Penn, I watched your video about the man that gave you his Bible. I know you don't believe in God. I won't try to convince you otherwise. I just want you to know that I do believe in God, I believe in hell, and I don't want you to go there, or anyone for that matter. So I am going to pray for you. I hope that some day you come to view God differently. If I saw a bus coming I would try to push you out of the way, the problem is that not everyone is willing to be pushed. Then what happens?
That is sooooo strange. I was just thinking to myself how Penn is kind of becoming a personal hero of mine. And then, me being me, started thinking about blowing him. Nothing to do with his looks. Just a cool story. So... i guess if i ever see the guy... i kinda have to.... :D
Isn't the fact that she turned down Elvis sex ALSO a story? In fact, you're telling the story of her story on the internet, it was such a good story. :/
There's also something called personal dignity. Maybe rather than living for stories, other people have higher standards. Not all future husbands want their wives to have slept with every man on earth, for instance. Esp the super promiscuous ones might be a good place to pass.
But of course, maybe Penn is omniscient and infallible like God or something. Maybe Penn is God and therefore his opinion is what all other humans have to live by. Yeah.
Penn usually talks sense, including on occasion speaking against various sorts of idol or celebrity worship but he's really tanked on this one. From a normal person that would be pathetic but from Penn it's self-serving and disappointing.
If you insist on having sex with a stranger then pick someone off the street instead of a celebrity.
Don't put people on a pedestal that don't even know or care that you exist. It's demeaning.
For me, it would depend on how much of a fan I was. If I didn't care that much about Elvis' music, fucking him wouldn't seem like too impressive a story to me -- & if i don't care that much about his music, then I wouldn't expect my friends, to care that much, either, making a fuck story kind of pointless.
Can't argue w/ the logic about having good stories, though. But a good story is relative & subjective. I think S.Meyers, for example, writes terrible stories, but they sure as hell sell.
I don't care about people in the here and now. I'm pretty sure they're not going to get any better in the future (although I can always hope).
Sure, it would make a great story, but as was stated so would shooting *celeb* down (where *celeb* equals any of those you mentioned). I think I'd also respect myself more which is even more important. I could give a shit less about what others think of me. I care a lot about what I think of myself. Also doing it "for the lulz" is stupid as well.
Penn, I love pretty much everything that you do, but you're just wrong on this one. Shooting Elvis down is a pretty good story itself.
In the same vein, I'm still waiting for a hero to go on American Idol, nail the audition, and then look at the camera, tear up his/her ticket, and say, "Y'know what? I don't need this show." That would take so much character and guts that I'd buy every CD that he/she ever put out, even if I didn't really like the music.
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
Strange, I don't care about my life containing great stories at all, because what's the point of them if I don't tell anybody? And if I told them to anyone then I'd have to endure their company all the time.
Wanting to have great stories must be an extravert thing...
I like having great cosmological theories, though...
So let me get this straight -- he wants to bonk Britney just so he can brag about it to the world later on. I'm sure she'd be thrilled...
don't knock TN please penn i am stuck in graceland can I come be your personal assistant or something elvis is haunting me and I have plenty of stories
Penn, I agree with you on a lot of stuff but I disagree here. The decision to have sex is her own. Why should it matter to others about her choice not to have sex? If she says no there are others who would be glad to step in her place. But just because she didn't have sex with a famous person doesn't change her as a person.
Ummm . . . OK, point taken, but since she was apparently around 15-18 at the time, don't you think you can cut her some slack for being inexperienced and uncertain? Did she say she would still refuse to fuck Elvis, and always would have? That's one thing. But if the story is just that the King hit on her while she was still in high school and she couldn't bring herself to say yes, I think some understanding is in order. It seems to me you can be very unsympathetic, Penn. It's not kind.
Maybe the story of not fucking Elvis is a better story than fucking Elvis. I mean come on everyone wanted to fuck Elvis or say they fucked Elvis. But how many people can actually say they had the chance to Elvis to Fuck Off!
>>>"Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
How sweet when half-conscious, semi-famous corporate shills use YouTube to boost their fame quotient.
YouTube is a populist medium, where authentic voices and real ideas still flourish, and yes, even occasional truth.
It is successful because it has taken back the public forum from the control of mainstream media ghouls like Penn's Viacom master Sumner Redstone and his odious ilk.
No wonder Redstone is doing his best to suck the life out of YouTube and Google.
Maaan what's up with all the flaming towards Penn?
Ok, so I wouldn't drop someone off completely simply because he/she said some shitty stuff - I guess Penn is a little more cynnical than me, haha - but I see it as; if you don't have a good story, don't go around telling people about it. And if you do have a chance of a good story; take it and tell about it... whatever it might be. If not, then shut up about it and talk about something else :)
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone and his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls.
Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture.
This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
Your life can be about getting storys in life. but the storys about you, you have to enjoy yourself. Just because I can put my dick into some obscure place and have a good story doesn't mean im going too. I'd never fuck Barbra Strisand (Was gonna say britney spears but I'd hit that if I could) simply because that story would be more of nightmare tale.
I agree with Penn on a lot of things but not this one. It strikes me was demeaning to have sex with someone solely because they're famous. People need to realize that famous people are just flesh and blood, like themselves. Instead, they virtually worship them. Not good, IMO.
I think the meaning of life is to "keep on going." "Don't stop." Having good stories is part of the survival process to keep on going... breathe, eat, reproduce...
Lots of great stories out there...that have nothing to do with elvis. Like your friends stories instead of yours. In my Vietnam tour, I was in charge of an army photo lab in Saigon. We got requests from command to show evidence of rubber tree damage in the south, and also to photograph a rubber tree as a clear example as to what they look like. So, we found a strong weed out in the back, opened a bunch of rubbers, and placed them open, semi-open, etc. all over the weed and sent pics of THAT.
Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone and his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls.
Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture.
Notice how his "atheism" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon).
I've got to disagree with Penn on this point, having some integrity and honesty, intellectually and in life, is more important than a few good stories. If you want good stories and for people to remember you then go out and do something GOOD with your life, like become a research scientist that helps cure cancer, sucking someone off is not a good story.
"Roughly speaking, yes... drink the rest of that coffee and mull it over."
You have no idea how many cups i'm on now man.
Anyways, regardless of the suggestion of pennsays, I was getting tired of carrying this conversation out with the comment restrictions
Despite the exchange of insults and swearing, or perhaps because of them, I am at least entertained by this conversation so I wouldn't mind continuing it in PM at a less aggressive pace if you are interested DirectedChaos. Send me a PM if so.
Hey guys - appreciate the passion. Its nice to see you guys have been conversing for a few pages now. Perhaps we can all let it go and let the group back to discussing the actual video?
Yeah, don't worry, I was growing tired of going in circles. Tell me tho as I've always wondered, is it just Penn who comments using the pennsays account, or is there staff as well?
Thanks guys appreciate it. Penn does pop in from time to time to respond to comments. However, as you can imagine, he is a busy tguy so there are a few folks from Crackle that help bring your thoughts/concernts to his attention.
"You argue its illogical, and now you describe it as a point."
NO NO NO, that's what you're AFRAID of: you're PARANOID of giving a point to Christians, so you REFUSE TO DENOUNCE PENN, JUST IN CASE IT WOULD BE A POINT FOR CHRISTIANS.
Some Christians do the same, refusing to denounce venom and other fundies for fear it'd be a point for atheists.
BOTH YOU AND THEY ARE WRONG, DON'T YOU GET IT YET?
"NO NO NO, that's what you're AFRAID of: you're PARANOID of giving a point to Christians, so you REFUSE TO DENOUNCE PENN, JUST IN CASE IT WOULD BE A POINT FOR CHRISTIANS."
I am an agnostic, and i would like to say quite clearly, it is POSSIBLE that there is a god. I do not think there is one, but I recognize the possibility.
There, I just gave all monotheistic religions a point.
Please stop arguing i am afraid of giving Christians any sort of credit.
Of course, turning down Elvis is actually a pretty damn good story too. She also may have avoided a pisser of a venereal disease since the king got around. I also think Penn was saying this a wee bit in jest. The guy is brilliant.
I've loved the rest of your videos but disassociating yourself from someone simply because they won't have sex with a celebrity is completely ridiculous, even if you do try to put some clever meaning to it.
Penn is not a true atheist. He describes himself as a "cultural" or nondevout Jew, & does not attack Judaism, nor does he decry the US/Israeli governments' ongoing genocide of the indigenous Palestinians because some white Europeans claim their land is theirs based on an ancient fairytale.
The same with those controlling the US mainstream media. They have spent several decades now demonizing Muslims & supporting their genocide, no less than Julius Streicher & Goebbels did to German Jews.
Atheism isn't a cohesive movement. There's room for any kind of atheist, because the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief. There's nothing another atheist can do to give me a bad name any more than a fellow loch ness monster denier can do to give me a bad name.
The only thing Creationists have in common is their belief in Creationism. Does that mean hypocritical liars like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind don't give them a bad name?
Should we not apologize for our own, to some extent, at least to say "I'm not like that"?
The sad fact is many atheists ARE like Penn: free market fundamentalists, very much in line with social darwinism -- just the agent is the economy. Worse, they LIE about things like the dangers of second hand smoke and the environment.
Penn does give atheists a bad name, because he's a loud, proud atheist on TV.
What you're really trying to say is atheism has no tennets, no moral code, there is no logical connection between atheism and ANY behavior -- and you're correct. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there's no REAL connection.
In REALITY, most atheists are logical, scientifically minded technology-wielding well-to-do people (the poor usually don't have the luxury of abandoning their faith).
Finally, comparing atheism to denying the loch ness monster is GROSSLY unfair. Again, that's a LOGICAL argument about the LOGICAL assertion that there is no god -- you're trying to defend ATHEISM ITSELF, which I am not attacking!
MOST people don't believe in the loch ness monster. There are very few shared characteristics -- one can deny the loch ness monster and evolution, for example. I'd like to meet the atheist who denies evolution...
What I mean to say is I'm comparing god to the loch ness monster, or invisible fairies or Thor any other invisible, unprovable thing that people can believe in if they want to.
Atheism is a fringe minority, so big targets like Penn DO ruin the world's image of the rest of us. We're seen as aggressive greedy bastards who don't give a rats ass about the plight of others.
Seriously, think for a moment about the moral arguments Christians toss against atheists: that atheists think everyone is on their own, in a dog-eat-dog world.
That's EXACTLY the world Penn advocates.
Second hand smoke is bad and anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is real, CATO faithful.
Interesting conclusion, you argue Penn does and says things you don't agree with and therefore gives a bad name to every ideology that he describes himself as subscribing to.
The world must be full of opinionless people who lack any form of ideology, after all, every ideology has someone people describe as giving it a bad name. So surely that means that they will all be summarily rejected based on those examples alone rather than by any inherent flaws in the ideas themselves.
Do venomfangx, Ted Haggard, and Kent Hovind give Christians a bad name?
Does *anybody* give *any group* a bad name?
If you answer no, then what logic tell is the point of the phrase "[person] gives [group x] a bad name"?"
hey give a bad name to anyone who continues to fully support them after witnessing their bigotry.
You want the logic? You tell me, your the one that clearly thinks it is logical to judge an idea based solely on a few people who support it, its yours to explain.
I must now assume that you consider youself a murderer, rapist, theif, and recidivist by proxy simply because you have such people in the group referred to as a "nation" which you are a part of.
By asserting that it is logical to conclude an idea is wrong based solely on the person who supports it (ad hominem fallacy, VFX loves those, and apparently) you do far more to solidfy the ridiculous notion that all atheists are amoral than Penn does.
"By asserting that it is logical to conclude an idea is wrong based solely on the person who supports it "
Dear RETARDED MOTHER FUCKER,
I NEVER SAID THAT.
READ WHAT I FUCKING SAID YOU PIECE OF SHIT ASSHOLE BITCH.
If you do, you'd notice I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
I said THERE'S NO LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ATHEISM AND ANY BEHAVIOR.
But there's a REAL connection: ATHEISTS DO HAVE THINGS IN COMMON BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARRIVED AT ATHEISM (ex: logical, scientific -- evolutionists).
"I must now assume that you consider youself a murderer, rapist, theif, and recidivist by proxy simply because you have such people in the group referred to as a "nation" which you are a part of."
God damn son you are the thickest mother fucking dumbass on the planet. Are you a libertarian? I thought so.
Recap:
1) I'M AN ATHEIST
2) MOST ATHEISTS ARE LOGICAL
3) PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS OFTEN NOT LOGICAL
Dumb shit, bang, you're fucking owned. Fuck yourself hard for this one.
"Here's another question using your "nation" category, one that IS VALID -- unlike the obscure and DERIDED murderers, rapists, and theives:
DID BUSH GIVE AMERICA A BAD NAME?"
I am sorry you seem to be confusing an elected official responsible for representing a nation with an individual responsible only for representing themselves.
This would only be a valid comparison if Penn was elected to represent atheism in general. He is not.
Now I will ask your foolish ad hoc slinging ad hominem dealing ass one more time.
By INDIVIDUAL i refer to someone who has not been elected in any way to represent the group being referred to and is therefore truly acting as an individual
Does having CRIMINAL individuals in your group known as a "Nation" therefor mean that all those who are outside of your nation should be allowed to conclude without any argument that it is a nation of criminals?
Now if you will excuse me, i would rather continue to explain to people why it is illogical to conclude that since one apple had a worm in it that all apples have worms in them.
You see i would rather attempt to educate someone about what a logical fallacy is rather than try and hide all the worm infested apples in the world from them. That way next time when they eat a sour orange, I won't have to explain again why my orange is sweet.
Please respond by telling me how I can go die again, ok kid
"i would rather attempt to educate someone about what a logical fallacy is rather than try and hide all the worm infested apples in the world from them"
Two points using your analogy:
1) You should POINT OUT the bad apples, to SEPARATE THEM from the rest -- NOT hide them. That's exactly what you SHOULDN'T do, what I ARGUE AGAINST.
2) You can also explain the statistics of bad-to-good apples based on small bad apple sample sizes, WHILE SEPARATING SAID BAD APPLES.
"Does having CRIMINAL individuals in your group known as a "Nation" therefor mean that all those who are outside of your nation should be allowed to conclude without any argument that it is a nation of criminals?"
Random criminals are a statistics game. Criminals aren't leaders, so all foreigners would care is if there's lots of criminals -- and by the by, there are: we have the most inmates of any modern "free" nation, iirc.
It's still a very small portion of the populace, of course.
Damn, I hit post comment accidentally, please ignore the "you know one" comment.
Speaking of criminal statistics, one thing i would really like to see is a comparison of the total number of criminalized activities there are in each individual nation and the number of people incarcerated on each offense. Not saying it accounts for the difference in percentage, just saying I have a hard time finding in-depth statistics such as that available freely.
"Don't play nice you panzy, or I'll bring out the curse words again."
Silly cunt, ingore the word please then, I was just attempting to make sure you don't confuse a couple comments that were posted to early as having been complete. I did not realize that sort of thing irritates you as much as getting sand on your hemroids.
Now STFU for a few minutes while I go make myself of a cup of coffee and watching your fucking videos.
fuckity fucking fuck and also a perfect character count achieving FUCK
Aww fuck dude, it was someone else that knocked the swearing, not me. At least I don't recall saying not to, and fucked if i'm looking back for something that trivial. lol
Republicans over all other political groups need to denounce Limbaugh because he, in some way (looking more and more like puppetmaster) represents them. Christians over all others need to denounce hypocrites like Ted Haggart, liars like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and venomfangx, etc. because they are, in some way, representative of Christians.
Nobody had to vote in Kent Hovind as president of Christians, or Limbaugh as republican overloard.
"Republicans over all other political groups need to denounce Limbaugh because he, in some way (looking more and more like puppetmaster) represents them."
Some people do so already, some don't. those who don't do not reflect badly upon those who do.
"Christians over all others need to denounce hypocrites like Ted Haggart, liars like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and venomfangx, etc. because they are, in some way, representative of Christians."
Hah, try to tell a protestant that the Pope represents them
"those who don't [denounce Limbaugh] do not reflect badly upon those who do."
Of course not, but that's not the point: Limbaugh taints republicans who don't denounce him, simply by virtue of the fact that he's a prominent republican who spews nastiness.
"Of course not, but that's not the point: Limbaugh taints republicans who don't denounce him, simply by virtue of the fact that he's a prominent republican who spews nastiness."
You know, I think were agreeing with each other here, and actually just arguing semantics.
I mean, thats exactly my point, he reflects badly on thsoe who don't reject the notion that he is representative of republicans.
He does not reflect badly on those who do reject him as a representative.
Also, anyone who never considered Limbaugh as their representative who does reject him now is not in any way indicating that he represented them in the past.
Penn only represents those who say "penn represents me" and then only on the specific issues which they feel he represents them on.
So, there are two main ways to fight Penn being an atheist representative:
1) Point out other atheists like yourself who disagree with Penn (increase sample size with negative samples)
2) Organize to stop getting Penn invited to atheist talks (lower weight on the Penn sample) [i], or at least get counterbalance atheists who will denounce Penn at those talks (weighted negative samples) [ii]
Both [i] and [ii] are tricky, but [ii] seems like more drama. Just get him to stop talking at rallies. :P
You know perhaps it would help if i pointed something out.
If there were say 10 million atheists in the world only, and 9,999,999 of them all considered Penn their representative, and I didn't guess what, I don't have to answer for anything he or they do just because I happen to share the same core opinion that the organization was built around.
I don't for instance think that all christians are creationists. Or that all Americans are immoral idiots because they had a president who is.
"If there were say 10 million atheists in the world only, and 9,999,999 of them all considered Penn their representative, and I didn't guess what, I don't have to answer for anything he or they do"
YES YOU DO: you'd have to FIGHT LIKE HELL to point out AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY that you are THAT ONE DISSENTING ATHEIST. Because otherwise people would NATURALLY ASSUME that PENN WAS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.
Why?
BECAUSE THEY'D BE RIGHT 99.99999% OF THE TIME, and that's god damned amazing.
Who says? Are they ENCOURAGING me to take responsibility for the actions of those 99.999999%, or forcing me to?
I think this conversation may perhaps go on ceaselessly as it appears now it may shift into an argument about what constitutes individuality and what constitutes a collective as well as what constitutes being a member of a collective.
NO. NOT RESPONSIBILITY, I said yes you had to ANSWER for them. YOU have to ANSWER that YOU don't do what the MAJORITY (99.99+%) do.
Come on man, THIS IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. If scientists say chemical X is poisonous in 999,999,999 test runs, you aren't gonna read it about X in some food ingredients and say "oh well, this X must be different!"
If a breed of dog is more aggressive, I treat all dogs of that breed as more aggressive.
Why should republicans denounce Limbaugh over democrats? Who is ENCOURAGING or FORCING them to take responsibility for his actions?
Nobody -- for RESPONSIBILITY They're being FORCED to DENOUNCE him, because otherwise they're ASSUMED to SUPPORT him. Just as you, as 1 in a million, are FORCED to point out that you're ONE IN A MILLION.
You're right about needing better math in school... starting with you.
How about this example. Say you walk into an interview with an potential employer, and you are coming from a school where 99.99999% of students can't even read.
is it fair for the employer to ask if you can read? Is it fair to assume you have to PROVE that you are SPECIAL?
Or should the employer to FORCED to IGNORE that MOUNTAIN of evidence that says you PROBABLY are STUPID?
We all might as well fall over dead with your thinking.
"How about this example. Say you walk into an interview with an potential employer, and you are coming from a school where 99.99999% of students can't even read."
It must be a school somewhere that does not have any national standards which it is required to live up to, and also one which my family had no choice but to send me to. I suppose that indicates that in this example there is no such thing as home schooling via correspondent courses and so no viable alternative.
"It must be a school somewhere that does not have any national standards which it is required to live up to, and also one which my family had no choice but to send me to. I suppose that indicates that in this example there is no such thing as home schooling via correspondent courses and so no viable alternative."
Way to NOT ADDRESS THE SCENARIO AT ALL.
It'd be like me saying to your 999,999,999 / 1,000,000,00 example that those atheists must not be real people, but drones.
I go to an employer with my resume, which indicates that I graduated from Fucktard Who Can't Read High. It also indicates my scores on the standardized aptitude tests which all students are requried to take.
It indicates that I scored well on the written portion of the exam. The school I went to is trivial when i meet the national standards I needed to in order to legitimately graduate from said school in the first place. The school is only to prepare me for meeting them.
"It indicates that I scored well on the written portion of the exam"
Bingo, YOU HAD TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REST AT THE FUCKTARD SCHOOL.
Because THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT YOU ARE THE SAME.
Try going from a po-dunk no-name school to the big leagues and you'll understand that problem a bit better. The burden of proof is on the special to prove that they are in fact special.
I think that bears repeating.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE SPECIAL TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE SPECIAL.
Let me take your 99.99++% example further. Say 99.99+% of atheists were rapists and murderers, and this is a known fact -- heavy scientific studies have shown this.
Should you, as a non-raping non-murdering atheist, have to explain to a random passerby that "yes, I'm an atheist, BUT NO I'M NOT A RAPING MURDERER"?
That's not fair, is it?
But flip it: should a random passerby, after KNOWING that 99.99+% of atheists RAPE AND MURDER, have to IGNORE THAT and walk by you like you were normal?
"he reflects badly on thsoe who don't reject the notion that he is representative of republicans."
Right, it's an active issue: they have to actively reject him as representative, as if he were thrust upon them as their default representative if they said nothing.
Because he is. Even though Limbaugh never got voted in any primaries, simply because he's the loudest republican atm he has a lot of clout. He needs to be ACTIVELY denounced by them.
"Right, it's an active issue: they have to actively reject him as representative, as if he were thrust upon them as their default representative if they said nothing."
"Also, anyone who never considered Limbaugh as their representative who does reject him now is not in any way indicating that he represented them in the past.
Penn only represents those who say "penn represents me" and then only on the specific issues which they feel he represents them on."
"Hah, try to tell a protestant that the Pope represents them"
Ever heard a Christian fundamentalist talking head say "those people aren't true Christians"?
Like when you mention the crusades, inquisition, salem witch trials, or hate spewers like Phelps or liars like Hovind.
That's them using your argument to get out of the obvious connection between Christianity and the bad things Christians have done. Yes, there's also a logical connection, but bad Christian are good evidence -- sampling!!!
"Like when you mention the crusades, inquisition, salem witch trials, or hate spewers like Phelps or liars like Hovind."
Oh yes, that comes right after someone makes a blanket generalization about christianity in general having more moral fibre than any other religion or lack thereof.
You'll notice that does not fit with the stereotypical usage you are assuming I engage in. I am represented by my OWN actions, do you understand that or do I need to chose a representative to explain it to you?
"You'll notice that does not fit with the stereotypical usage you are assuming I engage in."
You'll notice I correctly assumed you used the argument and encountered the counterargument, AND I MENTIONED NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE "USAGE". Do you understand that or do I need to show you a dictionary, even though you didn't vote for the English language?
Basically, people in the mainstream need to denounce the fringe of ideologies they agree with, lest they risk being incorrectly associated with them. You can argue all you want about how incorrect even making that act of association is, but the fact is that it's made, so the only thing to do is break it.
Drugs are without a doubt the biggest reason for our high incarceration rates:
"half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offences, and 20% (in State prisons, whereas Federal prison percentages are higher) are incarcerated for drug offenses"
It's wikipedia though, and you seem like the type to hate on it.
"you seem to be confusing an elected official responsible for representing a nation with an individual responsible only for representing themselves"
No, I'm establishing where the fuck your stereotyping boundaries are. Everyone has them -- stereotyping is a valid means of information synthesis, finding similarities among a population. The real question is just making sure it's statistically valid.
What was Bush's margin of victory? In 2000, NEGATIVE. Less than half of Americans even voted for him, and yet, ACCORDING TO YOU, he can give ALL of us a bad name.
Where is the fucking cut off dude? If less than half can support someone who the majority dislikes, and yet everyone gets soiled when the jerk wad jerks off, then why not a fringe minority?
Your cutoff is arbitrary, like Creationists claiming micro evolution can't give way to macro evolution.
Now, let's look at Penn. He's probably THE most prominent TV atheist. He's invited to atheist talks as a prominent atheist speaker. So no, clearly he's not "elected" -- but he is an atheist leader in the eyes of the people, the same way Ted Haggard, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc. are fundamentalist Christian leaders.
In the same way moderate Christians reject those fundies, we should reject Penn.
Where is the hangup? Seriously, I've spelled it out in toddler type, you should have no problem.
"DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PENN AFTER WITNESSING HIS ASSHATTERY?"
There is a vast vast difference between serious bigotry and foolish behavior and that which is done for the purpose of entertainment.
There are things Penn has said that I do not agree with, however, NONE of what he has said has lead me to conclude that he is a bad person.
I also laugh at Bob Sagats stand up, and support it by paying, which in your mind probably makes me a HORRIBLE person, only slightly less evil than Himmler.
Which by your logic and based on your judgement of my character means I should stop talking to anyone in the world, lest I give Canadians a bad name, Atheists a bad name, pessimists a bad name, and so on for every group which shares a label with me a bad name
I won't stop tho, because I don't think one should be silenced merely because someone else might illogcially and unfairly stereotype an entire group based on the actions of an individual who is not a chosen representative for them.
You should really stop doing that. First you say there's no such thing as stereotyping, that the idiom "to give a bad name" has no meaning, then you say it's simply logically invalid, then you say to even acknowledge it is to support it, and finally you say it's not even worth fighting. First you say I have no reason to respond, then you say I have two reasons.
I'm sorry I ruined your sado-masochistic masturbatory enjoyment of this conversation.
"You should really stop doing that. First you say there's no such thing as stereotyping, that the idiom "to give a bad name" has no meaning, then you say it's simply logically invalid,"
Quote my words please, show me where i say it has no meaning at all rather than argue that your application of it is unsound.
Ahh yes the two clear linsults sarcastically referred to as "reasons." Glad you took them seriously.
You sarcastically deny the idiom "to give a bad name", because there'd be no ideologies at all. You implicitly conclude that stereotyping doesn't happen:
"The world must be full of opinionless people who lack any form of ideology, after all, every ideology has someone people describe as giving it a bad name. So surely that means that they will all be summarily rejected based on those examples alone rather than by any inherent flaws in the ideas themselves."
So when someone tells me "the world is 4000 years old" and i sarcastically reply "oh yes, and its flat too" what does that mean?
I did not conclude that stereotyping doesn't happen, the sarcasm was directed at the idea that we should not correct the mistake when it does happen. The humor was in the over-dramatization of the fact that not correcting someone when their basing their conclusion on bad logic has a result that is almost indistinguishable from agreeing with them.
thanks adverts, definitely want to buy your shit now
Hellenologophilia 3 months ago
fucking ads
Lightningbaron69 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd fuck Elvis.
When he was alive, not now.
McNugget06 6 months ago
WHY CAN'T I WATCH THIS!?
CounterNerd 8 months ago
Comment removed
king1133t 10 months ago
lol i love this guy Penn has always been my fav
mik8y 11 months ago
ya go fuck yourself.
MegaJetCom 11 months ago
the 15 second ads are okay but 30 fucking seconds cmon youtube how big of sellouts are you?
blazemanfoshizzle 11 months ago
If this guy wasn't semi famous, he would be on the sex offender registry, he is always talking about crazy sex shit.
dave1acs 1 year ago 2
Penn, I watched your video about the man that gave you his Bible. I know you don't believe in God. I won't try to convince you otherwise. I just want you to know that I do believe in God, I believe in hell, and I don't want you to go there, or anyone for that matter. So I am going to pray for you. I hope that some day you come to view God differently. If I saw a bus coming I would try to push you out of the way, the problem is that not everyone is willing to be pushed. Then what happens?
latinocivo 1 year ago
she obviously had a great story to tell you if you had to go and put it on youtube,
1nousername1 1 year ago 4
hey penn get a real channel nobody can suffer through all these fucking ads
zimfromBM 1 year ago
you remind me of Gene Simmons (lead singer for KISS)
averagemommasboy 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you searched fuck.
sauntersil 1 year ago 28
@sauntersil actually i searched fuck fuck fuck not fuck.. so thumbs down for you sir
ListenToKimmi 11 months ago
@ListenToKimmi You sir...win.
sauntersil 11 months ago
@sauntersil YES! xD
ListenToKimmi 11 months ago
@sauntersil i searched fuck it d:
8000cheese 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is your fun time man Go to datemedear.info
jhonnywally1 1 year ago
That's a little over-dramatic.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
LOL this is what comes up if you search "fuck"
MultiStickATG 1 year ago
i think having sex with elvis dead would be an even better story and you dont love life if you wouldnt have sex with elvis' dead body
bwddwb 1 year ago
This is funny because there were something similar before, but its cool anyway.
JodelleFartland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try Latino brides in your area sarafox.info
theolaschwi 1 year ago
I'd say this is one of his more unusual videos.
HolyDiver1 1 year ago
Interesting babble from a guy who spent a lifetime looking worse than fat Elvis on a bad day.
bjocelot 1 year ago
That is sooooo strange. I was just thinking to myself how Penn is kind of becoming a personal hero of mine. And then, me being me, started thinking about blowing him. Nothing to do with his looks. Just a cool story. So... i guess if i ever see the guy... i kinda have to.... :D
mamanita4gcea 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA THIS NIGGA IS HELLA FUNNY!
VALLYGOON 1 year ago
Isn't turning down Elvis also a good story?
Pyrolonn 1 year ago
This is all Penn's attempt to get more groupies to have sex with him. :)
JuryDutySummons 2 years ago
FUCK GO ARMY AND THE BREAST RANGER
wblstudios 2 years ago
Breast Ranger? Is that a Cinemax film?
pennsays 2 years ago
"He's back again, with a vengeance. The Breast Ranger. Motorboating his way to DESTRUCTION."
God I'm dumb. Sorry.
masonkiller666 2 years ago
@masonkiller666 I love that last line! Hilarious!
pennsays 1 year ago
@pennsays
SKIN-A-MAX!!!! But Yhea....I think it was.....I have the uncut version on Super 8
MrFlashBazbo 1 year ago
Breast ranger?
You mean movies like?
Areola 51 or Da Vinci Coed?
Saibot00 2 years ago
this guy is good stuff
RyaZila24 2 years ago 9
Isn't the fact that she turned down Elvis sex ALSO a story? In fact, you're telling the story of her story on the internet, it was such a good story. :/
planetdarwin 2 years ago
Would you fuck Elvis's corpse? lol.
Skillbus 2 years ago
go suck a dick!
pdaddy159 2 years ago
There's also something called personal dignity. Maybe rather than living for stories, other people have higher standards. Not all future husbands want their wives to have slept with every man on earth, for instance. Esp the super promiscuous ones might be a good place to pass.
But of course, maybe Penn is omniscient and infallible like God or something. Maybe Penn is God and therefore his opinion is what all other humans have to live by. Yeah.
canthemum 2 years ago
Title made me think of True Romance anyone else
styxman09 2 years ago
Penn usually talks sense, including on occasion speaking against various sorts of idol or celebrity worship but he's really tanked on this one. From a normal person that would be pathetic but from Penn it's self-serving and disappointing.
If you insist on having sex with a stranger then pick someone off the street instead of a celebrity.
Don't put people on a pedestal that don't even know or care that you exist. It's demeaning.
yonomow 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he looks like a chuby undertaker from wwf.
tomdogg619 2 years ago
For me, it would depend on how much of a fan I was. If I didn't care that much about Elvis' music, fucking him wouldn't seem like too impressive a story to me -- & if i don't care that much about his music, then I wouldn't expect my friends, to care that much, either, making a fuck story kind of pointless.
Can't argue w/ the logic about having good stories, though. But a good story is relative & subjective. I think S.Meyers, for example, writes terrible stories, but they sure as hell sell.
youngsoulrebel81 2 years ago
I don't care about people in the here and now. I'm pretty sure they're not going to get any better in the future (although I can always hope).
Sure, it would make a great story, but as was stated so would shooting *celeb* down (where *celeb* equals any of those you mentioned). I think I'd also respect myself more which is even more important. I could give a shit less about what others think of me. I care a lot about what I think of myself. Also doing it "for the lulz" is stupid as well.
ScaryGuy255 2 years ago
Then I would so fuck Elvis! i agree.
Not Bill though. He's... older. I'd rather be covered in spiders.
9Ghostly9Fish9 2 years ago
I'd fuck elvis, but not clinton
d4m4s74 2 years ago
is this guy gay? hes talking about fucking elvis
TheHaterBill 2 years ago
Penn, I love pretty much everything that you do, but you're just wrong on this one. Shooting Elvis down is a pretty good story itself.
In the same vein, I'm still waiting for a hero to go on American Idol, nail the audition, and then look at the camera, tear up his/her ticket, and say, "Y'know what? I don't need this show." That would take so much character and guts that I'd buy every CD that he/she ever put out, even if I didn't really like the music.
PRWelke 2 years ago
LMAO
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
bumpyjjeans 2 years ago 2
Penn, you are sooo right.
deliarae 2 years ago
Strange, I don't care about my life containing great stories at all, because what's the point of them if I don't tell anybody? And if I told them to anyone then I'd have to endure their company all the time.
Wanting to have great stories must be an extravert thing...
I like having great cosmological theories, though...
So let me get this straight -- he wants to bonk Britney just so he can brag about it to the world later on. I'm sure she'd be thrilled...
OolTube02 2 years ago
don't knock TN please penn i am stuck in graceland can I come be your personal assistant or something elvis is haunting me and I have plenty of stories
9016915701 2 years ago
people of the future I'm going to make my life more fascinating for all our up coming conversations
because I care
funquist 2 years ago
Haha interesting perspective. But there might have been something even more important to her than stories.
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
I completely agree with msxenix, ktkeith, & falconerx below - we all love Penn - but he missed it with this one.
Just being able to tell the story is good enough. It showed she had some self respect.
Turning down a personal guitar lesson with the King would have been stupid ...
BermondseySteve 2 years ago
Penn, I agree with you on a lot of stuff but I disagree here. The decision to have sex is her own. Why should it matter to others about her choice not to have sex? If she says no there are others who would be glad to step in her place. But just because she didn't have sex with a famous person doesn't change her as a person.
msxenix 2 years ago
Ummm . . . OK, point taken, but since she was apparently around 15-18 at the time, don't you think you can cut her some slack for being inexperienced and uncertain? Did she say she would still refuse to fuck Elvis, and always would have? That's one thing. But if the story is just that the King hit on her while she was still in high school and she couldn't bring herself to say yes, I think some understanding is in order. It seems to me you can be very unsympathetic, Penn. It's not kind.
ktkeith 2 years ago
Maybe the story of not fucking Elvis is a better story than fucking Elvis. I mean come on everyone wanted to fuck Elvis or say they fucked Elvis. But how many people can actually say they had the chance to Elvis to Fuck Off!
Love Penn's posts but he is wrong on this one.
falconerx 2 years ago
Media priest.
>>>"Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
tonzimala 2 years ago
Oh word.
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone & his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls. Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture. This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
zooooooperdooooooper 2 years ago
fuck you and fuck elvis too his music sucked..
tonytrilex 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you refuse to fuck a celebrity or a politician, you don't love life.
What.
crazymadjo 2 years ago
Comment removed
crazymadjo 2 years ago
I was once asked if I would have sex with Brad Pitt in order to have sex with Angelina Jolie.
"Yes. Then I can say that I've had sex with both Brad Pitt AND Angelina Jolie."
for the record, I find neither greatly attractive.
CheeseWaffleGames 2 years ago
LMAO!
>"I've found my people. Thanks, Penn Jillette, you ignorant fuck.
>"Penn likes to promote the idea that celebrity makes one sexually attractive, even if you are fat, ugly, boring & have a small peen."
>"This fugly halfwit gives atheism a bad name."
>"Cato Institute whore, Viacom whore, thinks the whole world should be whores."
>"Elvis had a small peen. Everybody knows that."
>"Typical star fucker mentality. Pathetic. Celebrities, by definition, are boring in bed."
mmmrazor 2 years ago 2
Hey, shave off this geezers embarrassing hair and he'd be a dead ringer for Babe Ruth!
tapyenreit 2 years ago 2
The juxtaposition of this glutton's face and sex me go limp!
tapyenreit 2 years ago 2
This fat loser's wife has to fuck him and avoids talking about it I'm sure.
walterglanz 2 years ago
How sweet when half-conscious, semi-famous corporate shills use YouTube to boost their fame quotient.
YouTube is a populist medium, where authentic voices and real ideas still flourish, and yes, even occasional truth.
It is successful because it has taken back the public forum from the control of mainstream media ghouls like Penn's Viacom master Sumner Redstone and his odious ilk.
No wonder Redstone is doing his best to suck the life out of YouTube and Google.
bumpyjjeans 2 years ago
Maaan what's up with all the flaming towards Penn?
Ok, so I wouldn't drop someone off completely simply because he/she said some shitty stuff - I guess Penn is a little more cynnical than me, haha - but I see it as; if you don't have a good story, don't go around telling people about it. And if you do have a chance of a good story; take it and tell about it... whatever it might be. If not, then shut up about it and talk about something else :)
dradeel 2 years ago
Oh word.
>"I've found my people. Thanks, Penn Jillette, you ignorant fuck.
>"Penn likes to promote the idea that celebrity makes one sexually attractive, even if you are fat, ugly, boring & have a small peen."
>"This fugly halfwit gives atheism a bad name."
>"Cato Institute whore, Viacom whore, thinks the whole world should be whores."
>"Elvis had a small peen. Everybody knows that."
>"Typical star fucker mentality. Pathetic. Celebrities, by definition, are boring in bed."
bc9021010001 2 years ago
LMAO
>>>"Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone and his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls.
Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture.
This "atheist" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon)."
funboy7979 2 years ago
The purpose of life is to have great stories ... that are entertaining to this tedious fat fuck?
funboy7979 2 years ago
boycott Sony
hanky2112 2 years ago 2
Your life can be about getting storys in life. but the storys about you, you have to enjoy yourself. Just because I can put my dick into some obscure place and have a good story doesn't mean im going too. I'd never fuck Barbra Strisand (Was gonna say britney spears but I'd hit that if I could) simply because that story would be more of nightmare tale.
SireWolf 2 years ago
I agree with Penn on a lot of things but not this one. It strikes me was demeaning to have sex with someone solely because they're famous. People need to realize that famous people are just flesh and blood, like themselves. Instead, they virtually worship them. Not good, IMO.
yonomow 2 years ago
I think the meaning of life is to "keep on going." "Don't stop." Having good stories is part of the survival process to keep on going... breathe, eat, reproduce...
thx6311 2 years ago
Absolutely! The purpose, meaning, and core of life is to live. Anything else is gravy.
jforbe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lots of great stories out there...that have nothing to do with elvis. Like your friends stories instead of yours. In my Vietnam tour, I was in charge of an army photo lab in Saigon. We got requests from command to show evidence of rubber tree damage in the south, and also to photograph a rubber tree as a clear example as to what they look like. So, we found a strong weed out in the back, opened a bunch of rubbers, and placed them open, semi-open, etc. all over the weed and sent pics of THAT.
sclogse1 2 years ago
Comment removed
sclogse1 2 years ago
Sure. Don't believe in God, believe in Elvis, or any other hot mess bag of meat Sumner Redstone and his ilk make a fortune off of. Don't worship by praying to a concept of perfection, worship by sucking the dick of some drug addicted slob controlled by media ghouls.
Penn Jillette, bored w/ his tired act, has become a fat shill for the corporations that fashion pop culture.
Notice how his "atheism" rarely attacks his own cultural Judaism, only other faiths (a Hollywood-wide phenomenon).
zooooooperdooooooper 2 years ago
I've got to disagree with Penn on this point, having some integrity and honesty, intellectually and in life, is more important than a few good stories. If you want good stories and for people to remember you then go out and do something GOOD with your life, like become a research scientist that helps cure cancer, sucking someone off is not a good story.
mortizSix100And66 2 years ago
LMAO
>"I've found my people. Thanks, Penn Jillette, you ignorant fuck.
>"Penn likes to promote the idea that celebrity makes one sexually attractive, even if you are fat, ugly, boring & have a small peen."
>"This fugly halfwit gives atheism a bad name."
>"Cato Institute whore, Viacom whore, thinks the whole world should be whores."
>"Elvis had a small peen. Everybody knows that."
>"Typical star fucker mentality. Pathetic. Celebrities, by definition, are boring in bed."
funboy7979 2 years ago
"everyone assumes that people from the same school have the same education"
Roughly speaking, yes... drink the rest of that coffee and mull it over.
You really think that's an unsafe assumption? That there's NO CORRELATION BETWEEN EDUCATION AND SCHOOL?
DRINK MAN!!!!!
"So then why must someone who is an international baccalaureate take the same test?"
To strengthen their case that they are special. If they don't take it it's assumed they would/did score poorly and decided not to report it.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Roughly speaking, yes... drink the rest of that coffee and mull it over."
You have no idea how many cups i'm on now man.
Anyways, regardless of the suggestion of pennsays, I was getting tired of carrying this conversation out with the comment restrictions
Despite the exchange of insults and swearing, or perhaps because of them, I am at least entertained by this conversation so I wouldn't mind continuing it in PM at a less aggressive pace if you are interested DirectedChaos. Send me a PM if so.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Hey guys - appreciate the passion. Its nice to see you guys have been conversing for a few pages now. Perhaps we can all let it go and let the group back to discussing the actual video?
pennsays 2 years ago
While I have your attention dear lord and master,
watch?v=2QmktIMPaBA
Are you going to apologize for being incorrect about global warming the way you apologized for being incorrect about second-hand smoke?
;)
directedchaos 2 years ago
Yeah, don't worry, I was growing tired of going in circles. Tell me tho as I've always wondered, is it just Penn who comments using the pennsays account, or is there staff as well?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Thanks guys appreciate it. Penn does pop in from time to time to respond to comments. However, as you can imagine, he is a busy tguy so there are a few folks from Crackle that help bring your thoughts/concernts to his attention.
pennsays 2 years ago
Excellent.
I'd like to point out then that I do consider him as one of my chosen representatives for my sense of humor.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go have sex with Elvis... yes I know he's dead BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JebusGeist 2 years ago 3
Heh. I agree, Penn. It's all about the story :)
GuinnessAML 2 years ago
christians are retards.
TheBlueDuckMOE 2 years ago
"You argue its illogical, and now you describe it as a point."
NO NO NO, that's what you're AFRAID of: you're PARANOID of giving a point to Christians, so you REFUSE TO DENOUNCE PENN, JUST IN CASE IT WOULD BE A POINT FOR CHRISTIANS.
Some Christians do the same, refusing to denounce venom and other fundies for fear it'd be a point for atheists.
BOTH YOU AND THEY ARE WRONG, DON'T YOU GET IT YET?
directedchaos 2 years ago
"NO NO NO, that's what you're AFRAID of: you're PARANOID of giving a point to Christians, so you REFUSE TO DENOUNCE PENN, JUST IN CASE IT WOULD BE A POINT FOR CHRISTIANS."
I am an agnostic, and i would like to say quite clearly, it is POSSIBLE that there is a god. I do not think there is one, but I recognize the possibility.
There, I just gave all monotheistic religions a point.
Please stop arguing i am afraid of giving Christians any sort of credit.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sexxstar dildo delights! - __UTUBEHOTA(.)COM__
yrmfysj 2 years ago
Of course, turning down Elvis is actually a pretty damn good story too. She also may have avoided a pisser of a venereal disease since the king got around. I also think Penn was saying this a wee bit in jest. The guy is brilliant.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"turning down Elvis is actually a pretty damn good story too. She also may have avoided a pisser of a venereal disease since the king got around."
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
"I also think Penn was saying this a wee bit in jest. "
Oops I take that back. He looked serious to me.
directedchaos 2 years ago
So in case y'all missed it:
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
directedchaos 2 years ago
I've loved the rest of your videos but disassociating yourself from someone simply because they won't have sex with a celebrity is completely ridiculous, even if you do try to put some clever meaning to it.
Brushles83 2 years ago
Penn is not a true atheist. He describes himself as a "cultural" or nondevout Jew, & does not attack Judaism, nor does he decry the US/Israeli governments' ongoing genocide of the indigenous Palestinians because some white Europeans claim their land is theirs based on an ancient fairytale.
The same with those controlling the US mainstream media. They have spent several decades now demonizing Muslims & supporting their genocide, no less than Julius Streicher & Goebbels did to German Jews.
walterglanz 2 years ago
I've found my people. Thanks, Penn Jillette, you ignorant fuck.
>>>"Penn likes to promote the idea that celebrity makes one sexually attractive, even if you are fat, ugly, boring and have a small peen."
>>>"This fugly halfwit gives atheism a bad name.
>>>"Cato Institute whore, Viacom whore, thinks the whole world should be whores."
>>>"Elvis had a small peen. Everybody knows that."
>>>"Typical star fucker mentality. Pathetic. Celebrities, by definition, are boring in bed."
walterglanz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Comment removed
jproppe 2 years ago
Atheism isn't a cohesive movement. There's room for any kind of atheist, because the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief. There's nothing another atheist can do to give me a bad name any more than a fellow loch ness monster denier can do to give me a bad name.
r0g3r 2 years ago
The only thing Creationists have in common is their belief in Creationism. Does that mean hypocritical liars like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind don't give them a bad name?
Should we not apologize for our own, to some extent, at least to say "I'm not like that"?
The sad fact is many atheists ARE like Penn: free market fundamentalists, very much in line with social darwinism -- just the agent is the economy. Worse, they LIE about things like the dangers of second hand smoke and the environment.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Creationism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. I don't think you're getting the distinction.
You may as well say this guy gives all people who don't believe in invisible purple fairies a bad name.
r0g3r 2 years ago
Penn does give atheists a bad name, because he's a loud, proud atheist on TV.
What you're really trying to say is atheism has no tennets, no moral code, there is no logical connection between atheism and ANY behavior -- and you're correct. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there's no REAL connection.
In REALITY, most atheists are logical, scientifically minded technology-wielding well-to-do people (the poor usually don't have the luxury of abandoning their faith).
directedchaos 2 years ago
Finally, comparing atheism to denying the loch ness monster is GROSSLY unfair. Again, that's a LOGICAL argument about the LOGICAL assertion that there is no god -- you're trying to defend ATHEISM ITSELF, which I am not attacking!
MOST people don't believe in the loch ness monster. There are very few shared characteristics -- one can deny the loch ness monster and evolution, for example. I'd like to meet the atheist who denies evolution...
directedchaos 2 years ago
I'm not comparing atheism to the loch ness monster, but rather religion. Clearly you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
r0g3r 2 years ago
What I mean to say is I'm comparing god to the loch ness monster, or invisible fairies or Thor any other invisible, unprovable thing that people can believe in if they want to.
r0g3r 2 years ago
"What I mean to say is I'm comparing god to the loch ness monster, or invisible fairies or Thor"
All of which is fine and dandy, on a LOGICAL LEVEL; however, public perception isn't up for debate. It is what it is.
There are, however, some very good reasons for public perception -- just not necessarily logically sound reasons.
1) If prominent self-proclaimed people of a group say/do bad things, that negatively affects public perception of that group.
2) Penn is a public vocal atheist.
directedchaos 2 years ago
r0g3r: "I'm not comparing atheism to the loch ness monster"
O rly?
r0g3r: "There's nothing another atheist can do to give me a bad name any more than a fellow loch ness monster denier can do to give me a bad name."
Hush now, let the name-callers play, unless you want a slice of the comment mud pie.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Atheism is a fringe minority, so big targets like Penn DO ruin the world's image of the rest of us. We're seen as aggressive greedy bastards who don't give a rats ass about the plight of others.
Seriously, think for a moment about the moral arguments Christians toss against atheists: that atheists think everyone is on their own, in a dog-eat-dog world.
That's EXACTLY the world Penn advocates.
Second hand smoke is bad and anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is real, CATO faithful.
directedchaos 2 years ago
In summary:
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
This fugly halfwit shill gives atheism a bad name.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Interesting conclusion, you argue Penn does and says things you don't agree with and therefore gives a bad name to every ideology that he describes himself as subscribing to.
The world must be full of opinionless people who lack any form of ideology, after all, every ideology has someone people describe as giving it a bad name. So surely that means that they will all be summarily rejected based on those examples alone rather than by any inherent flaws in the ideas themselves.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"Penn does and says things you don't agree with and therefore gives a bad name to every ideology that he describes himself as subscribing to."
No. Are you really that dumb? Penn doesn't give a bad name to people who wear glasses, because:
1) He isn't advertising himself as a Prominent Glasses Wearer.
2) There is no public perception that people who wear glasses have certain ideologies.
Compare to his outspoken atheism and the public's view of us as amoral. He's just fodder for Creationists.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"No. Are you really that dumb? Penn doesn't give a bad name to people who wear glasses, because:"
When did wearing glasses become an ideology you fucktard?
Try reading what you copy paste next time:
"Penn does and says things you don't agree with and therefore gives a bad name to every ideology that he describes himself as subscribing to."
note the word IDEOLOGY.
Do not question my intelligence after so completely failing to read whats plainly spelled out in english before you
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"
Consider:
Do venomfangx, Ted Haggard, and Kent Hovind give Christians a bad name?
Does *anybody* give *any group* a bad name?
If you answer no, then what logic tell is the point of the phrase "[person] gives [group x] a bad name"?"
hey give a bad name to anyone who continues to fully support them after witnessing their bigotry.
You want the logic? You tell me, your the one that clearly thinks it is logical to judge an idea based solely on a few people who support it, its yours to explain.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I must now assume that you consider youself a murderer, rapist, theif, and recidivist by proxy simply because you have such people in the group referred to as a "nation" which you are a part of.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Heres one thing you fail completely to consider:
By asserting that it is logical to conclude an idea is wrong based solely on the person who supports it (ad hominem fallacy, VFX loves those, and apparently) you do far more to solidfy the ridiculous notion that all atheists are amoral than Penn does.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"By asserting that it is logical to conclude an idea is wrong based solely on the person who supports it "
Dear RETARDED MOTHER FUCKER,
I NEVER SAID THAT.
READ WHAT I FUCKING SAID YOU PIECE OF SHIT ASSHOLE BITCH.
If you do, you'd notice I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
I said THERE'S NO LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ATHEISM AND ANY BEHAVIOR.
But there's a REAL connection: ATHEISTS DO HAVE THINGS IN COMMON BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARRIVED AT ATHEISM (ex: logical, scientific -- evolutionists).
directedchaos 2 years ago
"I must now assume that you consider youself a murderer, rapist, theif, and recidivist by proxy simply because you have such people in the group referred to as a "nation" which you are a part of."
God damn son you are the thickest mother fucking dumbass on the planet. Are you a libertarian? I thought so.
Recap:
1) I'M AN ATHEIST
2) MOST ATHEISTS ARE LOGICAL
3) PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS OFTEN NOT LOGICAL
Dumb shit, bang, you're fucking owned. Fuck yourself hard for this one.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Here's another question using your "nation" category, one that IS VALID -- unlike the obscure and DERIDED murderers, rapists, and theives:
DID BUSH GIVE AMERICA A BAD NAME?
If you answer:
1) Yes, then YOU CONCEDE THE FUCKING POINT, FINALLY, DUMB SHIT, I'LL LET YOU LIVE AGAIN.
2) No, then YOU'RE LYING THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH OR OBLIVIOUS TO INTERNATIONAL PERCEPTION
Rich snobby whites retiring to poor areas can also give Americans a bad name.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Here's another question using your "nation" category, one that IS VALID -- unlike the obscure and DERIDED murderers, rapists, and theives:
DID BUSH GIVE AMERICA A BAD NAME?"
I am sorry you seem to be confusing an elected official responsible for representing a nation with an individual responsible only for representing themselves.
This would only be a valid comparison if Penn was elected to represent atheism in general. He is not.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Now I will ask your foolish ad hoc slinging ad hominem dealing ass one more time.
By INDIVIDUAL i refer to someone who has not been elected in any way to represent the group being referred to and is therefore truly acting as an individual
Does having CRIMINAL individuals in your group known as a "Nation" therefor mean that all those who are outside of your nation should be allowed to conclude without any argument that it is a nation of criminals?
You're the only one who fails to see the validity
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Now if you will excuse me, i would rather continue to explain to people why it is illogical to conclude that since one apple had a worm in it that all apples have worms in them.
You see i would rather attempt to educate someone about what a logical fallacy is rather than try and hide all the worm infested apples in the world from them. That way next time when they eat a sour orange, I won't have to explain again why my orange is sweet.
Please respond by telling me how I can go die again, ok kid
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"i would rather attempt to educate someone about what a logical fallacy is rather than try and hide all the worm infested apples in the world from them"
Two points using your analogy:
1) You should POINT OUT the bad apples, to SEPARATE THEM from the rest -- NOT hide them. That's exactly what you SHOULDN'T do, what I ARGUE AGAINST.
2) You can also explain the statistics of bad-to-good apples based on small bad apple sample sizes, WHILE SEPARATING SAID BAD APPLES.
You can do both!
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Does having CRIMINAL individuals in your group known as a "Nation" therefor mean that all those who are outside of your nation should be allowed to conclude without any argument that it is a nation of criminals?"
Random criminals are a statistics game. Criminals aren't leaders, so all foreigners would care is if there's lots of criminals -- and by the by, there are: we have the most inmates of any modern "free" nation, iirc.
It's still a very small portion of the populace, of course.
directedchaos 2 years ago
You know one
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Damn, I hit post comment accidentally, please ignore the "you know one" comment.
Speaking of criminal statistics, one thing i would really like to see is a comparison of the total number of criminalized activities there are in each individual nation and the number of people incarcerated on each offense. Not saying it accounts for the difference in percentage, just saying I have a hard time finding in-depth statistics such as that available freely.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"please ignore"
Don't play nice you panzy, or I'll bring out the curse words again.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Don't play nice you panzy, or I'll bring out the curse words again."
Silly cunt, ingore the word please then, I was just attempting to make sure you don't confuse a couple comments that were posted to early as having been complete. I did not realize that sort of thing irritates you as much as getting sand on your hemroids.
Now STFU for a few minutes while I go make myself of a cup of coffee and watching your fucking videos.
fuckity fucking fuck and also a perfect character count achieving FUCK
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"Silly cunt [...] STFU [...] fucking [...] fuckity fucking fuck [...] FUCK "
Doesn't that feel better?
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Doesn't that feel better? "
Aww fuck dude, it was someone else that knocked the swearing, not me. At least I don't recall saying not to, and fucked if i'm looking back for something that trivial. lol
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Some more examples of needing denunciations:
Republicans over all other political groups need to denounce Limbaugh because he, in some way (looking more and more like puppetmaster) represents them. Christians over all others need to denounce hypocrites like Ted Haggart, liars like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and venomfangx, etc. because they are, in some way, representative of Christians.
Nobody had to vote in Kent Hovind as president of Christians, or Limbaugh as republican overloard.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Republicans over all other political groups need to denounce Limbaugh because he, in some way (looking more and more like puppetmaster) represents them."
Some people do so already, some don't. those who don't do not reflect badly upon those who do.
"Christians over all others need to denounce hypocrites like Ted Haggart, liars like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and venomfangx, etc. because they are, in some way, representative of Christians."
Hah, try to tell a protestant that the Pope represents them
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"those who don't [denounce Limbaugh] do not reflect badly upon those who do."
Of course not, but that's not the point: Limbaugh taints republicans who don't denounce him, simply by virtue of the fact that he's a prominent republican who spews nastiness.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Of course not, but that's not the point: Limbaugh taints republicans who don't denounce him, simply by virtue of the fact that he's a prominent republican who spews nastiness."
You know, I think were agreeing with each other here, and actually just arguing semantics.
I mean, thats exactly my point, he reflects badly on thsoe who don't reject the notion that he is representative of republicans.
He does not reflect badly on those who do reject him as a representative.
Both are still republicans.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Also, anyone who never considered Limbaugh as their representative who does reject him now is not in any way indicating that he represented them in the past.
Penn only represents those who say "penn represents me" and then only on the specific issues which they feel he represents them on.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
So, there are two main ways to fight Penn being an atheist representative:
1) Point out other atheists like yourself who disagree with Penn (increase sample size with negative samples)
2) Organize to stop getting Penn invited to atheist talks (lower weight on the Penn sample) [i], or at least get counterbalance atheists who will denounce Penn at those talks (weighted negative samples) [ii]
Both [i] and [ii] are tricky, but [ii] seems like more drama. Just get him to stop talking at rallies. :P
directedchaos 2 years ago
You know perhaps it would help if i pointed something out.
If there were say 10 million atheists in the world only, and 9,999,999 of them all considered Penn their representative, and I didn't guess what, I don't have to answer for anything he or they do just because I happen to share the same core opinion that the organization was built around.
I don't for instance think that all christians are creationists. Or that all Americans are immoral idiots because they had a president who is.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"If there were say 10 million atheists in the world only, and 9,999,999 of them all considered Penn their representative, and I didn't guess what, I don't have to answer for anything he or they do"
YES YOU DO: you'd have to FIGHT LIKE HELL to point out AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY that you are THAT ONE DISSENTING ATHEIST. Because otherwise people would NATURALLY ASSUME that PENN WAS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.
Why?
BECAUSE THEY'D BE RIGHT 99.99999% OF THE TIME, and that's god damned amazing.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"YES YOU DO:"
Who says? Are they ENCOURAGING me to take responsibility for the actions of those 99.999999%, or forcing me to?
I think this conversation may perhaps go on ceaselessly as it appears now it may shift into an argument about what constitutes individuality and what constitutes a collective as well as what constitutes being a member of a collective.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"Are they ENCOURAGING me to take responsibility "
NO. NOT RESPONSIBILITY, I said yes you had to ANSWER for them. YOU have to ANSWER that YOU don't do what the MAJORITY (99.99+%) do.
Come on man, THIS IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. If scientists say chemical X is poisonous in 999,999,999 test runs, you aren't gonna read it about X in some food ingredients and say "oh well, this X must be different!"
If a breed of dog is more aggressive, I treat all dogs of that breed as more aggressive.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Are they ENCOURAGING me to take responsibility"
Let me ask something very very basic:
Why should republicans denounce Limbaugh over democrats? Who is ENCOURAGING or FORCING them to take responsibility for his actions?
Nobody -- for RESPONSIBILITY They're being FORCED to DENOUNCE him, because otherwise they're ASSUMED to SUPPORT him. Just as you, as 1 in a million, are FORCED to point out that you're ONE IN A MILLION.
You're right about needing better math in school... starting with you.
directedchaos 2 years ago
How about this example. Say you walk into an interview with an potential employer, and you are coming from a school where 99.99999% of students can't even read.
is it fair for the employer to ask if you can read? Is it fair to assume you have to PROVE that you are SPECIAL?
Or should the employer to FORCED to IGNORE that MOUNTAIN of evidence that says you PROBABLY are STUPID?
We all might as well fall over dead with your thinking.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"How about this example. Say you walk into an interview with an potential employer, and you are coming from a school where 99.99999% of students can't even read."
It must be a school somewhere that does not have any national standards which it is required to live up to, and also one which my family had no choice but to send me to. I suppose that indicates that in this example there is no such thing as home schooling via correspondent courses and so no viable alternative.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"It must be a school somewhere that does not have any national standards which it is required to live up to, and also one which my family had no choice but to send me to. I suppose that indicates that in this example there is no such thing as home schooling via correspondent courses and so no viable alternative."
Way to NOT ADDRESS THE SCENARIO AT ALL.
It'd be like me saying to your 999,999,999 / 1,000,000,00 example that those atheists must not be real people, but drones.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Ok, I'll address it.
I go to an employer with my resume, which indicates that I graduated from Fucktard Who Can't Read High. It also indicates my scores on the standardized aptitude tests which all students are requried to take.
It indicates that I scored well on the written portion of the exam. The school I went to is trivial when i meet the national standards I needed to in order to legitimately graduate from said school in the first place. The school is only to prepare me for meeting them.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"It indicates that I scored well on the written portion of the exam"
Bingo, YOU HAD TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REST AT THE FUCKTARD SCHOOL.
Because THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT YOU ARE THE SAME.
Try going from a po-dunk no-name school to the big leagues and you'll understand that problem a bit better. The burden of proof is on the special to prove that they are in fact special.
I think that bears repeating.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE SPECIAL TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE SPECIAL.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Let me take your 99.99++% example further. Say 99.99+% of atheists were rapists and murderers, and this is a known fact -- heavy scientific studies have shown this.
Should you, as a non-raping non-murdering atheist, have to explain to a random passerby that "yes, I'm an atheist, BUT NO I'M NOT A RAPING MURDERER"?
That's not fair, is it?
But flip it: should a random passerby, after KNOWING that 99.99+% of atheists RAPE AND MURDER, have to IGNORE THAT and walk by you like you were normal?
directedchaos 2 years ago
"he reflects badly on thsoe who don't reject the notion that he is representative of republicans."
Right, it's an active issue: they have to actively reject him as representative, as if he were thrust upon them as their default representative if they said nothing.
Because he is. Even though Limbaugh never got voted in any primaries, simply because he's the loudest republican atm he has a lot of clout. He needs to be ACTIVELY denounced by them.
Just as Penn needs to be ACTIVELY denounced.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Right, it's an active issue: they have to actively reject him as representative, as if he were thrust upon them as their default representative if they said nothing."
"Also, anyone who never considered Limbaugh as their representative who does reject him now is not in any way indicating that he represented them in the past.
Penn only represents those who say "penn represents me" and then only on the specific issues which they feel he represents them on."
Answered before written sucka
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"Hah, try to tell a protestant that the Pope represents them"
Ever heard a Christian fundamentalist talking head say "those people aren't true Christians"?
Like when you mention the crusades, inquisition, salem witch trials, or hate spewers like Phelps or liars like Hovind.
That's them using your argument to get out of the obvious connection between Christianity and the bad things Christians have done. Yes, there's also a logical connection, but bad Christian are good evidence -- sampling!!!
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Like when you mention the crusades, inquisition, salem witch trials, or hate spewers like Phelps or liars like Hovind."
Oh yes, that comes right after someone makes a blanket generalization about christianity in general having more moral fibre than any other religion or lack thereof.
You'll notice that does not fit with the stereotypical usage you are assuming I engage in. I am represented by my OWN actions, do you understand that or do I need to chose a representative to explain it to you?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"You'll notice that does not fit with the stereotypical usage you are assuming I engage in."
You'll notice I correctly assumed you used the argument and encountered the counterargument, AND I MENTIONED NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE "USAGE". Do you understand that or do I need to show you a dictionary, even though you didn't vote for the English language?
directedchaos 2 years ago
Basically, people in the mainstream need to denounce the fringe of ideologies they agree with, lest they risk being incorrectly associated with them. You can argue all you want about how incorrect even making that act of association is, but the fact is that it's made, so the only thing to do is break it.
By denouncing the fringe.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Drugs are without a doubt the biggest reason for our high incarceration rates:
"half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offences, and 20% (in State prisons, whereas Federal prison percentages are higher) are incarcerated for drug offenses"
It's wikipedia though, and you seem like the type to hate on it.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"you seem to be confusing an elected official responsible for representing a nation with an individual responsible only for representing themselves"
No, I'm establishing where the fuck your stereotyping boundaries are. Everyone has them -- stereotyping is a valid means of information synthesis, finding similarities among a population. The real question is just making sure it's statistically valid.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Now, back to my Bush example.
What was Bush's margin of victory? In 2000, NEGATIVE. Less than half of Americans even voted for him, and yet, ACCORDING TO YOU, he can give ALL of us a bad name.
Where is the fucking cut off dude? If less than half can support someone who the majority dislikes, and yet everyone gets soiled when the jerk wad jerks off, then why not a fringe minority?
Your cutoff is arbitrary, like Creationists claiming micro evolution can't give way to macro evolution.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Now, let's look at Penn. He's probably THE most prominent TV atheist. He's invited to atheist talks as a prominent atheist speaker. So no, clearly he's not "elected" -- but he is an atheist leader in the eyes of the people, the same way Ted Haggard, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc. are fundamentalist Christian leaders.
In the same way moderate Christians reject those fundies, we should reject Penn.
Where is the hangup? Seriously, I've spelled it out in toddler type, you should have no problem.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"hey [bad Creationists ex: venom] give a bad name to anyone who continues to fully support them after witnessing their bigotry."
There it is you dumb fucker, you're in a god damned corner you asshat.
DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PENN AFTER WITNESSING HIS ASSHATTERY?
If you answer:
1) Yes, then PENN GIVES YOU A BAD NAME, BY YOUR OWN GOD DAMN ADMISSION YOU FUCKER
2) No, then PENN WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU A BAD NAME, HAD YOU NOT REJECTED HIM LIKE I SAID TO
You dumb fucker, consider yourself owned.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PENN AFTER WITNESSING HIS ASSHATTERY?"
There is a vast vast difference between serious bigotry and foolish behavior and that which is done for the purpose of entertainment.
There are things Penn has said that I do not agree with, however, NONE of what he has said has lead me to conclude that he is a bad person.
I also laugh at Bob Sagats stand up, and support it by paying, which in your mind probably makes me a HORRIBLE person, only slightly less evil than Himmler.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Which by your logic and based on your judgement of my character means I should stop talking to anyone in the world, lest I give Canadians a bad name, Atheists a bad name, pessimists a bad name, and so on for every group which shares a label with me a bad name
I won't stop tho, because I don't think one should be silenced merely because someone else might illogcially and unfairly stereotype an entire group based on the actions of an individual who is not a chosen representative for them.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"by your logic and based on your judgement"
You should really stop doing that. First you say there's no such thing as stereotyping, that the idiom "to give a bad name" has no meaning, then you say it's simply logically invalid, then you say to even acknowledge it is to support it, and finally you say it's not even worth fighting. First you say I have no reason to respond, then you say I have two reasons.
Flip-floppiness is not a turn on.
directedchaos 2 years ago
I'm sorry I ruined your sado-masochistic masturbatory enjoyment of this conversation.
"You should really stop doing that. First you say there's no such thing as stereotyping, that the idiom "to give a bad name" has no meaning, then you say it's simply logically invalid,"
Quote my words please, show me where i say it has no meaning at all rather than argue that your application of it is unsound.
Ahh yes the two clear linsults sarcastically referred to as "reasons." Glad you took them seriously.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"Quote my words please"
Fine.
You sarcastically deny the idiom "to give a bad name", because there'd be no ideologies at all. You implicitly conclude that stereotyping doesn't happen:
"The world must be full of opinionless people who lack any form of ideology, after all, every ideology has someone people describe as giving it a bad name. So surely that means that they will all be summarily rejected based on those examples alone rather than by any inherent flaws in the ideas themselves."
directedchaos 2 years ago
So when someone tells me "the world is 4000 years old" and i sarcastically reply "oh yes, and its flat too" what does that mean?
I did not conclude that stereotyping doesn't happen, the sarcasm was directed at the idea that we should not correct the mistake when it does happen. The humor was in the over-dramatization of the fact that not correcting someone when their basing their conclusion on bad logic has a result that is almost indistinguishable from agreeing with them.
JebusGeist 2 years ago