This episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors begins with a delightful ditty performed by one of our female listeners, and continues with a discussion of why we ever gave those females a voice in the first place. We then introduce a new and surely ill-conceived segment titled “Zat Racist?” in which we seek to convince ourselves that we’re not horrible bigots (and are remarkably successful in the attempt). Jason shares another one of his oversimplifications about how two seemingly unrelated things are in fact pretty much the same, all based on the slimmest amount of actual evidence. We delve a bit into the whole “email controversy” and whether Hillary’s scandals compare to her husband’s. After our break we discuss about Obria Medical Clinics and what they have to say about abortion, and specifically whether the rhetoric on both sides is fair or intentionally misleading (as in, is the issue really about “choice”? And does Hillary really advocate stabbing a baby with a fork as it slides out the vag?) Christian breaks down the Right’s contrast of Obama and Putin (the latter of whom, apparently, is awesome), and Jason explains how Karmic Jesus punishes his co-valets for not giving him what he wants. Christian’s bieber has to do with people waking up from fainting at inconvenient times, while Jason is biebered by one of women’s apparently universal skills.
Also: No hard feelings, Asia. We good, right?
Podcast #292: Molly, Mushrooms, and MDMA: A Chat with Bruce Sanguin
Podcast #41: Rage Against the Machine
Podcast #248: Friendship and Deconstruction
Podcast #30: Virtual Immorality, Religious Atrocity, and Fairy-Tale Christianity
• Yes, filling out your kid’s ballot would be voter fraud.
• And yes, some people long for the days when the only people who could vote were white male landowners.
• “Women love me. They love me bigly. There has never been a person who more greatly respected women than me even though they’re bleeding from their whatever. I don’t know.”
• Yeah, but many of those people don’t adore Trump so much as they are Republicans and really want to go back to voodoo economics, no healthcare for the poor and lower middle class, and it being okay to tell some people that ‘we don’t serve your kind ‘round here.’
• No, Trump is delusional. He’s a narcissist. He’s living in a world where everything is about him.
• He should be doing drugs. Ones prescribed by a licensed psychiatrist.
• Uh… I’m not sure that two middle-aged white guys are qualified to decide what’s racist. You may need to invite the “black friend” that every white guy has to come on the podcast.
• No, I don’t think it’s racist to say, “Your culture sucks” when the culture actually sucks. Your culture sucks if it includes the subjugation of women, honor killings, the oppression of religious minorities, the oppression of LBGT folks, the suppression of political and religious dissent, assaults on the freedom of speech and the press. That’s not racist. That’s calling out people being assholes.
• I mean, shit, we have people here in the United States who would probably embrace and are embracing all of that, the only difference is that they call God Yahweh and Jesus instead of Allah.
• No, it’s not racist to only be physically attracted to a certain type. You can’t really control who you’re physically attracted to.
• BUT, it is myopic and a bit ignorant to go on to say, “No X” when you’re looking for someone out there. You could find yourself really attracted to someone for reasons other than their body or skin tone, and you would be cutting yourself off from the possibility of finding that experience and possibly finding someone you would fall in love and grow old with.
• So your theory is that humans use music to express the common feelings, emotions, and experiences that we all share, we just set it to different tunes? I’m not sure that’s quite as profound as you think it is. lol
• No, no, she’s only not been indicted because the Clintons totes have secret HYDRA agents who have infiltrated EVERY government office and she’s the most corruptest murderous politician that has ever lived, or so says people on my FB feed.
• Oh, good Lord, abortion… sigh…
• I’m fine with saying that a third trimester child should not be aborted if it is healthy. Same reason you specified, Christian.
• But yes, if a child is going to be born and live a horrifically painful short life, then I’m not comfortable inserting myself into an awful decision that belongs to the couple, their doctors, and their consciences or gods.
• The simplistic understanding of the Constitution drives me insane. There is no one way to read the Constitution. Since the Founders wrote the bloody thing, even THEY were having disagreements as to what it meant. Bitter angry disagreements. That’s why we ended up having SCOTUS take the mantle of judicial review. To decide which of the prevailing readings of the Constitution was correct, and it seems like conservatives mostly (and maybe a few liberals that I’m unaware of) would love to just toss that process out and have someone dictate one interpretive view as the ONLY possible interpretation. Drives me crazy when people spout off “Hillary wants to destroy the Constitution!”
• The admiration that some conservatives have for a ruthless tyrannical authoritarian strongman who murders his political opponents and loots his country for his oligarch friends is disturbing and convinces me that they must never be allowed to control all three branches of government again.
• I mean, for fuck’s sake, they’ve spent eight years calling Obama a tyrant and dictator and now they’re ready to line up and blow Putin.
• Of course, you know, if there was a voting test, it would be written by Republican states to eliminate as many minority voters as possible.
• Those personality tests read to me a lot like horoscopes. They’re vague enough as to apply to anyone.
• I haven’t been hit on the back of the head with a gun, thankfully, but I have smacked the back of my head pretty hard on a lift gate and yeah, I didn’t black out, but I was disabled for a good 30 seconds from the pain before I could even start cursing like a pirate that is going to be shopping for a peg leg when he gets to shore.
• No, I haven’t had sex with Kim Catrall or Kristy Swanson. #80smoviesjokes
Bo Burnam’s take on modern country music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTKR12cUqc
The constitution should be read in light of its original intention and meaning. And I agree with Christian, it can’t be applied over centuries. Does that mean it should be interpreted in a postmodern fashion as time change? No. Ifor only there was a way to change things to bring it up to date… oh wait. Instead of a body of 9 people keeping the constitution up to date, it should be amended. And if in a 100 years we don’t like it, we should amend it again.
Christian Kingery,
Great show! A few things popped out at me….
1. There have been studies on why women seek out late term abortions. The findings do not support your optimistic view of human nature and responsibility….
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/study-ids-reasons-for-late-term-abortions/
In general, women seek late term abortions for the same reasons they do early abortions. Fighting with the other parent, lack of finances, educational/parental concerns, etc.
2. I don’t understand why parents should be allowed to make the choice that their kids life is worth living while its in the womb at 9 months….. But as soon as delivery takes place euthanasia isn’t on the table. There is no difference.
I want to play a game with my liberal friends. Its easy to play and I don’t think y’all have ever done anything like this. Its called “thinking logically about killing babies”. Here is how you play. Answer honestly.
A. When does a baby become a person? Be generous here. Maybe even add a few weeks to whatever your own criteria turns out to be
B. When would it be OK for a mother to kill her baby AFTER it has reached this point. All answers must equally be applicable for babies in the womb AND outside the womb since both are persons. Be generous here too.
Let’s say your answers to a & b are 24 weeks, life of the mother, rape, incest, child retardation, whatever. Most important step is next….
C. Are there abortions taking place that do not fit my criteria?
D. Why am I not advocating to end all such abortions?
I’m most interested in hearing your answers to D. Because that’s what I most despise about democrats. You should all be able to agree with the prolife movement SOMEWHERE. Yet, it seems like all we get is resistance at every stage of pregnancy. How is that not morally reprehensible?
I love how the #repealthe19th folks are the same ones who lose their shit over the thought of gun control and immediately launch into a diatribe about how you can’t change the constitution – even as they’re defending an amendment… I’ve had this conversation with my neighbor several times and I think he still doesn’t get my point about how it’s an amendment to begin with. He’s still one of my favorite people though.
Jason, are you sure these aren’t just commercials you’re hearing? Maybe you have really bad timing and you’re always getting in the car when Chevy and Coors Light ads come on. 🙂
I think part of what makes people uncomfortable about rejecting an entire culture is that it’s hard to understand something as complex as a culture from the outside. The view from the inside is quite different, I’m guessing. Then there’s also the issue of taste being acquired.
I’m not sure where this idea comes from that there are all these abortions happening 9 months in. There’s zero data anywhere that I can find suggesting that. The “late term” abortions these studies are talking about are just anything after 20 weeks, but that can mean 21 weeks, or 22 weeks, etc. http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016
Also, unless you’re one of those people with a fertility calendar, identifying what’s the 20th week vs the 21st week is a total guessing game, and yet if you wait one day after a randomly assigned date we consider that a “late term” abortion.
In the study you linked there are significant differences in the populations. Like age, poverty level, insurance coverage, cost of early term abortion, access to abortion services within reasonable driving distance, etc.
Hi Rachel,
Let’s play “thinking logically about killing babies”. I’m curious to hear your answers
Haha that’s funny. We’re obviously not talking about the same thing.
As a brief review, remember the two things to consider when there’s a clear disconnect between two different perspectives on the same argument: 1) how are we defining our terms? 2) what implicit assumptions are we starting out with?
Well go ahead and define your own terms and briefly answer A-D in my original comment. I think it’s a fair and gracious way of framing the conversation.
I’m not sure there’s a way to engage in this conversation in any meaningful way, since the way I define the terms and the assumptions I begin with don’t connect in any way with your way of framing the issue (in which abortion = killing babies). So I know we could repeat the conversations we’ve had before, but since you frame the conversation in such a drastically different way than I do, it doesn’t seem like it would accomplish anything. It’s an apples and oranges thing.
Here’s an analogy. There’s a line of thinking that posits that plants can feel pain. Let’s say I study the research on this and become convinced that it’s true. Then every time you go to eat an apple, let’s say, I start screaming at you about the pain you’re causing. I ask “how can you live with yourself after killing that innocent apple???” You reply that you don’t believe that apples can feel pain, and that in your view, and according to all the evidence you have researched, apples don’t feel pain, and eating one is not killing a sentient being. I reply by berating you for not being logical and not engaging in the conversation in an authentic way, because the argument seems so clear to me given my definitions and background beliefs. The problem is, you don’t share those, so we’re not actually speaking about the same thing. We’re not connecting on the same level.
In the same way it doesn’t really make much sense for me to engage in a conversation that’s framed as thinking logically about killing babies.
I agree that this can be a yuge issue. That’s why I tried to frame the questions in a charitable way that avoids the pitfalls of taking past each other. Here are the questions again in case you missed them
. When does a baby become a person? Be generous here. Maybe even add a few weeks to whatever your own criteria turns out to be
B. When would it be OK for a mother to kill her baby AFTER it has reached this point. All answers must equally be applicable for babies in the womb AND outside the womb since both are persons. Be generous here too.
Let’s say your answers to a & b are 24 weeks, life of the mother, rape, incest, child retardation, whatever. Most important step is next….
C. Are there abortions taking place that do not fit my criteria?
D. Why am I not powerfully advocating/ demanding an end to all such abortions? Otherwise phrased as ” am I any better than the Germans who turned a blind eye during the holocaust”
I’m most interested in hearing your answers to D. Because that’s what I most despise about democrats. You should all be able to agree with the prolife movement SOMEWHERE. Yet, it seems like all we get is resistance at every stage of pregnancy. How is that not morally reprehensible?
http://houseofthedread.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/the-tldr-bible-1-samuel-13-15/
One guy who shouldn’t be making sacrifices is pissed at another guy who makes sacrifices, but shouldn’t. Jonathan Rambos his way through the Philistines and nearly dies because he eats some honey. God wants more genocide, specifically mentioning, this time the cute, cuddly little infants with their innocent faces and sweet smiles. Saul doesn’t genocide good enough for God and God regrets making him king, to which no one replies with the obvious question, “SO WHY DID YOU? YOU’RE GOD, FOR GOD’S SAKE!” Sam and Saul break up and Sam takes it pretty badly.
Comparing the indie rock or indie pop you listen to to the mainstream country pop and rap you hear on the radio is ridiculous. As near as I can tell, most radio fare in any genre is churned out be a corporate machine and is targeted to the lowest common denominator with no artistry. And as Tom Hanks taught us on Black Jeopardy, we’re really all the same. So it’s no surprise that the corporate machines from different genres think they can sell the same shit to different audiences.
As for specific examples of interesting songwriting, Sturgill Simpson, Jason Isbell, and Chris Stapleton are the among the very best songwriters we have write now in any genre. Listen to the lyrics of Sturgill’s Metamodern Sounds in Country Music. It could be the soundtrack to your book (if you included a chapter about hallucinogens). Jason Isbell’s album “Southeastern” was his first written after he almost killed himself in the bottle, and it’s heartwrenchingly poignant. Listen to the first track – Cover Me Up. And Stapleton’s Whiskey and You is my favorite bit of songwriting of the last several years.
All that aside, I can’t stand most country music, or rap for that matter. But if you want to combine them both, I highly recommend Gangstagrass, which is the transparently named group that combines rap and bluegrass music. Rollin cross the fields smokin endo, sippin on ‘shine and juice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezRhtnWWUUc
I think you’re not understanding my point. By framing it the way you’ve framed it you’ve already excluded me from the conversation. We don’t share enough common ground to even engage on this issue.
You dont think that babies become persons at anypoint in the pregnancy? I don’t get it. Those questions frame everyone into the conversation
If you ask the question “when is it OK to kill a baby?” my answer is “never” and then we’re done. That’s something we agree on. It doesn’t seem that productive, though. And if that’s the only question you can ask based on the way you’ve framed the question then it doesn’t seem like much will be accomplished.
Maybe a more interesting question is: in which circumstances does the survival of a clump of human cells trump the interests, personal autonomy, and well-being of a fully developed human?
Wtf are you even reading the questions?! Lol that is literally the first of the four questions. I’ve framed it very fairly. Read my actual comment and then write back
Oh. I thought the game was called “”thinking logically about killing babies,” in which case it doesn’t make much sense for me to play? Is this not making sense?
If I propose that you play a game called “let’s talk about when you stopped beating your wife” I assume you’ll decline to participate. Because to do so you would have to agree to things that you don’t agree to or that are not true. Ditto for me.
Also, I think my question is more interesting. When does the survival of a clump of human cells trump the interests, personal autonomy, and well-being of a fully developed human?
If you would only read NY comments you would see that’s part of the game. Once you answer all 4 questions then you have thought logically about killing babies
It seems she read the title and stopped.
Or, when does a clump of human cells (I will refer to as “baby”) get the same consideration of personal autonomy as the clump of cells labeled “mother”? When does human cells become a human organism? When does a human organism gain human rights? Which is more or less Kenneth’s question A.
I noticed lol
Hmmmmm. Even if I was the most pro-life person in the world, I can still see Rachel’s point. Not sure why you guys can’t.
I totally see her point boss. Its just that it doesn’t apply to the points I offered. I already took that line of thinking into account. Its frustrating to me that pro choice advocates spend all their time in hypotheticals and never get around to finding a point of agreement at any stage
Maybe you would get “pro-choice advocates” to engage if you didn’t approach the conversation by 1) defining the terms of the debate purely in line with your view, and 2) building in implied assumptions that I would have to agree with in order to even engage in the conversation.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t engage in a conversation that I had framed as “exploring all the many reasons why male conservatives are so neurotically obsessed with controlling women’s bodies.” Because to do so you would have to agree that conservative men are in fact obsessed with controlling women’s bodies. But then I don’t get to be upset over the fact that you declined to engage in my conversation. I rigged it from the beginning and should have expected that outcome.
Rachel the truth is that you just didn’t read the comments. I didn’t frame anything with built in pressupositions as you would see if you had read the comments either time I posted them to you. Which makes your entire last comment ridiculous. The fact is that you probably DO agree that sometimes, in some situations, abortions are killing babies legally. That was the whole point. The fact that you couldn’t handle the convo without trigger warnings is disappointingly predictable.
The truth is I read the questions and chose not to engage for the reasons listed above. You may feel that your voice trumps mine and that it’s your prerogative to say what I did or did not do. I grew up in that culture too, so I understand that. However, I speak for me, and I’m done with this conversation.
You read the questions that said “when does a baby become a person” and “when should we still be able to terminate the pregnancy after that point” and your response was “you are assuming that a fetus is a person”
Lol puhlease