people blaming Obama or other "Liberals" for "taking my money by gun point" for these projects when it's been going on for years by both parties presidents. I love Penn and I respect the hell out of him, but I think he's such a big drama queen when it comes to his anti-government politics.
iharlequin 2 years ago
Yes, because it's so 'dramatic' to have a stance on something. At least he didn't cry.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
"It's ok--you can say I want a president who will take a lot of money, at gun point, by force, from mob rule, from a lot of people, and especially from rich people because we hate them, because they're bad. We want to take all that money from them, and we want to build planetariums."
mr5tein 2 years ago
I think the funding for education is all screwed up anyway. I think before we teach children about science we should makes sure they can read and write first. I would like to see the numbers on children that can't pass a general knowledge test. If you are going to spend money I wish they would figure out where it would do the most good.
RavenTheBlack 2 years ago
@RavenTheBlack I can tell you that we're number 19 in literacy rates in the world for adults.
pennsays 2 years ago
Why is this a video resonse to "Spacehunter: Adentures in the Forbidden Zone"?
Come on crackle, why do you post a video response that has nothing to do with the movie?
agentsmith1138 2 years ago
Hey catholics are not anti science,the church currently accepts all modern tenants science as mechanisms of God. I think that calling them anti science because of positions that they took centuries ago.
preludedude91 2 years ago
exhibit a: the pope says condoms increase AIDS because they encourage promiscuity
anneirenealien 2 years ago 4
The pope is a cunt. The only person I need to talk to about religion is my God. It's no one else's business.
StapleGunMS 2 years ago 3
had to reply to StaplegunMS
Not catholic, but calling anyone a cunt, even the pope, is hardly the harbinger of a strong argument.
And isn't it just as wrong to say that your belief about whom you need to talk to about religion is right, and others are wrong just the same fallacy, turned on its head that you are pointing out about their view?
bammcgn41 2 years ago
yeah one thing I have to say for the catholic church: it is very scientifically progressive
Limejello10512 2 years ago
Catholics were probably most considered anti science when they believed the solar system revolved around the earth because of religious beliefs (not to mention they apologized for that event in the 1990's..) .
Then there's the theory of evolution..
Basically the whole "Absolute Truth" Vs Scientific Theories deal.
someguy503 2 years ago
Probably Phil Plait
emburke24 2 years ago
Yeah, Phil had a post about that back then.
LafinJack 2 years ago
yes!
love it penn.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
my comment was geared towards livingthesecondlife
axe863 2 years ago
lazer floyd is the greatest show ever
do a penn says on it
Mokenofrs 2 years ago
Penn, the problem is, when left to their own doings, people don't give enough to charities, period. If people were giving to charities on a level to match the actual need, then government would be spending our taxes elsewhere.
livingthesecondlife 2 years ago
thats the worst logic i've heard all day.
anonazero 2 years ago
Thank you for not looking anything up. Americans donate the highest percentage of their time and income to charities.
What If I was really horny and you didn't want to have sex with me. Would it be ok if I forced myself onto? Hey I can argue that you didnt give me enough sex. I proved by your logic that rape is ok
axe863 2 years ago 3
That is the most genius comment I've seen all week.
IHopeYouKillYourself 2 years ago
But Americans spend twice as much on religious organizations (which are unlikely candidates for the propagation of science education - well, atleast they feed the poor) than they do on educational institutions. I dont know if we'd be able to keep many of these services running without some sort of government spending. Regular copulation is not a right, but in a wealthy society IMHO people have a right to education(museums,libraries) and healthcare (extensions of one's right to liberty and life)
Palearch 1 year ago
Ack, sorry, I accidentally rated this video 1 star lol. It really was an accident.
crablord 2 years ago
I agree. We need better schooling and teachers for better education...not Plantetariums.
CoffinPuppet 2 years ago
In theory I agree that taxes are bad, but in reality I'd say they're good. Yeah, there are lots of good folks who want to donate their money to noble causes, but the truth is that greed is a very strong force in humanity. I believe that in a taxless/regulationless environment, greedy people would prosper more and be able to take advantage of the general populace more. It's happened in the USA before, anyway. No reason to think it can't again.
Besides, donations would never be enough.
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
That's bullshit Penn! Pink Floyd has an awesome light refraction on the front of the album and the lasers are sciency too! Bullshit!
sublimehypocrisy 2 years ago
Most people at least the people I know try to read deeper into thing than what is said at face value. McCain may have said simply I think government funding for Planetariums is Foolish. But what people hear or want to here is I don't want to fund things I think are frivolous. Reading more into that people then think he will cut spending on other things and since he is against planetariums he must be against science so soon we won't be teaching science in the class rooms.
VictorphoenixDMvault 2 years ago
Seems to me like he is talking about Bill Maher. Is it?
jophus82 2 years ago
no he is talking about Phil Plait.
lumpcouch 2 years ago
I feel like a horrible lib... I have no idea who that is.
jophus82 2 years ago
sooo now your against lazer Tony orlando & Dawn . how could you
leofrankfurter 2 years ago
Hmmm. Government funding for the school field trip to the local planetarium is a bad thing? I understand the Floyd/Laser thing being "not science", although I know as a fact, those shows are there to generate revenue that the GOVERNMENT won't! If the people want it, they should have it if they're paying for it. Problem there? I think not. To say "anti-science" for the reason you mentioned, is absurd and I agree that is the LEAST appropriate reason, given a hundred other excuses available.
VimisiDigitalMedia 2 years ago
It is my understanding that the VAST majority of school systems (public) are funded by STATE and not Federal funds, the federal funds come from recent laws based on "No Child Left Behind". These funds are measured based upon FCAT scores. (which is all schools are teaching for now). What ever happened to State funding or LOCAL funding of schools. DC has the worst education system in the country... keep the FED out of my childes education!
godphred 2 years ago
So what you mean is the FED GOV shouldn't fund education? Do I have that right? If that's the case, I'm thinking that on occasion, ANY FUNDING (preferably state) would benifit to help bring more diverse academics (astronomy, science, etc.) to rural areas. IE: Idaho might not pay for a planetarium so the FED GOV steps in... kind of like offering an alternative to "farming". I don't mind FED GOV helping to find a genius in rural Idaho to maximize his/her ability. Mandating may not be good, but?
VimisiDigitalMedia 2 years ago
Also, I don't think DC has the worst education simply because the FEDS are paying for it. I think that maybe they have uneducated students because of BAD TEACHERS! I don't know the "process" that brings "teachers" into a FED FUNDED education plan, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Bottom line: Planetariums (most) fund the Floyd/laser by themselves because "the astronomy" isn't drawing a crowd.
I heard this: kid 1: "Let's go hear Floyd at the planetarium!" kid 2: WTF is a planetarium?" LOL
VimisiDigitalMedia 2 years ago
Planetarium shows? That sounds silly, we have one at my University and it's strictly astronomy, I'm possibly way out of the loop. =)
littlebuffyfreak 2 years ago
I'm glad Pluto isn't a planet anymore. Now Gustav Holst's suite is complete.
chemgirlie 2 years ago
lol
vuduchild74 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Penn has shown himself to be the most opinionated person in the media eye. and he is certainly convinced that he is correct about everything. when you listen to him he sounds like he is preaching.
saladl0ver 2 years ago
the audience should pay for it by buying tickets?
im just saying, thats how movie theatres are paid for.
borderlinebuddhist 3 years ago
planetariums were better when Pluto was a planet.
nazgulpenguin 3 years ago 2
now theyre 1 less exciting
areeweblind 3 years ago
I was completely with him until I realized I don't really know where other education funding comes from or how it's dissipiated. I mean text books, dissections, petri dish incubation projects, etc... I do firstly believe the majority of planetarium education does fall into an entertainment/education group, I"m not sure it's worth killing off completely to say this is a waste of tax dolllars in terms of govt. spending/useless spending.
lataviab 3 years ago
Far too many people deal only in absolutes.
undisputedgreatest 3 years ago
wow man, agree with you pretty hard here. haha.
PaintballOwnager 3 years ago
The old rule always applies: You're funny until you make fun *that thing I care about*
ChrisSketch 3 years ago
Lazer show? Pink Floyd? LAZER SHOW?! What freakin lazer show? Damn I'm too old (younger than Penn). I actually got a lesson about the earth, stars and all the crap! I've been robbed!
Damn that Statue of Limitations
umbrasleeps 3 years ago
Statute* of Limitations you mean, right?
Or was that a play on the big green lady in New York?
ChrisSketch 3 years ago
Penn pisses me off when he disagrees with my position and he makes more sense. Damn you, Penn!
mikeynails 3 years ago
LOL, oxygen? Dude, we're not going to take oxygen, we're going to tax what you exhale after oxygen, its called CO2.
And government funded schools, hmm... I wonder why no body knows their rights... or how to control government... And I also wonder how everyone got the idea that Government should control everything... hhmmm... this is a toughy...
I also wonder why we gave up the idea of private property, you know, seeing as all rights are derived from property... hhmmm...
nope, I got noth'in...
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Anyone seen "Idiocracy"? That is one possible outcome (among many, both positive and negative) of total freedoms. At what point do we stop accepting the choices made by the majority? If the free market decides that clean water and air are worth less than factory made goods, do we simply stand back and let it happen? At the cost of OUR lives and the future of Earth? Today it's planetariums, tomorrow... what? Libraries? Oxygen? Where do we draw the line to protect the "freedoms of the majority"?
jasonleeholm 3 years ago
Just because we don't want the government funding something doesn't mean the "majority" won't pay for it. It's the difference between passing around a hat for charity and asking for money at the point of a gun. But the other problem is that the income tax actually takes money from a minority (the top earners) and has the majority divide it. So right now failed government programs are the fault of the majority, or at least those who claim to act on their behalf.
specialkalpha 3 years ago
@jasonleeholm:
you show how ignorant you are.
1) If most people think clean air and water are not worth, buy a good air filter and purified water
2) " what next: now planetariums tomorrow libraries?"
Most of the books that are worth reading are 5$ at amazon or free @ project gutenberg.
So stop thinking subsidizing lazy union workers at your local library does something good for science.
AlanCom1 3 years ago
Good point about the Floyd. I went to the planetarium oncewhen I was a kid in minneapolis and my sister raved about it the night before, I was rather befuddled simply because I had no idea what a pink floyd was and why he was there. thought she kept referrinbg to the pink muppet in the Dr Teeth band from the muppet show. Proof that the older generations aren't opaying atention. Good work on your channel and much luck to you in future.
themightyboooooooooo 3 years ago
HEY IM CATHOLIC AND IM ALL FOR SCIENCE. I mean for fuck sakes. I believe in the theory of evolution. And I dont believe the events in the bible actually happened.
IbanezJFS 3 years ago
If Americans had the choice to give to science or not, they wouldn't. If businessmen had the choice to build planetarians or not, they wouldn't. (And not just planetarians, any kind of science museums)Those things wouldn't survive long in the commercial market, because businesses tailor themselves to the lowest common denominator.
NecroButcher91 3 years ago
Now, how many people do you know who visit a planetarium with any regularity? Also, how many of these people would go even if it was free? I personally would rather this money go to funding lab materials at local high schools.
MoreAnimalThanMan 3 years ago
That'd be a good idea too, except that public schools aren't exactly a fine example of liberatarian principals in action either. A die hard Libertarian wouldn't support using tax money to fund schools, because they believe in a minimal state and public education is not one of the basic functions of the government. More moderate libertarians might support some form of public education, but the idea itself is at odds with the libertarian philosophy of minimal government and free enterprise.
NecroButcher91 3 years ago
So force them to pay at gunpoint. Hey, at least you admit you hate freedom.
viewitnow 3 years ago
"I want people to give to science because they WANT to give to science, not because they're forced to."
Two key questions:
1. Do we need science? I think that's an obvious yes. An America without science would soon become victims of the rest of the world.
2. Do we trust Americans to freely donate to something they need? One could say the population as a whole isn't smart enough to take care of themselves, but then, the government is just a group of citizens, too...
Damned if we do...
jasonleeholm 3 years ago
If YOU want to go to a Planetarium, YOU should pay to go to one. If enough people gave a shit about them, the free markets would provide them and those who gave a shit WOULD pay. Asking everyone to pay for something because a handful of people thinks its for the greater good is absurd.
steve29h 3 years ago 3
Wtf do plantariaums do? they don't help me in my daily life. Books are better.
Lamnont 3 years ago
It's a place you can take your kids to get them away from Disney movies.
goonie8 3 years ago
I thought that was the park, Library, and school. What happend.
Lamnont 3 years ago
Those, too. But planetariums are also a nice treat. That doesn't mean that we need a government-funded planetarium in every town, though.
goonie8 3 years ago 2
i do agree with you here.
Ninjaculation 3 years ago
you're making the same mistake that McCain is making. The "$1000 hammer" if I know what you're talking about is a special hammer made of special materials needed to work on an airplane. Like the toilet in space, or the coffee pot in the C17, they are all made of special materials and cost a lot. You are misrepresenting things.
But then again, maybe i don't know what you're talking about.
Ninjaculation 3 years ago
I thought McCain was objecting to an overhead projector. The big joke was he confused a planaterium projector with an overhead projector. PS you can tell youve been posting on threads to much when you can self recongnize your straw men.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
Keep the friggin' camera still! It looks like your talking during an earthquake.
jppritcha 3 years ago
I'm not sure which "anti-planetarium" remark you're talking about, Penn. I remember McCain saying that Obama supported funding for a multi million dollar "overhead projector"which later turned out to be a planetarium projector. The problem people have with his remark is that he is misrepresenting what the money was being spent on in the first place.
Ninjaculation 3 years ago
you talk about misrepresenting Mccain's arguments, and then you follow it up by misrepresenting Obama's. I thought better of you.
Ninjaculation 3 years ago 5
Thank you for this video.
jlan12 3 years ago
I use to work in a Planetarium, and it was the most ridiculous job ever. There were 7 of us there each night, when 2 could have handled the job. I just stood around. Also, he's right, most of the stuff at Planetariums isn't science, it's Laser Floyd and astronaut ice cream and silly electric balls.
That being said, when I was in high school I fell in love with science reading Carl Sagan, and I don't think I'd be getting a Ph.D. in math right now without some inspiration. So, who knows?
dylanzwick 3 years ago
Goddamn you Penn!
Pink Floyd and lasers are the backbone of science!
arifreeman 3 years ago 3
I work at a planetarium where we have a Beatles laser show.
We also find the time to teach ACTUAL astronomy, and our audience sees the planetarium as far more unique and exciting than a shitty round movie theatre. Sure some planetariums may be underfunded and understaffed, but we take the time to make our shows interactive, which is essential in separating the experience from that of a movie theatre.
flipperstarkey 3 years ago
Heeeeee... Penn is talking about the Bad Astronomer. I'm sure of it.
I agree with Phil more than Penn on this issue, but it's great they're both highly involved in skeptical circles.
singedrac 3 years ago
Whatever happened to teaching the stuff from planetariums in schools?
Unfortunately, with political issues, people take things WAAAAAAY too far.
Example, if somebody doesn't support the War in Iraw, ANTI AMERICAN!!!
Another example, if somebody doesn't like Obama, RACIST!!!!
People need to just calm down and stop overreacting.
NYG4LIFE123 3 years ago
Penn kicks ass. I don't think the constitution says anything about the funding of planetariums, so theres no authority to allocate money to that type of program, not anti-science.
addfman 3 years ago
So if the Constitution said the government should pay for this, you would agree?
How about forget the Constitution, which is easy to argue against(because, no matter how right it is, it was formulated by inperfect people at a time when slavery was OK), and argue on principle? If you have those principles, of course. Most libertarians for instance don't.
deinse81 3 years ago
Actually, the constitution was designed during a time when slaves weren't people. But the way it was written was ingenious (even if it wasn't intended) that once they were considered people, they would be enveloped into it.
The constitution is very well written, and should be followed more, instead of just having 9 people understand it, everyone should understand and be able to interpret it.
SeraphRyan 3 years ago
The slaves were always people-obviously. Saying otgherwise is a ridiculous mixup between reality and some people's warped view of the world.
In this case the founding father's warped view.
Anyway, I'm not knocking the Constitution, it's great, but you have to constantly remind people of the principles of reason and individualism behind it, you can't just shove it down their throat and expect them to follow it blindly, while evryone preaches socialism and religion.
deinse81 3 years ago
I am not religious, far from it, but I am talking about how it was written in a sense that it can still be interpreted today in the way it should have been. When it was created, Slaves were not considered people, thus didn't apply. During the civil war era, Slaves = 2/3rd of a person (I believe, it was that or 1/3 its late and im at work so can't look it up) even after they were freed, second class citizens. It never means it was right, just how it was taken by those people during that time.
SeraphRyan 3 years ago
"Were not believed to be people" doesn't fly. They were people and they were mistreated. That's all that counts: the fact that the Constitution did not explicitly challenge that belief was wrong.
There is absolute good, and there is absolute evil: It was just as wrong then as it would be today to have slavery.
If you instead go by people's intentions or beliefs, that way you can justify anything: slavery, the Holocaust, Communism, everything.
deinse81 3 years ago
You also shouldn't bother arguing that it was intentionally created to make it possible some day to be open for interpretation: the authors had in fact the chance to interpret it, and they chose to interpret it in favor of slavery. That cannot be called good, no matter how you spin it.
deinse81 3 years ago
I do argue that, because that is how it was, no matter how wrong it was. People teach their children from when they were born to believe in the god they do and the book they read. People in those days taught their children Black people were inferior and were less of a people. Its not justifying their actions, it was the truth as they saw it. I NEVER once said it was how they should do it, nor do I support the actions, but it is fact that they viewed this way, that will not change.
SeraphRyan 3 years ago
Why does it seem that when I am trying to explain a mindset of a misguided group of people during the time, that it seems like people think I support the actions? I even said in my posts, they weren't right. Unfortunately, you can't compare the Holocaust to that either, as it wasn't a "mindset" that was taught to them since they were children, it was an excuse made up, knowing full well it was wrong, so that Nazi's can use their power. Thats a different story then this though.
SeraphRyan 3 years ago
The truth is absolute.
Saying the truth as they saw it is meaningless.
As far as the founding fathers go, I'd say they did see the truth: they saw it in hundreds of years worth of human history and knowledge, both from Ancient Greece and the Western Europe ever since the renaissance.
That much is quite clear, because the Declaration of Ind. and their other writings condense the valuable lessons of those great periods of human history.
deinse81 3 years ago
That is why the Constitution is such a valuable document, because it contains the rational principles of Ancient Greece and the Renaissance Era, and is based entirely on reason. I think those principles of reason and individual rights (contained in the Const.) are the ones which we should argue for, instead of treating a document as if it were the word of God.
Why? Because the Constitution is imperfect, while the principles it's based on are "the truth", and "good", and "right".
deinse81 3 years ago
Penn - don't be so hard on yourself. Im religious. Take it out on me. I love it.
SelfAccountable 3 years ago
I have never been to a planetarium and I am well educated.
M3D1C473 3 years ago
Agreed for the most part...but what's this stuff about if you have a religion then you're anti science? The vast majority of the great scientists were religious. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc. were all inspired to investigate because of their religions.
cowboy4ev2 3 years ago
Those were all people from around 300 to 400 years ago. Galileo was condemned by the church for his science, and Newton quit working on science to write about religion. Besides that look at how opposed religion is to science now, with all the ignorant people hating on evolution, and to a lesser extent, big bang cosmology. I mean name some very prominent scientists now who were led by religion. I dont think the ones you mentioned were driven by religion as much as curiosity.
fauyd 3 years ago
". Besides that look at how opposed religion is to science now" Religion has always been opposed to ideas that refute their teachings. And science has always been vocal, when it comes to refuting religion..
crazykb 3 years ago
Dont forget one thing, one of which that most Religious folks dont acknowledge or tend to "forget"
The person who formulated the idea of the big bang, did so because he was VERY religious, and tried to use this as a view of god being a reality. The person we have to thank for one of the best scientific ideas to come up with, was himself religious. He in essence just disproved the bible in his views, but really was doing it to show that god existed.
SeraphRyan 3 years ago
In the second debate between M&O, McCain claimed Obama spent 3 million in tax money on an "overhead projector.." A few days later I saw a clip of McCain saying he was not at all against science. The comment was meant to be misleading on expenditures not on science. THAT is the McCain that republicans want us all, or enough of us, to vote for. "Not I" said the short lifed fruit fly.
Palin spoke of the fuit fly in like-type snark against expenditures.Idiots show themselves without idiots knowing
humanman65 3 years ago
What a shock. A libertarian doesn't want public funding, or, as they put it, money obtained from rich people via jack-boots holding them down and demanding all their money or they'll rape their kids and roast and eat their grandmother, for planetariums.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
The true indication of a libertarian is that they will not support coercive funding of the programs they LIKE.
CurtHowland 3 years ago 3
...
...
...I believe I have an issue...and it saddens me that I'm having to defend religious folk. But just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're anti-science. It just means that they are inconsistent in their dogma. C'mon...you really think they're not capable of dissembling to the point where their religious nonsense doesn't conflict with science in their heads? I will agree that religion certainly doesn't help...but it doesn't automatically make you anti-science.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago
Anybody who spews nonsense like the earth is 6000 years old is anti science.
qigong1001 3 years ago
Of course it does, but the vast majority of Christians (and probably Jews and Muslims) aren't YEC. I'm not saying it's not an intellectually dishonest position, it is...however they don't see the incongruity. Therefor, they aren't anti-science...they're just being actively ignorant and unable to put courage into their convictions. Fundies make me sick, but at least they have balls...the world is full of weak-willed religious folk who won't even compare science and their beliefs.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago
Look at the Gallup or Pew polls and see yourself what Americans believe. Gallup: Only 13 % believe in natural selection, 45 believe in BIBLICAL CREATIONISM, So its more than you think! Since they REJECT evolution based on fairy tales, that makes them ANTI SCIENCE. Also, there is a difference betwn ignorant and "willfull ignorance" ; they (adults) have made a choice to believe in things that aren't there. As a result, our country is in an educational demise because of them.
qigong1001 3 years ago
Well, it'd be NICE if people volunteered more money towards charity...honestly, there's nothing stopping them now. But unfortunately, most people DON'T. And I'm sorry taxes might take MORE money at gunpoint from rich people who aren't starving than from poor people who are, but I honestly don't see any other solution.
Besides, I've been to that Planetarium, and I say it was worth at LEAST three million.
EvilUncleFrank 3 years ago 2
The pink floyd laser shows were from another generation. They are highly educational and inspiring, NO LASERS. As far as who should fund these things, it makes no sense to ask religous America to fund science; people won't do stuff unless they get something in return. Theres a few private donations anyway.
As for eliminating our tax system, AINT gonna happen. If anyone was powerful enough to do so, they would just replace taxes with"fees" and collect it for themselves.
qigong1001 3 years ago
aaaaa
qigong1001 3 years ago
Statists are corrupt Penn, they don't realise that supporting government is just civic religion, these 'skeptics' won't apply the same skepticism to their own irrational political delusions. Sure they'll say god is an irrational belief, yet somehow voting (a bizarre superstitious ritual) for pathological liars (politicians/priests) to head a giant criminal mafia based upon theft & violence (government) to solve social problems - is perfectly rational behaviour! Government = religion. Same crap.
lukeev 3 years ago
More government funding for planetariums. Then we will have SUPER HI DEFINITION LASER FLOYD!!!
yiminy4567 3 years ago 2
ummmm....how about fossils?
you are obviously no argument for evolution...that's for sure.
hah!
ccieboy 3 years ago
if it can help the world why not do it or pay for it to be done
soulrisk1010 3 years ago
Fuck planetariums. Take a field trip 100 miles outside of a city. It'll blow your mind. Unless you're on acid. Then go to a planetarium.
raunchbear 3 years ago 3
Yes, not paying for science does not = anti-science!
But, the NSF and the NIH are, by far, the biggest contributors to most of the research in most fields of science.
In any case, since McCain has never blatantly said that he is cutting funding for research (sorry if that was ignorant).
If he had said that he would reduce government funding, he values other things more than the progress of science in the US (but not science itself). Also, even that would not make him "anti-science."
theRealCrazyOne 3 years ago
Laser Floyd just helps pay for the planetarium, just like the gift shop with the galaxy-"You Are Here" T-shirt.
Of course, you knew that!
cliffwalkinfool 3 years ago
Thanks for clarifying the difference between being against science, and being against government funding of! 99% of arguments against fiscal conservatives are misconstrude witch-hunts instead of evaluating the pros and cons of government funding and over-taxing for projects that would do a heck of alot better if they were privately supported!
P.S.-Took my 1st grade students to a planetarium. They went in expecting planets & stars...came out horrified by Dr. Demento's "Fish Heads"!!
fire4yaweh 3 years ago
what a moron...is this guy drunk?
how the f**k does he know what grampy mcsame or obama think....did he talk to them directly?
hah!
stick to the card tricks...that's obviously your extent of your expertise!
ccieboy 3 years ago
He has some pretty good stuff. Look up "Bullshit".
raunchbear 3 years ago
It IS you, Penn. :P
I fuckin' loved your radio show and love to cheer you on about the government, but to me there comes a time where you have to make a realistic, over-simplified choice:
Planetariums or bombs?
Napstrpsx 3 years ago
Why is that a choice that needs to be made? "Neither" IS an option.
Thevideosucks 3 years ago
You're right. It's you.
darkbeach72 3 years ago
I have been listening to your playlist. Now that I watch I see what you are doing. Your hands make a lot of noise when you talk and it is detracts from an otherwise well crafted and interesting take on the human experience. Don't change for me just thought I would share... :•)
AerocK 3 years ago
If Penn was running for president, I'd vote.
antiemofool 3 years ago
The planetariums would serve as a more effectual form of social mobility for these welfare masses than a few magic tricks and charitable publicity events.
Oddefellowe 3 years ago
My problem with McCain isn't that he opposes "science" but that he's a hypocrite. He made a point about this planetarium thing as part of his "anti-pork barrel" stance. Why? Because he had to give up his "anti-bear DNA" story when he found that he'd actually voted for it.
Meanwhile, he's gone to Florida to support a MANNED MISSION TO MARS -- the biggest lump of pork in the history of the world. It'll run 300 Billion in the end for no more than unmanned probes can teach us for 1/100 the cost.
prodprod 3 years ago
Wow!! I'd never think I'd be agreeing with Penn, atleast most of what he mentioned. However, I am a Christian, and I'm deeply in love with Science. I don't think Planetariums are important (people can download and install a free software on their computers that is actually better). I think America needs specialized schools of science, more funding to NASA, cartoons developed around science, and tax breaks for companies that fund programs that bring science to schools and the general public.
tulsaguy1974 3 years ago
Your friend has a flawed logic, yes, but you have a flawed rebuttal. McCain was against spending money on a "3 million dollar projector". McCain was marginalizing a large Space projection system down to an office project which usually fetches for $800. This was an attempt to show Obama was for wasteful government spending.
hackajar 3 years ago
small minded idiot. I'm a Catholic, but very scientific. I am a physician and have a Ph.D.
DrUrsus 3 years ago
lolollolol catholic and science in the same sentence. wheres the science supporting that god exists, or that eating wafers makes an imaginary man happy?
antiemofool 3 years ago
Where is the science supporting evolution? There is none yet it is forced down our throats worse than religion! ha
flores9 3 years ago
No science supporting evolution? How about any book on biology? Grow a fucking brain, then maybe you could learn to read, douchebag
mostritegod 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
show me some fucking proof on evolution idiot....there is none. Your a fuckin moron....and look like one too from your profile picture. what a tool....keep believing the lies you're being force-fed bitch!
flores9 3 years ago
There's no proof of evolution...except all the fossils, dna, multiple types of radiometric dating, geological evidence, feathered dinosaurs evolving into bird, and we've watched it in the present with multicellular ring species and bacteria and viruses. But there is no evidence.
lordcheetah 3 years ago
I'm starting to think Penn is not an atheist as he claims but simply an anti-theist in that he hates anyone who doesn't follow his (anti religion). In a sense he's more intolerant than some of the people he bashes. Seriously if I bashed someone for being a muslim everyone would freak but it's ok if Mr. Atheist does?
That said I would like to know where I can go see a laser Zepplin or Floyd show! So long as it isn't taxpayer funded that is.
Ozbrithian 3 years ago
Sometimes I think that Penn is full of himself more than he actually believes all of the stuff that he talks about.
jnazari 3 years ago
I obviously can't speak for him...but I would guess he wouldn't object to the term anti-theist. All anti-theism is is so-called "strong atheism" which is the active belief that there is no god/gods as opposed to true atheism (or weak atheism as it's called) where all you have is a disbelief. One is a passive view, one is an assertive view.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago
Interesting video...but you may want to pick up a tripod ;)
slammywinner2 3 years ago
What was Obama thinking? The majority of society either doesn't have the time, money or inclination to subject their children to planetariums. That's what schools, TV and field trips are for. To keeps children out of their parents hair.
Someone needs to set this guy straight on edu.
Didn't the Catholic church fund a lot of science back in the day? Can you imagine an old school planetarium with flat planets and God's and Saints sitting in a little gated community in the sky? Oh I can.
highchic 3 years ago
Um, my school took me on a trip to the Planetarium you speak of when I was in 2nd grade.
hackajar 3 years ago
it was for a fucking projector IN the planetarium you cunt.
blacky156 3 years ago
Penns a pseudo-intellectual idiot. Only simple minded people make statements like 'Catholics are anti-science' etc.
No wonder he's upset about the election; he's made broad generalizations of each politician (based on religion) and is now upset because his narrow minded assumptions have left him in a corner. None of the candidates have labeled themselves with his right label (anti-religious atheist) so theyre all idiots.
Hes more a fundamentalist than any of the politicians.
badbuddhist 3 years ago
your views intrigue me. do you have a pamphlet i could subscribe to?
er3L 3 years ago
Whoa there Penn! Don't assume all Catholics are anti science. I'm a Catholic and I am not anti science. I understand Penn is an atheist and that's fine. Not all religions put down science. The Catholic church, for example, produces some excellent scientists. And we learned 400 years ago that supressing scientific thought leads to bad things (the whole Galileo trial didn't go so well for us in the end).....So There!!
Ssider 3 years ago
I would say sir/ma'am, you are wrong. Science by definition deals with a naturalistic view. In other words, scientist's go forth to explain natural events. Religion(all religion's) seek to explain natural events with supernatural explanations.
TILLEYJS 3 years ago
Tilleys;
You are wrong about this. True about science, not true about religion. Don't confuse Bible thumpers with all religious people. Thinking people who subscribe to a religion do not question scientific evidence. For example, if I get sick I go to a doctor, not Lourdes. However, when I have a moral decision to make that has no answer in science that is when I use religion as a context.
Ssider 3 years ago
I think Jillette just found his next Bullshit episode: "IS LASER FLOYD ACTUALLY SCIENCE EDUCATION?"
Recently I inadvertently started a heated debate about the movie Religulous, and have come to the decision that both religious zealots and energized atheists annoy me. Also, anyone who proactively disses my opinion in favor of their own. Believer. Nonbeliever. Skeptic. Non-Skeptic. Pretty much everybody pisses me off now.
Penn, please namedrop so we know who you're talking about. kthxby!
ZachsMind 3 years ago
i agree with you !
bill maher annoys me !
anyone who proactively disses my opinion in favor of their own.
good statement !
VOLVERHURTS 3 years ago
Catholics are not anti-science. They even accept evolution as "god's" creation system.
Also check out Monsignor Georges Lemaître
oldsocks68 3 years ago
I feel you on the Skeptic thing. I myself am an avid skeptic, but I just don't think the solution is using force to educate people about it. Collectivism has nothing to do with Skepticism!
Seansafk 3 years ago 2
Yeah, 'cause there were no astronomers before planetariums. I've been to a few laser shows. So, why not take my money for Laser Beatles (which does exist) and use that to fund the educational shows? Foolish? Fine. I can choose to be a fool or not by paying for the ticket...or not.
dangerics 3 years ago
Catholics accept evolution theory.
painting 3 years ago
your not alone
ryanmail2004 3 years ago
Straw man! False Dichotomy! So you understand fallacies - here's one for you: RED HERRING!
mjohnst 3 years ago
A planetarium is nice but going outside at night and looking up at the stars ain't so bad either.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
Very clever people can rationalise very stupid things to themselves. Scientists are amongst the worst offenders as some believe the objectivity and rationality of science applies to individual scientists. Not so, scientists are humans first and have prejudices and bias like anyone else.
I enjoy Bad Astronomy for science and skepticism but on politics Phil (plus some vocal cheerleaders) have blinkered advocacy for the Democrats. It isn't you Penn, I had the same thoughts on reading that post.
madsprinter 3 years ago
Whether or not planetariums are great right now, they were conceived with a pretty cool purpose that could be re-realized. How about govt. support of planetariums that have a format of a min. of 80% cool science. Introducing kids to science as a bitchin' show is a program I would happily open my wallet for.
As for the politics, both candidates say they think that education is important, but I think O'Bama has stated a better position on improving American education and science.
Noz4ah2 3 years ago
Why hasn't anyone brought up Rev. Jeremiah Wright lately? With YOUR minister expounding such HATE, That has to be a big point in this election. If you sit passively in a pew while your minister, that married you AND baptized YOUR children, goes on with such lack of regard for others and hatred coming out of his mouth, THAT is freaking incredible. I really don't like McCain, but are we ready to elect this guy, the most inexperienced candidate ever, as leader of the free world? NOBAMA.
Theo80126 3 years ago
Obama is not anti-science, he has said that Math and Science need to be taught and wants to focus on education so we can compete. The government did not even fund the projector. BTW Penn, you need to take a trip back to Griffith Observatory, they do not have the Pink Floyd or Beatle show anymore, they teach about the planet and the Big Bang. It's a good show, go see it. They even touch on the fact that religions started because of sun worship.
Goddesscat 3 years ago
The blog entry Pen is referring to has been reposted. Search: Repost: McCains planetariophobia @ google.
VeiledHeathen 3 years ago
wow Penn. Are you finally realizing Skepticology is a cult with more dogma than a church?
There may be hope for you yet :)
downloadmagic 3 years ago
I doubt everything you just said.
wanderingskeptic 3 years ago
Eww penn is sharing his political views...lost respect.
Thalje 3 years ago
well he's apparently pretty good at it since he has an emmy award winning show about his political views. Why do you listen if you don't want to hear?
cruzander 3 years ago
Way to go Penn! You need to remind people that arguments are best if presented with logic, not wild jumps to accusation.
You may be a Libertarian, but I love you. Come to think of it, maybe that's why...
thegingerofages 3 years ago
I HATE HOW PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THINK THAT PARIS HILTON AND BRITNEY SPEARS GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE IS NEWS-WORTHY!!
i HATE RAP MUSIC THAT DEGRADES WOMEN!!
I HATE POLITICIANS WHO LOVE TO STEAL AND ABUSE THEIR POSITION OF POWER!!
I HATE CRIMINALS!
I HATE LIARS!
lestersggirl 3 years ago
With all the money you have I would think you could get a better camera and make your videos with better quality....
anyways, I HATE the government!
I HATE POLITICIANS!!
IHATE TAXES!!
I HATE WAR!!
I HATE ABORTION!!
I HATE IMMORAL HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS WHO ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!!
I HATE RACIST BLACK PEOPLE WHO CONSTANTLY POINT THE FINGER AT WHITES AND CALL THEM RACIST!!
I HATE HOW IT IS ALMOST ILLEGAL TO DISCIPLINE YOUR KIDS IN THIS COUNTRY!!
lestersggirl 3 years ago
Penn, charity usually has an ulterior motive - "we'll feed you if you worship our God". Tax is used by democratically elected representatives of the people. If you don't like them you can CHOOSE to vote them out.
jinkies82 3 years ago
I'll go further and say that I don't want to ever visit a government planetarium. It's for the same reason that no one wants government-cheese. Government funds come with bureaucracy , which will make it suck. I'll also never buy another "American" car (most are Mexican made now), because they get HUGE subsidies from the government. They are cheaper than a Toyota, but that's because I've