Clips: Orson Wells on Cold Reading, Herman Cain on WSJ, Sarah Palin on Fox News, Herman Cain and Uzbekistan on Think Progress, Anonymous, A Few Good Men.
Stories: Rapture again, Rick Santorum and Abe Lincoln, Dan Savage wants Herman Cain to suck his dick, Herman Cain said Jesus was killed by a Liberal Court, Herman Cain 999, Michelle Bachmann doesn’t know where Libya is, Herman Cain and Uzbekistan, Anonymous takes down child porn on Darknet, Tea party suggests business owners don’t hire to spite Obama, Woman Beaten with frozen armadillo.
Birmingham Skeptics in the Pub blog
7 comments on Episode 18: Herman Cain is not Abel
Regarding voting, I completely agree with you that one party is absolutely worse than the other. I believe I said that exact thing in the last episode of my other show, The Invisible Sky Monster Podcast (www.invisibleskymonster.com).
There’ve been a couple of times when I’ve gone over something on the Invisible Sky Monster and a day or so later you guys have said pretty much the exact same thing. You guys do it much more entertainingly, though.
Anyway, like I said, we’re pretty much 100% in agreement on that part. But the thing is, to me voting should be an indication that you have confidence in this candidate and you think this guy adequately represents the qualities and viewpoints that you think should be in charge of your country.
It doesn’t have to be an exact match to your ideal, but I think it should be close enough that you don’t feel like you’re just “settling”. When I chose my wife, I didn’t settle. I wouldn’t choose somebody that I didn’t care much for even if I felt that all my other options were far worse.
I think it’s even more important when you’re choosing the leader of your country that you shouldn’t feel like you need to pick a candidate that you really don’t like, just to avoid somebody who you absolutely hate.
If it’s a choice between Kodos and Kang, and Kodos wants to enslave humanity, but Kang wants to both enslave humanity and rape all the children, I’m still not choosing Kodos. A choice between bad and worse is really not a choice at all.
Speaking of raping children (how often do you get to use a segue like that?) I agree with you about the Anonymous thing. No matter how terrible the crime, vigilante justice is not something that we want to encourage.
And by the way, was I the only one who found that audio clip to be cringe inducingly embarrassing? “We are Anonymous. We are legion!”…. really? That’s what you’re going with??
I agree 100% about the anonymous thing. In addition to the ones you discussed on the podcast, there are a number of things wrong with the idea.
First: do we really know that the sites in question dealt in REAL kiddy porn (i.e. in porn that actually involved sexual abuse of children) a lot of things have, in some places and times, been defined as child pornography, that perhaps might be innocent or at least questionable. Should we be simply accepting that anonymous knows what constitutes the legal and moral definition of child pornography?
Second: Do we even know that Anonymous is doing what they say they are doing? Might they just be trying to ruin the reputation of someone they don’t like by fabricating the whole thing? After all they ARE anonymous, and therefore totally unaccountable for what they have done.
Third: Even if you are completely convinced, as many people are, that going after kiddy porn is always a good thing because you think it is not only illegal but downright evil, remember there are people in our society that believe other illegal acts (e.g. smoking or selling marijuana) are almost on a par with child pornography for evilness. Would you believe that an organization that outed a bunch of subscribers to a Marijuana growing website was doing a public service?
I agree that vigilante justice is not a good thing.
In this case though, your first 2 points are covered. The darknet IS filled with child porn (there are links to it everywhere, I was looking for an underground ebay type site I read about).
It’s horrible how blatant these people are about it…They think that because the darknet is anonymous and fairly secure they can do what they want.
And the third point, the darknet also has many other sites dedicated to other illegal things, arms, drugs, and anything else you can think of, they did not target those sites.
I just wanted to point that out, but I still agree that they have not taken the best course of action, aiding the authorities in some way to catch these people so they can serve time would be much more useful.
While a lot of the “Anonymous” crowd may be very liberal, especially if they spring from places such as 4chan, if people turn a blind eye to their actions, it’s just one more step for them to decide what other things are right or wrong for general consumption.
understand where you are all coming from about the anonymous information, but i’d like to call y’all up on a technicality. ..
anonymous aren’t being vigilantes.. vigilantes dole out their own punishment to alleged lawbreakers. anonymous aren’t arresting, beating or otherwise punishing anyone. they’re simply publishing details of the offenders – there is no ‘vigilante justice’ involved.
you could argue that they would be better off passing on the details in private, but that’s a different issue
Kev, I think you’re wrong about what it means to be a vigilante. Vigilante justice is about bypassing the legal mechanisms for dealing with criminals and taking action unilaterally.
That *can* involve doing violence to people, but it’s not a necessary part of vigilantism.
By the way, if you’re looking for a good book just by Leonard Mlodinow, you should read “The Drunkard’s Walk”. It’s an amazingly good book.