This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Pod Delusion Episode 21

The Pod Delusion Episode 21 - Comments

Swordmaiden's Avatar Comment 1 by Swordmaiden

I discovered The Pod Delusion very recently and thoroughly enjoy listening including it's back episodes; it has sensible interviews and debates with just the right amount of satire. I hope it continues and grows!

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:52:00 UTC | #440859

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 2 by godsbelow

"If humans come from Africa why
is there still Africa?"

Seriously? As an African of European ancestry I find the very idea itself racist. Only a complete racist moron could have asked that - my sympathies with the interviewers.

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:32:00 UTC | #440897

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 3 by Chris Roberts

Great stuff, really enjoyed that.

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:35:00 UTC | #440899

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 4 by ANTIcarrot

Pity about the second half.

"Homosexuality is an entirely normal and healthy alternative relationship. How dare you compare us to all those other sick and perverted alternative relationships! Why I am sickened to be compared to such obviously sub human individuals!"

Yes that's an exaguration of what was said, but only a small one. One of the reasons I don't always support gay marrage (though I don't oppose it) is the way they demand an almost religious exception to tradition for themselves *only*.

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:40:00 UTC | #440901

Psythor's Avatar Comment 5 by Psythor

Hello, I'm the Editor of the Pod Delusion.

Godsbelow, there were certainly no racist intentions in my questions to Professor Stringer. I intended it as a parody of the tedious creationist question: "If humans came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". This is particularly appropriate, if not as funny as I'd hoped, to Professor Stringer because the human migration from Africa is one of his key areas of study.

Glad you like the show Swordmaiden and Nails - do be sure to subscribe!

I'm far too underqualified to comment on gay marriage semantics. I realise that I'm far too underqualified to talk to biologists too and that didn't stop me...

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:00:00 UTC | #440903

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 6 by godsbelow

Psythor:

fair enough, I undersand the purpose of the question. I just had to listen to interview a couple of times to get it, I was taken aback at first at the idea that it may have been a genuine, auhentic anti-evolutionist question - it's not that far fetched for anti-evolutionists, honetsly!

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:25:00 UTC | #440907

Swordmaiden's Avatar Comment 7 by Swordmaiden

Like I said, a touch of satire, I got it!...all good stuff as far as I'm concerned!

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:14:00 UTC | #440927

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 8 by prettygoodformonkeys

I thought the humor was good.

BTW: dropping 'Don't ask - Don't tell' is being considered by Obama right now - which would finally let gays serve openly in the Army.

One comment I heard (may have been The Onion): "Well, Ok, but if they let gays into the army, they're going to have to start letting straight people into the Navy."

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:04:00 UTC | #440961

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 9 by mirandaceleste

Great episode, James :)

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:35:00 UTC | #440977

johnx's Avatar Comment 10 by johnx

Re: Comment #460603 by ANTIcarrot on February 12, 2010 at 4:40 pm

One of the reasons I don't always support gay marrage (though I don't oppose it) is the way they demand an almost religious exception to tradition for themselves *only*.

First off, pick a side, riding the fence will only chap your butt.

Second, that's quite a strawman, can you cite an example of what you describe? Also, don't you think that the heterosexual community can handle a little ribbing from homosexuals, considering all that has been dished out the other direction?

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:13:00 UTC | #441004

flibble's Avatar Comment 11 by flibble

I've been subscribed to the Pod Delusion for 2 or 3 months now, and generally enjoy it very much (although I have been surprised/infuriated with a couple of the "features"). Keep up the good work Psythor.

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:41:00 UTC | #441100

Tiende Landeplage's Avatar Comment 12 by Tiende Landeplage

Re: Comment #460603 by ANTIcarrot

I don't always support gay marrage


I don't understand — do you mean that you are in favor of some gay marriages but not others? If so, what are your criteria for "acceptable" gay marriages?

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:46:00 UTC | #441169

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 13 by ANTIcarrot

Johnx:
>Second, that's quite a strawman, can you cite an example of what you describe?

Yes I can. THE PODCAST ABOVE. Quoting almost directly this time: Chris Stoll (senior human rights attorney) mentioned "statements made to the media and on websites comparing gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy and incest" and that these are considered "really extreme beliefs" and "really outrageous statements."

These views were not at all challenged by the presenters. And this is not the only place I've seen them expressed.

Now I can kinda understand why Unpopular Minority X might wish to focus exclusively on its own problems, and own advancement. I might even understand why UPX keeps its mouth shut about other controversial topics to avoid splitting its support. But it takes a very special kind of stupidity for UPX to turn around and say "We're nothing like UPY and UPZ - those people are sick!"

This is the attitude you'll find amongst gay marriage supporters towards such things as polygamy, incest, bestiality, and various other topics. All three activities are only thought immoral because of the wisdom of repugnance, social inertia, and religion. Now that sounds familiar doesn't it? What was that other group that was treated like this for thousands of years? It was... Oh let me think... Oh yes, that's right: HOMOSEXUALS.

Now science can't make moral judgements, but it can make physical ones. It can test if people are lying to themselves, or believe something that's obviously not true, or obviously very probably not true.

Imagine meeting someone who believes that jumping out of an aeroplane is dangerous, and should be illegal. Nothing wrong with that, you may think, though it is a rather specific view on suicide. Then they go on to say that all possible ways of jumping out of an airplane are equally lethal. Even parachuting will kill you each and every time, and that anyone who disagrees is evil and sick!

Now contrast the popular belief that bestiality is animal abuse. Consider, just for a moment, how many methods there are for two humans to have sex. (Not positions, methods. Oral, anal, vaginal, etc.) I count eight. Consider the number of species that humans can reasonably expect to be able to do these activities with, without doing immediate and obvious physical trauma. (So, not chickens). Again I count about eight again (plus sub species).

If you believe that bestiality is animal abuse (always, each of those possibilities) then gosh darn it that's a lot of testing you've done! No? You were involved in the research at least! No? Well that's a lot of research you've read then! Not that either? Heard about it? Seen a documentary. Glanced at a newspaper article? Heard something at a party whilst drunk? Anything? Nothing? Well then... Why do you believe such a wide ranging statement, for which you have seen absolutely no evidence, and which is used to lock people up in prison?

[ ] Wisdom of repugnance?
[ ] Social inertia?
[ ] Religion?
[ ] A fear you’ll be next if you stick your neck out?
(Tick particular type of stupidity as appropriate)

We all disbelieve in almost all the laws of Leviticus. Some of us just go one law further.

Tiende Landeplage
>I don't understand — do you mean that you are in favor of some gay marriages but not others?

I'm in favour of gay marriage, and sexuality equality in general. What I'm not in favour of are a bunch of selfish ignorant loudmouths stabbing other groups in the back and climbing over their corpses to get what they want. Being horribly discriminated against is no excuse to treat other people that way.

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:09:00 UTC | #441261