who cares? these pageants are lame anyway and if Penn judged acording to the rules thats great and he has a right to say whatever the fuck he wants about it, you dont have to accept it and you dont have a right to never be offended.
"Fuck her?" You could have handled that more professionally. Who do you think you are, Penn, Christian Bale? I think you got the responses you deserved.
That was great, he's 100% right, no religion should be held above the gov't. The Bill of Rights is the most brilliant social contract of all time. The Koran was form God *made up.*. The sad things is people still buy this line of horseshit because it happened 1300 years ago instead of yesterday. If she can't vocalize her opinion in an adult manner this woman shouldn't have won. Oh, and Penn is fat, old, and ugly. See I made sure to throw it in their at the end.
I feel that Mr. Jillette was correct. A person competing to be Miss USA should support the Bill of Rights. She is competing to represent our nation as a whole to the international community. As such, i have problems backing someone who does not back our nations beliefs.
As a side note...Screw the Koran, it just more religious bullshit.
@MortisCityHC Which is reason to publicly say "Fuck Her" to a 19 year old girl who expressed an opinion you disagreed with while acting as an official judge at an event? BS. He judged her fine and I would have agreed. The public rudeness afterwards was unprofessional and lacking class. If you're gonna behave like that, don't be surprised if people push back.
Penn should NOT ever be allowed to judge a pageant again. Penn judged Miss TN on the basis that he did not agree with her answer. A proper judge will make a decision on how well they answer the question...not on rather the judge agrees with their personal beliefs. He did a horrible job and should be banned as a judge from any and all pageant. Stick with your little magic act, Mister, and dissappear!
@DentonGraham5 Sure I'll bite the bait. Anywho, he stated clearly multiple times that he did not judge on that fact. He judged precisely to the rules of judging and simply made a comment later which he is again aloud to do.
wtf is this free speech garbage. You buy a bible, koran, or flag and its yours to do whatever you want. This is a private property matter. And why the hell is my web browser telling me to put an uppercase k on koran but not on the bible? christian muslim And here it's telling me to capitalize muslim but not christian. wtf mozilla
Little factoid, as I recall the average age in the US in 1900 was 21 and today its 39. In other words, we tend to forget that until this last century history was made by "children". My point is that sure she's only 21, but putting this is a historical context, people were running countries at 21. She's should be an adult and not a prolonged child.
I like how Penn was explaining his point so eloquently on why he disagrees with her answer and then they post the tweet that caused this whole commotion, LOL! Well yeah, if you write something that says "Fuck Her" of course you're gonna get a strong reaction.
That was a loaded fkucking question. It's so improperly posed that you almost CAN'T give a correct answer. It's like gameshow questions they slant to get rid of participants they don't want....
This is a possible previous when responding to that question, "I can not truthfully talk about the koran because it could endanger my life, but I can comment on the the burning of other religious article".
I don't think that either burning flags or burning religious texts should fall under freedom of speech, because neither of them are speech. I think they should fall under freedom of expression, which should fall under unalienable rights.
Miss America pageant? Really? My heart is a little broken. However, what kind of answers would you expect from anyone who wants to be judged on their appearances? Try as you may, you can't cover up that the M.A.P started off as a beauty pageant, and the questionnaire was a way to fend off the ravenous feminists in the 60's, and to try and save ratings. It's a about as good of a cover up as a murder who kicked a little dirt on the corpse but talked to the cops with blood still on his hands.
Penn is right. I was a first amendment supporter before I was ever 21 years old. Anyone who had an education in school should know how they want to answer Penn's question. Miss TN seems to have known what SHE thought about the issue and answered accordingly. People ridicule the questions asked at pageants as they are too soft and answers given are dumb. Penn upped the ante and look how some people have reacted...................
im really getting sick of this religious crap wars fought over it people killed beat or disowned fuckin bullshit. fuck if there is a god i hate the bastard if he is all powerful and can do anything then fuckin change this shit come down here make it clear what you want and put it on a huge tablet in every human settlement. oh wait he cant cause hes not real stupid sheeple. i cannot believe they asked penn to judge these girls and he did and now people are upset at his opinion. penn 4 president!
I think people should have the right to burn the Quran...not that I think it's a good thing to do as it's very offensive...but still I think one should have the right.
@ProudAtheist90 I second that.... There is nor shall there ever exist a law against doing something that is offensive to others ( Unless you offend someone with a very expensive lawyer. ).
Pageantry in this caliber have more ethics required than normal ones. Even a person's way of thinking has its own beauty in it and is included in the Miss USA. If your going to be in it, know what it 'really" means to be an American, with knowning all the states, and the Constitution and its Amendments' factual meaning.
I agree with Penn here and i just fear the things our forefathers fear; Ideological, ignorant, stupid, egocentric people who acts before thinking. Thats a different thing thou
Beauty isn't just looking like a barbie doll, beauty lies far deeper than that, like a fruit the healthier the inside is the better the outside looks and I find my neighbor who gets a kick out of talking about ideas and politics and religion and books and arts far hotter than a girl who can't name the 50 states. Then again I find a girl who's a size 3 hotter than one who's size 9 and is really smart... Beauty is judged on more than looks and more than personality even pageants know that.
Titties, dicks, porno, and a crucifix in a jar of piss - all (gratuitous/stupid) "protected speech" even though they say nothing more than "here is something to spank to, throw up by."
So when someone is making an assertive symbolic statement of (actual) meaning - such as "fuck your religion/country/flag" if it offends (especially) it's important free speech, and is off limits to any asshole who wants to ban it. (even though some things on that list piss me off too).
I agree with you Penn..."Miss USA" is a rep for all american women and a role model for American women everywhere. I would want my daughters looking up to someone that respects the constitution that all Americans adhere to rather than some slutty, dumb, bimbo in a bikini.
But stating that you were "glad to help her loose" might have been a little harsh, on a rhetorical level that is. The rhetoric was a little hard, and as an official judge it would probably have been wiser to simply not comment on it.
But hey, that's just my opinion, and of course people should be able to burn as many Qurans as they damn well please!!
I think my only question is, "Why the hell were you even involved in something like a beauty pageant?" It seems like such a shallow, intellectually-void environment to even be discussing.
What?!? Penn tried to bring honesty into a beauty pageant? That's like stopping crime in Congress, the people involved just don't understand what you are trying to do!
Penn, You get the dumb ass responses because people are brain washed at an age where they have no logical defense. Believing in any religion is an irrational act and these people have irrationality as a template for thought. It is not something that just turns on and off.
I'm a bit confused. Tell me if I'm wrong but the question was something like "Should the burning of religious texts be protected such as the burning of the flag". She answered no, as would I. I don't think religious texts should be protected in any way. They are just books and they are printed in the millions. Sure it might be offensive to someone to burn them but it doesn't hurt anyone and it doesn't remove the ideas the books contain.
@Grymyrk yeah, Penn is being confusing. If you search on youtube for the full video, she makes it clear that she answered "No, to not allow people to burn religious texts". I feel that she answered the question poorly, as it appeared she lost her composure a bit when answering, hence her answer was a bit off target of the question.
Strictly my opinion, but the only problem that I had with Penn's tweet (which I knew nothing about until this video blog) was that I thought it was rude.
I don't get why Penn is being blamed for doing something wrong if he was just following the rules. If people don't like the rules, then they should take their complaint(s) to the competition, not a particular judge who followed those rules.
@pennpoint.. Fuck em all. They know they are going to be asked questions like these. They are supposed to be representing the country. If they don't want to face the hard questions, then get the fuck out of the competition.
I was utterly disappointed and felt like killing myself after hearing what the supposedly most attractive women in my country of my generation "think" politically. Doesn't really matter to Penn, you won't be alive when what they say it widely believed and actually put into law.
As a Christian I am appalled when someone burns the Q'ran or the Bible or any other religious text, as a patriot I am appalled when people burn the flag in protest, but also as an American with a deep appreciation of the 1st amendment I recognize that such acts as burning the flag or religious texts are protected for good reason. I think that Pen judged correctly based on the rules of the contest.
Perhaps his tweet was a bit crass, but so what? That is protected speech as well.
@RationalRoundtable I think this comment sums up exactly what Penn was saying. His tweet was crass, agreed, but it wasn't inaccurate as some of the comments here would like you to believe.
On a separate note:
A 21 year old is not a GIRL at that point she is a woman. Obviously maturity levels vary but this is true for any age and sex.
@pennpointBut isn't allowing religious matter to be destroyed implying that there are no consequences to religious bigotry? If so then that fails to protect the religious freedoms of others. The First Amendment IS the "law" in place to prevent that, to my interpretation. Again the question is right there in the video, shown being delivered with neolithic incompetence. I didn't get the specifics of what he asked her for a couple minutes, I can't imagine being put on the spot like that.
@fieldninjai The constitution doesn't guarantee that religions will be protected by the government; it states that religion will not be established or prohibited by the government. The US has no obligation to stop religious bigotry in individual citizens; we all have the right to be bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. if we choose to be. The only thing the government should be preventing us from burning is other PEOPLE, not books.
@fieldninjai So burning a religious text prevents that religions freedom? Does burning a harry potter book prevent the freedom of a potter fan to read, or speak of the book? No. More so now than in any other point in time, information is all around us. I could copy a book thousands of times in mere seconds from a digital source, and delete them even faster. Or destroy the media it was saved on physically. That book is still contained all over the place digitally, no matter what I do.
When I read the tweet Penn wrote that night, I couldn't find the footage I needed of Miss Tennessee to find out exactly what had happened, but knowing Penn I deduced she must have advocated banning the burning of korans. I wished I could have done my part to help her lose, too, but at least she did lose. For her own sake, I hope Miss TN takes some time to brush up on her citizenship and civics.
@DrakIems I think he did answer this in another video; sadly, Bullshit isn't being renewed for a ninth season. It's a shame, because I can think of about 3 seasons worth of stuff they could cover...
I share your feelings of being appalled Penn. I'm also a veteran of 6 years, and think people should be able to burn the US if they want. The whole pageant scene is pretty ridicules in itself, and I don’t derive that opinion because I’m ugly. Celebrations that reinforce vanity are just ugly.
As a side note, I loved E5 of ‘Fool Us’. The performers where OUTSTANDING, and your nail gun act @ the end, INCREDIBLE. Your P&T show in Vegas is on my bucket list. I want to see more P&T content!
@DrakIems You rock, that pretty much wrapped up the whole issue on all fronts.
"I'm also a veteran of 6 years, and think people should be able to burn the US if they want. The whole pageant scene is pretty ridicules in itself, and I don’t derive that opinion because I’m ugly. Celebrations that reinforce vanity are just ugly." - Draklems
@pennpoint So hey penn, I'm one of the two dislikes. Now I normally think you're pretty intelligent and upright, but I feel you've got this thing all fucked up. I duno what the context is, but to me, that question was not whether or not the Quran is more important than the constitution. It was worded terribly, but it seems to me, and probably to TN Durham as well, that the question was should the First Amendment protect the Quran. Burning is not speech, it is destruction to prove a point.
The question is right there in the video. He asking if burning any religious article should be protected by the first amendment. And she said no. While it may be that she misunderstood the question in the same way that you misunderstood the question, her answer equates to saying that burning a religious article should not be protected by the first amendment. In other words, it can be outlawed. A position that, when stripped of all emotion, is anti-American (in the true sense.)
@ParadisePete But isn't allowing religious matter to be destroyed implying that there are no consequences to religious bigotry? If so then that fails to protect the religious freedoms of others. The First Amendment IS the "law" in place to prevent that, to my interpretation. Again the question is right there in the video, shown being delivered with neolithic incompetence. I didn't get the specifics of what he asked her for a couple minutes, I can't imagine being put on the spot like that.
No, it's implying that the freedoms of the first amendment are more important. It's easy to protect speech that does not offend - but outlawing what's "offensive" is the same as not actually having free speech. Would you rather rewrite it to say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, unless of course it's bothersome."?
@Koss42 although what I mean to say is that it is destruction of speech mediums to prove a point. and not to play the fear card or anything, please take this as intented, but "destruction to prove a point" is more mean of terrorism. I would be hesitant to say that the Oklahoma City bombing was an act of free speech.
@fieldninjai Right, because bombing government buildings and killing people in an act of terrorism is exactly equal and equivalent to burning a book or flag. Not even to the extent of trying to erradicate all of those books, or all of those flags. Simply a single one.
"'destruction to prove a point' is more mean of terrorism" Oh, war has destruction to prove a point. Are the Allies in WWII terrorists now? I mean, they were obviously not trying to protect anything like freedom, or a way of life.
@Koss42 its not equivalent but it runs in the same vein. do you feel that people should be allowed to burn the american flag? I suppose its a matter of the difference between destroying something that belongs to you and something which does not so you definitely have a god point. So I guess as long as you OWN the things, you can burn all the flags and religious books you like.
@Koss42 The way I feel about it is that destruction of something which is not yours to destroy, i.e. a person, place, or thing (nouns) is wrong. Religion is the 4th kind of noun, an idea. Trying to destroy an idea is what I object to, that's all.
@fieldninjai 1. You can't destroy idea's. More so now than ever with information technology.
2. Even religious people disrespect other peoples religion all the time. They are actually the usual offenders.
3. I don't care what you think is wrong or right. That includes everything until the limits of physical injury/assault, or limiting of our freedoms spelt out by our bill of rights and constitution (for law makers).
4. You can defend yourselves in war but never retaliate, but ending the war.
@Koss42 Limited space made me accidently cut out part of #3 and #4 by accident.
3. Freedom of speech isn't about letting someone only speak if you agree with their message. It is important to protect even those which you disagree. I don't care about your opinions, but I rather have them heard then to never hear them in public. I don't like book or flag burning but America and Ideals are stronger than their materalistic symbols. Some of my limits are physical threat/assault and owners property.
@Koss42 #4 Winning a war doesn't always require tactical advantage in order to exploit it over your enemy. If you defend yourselves to the very brink of your attackers willpower to fight you win. Without ever retaliation or exploiting a tactical advantage.
My point was, The Allies got their point across to the Axis by fighting back tooth and nail. It involved destruction, but the message was still sent.
Either way, your argument was that of a false equivalency.
More so with the Japanese then anything really. Those a-bombs made a point by killing and destroying. Those two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not essential tactical millitary targets, there was no tactical advantage to exploit against the japanese war machine.
As they say, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In the American Revolution, we were rebels committing treason. Just an example.
@fieldninjai You are strawmaning my argument. I never said because religious people do it, it is okay. I also never said things are only ethical because of little rule in a law book.
If you are not going to address what I am actually saying, then we are just talking past one another.
1. Its silly to try and destroy an idea. The Information age has made it impossible now. Also, just because someone is burning it does not mean their message is eliminating the idea.
3. Freedom of speech isn't about letting someone only speak if you agree with their message. It is important to protect even those which you disagree. I don't care about your opinions, but I rather have them heard then to never hear them in public. I don't like book or flag burning but America and Ideals are stronger than their materalistic symbols. Some of my limits are physical threat/assault and owners property.
4. Winning a war doesn't always require tactical advantage in order to exploit it over your enemy. If you defend yourselves to the very brink of your attackers willpower to fight you win. Without ever retaliation or exploiting a tactical advantage.
My point was, The Allies got their point across to the Axis by fighting back tooth and nail. It involved destruction, but the message was still sent.
Either way, your argument was that of a false equivalency.
More so with the Japanese then anything really. Those a-bombs made a point by killing and destroying. Those two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not essential tactical millitary targets, there was no tactical advantage to exploit against the japanese war machine.
As they say, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In the American Revolution, we were rebels committing treason. Just an example.
@fieldninjai Thank you. And in all honesty, I can see your point. I use to want to stop book burning in the past even.
But even though I don't want to defend say the West borough baptist church, or the preacher that burned the koran recently. But the avenue in which they announce those ideas are unregulated for a reason. You can look at it being simply a tool that can be used. Sometimes tools are used intelligently, sometimes they are not. Preventing one is to prevent the other.
@fieldninjai Yeah that is a good point of his. I think to someone outside the whole freedom experience, it would look silly to see all these protestors at a funeral. And to see counter protests to those protests. And how we choose not to force it all away. And really, it is a silly thing. But there might one day be an unforeseeable reason to protest a funeral.
What that good reason to do so would be? I don't know. There may not be one. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Maybe if he had been a bit more polite in his tweet he wouldn't have gotten such a negative response. Glad to help her lose. Fuck her. ??? Lol, and he wonders why people responded poorly? Sure, that's just his style, but people still get mad about that sort of thing.
My sympathy and patience goes out the window when people act really stupid, so I don't much care for her. Besides, if asking and answering those questions is part of the competition, then all the better that Penn judged her in a thoughtful and fair way - by condemning her idiotic position.
I dont see anything wrong with voting against her cause he didnt like her answers. If we shouldnt judge the girls on what they say, we shouldnt ask the questions.
21 year old Americans have had the ability to vote for 3-4 years. Yes, they should know basic politics, because their decisions can dictate what the government forces us to do/not do. Yes, they should be held accountable for any ignorant, stupid or offensive things they say on national/global television, because they're old enough to know what the consequences would be. If it's 'just a beauty contest', then don't ask them political questions during it. Duh.
I agree with Penn wholeheartedly on this one -- if it's "just a beauty contest" then why the fuck do they even ask them any questions at all? What does beauty have to do with said contestants political and moral opinions about societal issues?
Ron Paul has some great political ideas and I don't see him being "Mr. USA" any time soon..he is sexy tho! Like it or not, if you tack the name "USA" on to their title -- they should represent the things our country stands for -- like freedom of speech.
i) I disagree with her, but I do think that it's a rather weak point that Penn brings up at 3:15 where he says that one should support the 'american values' if one is representing the USA, the implication seemingly [to me] being that one should do this even if they don't share the aforementioned values. This suggested self-censorship, ironically and hypocritically, appears to go against the said values...
@ExEverest10 The implication isn't that one should be hypocritical. The implication is that some values are right, and others are wrong, and that the 'American values' Penn is talking about belong to the first category. So, if someone doesn't share them, that person is wrong, and he should adopt the right values instead of clinging to his own, wrong ones. And then he should openly support these newly adopted, right values.
That's unless you believe there's no such thing as right and wrong.
@deinse81 I'll examine the specific wording that has me cross; 'if you're going to go for miss USA, you should support the constitution and the amendments, to a certain degree'. You 'should', regardless of whether you agree or disagree. I'm not sure whether that was a slip of the tongue, for all I know it was, but as a distinct point, I find it quite hypocritical. The implication that freedom is right and censorship is wrong is there all along, but that wasn't what I was addressing.
@deinse81 There also seems to be an undertone of censor-like tendencies within your response too; since we are fallible people, our perception of right and wrong isn't absolute or infallible, therefore the freedom of speech and the 'marketplace of ideas'; this freedom extends to all aspects of human existence, including the notion that freedom of speech isn't desirable.
@deinse81 The notion that humans can know which values are right and wrong, and that those who don't share one group's 'right' values should adopt them regardless, seems opposite to freedom of speech, no?
@ExEverest10 Penn's criticism is not "opposite to freedom of speech." He isn't suggesting that a law be passed preventing her from speaking; he's just saying she is wrong for suggesting that a law should abridge free speech. She is affirming an unconstitutional policy, but Penn is affirming the 1st Amendment. I don't think it is hypocritcal, because she is not consciously dissenting from a policy she thinks is wrong in itself, she is just inconsistant. She wants religion to be a special case.
@quaternio Please revisit my exchange, I believe you missed my points entirely; I was replying to the initial replier's implication, not what Penn's criticism was [at least in my 'opposite to freedom of speech' sentiment; it is the same criticism I had of the point made by Penn which I disagree with, so I understand the confusion]. I was suggesting that Penn and the person who replied to me initially were hypocrites, not that this contender was one [she might be, I haven't assessed her yet].
@quaternio I was neither at odds with [what I understand to be] the main thrust of this 'penn point', I agree with it; I had a problem with a single criticism made by Penn, which I thought hypocritical. To re-iterate, he said that one *should* support freedom of speech if one's running for Miss USA, which is, imo, opposite to the 'freedom of speech'.
@ExEverest10 Saying "stop burning my Bible" is an act of free speech. But saying "I will pass a law that will prevent you from burning my Bible" is a different thing all together. It isn't a free speech act that we are talking about in this latter case; it is a legislative act. For that reason, Penn is not being either inconsistent or hypocritical.
Penn isn''t criticizing her for speaking. He is criticizing her for her suggestion of legislation, which is a VERY different thing.
@quaternio FFS, are my writings so difficult to read? Am I this great sophist whose arguments mean 10 different things to 10 different people? I said that an argument that one 'should' support the american values simply because on is running for miss USA is hypocritical in regards to the aforementioned values themselves [if the speaker holds these values, that is].
@ExEverest10 And you just used the sentence "I don't follow; what's the significance of the term". You seem like the sort of person who never uses a short word when a long word will do. Your comments are very awkwardly phrased.
@OscarApollo I try to use 'long' words because they're typically more specific, and try to use a sentence structure that will allow for the maximum specificty. I could've written 'what do you mean?', but that would be quite general and open-ended. What I wrote narrowed it down to a single term, and point of contention; much better than relying on the reader to read between the lines, I feel.
@ExEverest10 Short words can't be specific? Or, since I'm talking to you, should I say, "Words of extended brevity lack the capability to effectively communicate the intended meaning chosen and specified by their author, who in this case is the politically inept murderer of prose, ExEverest10"?
@OscarApollo *facepalm* [there's a short word for you that I find quite specific, btw] Please re-read what I said again; "I try to use 'long' words because they're typically more specific" Notice the adjective [?] 'typically'? I never said that short words 'can't' be specific, and I challenge you to find me a sentence where I did. Just they tend not to be as specific as the 'longer' words [at least in my experience].
@ExEverest10 I see from your favourite videos that you're a fan of Stephen Fry. Okay. I can roll with that. Read Stephen Fry's wonderfully well-written autobiography, and take note of how he only uses long words when they're fucking necessary. That's because he's not a pretentious poseur and he doesn't have any weak-spirited political views to hide behind a massive wall of text. Don't use long words to make yourself seem smart. It doesn't work. Especially if you make up words like "writings".
a. Meaningful letters or characters that constitute readable matter.
b. A written work, especially a literary composition.'
That definition is quite different from what I wrote, so if you are making that criticism, I agree with it; but I didn't make this word up, not to my knowledge.
@ExEverest10 OK, now read Henry David Thoreau's books. Thoreau was a kick-ass political theorist who was an inspiration to the likes of Gandhi (although, if you've watched Penn's show, you'll know that Gandhi was a little on the bullshit side). Despite that, he liked big words too much and as a result he has a very dry, characterless prose style. That's what you're putting people through when you write comments like that. CUT IT OUT.
@OscarApollo *Sigh*, so difficult to get people to admit their mistakes. As for the rest; sorry that you don't like my style of writing, nobody is forcing you to read it. Also, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't command me to change my style of writing simply because you don't like it; have some humility. And don't speak for the 'people', nobody elected you and nor did you, I assume, ask the majority of the english-speaking population how they felt about my style of writing.
@OscarApollo [P.S. I am not consciously aware of any desire to 'sound smart'; 'pretentious poseur' is tautologous, and I challenge you to substantiate that accusation; and how is my political view that criticizes both parties within a dispute 'weak-spirited' [this is the same view that I've been defending for the last 2hrs from 4 (?) parties]]?
@Oscar Also, you can see no such a thing; I'm not a fan of Stephen Fry, I think he's highly over-rated. I have a single video of a show that he happens to be the host of, which also contains other co-hosts, and which includes a humorous exchange between the aforementioned people. If that's the yardstick of fandom [in the sense of fanaticism; now this is a word that I don't think exists, but should], I wonder what you would call someone with the nickname 'FryFan' with 200 videos of Fry uploaded.
@ExEverest10 I think you are splitting hairs to be contrary. I understand your point just fine. But pretending that her suggestion–that one should NOT BE ALLOWED to burn a holy book–is merely free speech in itself is completely disingenuous. Is Penn going to throw her in jail for saying it? NO?! Than he is not being hypocritical in the least. The only way Penn could be possibly be hypocritcal in this case is if he insisted that her anti-free speech views should land her in jail.
@quaternio He's not saying that he wants to throw her in jail, but he did say, once, even as a slip of the tongue [or however they're called], that a person who is running for miss USA should uphold the values of the constitution, etc. He's not saying that this person shouldn't pursue legal action to enforce their anti-'freedom of speech' views, which would be a completely different thing from saying that 'I think it should be illegal to burn a holy book';
@ExEverest10 It is ridiculous to say that "pursuing legal action to prevent holy books from being burned" is completely different from saying "I think it should be illegal to burn a holy book." Saying that they are different is not splitting hairs?! REALLY?! Okay, I'm done talking to you.
@quaternio Yep, hiring a lawyer and/or establishing an organization to pursue a viewpoint legally is different from stating a point of view on a legal issue, and leaving it at that. At least to me, perhaps I'm crazy.
@quaternio within that sentiment he's saying that they shouldn't do the latter, not the former. That is what I have a problem with. If she's consciously advocating/campaigning [different from saying that this should be the case] for the enactment of such a law, that is indeed up for 'negation' by disagreeing parties-this wouldn't make the latter anti-freedom of speech people.
@quaternio However, if the parties are suggesting that she should hold different views regardless of her legal activity in this regard, I think that is anti-freedom of speech. I find this to be a convoluted issue, sorry that you think I'm splitting hairs.
@quaternio I didn't address legislative action, nor did Penn in that particular sentiment. I agree that the enactment of laws to limit freedom of speech is anti-'freedom of speech'; the suggestion of self-censorship, simply because your views don't align with those of others, including matters of freedom of speech, is anti-'freedom of speech' too.
@ExEverest10 She is talking about a legislative act, so saying "I'm not talking about legislation" is precisely where you are being needlessly contrary. The only way your point could be meaningful is if she said it, but didn't mean it. Penn isn't criticizing her for saying it, he's critical of what she MEANS. The message is the message. So unless you really want to argue that "free speech" is evil, can-it with the "we are fallible" talk; we all agree on this matter, so don't pretend otherwise.
@quaternio I only mentioned it once; by that criterion you should can it with me as well, since the comparative ratio is 1:1. Merely stating your opinion on a legislative issue is different form actively pursuing an enactment. One is within the confines of the freedom of speech, the latter, not so much. [It actually might be, I'm not sure, but it's less so than the former statement I would think].
@ExEverest10 But lastly, "saying it" is "pursuing it." Again, the only way they are not equal is if she doesn't really mean it. She is especially pursing it in saying it given that she said it in a very public venue. But anyway, it is only hypocrisy if Penn wanted her in prison for saying it.
@quaternio I disagree; but now we're entering the field of semantics, something I don't have much patience for at this hour. Sorry that we couldn't reach an agreement, but the disagreement was over a minor point that could've easily been made in passing anyways.
@ExEverest10 The last part didn't make much sense, let me re-phrase it; to suggest that one should be aligned with the constitutional view of a matter, regardless of the legal activity of the said person is anti-freedom of speech; to combat their legal activity to put this view into law is pro-freedom of speech. Hopefully you can see the difference.
@ExEverest10 That makes no sense. You can respect people's freedom of speech and call them wrong at the same time.
Freedom of speech is not about agreeing with everyone or indiscriminately supporting everyone's ideas. It's only about not using force against them to suppress their speech.
@deinse81 I partially agree, the comment makes *some* sense [but then again, I'm the one who wrote it, so..]; but I should've said that 'I don't think humans can absolutely know which values are right and wrong, and I also think that the suggestion of person A accepting group B's values, simply due to there being more subscribers to the latter set of values, is anti-freedom of speech [because it's a proposal of de-facto suppression of dissenting opinions]'.
@ExEverest10 Oh, and I forgot: What are you doing preaching about freedom of speech in the first place? You're refusing to know for a fact whether it's good or not. As far as you're concerned, freedom of speech might be a horrible thing. It's possible that the Afghan savages are right, and anyone who speaks his mind about Islam should be killed.
@deinse81 I don't see how I'm 'refusing' to know anything; has an offer of absolute certainty been extended by an infallible being of one sort of other?
Simply because I don't know that the freedom of speech is a good thing doesn't mean that I hold an opposite belief. I'm 'agnostic' about this whole deal, and the modus operandi is one of spreading and receiving accurate knowledge while I try to figure out which answer is the right one.
@deinse81 That means that I am in favor of logical/rational argument, and that I do allow myself the liberty of criticism when confronted with opinions/arguments I don't find as informed. I don't find this hypocritical since, once again, I haven't subscribed to the proposition that FoS is good, or that it's bad. [Probably good, but I can't say for sure].
@deinse81 I'm with you on that. I think the crux of the problem here is they asked the absolute wrong guy to judge Miss America. I'm sure that he probably won't judge too many more,but, it may be he doesn't want to,as opposed to them not wanting him back.They don't give a damn about the girls,they want a celebrity on the panel,not an anonymous ball player and a real housewife of New Jersey. I think pageants are suspect anyway.It seems...wrong. That's just my opinion. Good comment though.
@deinse81 I said that values should be affirmed or rejected based on whether they are right or wrong, not on how many people hold them. So what was the point of explaining how we shouldn't go by how many people agree with something? Who are you talking to?
@deinse81 I could ask you the same question; I was addressing Penn's apparent sentiment at 3:15, not the validity of your views [in regards to FoS in general, at least].
"this suggested self-censorship, ironically and hypocritically, appears to go against the said values..."
yes & no. You're average Joe can say what he wants. That's free speech. But if you're running for office or a title (e.g. a managament position, the presidency or Miss. Tenn.) you'll never win if you say whatever you think..
Extreme Example: Miss Tenn. can be a KKK supporter, but if she shares said opinions she won't win. This has nothing to do with free speech.
@SimplyObjective Yes, that's mostly true; I don't think that this was Penn's implication in that sentiment, however, [if it was, then my criticism is void]; I felt it was more ad-hominem, i.e. 'since you're running for Miss USA, you should uphold the values of mainstream USA' [or something to that extent], which, I feel, is inconsistent with his 'freedom of speech' stance.
"I don't think that this was Penn's implication..."
You're probably right. If he thinks people should have the FREEDOM to burn a holy book (highly offensive), then Miss Tenn. should have the FREEDOM to say this shouldn't be allowed.
Pitting the ideal of free speech against a highly inappropriate expression of free speech (burning a holy book) wasn't fair (you're either for burning holy books or against free speech, either way you look bad).
@SimplyObjective I disagree, I think it's as fair as any other question asked with mutually exclusive outcomes; this is why I don't like Godwin's Law [or rather, how it's cited in conversation], many don't appear to like shades of grey, everything must be absolute. 'Everything that Hitler did is bad!', which isn't the case, it's just that the bad far outweighs the good, which isn't to say that the good doesn't exist and can't be cited.
@SimplyObjective And in many cases, the two sides of the argument are quite close [ethically], and it doesn't mean that if you are for the continued legality of the burning of books that you automatically advocate these, or similar actions. [For example].
ii) On the other hand, what better way is there of displaying adherence to universal freedom of speech than allowing a person who opposes it on an individual level [i.e. one who isn't consciously using their position or other 'dirty tricks' to leverage support for their viewpoint] to hold a place of power?
who cares? these pageants are lame anyway and if Penn judged acording to the rules thats great and he has a right to say whatever the fuck he wants about it, you dont have to accept it and you dont have a right to never be offended.
MrROTD 2 weeks ago
"Fuck her?" You could have handled that more professionally. Who do you think you are, Penn, Christian Bale? I think you got the responses you deserved.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance yeah as a big fan of penn he didnt handle tht very wel ,,sad
ThePhil909 3 weeks ago in playlist Season 2
That was great, he's 100% right, no religion should be held above the gov't. The Bill of Rights is the most brilliant social contract of all time. The Koran was form God *made up.*. The sad things is people still buy this line of horseshit because it happened 1300 years ago instead of yesterday. If she can't vocalize her opinion in an adult manner this woman shouldn't have won. Oh, and Penn is fat, old, and ugly. See I made sure to throw it in their at the end.
oa7200 5 months ago
I feel that Mr. Jillette was correct. A person competing to be Miss USA should support the Bill of Rights. She is competing to represent our nation as a whole to the international community. As such, i have problems backing someone who does not back our nations beliefs.
As a side note...Screw the Koran, it just more religious bullshit.
1969mrchip 6 months ago
Fuck everyone that gives Penn shit over this. They're just jealous that they're not going to get to fuck "Miss Tenn."
Besides, true beauty comes from the inside, and because of what she said, I think that she's hideous.
MortisCityHC 6 months ago
@MortisCityHC Which is reason to publicly say "Fuck Her" to a 19 year old girl who expressed an opinion you disagreed with while acting as an official judge at an event? BS. He judged her fine and I would have agreed. The public rudeness afterwards was unprofessional and lacking class. If you're gonna behave like that, don't be surprised if people push back.
eirefrance 3 weeks ago
Penn should NOT ever be allowed to judge a pageant again. Penn judged Miss TN on the basis that he did not agree with her answer. A proper judge will make a decision on how well they answer the question...not on rather the judge agrees with their personal beliefs. He did a horrible job and should be banned as a judge from any and all pageant. Stick with your little magic act, Mister, and dissappear!
BTW, get a new editor...horrible video!
DentonGraham5 6 months ago
@DentonGraham5 Sure I'll bite the bait. Anywho, he stated clearly multiple times that he did not judge on that fact. He judged precisely to the rules of judging and simply made a comment later which he is again aloud to do.
Jest 5 months ago
wtf is this free speech garbage. You buy a bible, koran, or flag and its yours to do whatever you want. This is a private property matter. And why the hell is my web browser telling me to put an uppercase k on koran but not on the bible? christian muslim And here it's telling me to capitalize muslim but not christian. wtf mozilla
blakstar101 6 months ago
Interesting video, but the two camera thing is really irritating.
alanrockunited 6 months ago 4
Wow, that's a nice tweet you gave there Penn.
You are kind of an asshole man.
fluff125 6 months ago
i love how you read the quote 3:37 LOL
for a second i thought the speech centre of my brain was fucking up!
CircusOfBedlam 7 months ago
Comment removed
CircusOfBedlam 7 months ago
Little factoid, as I recall the average age in the US in 1900 was 21 and today its 39. In other words, we tend to forget that until this last century history was made by "children". My point is that sure she's only 21, but putting this is a historical context, people were running countries at 21. She's should be an adult and not a prolonged child.
EvilDandy 7 months ago
I like how Penn was explaining his point so eloquently on why he disagrees with her answer and then they post the tweet that caused this whole commotion, LOL! Well yeah, if you write something that says "Fuck Her" of course you're gonna get a strong reaction.
kensuke0 7 months ago
That was a loaded fkucking question. It's so improperly posed that you almost CAN'T give a correct answer. It's like gameshow questions they slant to get rid of participants they don't want....
shuttledik 7 months ago
This is a possible previous when responding to that question, "I can not truthfully talk about the koran because it could endanger my life, but I can comment on the the burning of other religious article".
truenotion 7 months ago
Very well said, Penn. I would fuck her and also: fuck her.
AraGuitar 7 months ago
Beauty is internal. - So if we're going to have something as silly as a beauty pageant, opinions should of course be judged. - Nice work, Penn.
Take Care,
- Giles.
GilesHellier 7 months ago
love penn coz he speaks his own opinion and i repect him for that
M1K3YC 7 months ago
Fuck her indeed.
tenkins 7 months ago
Penn, bear in mind, she didn't propose the question-why ask some hairy question of 21 year old beauty pageant contestants? just sayin'
greenhawk46 7 months ago
hey Im a chubby chaser....lol
sallyblack13 7 months ago
I don't think that either burning flags or burning religious texts should fall under freedom of speech, because neither of them are speech. I think they should fall under freedom of expression, which should fall under unalienable rights.
psychosavant 7 months ago
Miss America pageant? Really? My heart is a little broken. However, what kind of answers would you expect from anyone who wants to be judged on their appearances? Try as you may, you can't cover up that the M.A.P started off as a beauty pageant, and the questionnaire was a way to fend off the ravenous feminists in the 60's, and to try and save ratings. It's a about as good of a cover up as a murder who kicked a little dirt on the corpse but talked to the cops with blood still on his hands.
S0XF0X 7 months ago
You think fucking heroin should be legal? Crack cocaine? I can only take "everything" seriously so far.
Coldbrand 7 months ago
Penn is right. I was a first amendment supporter before I was ever 21 years old. Anyone who had an education in school should know how they want to answer Penn's question. Miss TN seems to have known what SHE thought about the issue and answered accordingly. People ridicule the questions asked at pageants as they are too soft and answers given are dumb. Penn upped the ante and look how some people have reacted...................
BraidedLily 7 months ago
im really getting sick of this religious crap wars fought over it people killed beat or disowned fuckin bullshit. fuck if there is a god i hate the bastard if he is all powerful and can do anything then fuckin change this shit come down here make it clear what you want and put it on a huge tablet in every human settlement. oh wait he cant cause hes not real stupid sheeple. i cannot believe they asked penn to judge these girls and he did and now people are upset at his opinion. penn 4 president!
THESLICKNESSEDM 7 months ago
I think people should have the right to burn the Quran...not that I think it's a good thing to do as it's very offensive...but still I think one should have the right.
ProudAtheist90 7 months ago
@ProudAtheist90 Agreed, there is a difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom from being Offended.
Koss42 7 months ago
@ProudAtheist90 I second that.... There is nor shall there ever exist a law against doing something that is offensive to others ( Unless you offend someone with a very expensive lawyer. ).
fretzombie 7 months ago
Penn...love your videos...but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop cutting from camera to camera so often. It gets annoying very quickly. :)
mbbm13 7 months ago
Pageantry in this caliber have more ethics required than normal ones. Even a person's way of thinking has its own beauty in it and is included in the Miss USA. If your going to be in it, know what it 'really" means to be an American, with knowning all the states, and the Constitution and its Amendments' factual meaning.
I agree with Penn here and i just fear the things our forefathers fear; Ideological, ignorant, stupid, egocentric people who acts before thinking. Thats a different thing thou
darkjong99 7 months ago
Beauty isn't just looking like a barbie doll, beauty lies far deeper than that, like a fruit the healthier the inside is the better the outside looks and I find my neighbor who gets a kick out of talking about ideas and politics and religion and books and arts far hotter than a girl who can't name the 50 states. Then again I find a girl who's a size 3 hotter than one who's size 9 and is really smart... Beauty is judged on more than looks and more than personality even pageants know that.
chimmister 7 months ago
Freedom of speech for all, even douche bags.
xxxRyanxEdgexxx 7 months ago
Titties, dicks, porno, and a crucifix in a jar of piss - all (gratuitous/stupid) "protected speech" even though they say nothing more than "here is something to spank to, throw up by."
So when someone is making an assertive symbolic statement of (actual) meaning - such as "fuck your religion/country/flag" if it offends (especially) it's important free speech, and is off limits to any asshole who wants to ban it. (even though some things on that list piss me off too).
ObiWanShinobi1 7 months ago
I agree with you Penn..."Miss USA" is a rep for all american women and a role model for American women everywhere. I would want my daughters looking up to someone that respects the constitution that all Americans adhere to rather than some slutty, dumb, bimbo in a bikini.
They can all go eat a bowl of dicks.
KradLavinrac 7 months ago
"My perfect date would be March 30th."
KhanAndMrPointyEars 7 months ago
As an ex-Tennessean, I'm not even slightly surprised by her lack of "poise" or political insight.
ShrugMeSilly245 7 months ago
Penn, you were absolutely right in your judging.
But stating that you were "glad to help her loose" might have been a little harsh, on a rhetorical level that is. The rhetoric was a little hard, and as an official judge it would probably have been wiser to simply not comment on it.
But hey, that's just my opinion, and of course people should be able to burn as many Qurans as they damn well please!!
kassemir 7 months ago
I think my only question is, "Why the hell were you even involved in something like a beauty pageant?" It seems like such a shallow, intellectually-void environment to even be discussing.
SubconsciousGatherer 7 months ago
What?!? Penn tried to bring honesty into a beauty pageant? That's like stopping crime in Congress, the people involved just don't understand what you are trying to do!
Dahgrostabphri 7 months ago
Penn, You get the dumb ass responses because people are brain washed at an age where they have no logical defense. Believing in any religion is an irrational act and these people have irrationality as a template for thought. It is not something that just turns on and off.
finerbiner 7 months ago
I pee alot thumbs up for peeing alot!
flyeagles24 7 months ago
I get dizzy when he keeps looking at the other camera...
aphoxema 7 months ago
@aphoxema i don't cause i only listen to this, while doing other things, it doesnt ruin the video or sound
LitlaCrank 7 months ago
@LitlaCrank But I like looking at him u.u
aphoxema 7 months ago
I'm a bit confused. Tell me if I'm wrong but the question was something like "Should the burning of religious texts be protected such as the burning of the flag". She answered no, as would I. I don't think religious texts should be protected in any way. They are just books and they are printed in the millions. Sure it might be offensive to someone to burn them but it doesn't hurt anyone and it doesn't remove the ideas the books contain.
Grymyrk 7 months ago
@Grymyrk yeah, Penn is being confusing. If you search on youtube for the full video, she makes it clear that she answered "No, to not allow people to burn religious texts". I feel that she answered the question poorly, as it appeared she lost her composure a bit when answering, hence her answer was a bit off target of the question.
Malvisk 7 months ago
@Malvisk Ok that explains things. I thought I must have missed something.
Grymyrk 7 months ago
Strictly my opinion, but the only problem that I had with Penn's tweet (which I knew nothing about until this video blog) was that I thought it was rude.
KDakota630 7 months ago
I don't get why Penn is being blamed for doing something wrong if he was just following the rules. If people don't like the rules, then they should take their complaint(s) to the competition, not a particular judge who followed those rules.
jaekae8 7 months ago
@pennpoint.. Fuck em all. They know they are going to be asked questions like these. They are supposed to be representing the country. If they don't want to face the hard questions, then get the fuck out of the competition.
Rock on Penn.
andystruth 7 months ago
I was utterly disappointed and felt like killing myself after hearing what the supposedly most attractive women in my country of my generation "think" politically. Doesn't really matter to Penn, you won't be alive when what they say it widely believed and actually put into law.
SeriouslyPissedOff 7 months ago
@pennpoint
Also, you're fat and old and ugly.
Koss42 7 months ago
As a Christian I am appalled when someone burns the Q'ran or the Bible or any other religious text, as a patriot I am appalled when people burn the flag in protest, but also as an American with a deep appreciation of the 1st amendment I recognize that such acts as burning the flag or religious texts are protected for good reason. I think that Pen judged correctly based on the rules of the contest.
Perhaps his tweet was a bit crass, but so what? That is protected speech as well.
RationalRoundtable 7 months ago
@RationalRoundtable I think this comment sums up exactly what Penn was saying. His tweet was crass, agreed, but it wasn't inaccurate as some of the comments here would like you to believe.
On a separate note:
A 21 year old is not a GIRL at that point she is a woman. Obviously maturity levels vary but this is true for any age and sex.
l1f3l3555 7 months ago
@l1f3l3555
Is it safe to assume your GIRL comment was not directed at me? I never described her at all, much less referred to her as a girl.
RationalRoundtable 7 months ago
@RationalRoundtable That would be a safe assumption and the reason why I used the words 'On a separate note' with spaces separating the response. :)
l1f3l3555 7 months ago
Fuck her in the eye.
Feralg33k 7 months ago
@pennpointBut isn't allowing religious matter to be destroyed implying that there are no consequences to religious bigotry? If so then that fails to protect the religious freedoms of others. The First Amendment IS the "law" in place to prevent that, to my interpretation. Again the question is right there in the video, shown being delivered with neolithic incompetence. I didn't get the specifics of what he asked her for a couple minutes, I can't imagine being put on the spot like that.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai The constitution doesn't guarantee that religions will be protected by the government; it states that religion will not be established or prohibited by the government. The US has no obligation to stop religious bigotry in individual citizens; we all have the right to be bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. if we choose to be. The only thing the government should be preventing us from burning is other PEOPLE, not books.
cyanmanta 7 months ago
@fieldninjai So burning a religious text prevents that religions freedom? Does burning a harry potter book prevent the freedom of a potter fan to read, or speak of the book? No. More so now than in any other point in time, information is all around us. I could copy a book thousands of times in mere seconds from a digital source, and delete them even faster. Or destroy the media it was saved on physically. That book is still contained all over the place digitally, no matter what I do.
Koss42 7 months ago
When I read the tweet Penn wrote that night, I couldn't find the footage I needed of Miss Tennessee to find out exactly what had happened, but knowing Penn I deduced she must have advocated banning the burning of korans. I wished I could have done my part to help her lose, too, but at least she did lose. For her own sake, I hope Miss TN takes some time to brush up on her citizenship and civics.
cyanmanta 7 months ago
thank god no more paul mccartney videos
i can give a fuck again :]
xXShunketsuXx 7 months ago
Lastly Penn, is Bullshit coming back?
DrakIems 7 months ago
@DrakIems I think he did answer this in another video; sadly, Bullshit isn't being renewed for a ninth season. It's a shame, because I can think of about 3 seasons worth of stuff they could cover...
cyanmanta 7 months ago
@cyanmanta Thanks for info, and yea it's a shame. Maybe they have another special in the works. C'mon Penn, a little teaser pleeeeease :)
DrakIems 7 months ago
I share your feelings of being appalled Penn. I'm also a veteran of 6 years, and think people should be able to burn the US if they want. The whole pageant scene is pretty ridicules in itself, and I don’t derive that opinion because I’m ugly. Celebrations that reinforce vanity are just ugly.
As a side note, I loved E5 of ‘Fool Us’. The performers where OUTSTANDING, and your nail gun act @ the end, INCREDIBLE. Your P&T show in Vegas is on my bucket list. I want to see more P&T content!
DrakIems 7 months ago 8
@DrakIems You rock, that pretty much wrapped up the whole issue on all fronts.
"I'm also a veteran of 6 years, and think people should be able to burn the US if they want. The whole pageant scene is pretty ridicules in itself, and I don’t derive that opinion because I’m ugly. Celebrations that reinforce vanity are just ugly." - Draklems
Koss42 7 months ago
Hey penn, are you going to do that reddit iama?
killamonkey 7 months ago
@pennpoint So hey penn, I'm one of the two dislikes. Now I normally think you're pretty intelligent and upright, but I feel you've got this thing all fucked up. I duno what the context is, but to me, that question was not whether or not the Quran is more important than the constitution. It was worded terribly, but it seems to me, and probably to TN Durham as well, that the question was should the First Amendment protect the Quran. Burning is not speech, it is destruction to prove a point.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai
The question is right there in the video. He asking if burning any religious article should be protected by the first amendment. And she said no. While it may be that she misunderstood the question in the same way that you misunderstood the question, her answer equates to saying that burning a religious article should not be protected by the first amendment. In other words, it can be outlawed. A position that, when stripped of all emotion, is anti-American (in the true sense.)
ParadisePete 7 months ago
@ParadisePete But isn't allowing religious matter to be destroyed implying that there are no consequences to religious bigotry? If so then that fails to protect the religious freedoms of others. The First Amendment IS the "law" in place to prevent that, to my interpretation. Again the question is right there in the video, shown being delivered with neolithic incompetence. I didn't get the specifics of what he asked her for a couple minutes, I can't imagine being put on the spot like that.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai
No, it's implying that the freedoms of the first amendment are more important. It's easy to protect speech that does not offend - but outlawing what's "offensive" is the same as not actually having free speech. Would you rather rewrite it to say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, unless of course it's bothersome."?
ParadisePete 7 months ago
@fieldninjai "Burning is not speech, it is destruction to prove a point."
Yes, because proving a point is not in anyway affiliated with speech or communication.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 touche sir, touche
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@Koss42 although what I mean to say is that it is destruction of speech mediums to prove a point. and not to play the fear card or anything, please take this as intented, but "destruction to prove a point" is more mean of terrorism. I would be hesitant to say that the Oklahoma City bombing was an act of free speech.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai Right, because bombing government buildings and killing people in an act of terrorism is exactly equal and equivalent to burning a book or flag. Not even to the extent of trying to erradicate all of those books, or all of those flags. Simply a single one.
"'destruction to prove a point' is more mean of terrorism" Oh, war has destruction to prove a point. Are the Allies in WWII terrorists now? I mean, they were obviously not trying to protect anything like freedom, or a way of life.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 its not equivalent but it runs in the same vein. do you feel that people should be allowed to burn the american flag? I suppose its a matter of the difference between destroying something that belongs to you and something which does not so you definitely have a god point. So I guess as long as you OWN the things, you can burn all the flags and religious books you like.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@Koss42 The way I feel about it is that destruction of something which is not yours to destroy, i.e. a person, place, or thing (nouns) is wrong. Religion is the 4th kind of noun, an idea. Trying to destroy an idea is what I object to, that's all.
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai 1. You can't destroy idea's. More so now than ever with information technology.
2. Even religious people disrespect other peoples religion all the time. They are actually the usual offenders.
3. I don't care what you think is wrong or right. That includes everything until the limits of physical injury/assault, or limiting of our freedoms spelt out by our bill of rights and constitution (for law makers).
4. You can defend yourselves in war but never retaliate, but ending the war.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 Limited space made me accidently cut out part of #3 and #4 by accident.
3. Freedom of speech isn't about letting someone only speak if you agree with their message. It is important to protect even those which you disagree. I don't care about your opinions, but I rather have them heard then to never hear them in public. I don't like book or flag burning but America and Ideals are stronger than their materalistic symbols. Some of my limits are physical threat/assault and owners property.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 #4 Winning a war doesn't always require tactical advantage in order to exploit it over your enemy. If you defend yourselves to the very brink of your attackers willpower to fight you win. Without ever retaliation or exploiting a tactical advantage.
My point was, The Allies got their point across to the Axis by fighting back tooth and nail. It involved destruction, but the message was still sent.
Either way, your argument was that of a false equivalency.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 #4 continued...
More so with the Japanese then anything really. Those a-bombs made a point by killing and destroying. Those two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not essential tactical millitary targets, there was no tactical advantage to exploit against the japanese war machine.
As they say, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In the American Revolution, we were rebels committing treason. Just an example.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 1) I didnt say you could destroy ideas, i said dont try. just because religious people are the usual offenders doesnt make it more ok.
2) The laws of our land are based on whats right and wrong, ethics makes law, not the other way around
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai You are strawmaning my argument. I never said because religious people do it, it is okay. I also never said things are only ethical because of little rule in a law book.
If you are not going to address what I am actually saying, then we are just talking past one another.
1. Its silly to try and destroy an idea. The Information age has made it impossible now. Also, just because someone is burning it does not mean their message is eliminating the idea.
Koss42 7 months ago
@fieldninjai Continued 2
3. Freedom of speech isn't about letting someone only speak if you agree with their message. It is important to protect even those which you disagree. I don't care about your opinions, but I rather have them heard then to never hear them in public. I don't like book or flag burning but America and Ideals are stronger than their materalistic symbols. Some of my limits are physical threat/assault and owners property.
Koss42 7 months ago
@fieldninjai Continued 4
4. Winning a war doesn't always require tactical advantage in order to exploit it over your enemy. If you defend yourselves to the very brink of your attackers willpower to fight you win. Without ever retaliation or exploiting a tactical advantage.
My point was, The Allies got their point across to the Axis by fighting back tooth and nail. It involved destruction, but the message was still sent.
Either way, your argument was that of a false equivalency.
Koss42 7 months ago
@fieldninjai #4 continued...
More so with the Japanese then anything really. Those a-bombs made a point by killing and destroying. Those two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not essential tactical millitary targets, there was no tactical advantage to exploit against the japanese war machine.
As they say, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In the American Revolution, we were rebels committing treason. Just an example.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 well said :)
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai Thank you. And in all honesty, I can see your point. I use to want to stop book burning in the past even.
But even though I don't want to defend say the West borough baptist church, or the preacher that burned the koran recently. But the avenue in which they announce those ideas are unregulated for a reason. You can look at it being simply a tool that can be used. Sometimes tools are used intelligently, sometimes they are not. Preventing one is to prevent the other.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 well as Penn has said, the solution to bad speech is more speech. I love to see it when Westboro gets counter-protested
fieldninjai 7 months ago
@fieldninjai Yeah that is a good point of his. I think to someone outside the whole freedom experience, it would look silly to see all these protestors at a funeral. And to see counter protests to those protests. And how we choose not to force it all away. And really, it is a silly thing. But there might one day be an unforeseeable reason to protest a funeral.
What that good reason to do so would be? I don't know. There may not be one. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Koss42 7 months ago
@Koss42 War is not destruction to prove a point, it is destruction for tactical advantage. War is violent but it isnt comparable to terrorism
fieldninjai 7 months ago
I agree with you on this Penn
upyr1 7 months ago
This is type of topic is sooooooooooooo much more interesting to me than Bob Dylan.
Him spending his time reviewing aging rock performers is like mud bogging in a Rolls Royce.
nsofast 7 months ago
At 21, they should have a well formed opinion on political points of views.
ogrish84 7 months ago
i think the good thing about the USA is the freedom to say whatever you want regardless, and yeah that should always be put first
that being said how long will it be till USA kick Obama out for pissing on our freedoms with every act he makes???
Boozebegood 7 months ago
Maybe if he had been a bit more polite in his tweet he wouldn't have gotten such a negative response. Glad to help her lose. Fuck her. ??? Lol, and he wonders why people responded poorly? Sure, that's just his style, but people still get mad about that sort of thing.
Primalxbeast 7 months ago
My sympathy and patience goes out the window when people act really stupid, so I don't much care for her. Besides, if asking and answering those questions is part of the competition, then all the better that Penn judged her in a thoughtful and fair way - by condemning her idiotic position.
Jotto999 7 months ago
I dont see anything wrong with voting against her cause he didnt like her answers. If we shouldnt judge the girls on what they say, we shouldnt ask the questions.
shair00 7 months ago
21 year old Americans have had the ability to vote for 3-4 years. Yes, they should know basic politics, because their decisions can dictate what the government forces us to do/not do. Yes, they should be held accountable for any ignorant, stupid or offensive things they say on national/global television, because they're old enough to know what the consequences would be. If it's 'just a beauty contest', then don't ask them political questions during it. Duh.
Also, you're fat and old and ugly.
FishofMuu 7 months ago
VOTE UP..... if you snap at the same time with penn.
eugeniohz 7 months ago
Like if you looked at your phone when Penn's phone went off!
thepeff 7 months ago
Well said Penn. 10 out of 10. (And that bathing suit yowwzah!)
beenz07 7 months ago
Poise COUNTS!
Desram 7 months ago
I agree with Penn wholeheartedly on this one -- if it's "just a beauty contest" then why the fuck do they even ask them any questions at all? What does beauty have to do with said contestants political and moral opinions about societal issues?
Ron Paul has some great political ideas and I don't see him being "Mr. USA" any time soon..he is sexy tho! Like it or not, if you tack the name "USA" on to their title -- they should represent the things our country stands for -- like freedom of speech.
surgeyX 7 months ago
Finally no more talk about the beatles
surgeyX 7 months ago
i) I disagree with her, but I do think that it's a rather weak point that Penn brings up at 3:15 where he says that one should support the 'american values' if one is representing the USA, the implication seemingly [to me] being that one should do this even if they don't share the aforementioned values. This suggested self-censorship, ironically and hypocritically, appears to go against the said values...
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 The implication isn't that one should be hypocritical. The implication is that some values are right, and others are wrong, and that the 'American values' Penn is talking about belong to the first category. So, if someone doesn't share them, that person is wrong, and he should adopt the right values instead of clinging to his own, wrong ones. And then he should openly support these newly adopted, right values.
That's unless you believe there's no such thing as right and wrong.
deinse81 7 months ago
@deinse81 I'll examine the specific wording that has me cross; 'if you're going to go for miss USA, you should support the constitution and the amendments, to a certain degree'. You 'should', regardless of whether you agree or disagree. I'm not sure whether that was a slip of the tongue, for all I know it was, but as a distinct point, I find it quite hypocritical. The implication that freedom is right and censorship is wrong is there all along, but that wasn't what I was addressing.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@deinse81 There also seems to be an undertone of censor-like tendencies within your response too; since we are fallible people, our perception of right and wrong isn't absolute or infallible, therefore the freedom of speech and the 'marketplace of ideas'; this freedom extends to all aspects of human existence, including the notion that freedom of speech isn't desirable.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@deinse81 The notion that humans can know which values are right and wrong, and that those who don't share one group's 'right' values should adopt them regardless, seems opposite to freedom of speech, no?
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 Penn's criticism is not "opposite to freedom of speech." He isn't suggesting that a law be passed preventing her from speaking; he's just saying she is wrong for suggesting that a law should abridge free speech. She is affirming an unconstitutional policy, but Penn is affirming the 1st Amendment. I don't think it is hypocritcal, because she is not consciously dissenting from a policy she thinks is wrong in itself, she is just inconsistant. She wants religion to be a special case.
quaternio 7 months ago 16
@quaternio Please revisit my exchange, I believe you missed my points entirely; I was replying to the initial replier's implication, not what Penn's criticism was [at least in my 'opposite to freedom of speech' sentiment; it is the same criticism I had of the point made by Penn which I disagree with, so I understand the confusion]. I was suggesting that Penn and the person who replied to me initially were hypocrites, not that this contender was one [she might be, I haven't assessed her yet].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@quaternio I was neither at odds with [what I understand to be] the main thrust of this 'penn point', I agree with it; I had a problem with a single criticism made by Penn, which I thought hypocritical. To re-iterate, he said that one *should* support freedom of speech if one's running for Miss USA, which is, imo, opposite to the 'freedom of speech'.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 Saying "stop burning my Bible" is an act of free speech. But saying "I will pass a law that will prevent you from burning my Bible" is a different thing all together. It isn't a free speech act that we are talking about in this latter case; it is a legislative act. For that reason, Penn is not being either inconsistent or hypocritical.
Penn isn''t criticizing her for speaking. He is criticizing her for her suggestion of legislation, which is a VERY different thing.
quaternio 7 months ago 35
@quaternio FFS, are my writings so difficult to read? Am I this great sophist whose arguments mean 10 different things to 10 different people? I said that an argument that one 'should' support the american values simply because on is running for miss USA is hypocritical in regards to the aforementioned values themselves [if the speaker holds these values, that is].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 You actually just used the word "writings", so, yes, they are.
OscarApollo 7 months ago
@OscarApollo I don't follow; what's the significance of that term?
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 And you just used the sentence "I don't follow; what's the significance of the term". You seem like the sort of person who never uses a short word when a long word will do. Your comments are very awkwardly phrased.
OscarApollo 7 months ago
@OscarApollo I try to use 'long' words because they're typically more specific, and try to use a sentence structure that will allow for the maximum specificty. I could've written 'what do you mean?', but that would be quite general and open-ended. What I wrote narrowed it down to a single term, and point of contention; much better than relying on the reader to read between the lines, I feel.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 Short words can't be specific? Or, since I'm talking to you, should I say, "Words of extended brevity lack the capability to effectively communicate the intended meaning chosen and specified by their author, who in this case is the politically inept murderer of prose, ExEverest10"?
OscarApollo 7 months ago
@OscarApollo *facepalm* [there's a short word for you that I find quite specific, btw] Please re-read what I said again; "I try to use 'long' words because they're typically more specific" Notice the adjective [?] 'typically'? I never said that short words 'can't' be specific, and I challenge you to find me a sentence where I did. Just they tend not to be as specific as the 'longer' words [at least in my experience].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 I see from your favourite videos that you're a fan of Stephen Fry. Okay. I can roll with that. Read Stephen Fry's wonderfully well-written autobiography, and take note of how he only uses long words when they're fucking necessary. That's because he's not a pretentious poseur and he doesn't have any weak-spirited political views to hide behind a massive wall of text. Don't use long words to make yourself seem smart. It doesn't work. Especially if you make up words like "writings".
OscarApollo 7 months ago
@OscarApollo 'writ·ing n.4. Something written, especially:
a. Meaningful letters or characters that constitute readable matter.
b. A written work, especially a literary composition.'
That definition is quite different from what I wrote, so if you are making that criticism, I agree with it; but I didn't make this word up, not to my knowledge.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 OK, now read Henry David Thoreau's books. Thoreau was a kick-ass political theorist who was an inspiration to the likes of Gandhi (although, if you've watched Penn's show, you'll know that Gandhi was a little on the bullshit side). Despite that, he liked big words too much and as a result he has a very dry, characterless prose style. That's what you're putting people through when you write comments like that. CUT IT OUT.
OscarApollo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ExEverest10 7 months ago
Comment removed
ExEverest10 7 months ago
Comment removed
ExEverest10 7 months ago
Comment removed
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@OscarApollo *Sigh*, so difficult to get people to admit their mistakes. As for the rest; sorry that you don't like my style of writing, nobody is forcing you to read it. Also, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't command me to change my style of writing simply because you don't like it; have some humility. And don't speak for the 'people', nobody elected you and nor did you, I assume, ask the majority of the english-speaking population how they felt about my style of writing.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OscarApollo [P.S. I am not consciously aware of any desire to 'sound smart'; 'pretentious poseur' is tautologous, and I challenge you to substantiate that accusation; and how is my political view that criticizes both parties within a dispute 'weak-spirited' [this is the same view that I've been defending for the last 2hrs from 4 (?) parties]]?
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@Oscar Also, you can see no such a thing; I'm not a fan of Stephen Fry, I think he's highly over-rated. I have a single video of a show that he happens to be the host of, which also contains other co-hosts, and which includes a humorous exchange between the aforementioned people. If that's the yardstick of fandom [in the sense of fanaticism; now this is a word that I don't think exists, but should], I wonder what you would call someone with the nickname 'FryFan' with 200 videos of Fry uploaded.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 I think you are splitting hairs to be contrary. I understand your point just fine. But pretending that her suggestion–that one should NOT BE ALLOWED to burn a holy book–is merely free speech in itself is completely disingenuous. Is Penn going to throw her in jail for saying it? NO?! Than he is not being hypocritical in the least. The only way Penn could be possibly be hypocritcal in this case is if he insisted that her anti-free speech views should land her in jail.
quaternio 7 months ago
@quaternio He's not saying that he wants to throw her in jail, but he did say, once, even as a slip of the tongue [or however they're called], that a person who is running for miss USA should uphold the values of the constitution, etc. He's not saying that this person shouldn't pursue legal action to enforce their anti-'freedom of speech' views, which would be a completely different thing from saying that 'I think it should be illegal to burn a holy book';
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 It is ridiculous to say that "pursuing legal action to prevent holy books from being burned" is completely different from saying "I think it should be illegal to burn a holy book." Saying that they are different is not splitting hairs?! REALLY?! Okay, I'm done talking to you.
quaternio 7 months ago
@quaternio Yep, hiring a lawyer and/or establishing an organization to pursue a viewpoint legally is different from stating a point of view on a legal issue, and leaving it at that. At least to me, perhaps I'm crazy.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@quaternio within that sentiment he's saying that they shouldn't do the latter, not the former. That is what I have a problem with. If she's consciously advocating/campaigning [different from saying that this should be the case] for the enactment of such a law, that is indeed up for 'negation' by disagreeing parties-this wouldn't make the latter anti-freedom of speech people.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@quaternio However, if the parties are suggesting that she should hold different views regardless of her legal activity in this regard, I think that is anti-freedom of speech. I find this to be a convoluted issue, sorry that you think I'm splitting hairs.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@quaternio I didn't address legislative action, nor did Penn in that particular sentiment. I agree that the enactment of laws to limit freedom of speech is anti-'freedom of speech'; the suggestion of self-censorship, simply because your views don't align with those of others, including matters of freedom of speech, is anti-'freedom of speech' too.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 She is talking about a legislative act, so saying "I'm not talking about legislation" is precisely where you are being needlessly contrary. The only way your point could be meaningful is if she said it, but didn't mean it. Penn isn't criticizing her for saying it, he's critical of what she MEANS. The message is the message. So unless you really want to argue that "free speech" is evil, can-it with the "we are fallible" talk; we all agree on this matter, so don't pretend otherwise.
quaternio 7 months ago
@quaternio I only mentioned it once; by that criterion you should can it with me as well, since the comparative ratio is 1:1. Merely stating your opinion on a legislative issue is different form actively pursuing an enactment. One is within the confines of the freedom of speech, the latter, not so much. [It actually might be, I'm not sure, but it's less so than the former statement I would think].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 But lastly, "saying it" is "pursuing it." Again, the only way they are not equal is if she doesn't really mean it. She is especially pursing it in saying it given that she said it in a very public venue. But anyway, it is only hypocrisy if Penn wanted her in prison for saying it.
quaternio 7 months ago
@quaternio I disagree; but now we're entering the field of semantics, something I don't have much patience for at this hour. Sorry that we couldn't reach an agreement, but the disagreement was over a minor point that could've easily been made in passing anyways.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 The last part didn't make much sense, let me re-phrase it; to suggest that one should be aligned with the constitutional view of a matter, regardless of the legal activity of the said person is anti-freedom of speech; to combat their legal activity to put this view into law is pro-freedom of speech. Hopefully you can see the difference.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 That makes no sense. You can respect people's freedom of speech and call them wrong at the same time.
Freedom of speech is not about agreeing with everyone or indiscriminately supporting everyone's ideas. It's only about not using force against them to suppress their speech.
deinse81 7 months ago 28
@deinse81 I partially agree, the comment makes *some* sense [but then again, I'm the one who wrote it, so..]; but I should've said that 'I don't think humans can absolutely know which values are right and wrong, and I also think that the suggestion of person A accepting group B's values, simply due to there being more subscribers to the latter set of values, is anti-freedom of speech [because it's a proposal of de-facto suppression of dissenting opinions]'.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 Oh, and I forgot: What are you doing preaching about freedom of speech in the first place? You're refusing to know for a fact whether it's good or not. As far as you're concerned, freedom of speech might be a horrible thing. It's possible that the Afghan savages are right, and anyone who speaks his mind about Islam should be killed.
deinse81 7 months ago
@deinse81 I don't see how I'm 'refusing' to know anything; has an offer of absolute certainty been extended by an infallible being of one sort of other?
Simply because I don't know that the freedom of speech is a good thing doesn't mean that I hold an opposite belief. I'm 'agnostic' about this whole deal, and the modus operandi is one of spreading and receiving accurate knowledge while I try to figure out which answer is the right one.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@deinse81 That means that I am in favor of logical/rational argument, and that I do allow myself the liberty of criticism when confronted with opinions/arguments I don't find as informed. I don't find this hypocritical since, once again, I haven't subscribed to the proposition that FoS is good, or that it's bad. [Probably good, but I can't say for sure].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@deinse81 I'm with you on that. I think the crux of the problem here is they asked the absolute wrong guy to judge Miss America. I'm sure that he probably won't judge too many more,but, it may be he doesn't want to,as opposed to them not wanting him back.They don't give a damn about the girls,they want a celebrity on the panel,not an anonymous ball player and a real housewife of New Jersey. I think pageants are suspect anyway.It seems...wrong. That's just my opinion. Good comment though.
splurging247 3 weeks ago
@deinse81 I said that values should be affirmed or rejected based on whether they are right or wrong, not on how many people hold them. So what was the point of explaining how we shouldn't go by how many people agree with something? Who are you talking to?
deinse81 7 months ago
@deinse81 I could ask you the same question; I was addressing Penn's apparent sentiment at 3:15, not the validity of your views [in regards to FoS in general, at least].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10 I'm familiar enough with Penn's views to know he would never suggest a view is right or wrong based on how many people agree with it.
deinse81 7 months ago
@ExEverest10
"this suggested self-censorship, ironically and hypocritically, appears to go against the said values..."
yes & no. You're average Joe can say what he wants. That's free speech. But if you're running for office or a title (e.g. a managament position, the presidency or Miss. Tenn.) you'll never win if you say whatever you think..
Extreme Example: Miss Tenn. can be a KKK supporter, but if she shares said opinions she won't win. This has nothing to do with free speech.
SimplyObjective 7 months ago
@SimplyObjective Yes, that's mostly true; I don't think that this was Penn's implication in that sentiment, however, [if it was, then my criticism is void]; I felt it was more ad-hominem, i.e. 'since you're running for Miss USA, you should uphold the values of mainstream USA' [or something to that extent], which, I feel, is inconsistent with his 'freedom of speech' stance.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@ExEverest10
"I don't think that this was Penn's implication..."
You're probably right. If he thinks people should have the FREEDOM to burn a holy book (highly offensive), then Miss Tenn. should have the FREEDOM to say this shouldn't be allowed.
Pitting the ideal of free speech against a highly inappropriate expression of free speech (burning a holy book) wasn't fair (you're either for burning holy books or against free speech, either way you look bad).
SimplyObjective 7 months ago
@SimplyObjective I disagree, I think it's as fair as any other question asked with mutually exclusive outcomes; this is why I don't like Godwin's Law [or rather, how it's cited in conversation], many don't appear to like shades of grey, everything must be absolute. 'Everything that Hitler did is bad!', which isn't the case, it's just that the bad far outweighs the good, which isn't to say that the good doesn't exist and can't be cited.
ExEverest10 7 months ago
@SimplyObjective And in many cases, the two sides of the argument are quite close [ethically], and it doesn't mean that if you are for the continued legality of the burning of books that you automatically advocate these, or similar actions. [For example].
ExEverest10 7 months ago
ii) On the other hand, what better way is there of displaying adherence to universal freedom of speech than allowing a person who opposes it on an individual level [i.e. one who isn't consciously using their position or other 'dirty tricks' to leverage support for their viewpoint] to hold a place of power?
ExEverest10 7 months ago