Podcast #52: Women’s Sports and Marriage Equality

109 July 12, 2015 by

52_featuredIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian discuss such topics as: how many times a day a person should look in the mirror, the asymmetricality of Christian’s face, what Jason would be willing to do for ten million dollars, and their waiter from the previous night who looks just like Ryan Gosling if Ryan Gosling wasn’t paid to look like he was “Photoshopped.” The DXPs then throw caution to the wind and jump right into women’s sports and why they’re not as popular as men’s sports in general. If they left anyone unoffended by that conversation, they’ll get to you in the next conversation about the Supreme Court’s rulings on Obamacare and Marriage Equality. Jason is biebered by having to purchase more than one thing when he goes to the store and Christian is biebered by round toilets.

Also, if your significant other has a pimple, what is the proper etiquette? Do you ignore it or do you point at it and laugh?

Links from this Episode

109 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. Random thoughts:

    Not as big into sports as I used to be. But I would suggest one sport where the women probably draw larger audiences than their male counterparts would be beach volleyball.

    The governing philosophy of libertarianism is “I’ve got mine, fuck you.” It’s wrapped up in prettier language, but that’s the gist of it.

    There’s a lot that I’m critical of with conservative Christianity in America. Individualism is near the top of the list.

    Bad eschatology that teaches that any attempts to make the world a better place are ultimately fruitless is also close.

    Making the poor assumption that you don’t have to bother making a rational argument and can simply quote scriptures to ‘settle’ arguments is another. That is one that irritates the hell out of me.

    “Well, the bible says…”

    “Yes, well, perhaps you should start your ‘argument’ by telling everyone why the words of a 2,000-3,000 year old text that includes some items of questionable morality should be seen as authoritative in matters of personal morality?”

    “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

    “Yes, well, I’m sure that’s convinced everyone then…”

    Perhaps I should change my maxim to: If you think the world is heading towards a Mad Max future and there is nothing humanity can do to change that future, you are probably a conservative.

  2. On individualism, I think the way you fleshed it out on the comment thread in the previous podcast really resonated with me and while it’s obviously easy to see how conservative christianity has really tailored itself in the US to fit with the whole individualism motif, do you know how well that message is playing out (through the lens of christianity) elsewhere in the world?

    For me, while related to individualism, what’s also mostly unique to the US, is the prosperity gospel as espoused by the Osteens of the world. That somehow being a christian means you’re not only going to win in the afterlife but that you’re going to be showered with riches in this life as well. I suppose prosperity gospel has its roots in dominion theology?

  3. I’m not sure how well the individualistic message goes over in the rest of the world. American culture seems pretty unique to me in how much Individualism holds sway to the point where half of our political establishment eschews the idea of the common good being something with which government should concern itself.

    I think both ideas come from dispensationalism and the poor exegesis of applying tribal covenant promises to modern day Christians. People want to fit God into a formula and people want to avoid pain, so we come up with stuff like ‘do X and God will do Y’ and I don’t think that works for many reasons, least of which is that IF miracles happen, then they surely are the exception to the rules. Back when Kenneth and I were talking about the topic, there was the statistic that spontaneous remission might occur in 1 in 100,000 cases of cancer.

    While the story of Shadrack, Mishack and Abendego denotes divine deliverance from martyrdom, in the history of the church, there are millions of stories of saints who burned in the fires or were ravaged by the sword, the axe, or the claw.

    So IF God is there, he’s not the sort to be bound by whatever petty formulas we place upon him.

  4. Fawk, I feel like I’m in a competition with comraderead in listening to the podcast first and chiming in with comments.

    1. Lots of people believe that Charlize Theron won her Oscar for precisely the reason you guys pointed out. But the thing is, how difficult is it to look like shit and lose a ton (or gain a ton) of weight if that’s what you’re being paid $15 to $20MM? Damn you for already talking about this point. These people hire nutritionists and personal chefs and make it a full time job to look the way they do in the films. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it’s hard work but the award that you’re talking about? It already exists. For costumers and make up artists.

    2. Women sports, the world over, aren’t highly rated. Part of it is because women haven’t been playing many of their sports professionally as long as men. The culture of professional sports (of any flavour), for women, is a relatively new phenomenon. Given another 100 years of development for women athletes, I’m certainly they will be able to compete with men on an equal footing. However, one sport where the “power” aspect you guys spoke of that doesn’t exist today, is motorsport. Ultimately, without money (e.g. being able to earn a living from it), there is no incentive for a woman to specialise in sport like their male counterpart. We are certainly at the dawn of a new age.

    2a. The sad fact of it is you guys weren’t sexist in describing the current paradigm. However, the current paradigm IS sexist.

    3. Jason might be interested in reading Naomi Klein’s musings from The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-visit-to-the-vatican

  5. Guys – the bidet that you’re familiar with from Europe is that it’s a separate bowl so you have to get up from the toilet and physically move over to the other device. The bidets that are en vogue basically replaces your toilet seat and sprays water onto your anus to clean it and then blow dries your ass. It’s actually pretty amazing and there are some REALLLLLLLY fancy ones out there. They’re pretty awesome. Being an East Asian I’d know #racist

    I guess they’re technically called washlets: http://www.totousa.com/products/washlets

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpYTUksh1xk

  6. 1) The SCOTUS ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act as Constitutional was back in 2012. This latest challenge was about whether the letter of the law allowed for subsidies to be provided in states that did not set up their own exchanges. SCOTUS ruled that subsidies were allowed by the intent of the law, effectively saving the economic model of the program.

    2) Even prior to the SCOTUS ruling that struck down the bans on gay marriage (and I applaud you both for framing it correctly as a “ban on the bans”), the majority of Americans supported marriage equality.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

    3) Sports are no different than other entertainment industries: Entertainers are compensated based on eyeballs and advertising.

  8. Sports where women should be able to compete with men: billiards, darts, precision shooting, various vehicle racing; anything where shear brute strength and speed can’t dominate the sport. Also I like that gymnastics has different competitions that only men and only women compete in. There is also rhythmic gymnastics which I believe is exclusively female – a male ribbon routine?

    I watched American ninja warrior last season, and there was a woman, Kacy Catanzaro, who did remarkedly well. Her small stature allowed her to have a very high power to weight ratio. Her flexibility and agility also became valuable one several of the obstacles, because sometimes being a big brute isn’t enough and can even be a detriment. However, she was undone by being too short (5ft), her arms and legs simply could not span the across the “jumping spider”. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZFuw7a13E

    Like you guys mentioned, sometimes the women’s version of a sport feels like a completely different sport, because the women play it differently due to differences in size, speed, and power of the players. I think basketball is a clear example of this. Although, women probably play it similarly today, as to men playing it 60 years ago.

  11. In his introduction, Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Holy See press office, describes me as a “secular Jewish feminist”

    From the New Yorker article I linked to below.

  16. Having seen other ‘gotcha’ conservative videos fall to pieces upon unbiased examination after considerable damage has already been done, consider me in the ‘let’s wait and see what happens over the next 72 hours before I buy it…’ camp.

  19. I’m fully in favor of donating the “tissue” for research. Selling it is a bridge too far.

  22. Selling instead of donating “tissue”? How about “doctors” more concerned about how a baby is positioned so that they don’t damage the precious organs while they rip a baby literally limb from limb so that they can sell said organs, than about the fact that they are ripping a baby apart?

    I’m all for someone consenting to the donation of their organ to research after their death. I am definitely against violence used to forcibly take those organs without consent.

  24. If you want to debate abortion, then that’s a different discussion (and frankly one I don’t have any interest in participating in).

    But given the fact that abortions happen, if there is a way to get some value from the tissue that was just going to be discarded anyway, I’m OK with it. But again, I only think it should be donated to research since selling it creates a market with supply incentives.

  25. Calling it “tissue” seems a little insincere to the reality. However, fair enough. We have had abortion discussions on here before, and I don’t particularly want to repeat them either. I’m just upset and disgusted by the recent news.

  26. It’s a softer word, but replace it with body parts and I still stand by my point. And for the record, I share in your revulsion.

  27. And I’ll wait for folks to parse through that video and see if the advocacy group that made it is being full honest or is skewing things to advance their own cause.

  30. http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2015/07/do-everything-according-to-profit.html

    In fact, commerce in human tissue and body parts is legal.

    Federal law prohibits the sale of human organs and tissue for transplantation. The law is widely considered a total ban on the sale of all body parts, although it does not specifically address the conveyance of parts for medical education and research. […]

    But here’s the thing: Right-wingers want medicine to be fully capitalist. They hate “socialized medicine.” Well, medical research requires human tissue, including fetal tissue from abortions that are, let’s not forget, still legal — but if a company wants to collect “reasonable payments” for introducing efficiencies into the process of getting such tissue from the people who have it to the people who need it, suddenly right-wingers are upset. (Federal law doesn’t even prohibit exchanging this tissue for “valuable consideration” if the commerce doesn’t cross state lines.)

    You can’t have it both ways, guys. Either you believe medicine should be steeped in capitalism or you don’t. If this is legal and medically necessary, you should be standing up and cheering at the fact that StemExpress is receiving “reasonable payments” for facilitating the tissue transfers. Instead, you’re going to make it part of your mission to see that the company is destroyed.

  31. Yes, lets wait for the investigation; I would be shocked if there isn’t one. However, I believe there are several possible of points of illegality contained in the video:

    – If they are selling baby body parts for profit, it is illegal.

    – The doctor in the video also seems to be describing the use of partial-birth abortions to be able to more easily retrieve the baby’s organs intact. If so, it is illegal.

    – If Planned Parenthood doctors alter the timing or method of an abortion for the sole purpose of later using the tissue in research, it is illegal.

    But I, obviously, disagree with the entire situation. I am most personally sickened by the ability of the doctor to eat and drink while nonchalantly describing the ripping apart of babies. The video itself, even if it turns out to be legal, should awaken moral outrage at the practice. The usual language used by abortionists to politely cover and dismiss what they are doing such as “clump of cells”, “tissue”, “medical waste”, “products of conception”; are juxtaposed against the reality of retrieving perfectly good vital organs of babies: “hearts”, “lungs”, and “livers”. It’s revolting. And if you aren’t revolted by it or at the very least bothered a little by it, I don’t know what that says about you.

    “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
    ― Alexander Pope

  34. If you believe that abortion is murder, then of course it should cause moral outrage. However, if you don’t believe abortion to be murder, then I would imagine it’s a lot like hearing a mortician or a coroner talk nonchalantly about what they do over lunch. I wouldn’t be able to stomach it whether there was moral outrage involved or not.

  35. Yes, lets wait for the investigation; I would be shocked if there isn’t one.

    I’m sure there will be. Nothing makes politicians happier than grandstanding in front of the cameras railing against Satanic baby killers or the new Hitler of the Week. Plays to the base, let’s them attack a hated group that generally supports their rivals,

    However, I believe there are several possible of points of illegality contained in the video:

    Which I think the Snopes article does a good job as to why we should remain skeptical of the claims of the video’s producer. Why it was held on to for a year, why they used footage from a TV show from a decade ago, why the organization didn’t exist until a month ago, it’s shady associates who have previously put out videos purporting to prove a point which were later discredited after the damage had been done.

    But I, obviously, disagree with the entire situation.

    Yes, if you believe that fetuses are babies, then I can see why the use of their remains for medical or scientific research would be distasteful.

    And I can understand that. I’m not fond of abortion, which is why I’m very pro-birth control and pro-sex education.

  36. Why it was held on to for a year, why they used footage from a TV show from a decade ago

    From what I understand, they have spent 3 years doing this and there will several more videos to come in the next few weeks. As for the footage from a decade ago, it was an introduction that takes statements from PP itself deriding the sell of baby remains. So it provides a nice lead in to the rest of the video.

    Nothing makes politicians happier than grandstanding in front of the cameras

    Of course, and here is the first one doing it:

    https://youtu.be/zQxXkK8VTfc

  37. Planned Parent Hood selling baby limbs for profit!

    Nothing to see here

    Probably just some nutty conservatives

    It’s just tissue after all

    Just like a mortician

    Right…. right….

    Who are the indoctrinated ones again?

    😉

  39. Even if everything they talked about in the video is legal, the video still pulls back the curtain to let people see a little more clearly what is going on. Letting people hear a “doctor” nonchalantly talk about what they are doing.

    The harvesting of human baby organs from “clumps of cells”? The phrase “clump of cells” doesn’t seem to fly very well now. If it is human organs that you are getting, how can they argue that the baby isn’t a human? And if it is a human, how can they wantonly kill it? “We are just taking the organs for research, the baby was going to die anyway!” The irrationalness of the abortion industry makes my head hurt.

    Sorry for affirming Godin’s Law, but the Nazi doctors did research on the Jews as well, “hey, they were going to die anyway”. Maybe it is NOT okay that they were going to die anyway, how bout that!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

  40. Youre so right. The problem is that most people really dont care whats behind the curtain. They aren’t actually concerned that babies are getting chopped up into little pieces. I’m talking about BOTH parties. Fully republican congress got presented with evidence that babies were currently being aborted past the time they had developed the nerves necessary to feel pain (20 weeks). Vote to ban these abortions was canceled due to republican women wanting an exception for rape. EXCUSE ME?!?! The baby is completely alive and feels pain and there are exceptions?!? I feel like Americans have completely lost their minds on this issue. Indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination.

  41. Of course they are nutty (look at what lengths they went to get this video), that doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong.

  42. Future generations are going to look back on this brutal practice and be ashamed of it! They will ask how could we have every allowed such a thing to happen right under our nose. Liberals you are “on the wrong side of history”! 😉

  43. It’s so bad I honestly can’t even respect a person that is pro abortion. It’s completely disgusting. Then they want to lecture us on how horrible religion is? Give me a break. Millions of babies per year are having their organs harvested and most if these people could give a *shit*. This one gets my blood boiling.

  45. I think we are headed in a more or less upward direction. However, we tend to over correct from one direction to the other on different issues from generation to generation. As the pendulum swings we could be driven into a bad situation temporarily, but I believe we will be lead back out of it. Kind of in a 3 steps forward, 2 steps back way.

    Every generation has blatant blind spots. The abortion issue I believe will get figured out eventually, it is too obviously wrong to not be.

    BTW, I took a political test online the other day that put me exactly moderate between Right and Left, and pegged me more communal than individual. So I’m a hated moderate on a lot of issues.

  47. Kenneth, I could see your point if people who were pro-abortion felt at all like it was murder, but they don’t, so telling them how disgusting they are and how you can’t respect them is only going to further inflame the situation. It’s not that people don’t “give a shit” about babies being murdered. It’s that people don’t believe babies are being murdered.

  48. For example, I think we have gone (at least) 3 steps forward in last few generations on things like racism and sexism and worker’s rights, however in the process we have gone 2 steps (at least) back due to the sexual revolution. I think we can walk back some of the missteps (in a generation or 2 after the consequences to society become undeniable) without losing all the forward progress in other areas.

  49. I can respect some of their good intentions, they are just very very wrong. And yes, this gets my blood boiling as well. It doesn’t help my emotional response that any day now my wife is about to give birth (she was due last week).

  51. It’s that people don’t believe babies are being murdered.

    To which I’d refer back to the hypothetical question: If there were a fire in an office complex, which do you try and save first: the 100 frozen embryos from an IVF clinic or the 10 kindergarteners from the office day care?

  52. “you do not do not advocate or defend evil that good may come of it.”
    I don’t believe I was doing that. However, you should probably remind the pro-choice of this; it sort of undermines their entire ethic.

  53. I don’t believe that. I think that people do know that babies are being murdered and just don’t care. Case in point the 20 week abortion ban slugging it’s way through the legislature. It’s been scientifically proven that the children feel pain after 20 weeks. Liberals are lining up to stop the ban at all costs. Republicans are making sure that if the mom was raped the baby can still be ripped a part. Pain or no pain. Doesn’t matter.

    That is bullshit. So is planned Parent hood. If someone is proabortion they deserve to be ridiculed. Putting on our kids gloves and treating ridiculous arguments as if they are serious and have merit just perpetuates the ridiculous perception that this is morally controversial. It’s not. Whether or not they have good intentions or are just ignorant is irrelevant.

  54. Shouldn’t be creating embryos to be frozen in the first place. The fact that we create them already says that our society thinks of and treats the unborn like inhuman pieces of property. We treat life with little dignity.

  55. We treat life with little dignity.

    Considering all of the senseless wars, interventions, assaults, and death squads we’ve been involved with over the last 50 years, I’d be inclined to agree.

    And that’s not even touching on how we view the environment or gun culture/glorification.

  57. you would save the 10 kindergarten students first. Not because the embryos are less valuable as people, but because the 10 children have a greater chance of survival. The frozen embryos will just be slaughtered for IVF anyways after their rescue.

  58. I want to treat life with dignity, and I try to be as consistent as I can across political issues. Being “pro-life” is much bigger than simply being anti-abortion.

  62. Nope, I’d save the kids because they’re kids and I’m a dad. They are tangible. They are aware of their peril and afraid. They need my help.

  64. Lane,

    It’s even easier because Comrade says the embryos are frozen. If you had to choose between one hundred 86 year old frozen men (a la Walt Disney) and 10 currently living kindergarten students I would go with the kids. Now, if those 100 embryos were actively developing in some kind of an incubator I would take the embryos. It’s really not that difficult a choice.

  65. The embryos are just as tangible. The children you fathered were once just as vulnerable. Let’s say that you have one hundred embryos that are *not* frozen and are currently developing in a proverbial incubator. They have mothers and fathers waiting to take them home. On the other hand you have 10 kindergarten children who are fast asleep. In fact, they have been put to sleep by doctors and won’t have any awareness of their suffering or death. Now which do you choose?

    These kinds of questions really aren’t as tricky as people think once put in perspective. The fact that we are even entertaining silly consequentialist moral arguments only lends credit to the “pro-rip-children-limb-from-limb-and-sell-their-body-parts-whether-or-not-they-feel-pain” camp. Abortion is repulsive. Conversations about frozen embryos are irrelevant. Every abortion stops a beating heart.

  69. There is no difference between the two! They are both living human beings. Pick up a science text for goodness sake.

    “The term conception refers to the union of the mail and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”

    Greenhill and Friedman

    Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics

    W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1974

     

    “A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

    Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition

    Article on Pregnancy

    Chicago, 1974

     

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to this union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

    Bradley M. Patten

    Foundations of Embryology

    McGraw-Hill, 1964

     

    “Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. THe result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuos whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”

    Editorial

    “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society”

    California Medicine, September 1970

     

    “The over-riding message of all this new research is that the life of a baby begins at conception. Informed care of that child must also begin at conception, or even before, if he or she is to have a good chance for healthy life.”

    Chicago Tribune, September 12, 1977

    “A new lesson from DNA – life begins at conception”

    A news article reports on conference of scientists meeting in Montreal

    which released a wealth of new research in the study of DNA

     

    “A baby begins as a single cell, smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. … This cell is created by the union of two parent cells: the female egg cell or ovum, and the male sperm cell.”

    The First Nine Months

    Geraldine Lux-Flanagan

    Simon and Shuster, 1962

     

    “The human genome is a peal, a model of high performance and reliability. Millions of times a year, egg genome meets sperm genome, and the result is a human baby, its parts all in place, its brain a universe of love and meaning.”

    -New York Times, June 27, 2000

    in an article discussing developments of the Human Genome Project

     

    “Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are united to the progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of the female cell (the ovum) and the male cell (the spermatozoon) that a new member of the species will emerge. Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception.”

    -French geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune

    “A Very Neat Beginning”

    Social Science and Modern Society, May/June 1982

    If you choose 10 humans in phase B of development over 100 humans in phase A that’s just some bizaar prejudice you need to deal with.

  70. What if I think we’re going to get both? E.g. mad max before star trek? where would i be on the chart?

  71. Workers’ rights are being eroded and dismantled quicker than anybody is talking about.

  73. When Anti Choicers start to care about the poor as much as they say they care about unborn babies that’s the day I’ll start to give a shit about what they say.

  74. A fetus is not considered a human life.

    If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. –Exodus 21:22-23

    The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

    And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

    Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

    Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

    God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

    And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17
    (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

    Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. — Hosea 9:14

    Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. — Hosea 13:16

    God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

    Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. — 2 Samuel 12:14

    God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

    The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …
    And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

    God’s law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

    Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. — Genesis 38:24

  76. So I’m quoting science to you and you are cobbling together scriptural arguments? Now that’s rich.

  78. So, just to be clear, are you denying that nearly every standard bio text claims that human life begins at conception? Or do you just not want to talk about science at all? I understand it’s inconvenient for the “pro-rip-children-limb-from-limb-and-sell-their-body-parts-whether-or-not-they-feel-pain” camp, but at some point you have to deal with the facts. It is a medical fact that life begins at conception. If one thinks those lives aren’t valuable then that person is a bigot. Plain and simple.

  79. No, it’s just that talking to someone who has their mind so made up that nothing could ever possibly make them question it, and who believes that their mandate comes straight from god, and whose blood “gets boiling” to a point where they have zero respect for anyone who disagrees with them just isn’t a productive conversation to have. It’s like trying to talk to a jihadist. Everything in a very complex conversation is “plain and simple” to you. Anyone who disagrees with you is simply someone who is fine with murdering helpless children. You can’t even begin to see another side to this, so why even discuss it?

  80. Also, the people on the other side from you have a different interpretation:

    “There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.”

  81. Hitler Rule: If you can’t make your point without invoking Hitler or Nazis, it’s probably not a very good point.

  82. You’re right, I don’t respect people who OK the murder of children. Generally speaking, if it doesnt serve to ridicule these people for supporting infanticide i dont even entertain the convo.

    Conversations about zygotes are *meaningless* because every abortion stops a beating heart. It’s a smokescreen to distract people from the mountain of “tissue waste” aka toes, fingers, arms, legs, kidneys, etc. that continues to pile up.

    PS,

    I would be interested in who supplied that quote for you? It’s a lie. There is no debate in the scientific community when life begins. I can literally bury Shaq in scientific literature expressing this sentiment in mundane *everyone knows that* language.

  84. I’ll try this again. My earlier comment seemed to disappear into the interwebs.

    If abortion is murder why are the majority of pro-“life” supporters so staunchly against the very things that will prevent more “murders” (and disease as well) from happening like proper sex education and birth control? Oh yeah, I forgot, religious dogma. Damn. Gets you every time.

    For a good look at the destructive nature of the religious right’s agenda, including the consequences of preaching abstinence only and homophobia, watch “God Loves Uganda”.

  85. Christian,

    Just so you know, my Samsung Note 4 really doesn’t like this website. It keeps warning me that “something is wrong with this websites security” and prompting me to leave. Thought you woukd want to know.

  86. I pointed out myself that I was affirming Godin’s Law in my comment. Also, if you don’t like me using the Nazis, just give me another historic example where millions of people were killed under the watching noses of society and I will use that one instead.

  87. I was considering longer terms. Think the ending of slavery and indenture service, child labor, 5 day work week, and so forth…

  88. Rejecting an issue, because the people advocating push other issues you don’t like… I’ve seen the same logic used by people on the right to not believe in global warming: liberals support it, it must be a disguised attempt at communism or anti-americanism.

  91. You would reduce the number of abortions if we could provide contraceptives to more people and educate them on their use:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709307

    Just saying. 😉

    To address economic concerns, I’d also throw in a better social safety net, single payer health care, mandatory paid maternity leave, and increased public preschools and daycares.

    Fat chance getting any of your non-Catholic pro-life folks to embrace that package though.

  92. To address economic concerns, I’d also throw in a better social safety net, single payer health care, mandatory paid maternity leave, and increased public preschools and daycares.

    If it can be shown to work (and I think it has), sign me up. Intuitively and historically, I have supported libertarian approaches to most economic issues, but I’ve stop being an ideologue for them. I’ve come around and am now open to solutions typically considered from the left.

  95. So I just listened to the podcast. Did you guys give up on having a word for “what you like” this week? Something to match up with the beibers? If not, have you considered the beatles? Everyone loves the freakin beatles. Afterall, they were more famous than Jesus at one point 🙂

    What’s your Beatle this week?

    Who is the Beatle of the week?

    Let’s listen to some of our callers beatles..

    It’s time for beatles and beibers!

    I like it!

  96. what they need to show is all of the ambulances that leave Planned Parenthood for the hospital because of medical complications from the abortions.

    abortion is a complicated subject just like killing outside the womb is… we need complex laws to address it… but unfortunately it became a political correctness issue rather than a common sense issue.

    btw, I think another atheist site blocked me… this time it was John Loftus at Debunking Christianity. The excuse is often memory… but the reality is that they don’t want their atheist sites being filled up with Christian apologetics.

  97. I’m still on Johns site and I’m having a good time. Once your learn to ignore the ass holes there are some good peeps over there. I like Matt for sure. Dr. Avalos is kind of condescending but that just comes with graduating from Harvard lol

  98. I was banned for the generalization of “masturbating on them” with answers in point for point rebuttal. Clearly general, and deals with no specific argument or point for point response. It’s not the first atheist site that an apologist gets banned from for engaging in point for point rebuttal.

  99. I don’t think I understand what “masturbating on them” means, but they are a testy bunch. I’ve noticed that they are allowed to say generally whatever the hell they want (comments about my sexlife, and my children being gangbanged by priests, etc. seem to be par for the course) while visitors are expected to maintain composure and be nothing but polite at all times.

    It’s challenging, because im generally a cocky smart ass, but I’m enjoying my time.

  103. you’d have to click “View in discussion” because it is so long it is chopped at point 2 on my channel

  104. That is a good response. There are many ways to tackle that question. Most of the time it depends upon ones view of election/sovereignty

  105. PS,

    If you guys ever decide to do 2 podcasts per week, I think yall should start devoting some time to movie reviews!!! You are both such film geeks I bet you could give a solid thumbs up or thumbs down. Just a thought.

  107. You could add another page to your site with the thumbs up/down drunken rating. It would also be cool if for each movie you allowed movie goers to listen to the reviews by themselves without checking out the entire podcast. Could be pretty cool.

  108. are you sure you are still having a good time on John’s site?
    honeymonster says he was recently banned as a Christian apologist also.

Related Posts