2 of 15
2
Suggestions for Guests (Merged)
Posted: 22 January 2007 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

More on POI guests….

Have somebody interview DJ!

How about having Doug and Barry on the show? And let them discuss Pinker (for example)... 

Scott Atran

Yes, Atran was great on ETFF!  Have him and DS Wilson debate evolution and religion!

Me and Doug?  Funny as in LOL 
I am not much for vocal debates.. too shy :oops:

DJ was on ETFF in the early days.  Made a good guest.  I’d love for someone to ask him what humanism is!  :twisted:

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2007 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Atheism debate?

Doug said:

It might also be interesting to get a debate between two atheists or agnostics over the right approach to the issue: Harris and Dennett, or Scott Atran and Dennett might be interesting.

Yes! Dawkins vs. Elliot Sober.  Dawkins vs. Atran!  Harris vs Julian Baggini!  How about Dawkins vs Margulis on selfish gene theory while we’re at it?

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 February 2007 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2006-04-10

Matt Dillahunty from the ACA , The Atheist Experience , and the Non Prophets [/url]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 February 2007 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Interview presidential candidates. Ask them to answer question about things skeptics want to know from them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2007 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2006-12-18

I’d like to hear DJ interview (and have some music played by) Dr. Stephen Baird and the Opossums of Truth.  Do a google search for them and listen to "Atheism has no Holidays" and "Charlie Darwin."

Agkistrodon

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2007 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2006-12-18

Interview presidential candidates. Ask them to answer question about things skeptics want to know from them. 

Great idea. 

You could ask Chomsky how he can be so brilliant about linguistics and such a complete idiot about politics and the state of the world. 

Penn Jillette would be a great guest, and a nice break from the seriousness that sometimes pervades the show. 

I’d also like to hear more things that aren’t about religion and ethics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2007 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Hitman:

You could ask Chomsky how he can be so brilliant about linguistics and such a complete idiot about politics and the state of the world.

Of course, you must be a conservative?  Chomsky is one of the most brilliant philosophers of politics and the ‘state of the world’ writing today!  My only problem with him is that he does not further advocate for the type of society he sometimes talks about… that he is too often “just” a critic, and not enough a ‘builder of alternatives.’  But his criticism is most often right on.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2007 02:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2006-04-10

[quote author=“Hittman”]You could ask Chomsky how he can be so brilliant about linguistics and such a complete idiot about politics and the state of the world. 

Complete idiot? Interesting. Chomsky is certainly controversial among almost everyone who’s got their ideology glasses on (including people who make up what’s called both left/right liberal/conservative in this country). It’s uncomfortable when someone applies a strict, consistent logic and it turns out that we may be acting quite inconsistently - or worse. Most people I know who just hear of Chomsky find that he offends them because he doesn’t provide the U.S. with immunity from the standards we hold the rest of the world to. It can be unpleasant to focus on U.S. foreign policy. Sometimes an honest analysis will lead to some disturbing conclusions.

Chomsky has been the most consistent voice of logic and reason for 40 years.  He can be called controversial, but “complete idiot”? No.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2007 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2007 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2006-12-18

Of course, you must be a conservative?

Not by any measurement.

Sometimes an honest analysis will lead to some disturbing conclusions.

Disturbing is fine.  Completely wrong and nonsensical is not.

Take, for instance, this piece of nonsense from him:

“The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.”

This is not the response of a real intellectual, but a psudointellectual.  Equating the intentional terrorist attacks on innocent civilians with bombing the wrong facility because of faulty intelligence is absurd, a conclusion that wouldn’t even occur to a reasonable person. And if Sudan did react with harsh security controls, the blame is on them, not America. 

It requires a great deal of education to achieve such a level of smug ignorance. 

Chomsky is great at implying things without saying them, leaving a strong impression without committing himself.  Reading this passage quickly leaves us with the impression that Sudan was on it’s way to becoming a paradise of freedom and civil liberties,  but the US ruined it all by bombing an aspirin factory.  Being a cunning linguist he never comes out and says that directly, so his apologists can defend himself easily.     

Chomsky has been the most consistent voice of logic and reason for 40 years. 

What is logical or reasonable about that statement?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2007 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Hitman said:

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.”

This is not the response of a real intellectual, but a psudointellectual. Equating the intentional terrorist attacks on innocent civilians with bombing the wrong facility because of faulty intelligence is absurd, a conclusion that wouldn’t even occur to a reasonable person. And if Sudan did react with harsh security controls, the blame is on them, not America.


I see nothing wrong with his comments.  He was trying to point out that Americans are not used to being the victims of terrorism while many other peoples ARE… and THEIR terrorism is often American born - wars, invasions, bombings, occupation, etc. 

It is often heard decried that if America was so corrupt, why are there so many people immigrating here?  One plausible answer is that to stay where they are, they will become victims of American foreign policy and economics!  Better to live in the belly of the beast than at arms length.

Also, Clinton’s act was one of cowardliness, brought on by the Impeachment nonsense, and cannot be simply filed away as a case of bad intelligence.  We ain’t THAT dumb.

Also, the 9/11 attacks were no less intentional than our many attacks on the peoples of the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, etc… for decades now.  I never will buy the ‘unintentional killing’ bullcrap.  Are the only terrorists in Palestine and Isreal Muslims or Arabs?

Finally, the way the Sudan reacts is due to their sociopolitical situation (of which much of that is due to the West in the first place), and the U.S. needs to be extra careful when making any moves such as Clinton did. 

The same can be said of the way Bush “took out” Saddam… if it was done like the Miloshovitz deal, it would not have lead to the disaster it has.  Iraqis are acting the way they are BECAUSE of our little war.

So you are not a conservative?

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2006-04-10

Nice response Barry.

Hittman, the quote you use is the most popular on Chomsky criticism sites. Have you read any of his work or heard him speak other than from the criticism sites - which are notorious for taking him out of context or downright lying?

When he spoke out against U.S. foreign policy regarding Indonesia back in the 70s, people blamed him for “equating” U.S. support for the Indonesian government with Pol Pot.  How about this - the U.S. government knowingly provided financial and military support to a government that was wiping out a population (East Timor).  Don’t get too hung up on comparing atrocities. Sure, Chomsky may attempt to put things in perspective, but this isn’t a pissing contest. If the murder of almost 3000 civilians is wrong, then it is wrong. Period. Whether it takes place on U.S. soil, or foreign soil, whether done by our enemies or our friends, etc.

Chomsky gets in trouble because he attempts to point out that we have blood our hands. Who? Is he pointing fingers at so-called “conservatives” or “liberals”? No. U.S. citizens. People don’t like being told that they are guilty of serious wrongs.  But if you apply the standards we hold to other countries to ourself, your conclusions will be similar to Chomsky.

By the way, I do feel that he sometimes oversimplifies or gets things wrong. He’s a human being. Nobody’s worshipping the guy.

Anyway, if you do decide to read any of Chomsky, start with some of his media analysis stuff like “Manufacturing Consent”. Or if you’ve got a long commute, download some of his audio. I think there is still a bunch up on chomsky.info.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 02:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

SPONG
Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

SPONG

SPONG


Huh???

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

WHO IS BISHOP SPONG?
WOULD THE WORLD KNOW MORE ABOUT HIS 12 THESES IF HE HAD NAILED THEM TO THE FRONT DOOR OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY?
We should be promoting this guy in everything we write He’s an insider who’s on the right side.
Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 15
2