Penn & Teller Bull Organic Food

[Amused]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Secondhand smoke

At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3 the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller sitting at his side, said "What we talked about during the show was where the stuff was there", likely meaning that he was using the data that the government had when they instituted the ban, then said regarding this episode they were "very likely" wrong and the next season would add a notation, as of the end of season six they haven't. Penn went on to describe "a new study that came out of England, just recently, that seems to have more stuff about it" and "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke." He went on to say that this was a small portion of the program, and their main point was their opposition to "outlawing" smoking in privately-owned businesses, which they still "stand behind 100%."[20]

Robert Todd Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, originally sided with the show's conclusion that there was no link between secondhand smoke and cancer. But Carroll changed his conclusions after further investigation into the studies. Carroll concluded that the studies were biased, and consequently decided that secondhand smoke does have negative effects on people.[21]

I suggest you look up the logical fallacies of debate and get back to us. You've poured as much poison you can in the wells, but have done nothing to support your argument.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: vi edit

The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't work with consumer goods. People have different tastes and tolerences. Some of the tap water I've been subjected to I can actually smell before I drink it. And then when you do actually taste it...bleh. What's wrong with me wanting to buy something because it simply tastes better than a cheaper alternative? If everything was objective then we'd all be eating sirloin instead of strip, filet, or ribeye.

It all depends. The tap water in the Chicagoland is amazing and highly rated water, yet I know an asston of people who drink bottled water in their own home. And I have a nice nalgene water bottle that I take with me on the go.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam
sigh, why must neo-cons keep this shit up? don't like organic? DON'T BUY IT.. If you can afford to spend extra on higher quality then, well, why shouldn't you be allowed to? Penn and teller are obnoxious tools who selectively chose their "experts" - the experts on their sides are people who have their shit together, while the 'liberals' are always raging idiots..

Terrible, terrible show...

And bottled water is awesome - I'm so glad that it's caught on, vs. drinking from spit covered, warm, rust tasting public drinking fountains when out and about.

I'm not a "neo-con." I'm not even a con. I'm libertarian. So are Penn and Teller.

We're followers of objectivity.

The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't work with consumer goods. People have different tastes and tolerences. Some of the tap water I've been subjected to I can actually smell before I drink it. And then when you do actually taste it...bleh. What's wrong with me wanting to buy something because it simply tastes better than a cheaper alternative? If everything was objective then we'd all be eating sirloin instead of strip, filet, or ribeye.

:thumbsup:

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: vi edit

The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't work with consumer goods. People have different tastes and tolerences. Some of the tap water I've been subjected to I can actually smell before I drink it.

I used to live in Havre de Grace MD, and the water sucked. It was especially bad during drought conditions, as the bay would back up into the Susquehanna, and the water tasted like it was filtered through a dead carp.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam
sigh, why must neo-cons keep this shit up? don't like organic? DON'T BUY IT.. If you can afford to spend extra on higher quality then, well, why shouldn't you be allowed to? Penn and teller are obnoxious tools who selectively chose their "experts" - the experts on their sides are people who have their shit together, while the 'liberals' are always raging idiots..

Terrible, terrible show...

And bottled water is awesome - I'm so glad that it's caught on, vs. drinking from spit covered, warm, rust tasting public drinking fountains when out and about.

I'm not a "neo-con." I'm not even a con. I'm libertarian. So are Penn and Teller.

We're followers of objectivity.

The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't work with consumer goods. People have different tastes and tolerences. Some of the tap water I've been subjected to I can actually smell before I drink it. And then when you do actually taste it...bleh. What's wrong with me wanting to buy something because it simply tastes better than a cheaper alternative? If everything was objective then we'd all be eating sirloin instead of strip, filet, or ribeye.

I've addressed the questions of taste, quality and boutique foods many times and pointed out that "organic" has no exclusivity on this market.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: swbsam


What makes them credible debunkers at all? They obviously have an agenda, and they're fucking magicians.

And you're a whiny bitch on the internet who cant even do magic tricks. Why the fuck should we even care that you exist, let alone listen to your scatterbrained opinions?

Wow, I really hurt your feelings didn't I?

It's pretty sad that you took what I said so personally.

They are not journalists, they obviously are selective about the "experts" they pick. They obviously have an agenda and obviously have their mind made up about any topic before they spend the resources producing an episode - the show is called "bullshit" after all. They know that every topic they work on will be deemed "bullshit," so how can we pretend that their analysis is fair, at all?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Secondhand smoke

At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3 the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller sitting at his side, said "What we talked about during the show was where the stuff was there", likely meaning that he was using the data that the government had when they instituted the ban, then said regarding this episode they were "very likely" wrong and the next season would add a notation, as of the end of season six they haven't. Penn went on to describe "a new study that came out of England, just recently, that seems to have more stuff about it" and "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke." He went on to say that this was a small portion of the program, and their main point was their opposition to "outlawing" smoking in privately-owned businesses, which they still "stand behind 100%."[20]

Robert Todd Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, originally sided with the show's conclusion that there was no link between secondhand smoke and cancer. But Carroll changed his conclusions after further investigation into the studies. Carroll concluded that the studies were biased, and consequently decided that secondhand smoke does have negative effects on people.[21]

I'm pretty sure that we're discussing organic food here, not second hand smoke. Amiright?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Wow, I really hurt your feelings didn't I?

Haha, no. That's unpossible.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: swbsam


What makes them credible debunkers at all? They obviously have an agenda, and they're fucking magicians.

And you're a whiny bitch on the internet who cant even do magic tricks. Why the fuck should we even care that you exist, let alone listen to your scatterbrained opinions?

Wow, I really hurt your feelings didn't I?

It's pretty sad that you took what I said so personally.

They are not journalists, they obviously are selective about the "experts" they pick. They obviously have an agenda and obviously have their mind made up about any topic before they spend the resources producing an episode - the show is called "bullshit" after all. They know that every topic they work on will be deemed "bullshit," so how can we pretend that their analysis is fair, at all?

The problem is, you can't figure out how to debate an issue, only poison wells.

You think you win if you say what idiots Penn and Teller are and point out each and every error they've ever made.

Another problem is, by this measure, you lose too. Your spelling and grammar is horrible and you can't even tell the difference between conservatives and libertarians.

Wow, see how that works?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: swbsam
sigh, why must neo-cons keep this shit up? don't like organic? DON'T BUY IT.. If you can afford to spend extra on higher quality then, well, why shouldn't you be allowed to? Penn and teller are obnoxious tools who selectively chose their "experts" - the experts on their sides are people who have their shit together, while the 'liberals' are always raging idiots..

Terrible, terrible show...

And bottled water is awesome - I'm so glad that it's caught on, vs. drinking from spit covered, warm, rust tasting public drinking fountains when out and about.

lol neo-cons? penn and teller? HAHA

 

[SneakyStuff]

As long as I can buy my delicious, pesticide ridden apples at affordable prices I could care less what other people spend their money on. Some of that show was pretty funny though.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: swbsam


What makes them credible debunkers at all? They obviously have an agenda, and they're fucking magicians.

And you're a whiny bitch on the internet who cant even do magic tricks. Why the fuck should we even care that you exist, let alone listen to your scatterbrained opinions?

Wow, I really hurt your feelings didn't I?

It's pretty sad that you took what I said so personally.

They are not journalists, they obviously are selective about the "experts" they pick. They obviously have an agenda and obviously have their mind made up about any topic before they spend the resources producing an episode - the show is called "bullshit" after all. They know that every topic they work on will be deemed "bullshit," so how can we pretend that their analysis is fair, at all?

The problem is, you can't figure out how to debate an issue, only poison wells.

You think you win if you say what idiots Penn and Teller are and point out each and every error they've ever made.

Another problem is, by this measure, you lose too. Your spelling and grammar is horrible and you can't even tell the difference between conservatives and libertarians.

Wow, see how that works?

Is this an internet forum or a moderated debate? I'm not trying to seriously debate any issue, just stating my opinion that P&T have a history of poor-journalism, and that they are in no ways "lovers of logic" or professional debunkers. If someone claims to be an expert and debunking things, falsely debunks that second hand smoke isn't dangerous..Well, how do they have any credibility? They're entertainers, just like Michael Moore. In fact, you shouldn't get any of your "facts" from television, or any one source.

The difference between conservatives and libertarians? It seems like only libertarians are the ones who see the distinction, frankly.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Amused

The problem is, you can't figure out how to debate an issue, only poison wells.

You think you win if you say what idiots Penn and Teller are and point out each and every error they've ever made.

Another problem is, by this measure, you lose too. Your spelling and grammar is horrible and you can't even tell the difference between conservatives and libertarians.

Wow, see how that works?

Honestly, he lost any respect as a human the moment I read "neocon". Even if Penn + Teller were neocons (which they aint), in my experiences with life only a nutjob actually calls people by that label.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: swbsam
The difference between conservatives and libertarians? It seems like only libertarians are the ones who see the distinction, frankly.

Fail, son, fail.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: swbsam


The difference between conservatives and libertarians? It seems like only libertarians are the ones who see the distinction, frankly.

Now this is funny!!!

How far out on the left wing does one have to be before Libertarian and conservatives seem alike?

Conversely, I get the same from nutjobs far out on the right wing as well. They think I'm a liberal and cant tell the difference between a liberal and libertarian.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam


The difference between conservatives and libertarians? It seems like only libertarians are the ones who see the distinction, frankly.

Now this is funny!!!

How far out on the left wing does one have to be before Libertarian and conservatives seem alike?

Conversely, I get the same from nutjobs far out on the right wing as well. They think I'm a liberal and cant tell the difference between a liberal and libertarian.

Well, sure, libertarian social policies tend to be closer to my ideal (as a filthy liberal), but the economic policy seems downright identical to "small government" based Republican dogma, based on my limited reading. I don't claim to be an expert, and feel no need to since I have yet to see an electable Libertarian candidate, yet I applaud your group for being ok with the gays marrying each other..

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: swbsam
blah blah blah....

Hey, thanks for bumping the thread again so that more people will end up watching the video and enjoying it!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Just grow your own or buy local. Never shop at Whole Paycheck, that place is a scam. The fish oil I buy is marked up 150% from my online shop (www.luckyvitamin.com). I can understand 50% for convenience factor, but 150%? Fck them.

Which is marked up about 300% over Costco. Kirkland brand, 1000MG fish oil with 300mg extra Omega 3 Fatty acids, 400 count, under $10

 

[Hacp]

I'm fine with everyone else buying organic while I hoard all the cheaper, tastier, more nutritional "unorganic" food.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: vi edit


The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't work with consumer goods. People have different tastes and tolerences. Some of the tap water I've been subjected to I can actually smell before I drink it. And then when you do actually taste it...bleh. What's wrong with me wanting to buy something because it simply tastes better than a cheaper alternative? If everything was objective then we'd all be eating sirloin instead of strip, filet, or ribeye.

Many brands of bottled water are just filtered municipal water. The primary difference between that water,, and my filtered tap water is the very significant disparity in price per ounce, and the insane amount of resources required to haul that heavy shat hundreds, even thousands, of miles.

As Bill mentioned, you can fill up your own reusable bottle at home, and carry it with you. That is what I do anyways.

But to clarify my POV, I have no issue with anyone eating organic, or drinking bottled water for that matter, so long as they don't proselytize to me about it. Because, thus far, most the credible information I've read, indicates organic food does not to live up to the claims many proponents make about it.

I have read this thread, and yet to see a credible source sited, that debunks the information provided in that episode. Hell, with good, solid, evidence, I'd change my mind. I am always willing to except fact.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I have read this thread, and yet to see a credible source sited, that debunks the information provided in that episode. Hell, with good, solid, evidence, I'd change my mind. I am always willing to except fact.

I traditionally tend to accept it

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam


The difference between conservatives and libertarians? It seems like only libertarians are the ones who see the distinction, frankly.

Now this is funny!!!

How far out on the left wing does one have to be before Libertarian and conservatives seem alike?

Conversely, I get the same from nutjobs far out on the right wing as well. They think I'm a liberal and cant tell the difference between a liberal and libertarian.

Well, sure, libertarian social policies tend to be closer to my ideal (as a filthy liberal), but the economic policy seems downright identical to "small government" based Republican dogma, based on my limited reading. I don't claim to be an expert, and feel no need to since I have yet to see an electable Libertarian candidate, yet I applaud your group for being ok with the gays marrying each other..

Stop with the politics in this thread. Go to P&N if you want to spout your crap.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I have read this thread, and yet to see a credible source sited, that debunks the information provided in that episode. Hell, with good, solid, evidence, I'd change my mind. I am always willing to except fact.

I traditionally tend to accept it

That is one of those mistakes, spell check just doesn't help with at all. But maybe it was a Freudian slip, and I just admitted I leave the facts out? :shocked:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: swbsam

During an interview on the January 31, 2007 episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show.[15]

I'm not going to hold my breath, they said they were going to make a disclaimer about how they were wrong about second hand smoke in the following season that it appeared, and I don't believe it ever happened.

Penn & Teller bills themselves as both skeptics AND libertarians. However, i don't recall them ever admitting there were parts of the libertarian theory that were easily debunked (especially with the newer advances in economic theory).

They're entertainers period. Anyone who thinks Bullshit is the complete authority on complex debates are full of shit.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: swbsam
blah blah blah....

Hey, thanks for bumping the thread again so that more people will end up watching the video and enjoying it!

He's butt hurt because he knows he's wasting money buying organic.