Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Ben wrote:I would appreciate it if we could remain on-topic.
Thanks

Ben

in the lounge?
plus,it's a counter to BuddhaSoup's ad hominem aguainst Jillete, which goes directly to the OP

danieLion wrote:

Ben wrote:I would appreciate it if we could remain on-topic.
Thanks

Ben

in the lounge?
plus,it's a counter to BuddhaSoup's ad hominem aguainst Jillete, which goes directly to the OP

Yes, even in the lounge.

danieLion wrote:

BuddhaSoup wrote:Michael Parenti, featured in the video, is in part an apologist for communism, suggesting that he and Jillette may share an affinity for Communist regimes like the PRC.

Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."

Penn is still a jerk.

danieLion wrote:

BuddhaSoup wrote:Michael Parenti, featured in the video, is in part an apologist for communism, suggesting that he and Jillette may share an affinity for Communist regimes like the PRC.

Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."

From what I have read about Penn and his interest I would agree. I imagine what unites them are strong anti-religious views.

Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."

I'd make the argument, not to be argumentative, that the affinity for the PRC does fit this Cato profile.

China today is all about unmitigated 'free market' capitalism, with only a facade of traditional communism. It is hardly the communism from the Soviet era, but a financially driven totalitarianism bent on high production, high pollution, high acquisition, with a goal toward regional and global dominance. How many Russian products did your family buy in the 1970's ? Today, who made the trainers you're wearing right now? I'd say the Koch brothers and the Chinese authorities make good bedfellows.

But is Parenti an apologist for "olld style" communism or the present Chinese regime?

Mr Man wrote:But is Parenti an apologist for "olld style" communism or the present Chinese regime?

Good point. From what little I've read of Parenti, he's favorable to certain aspects of traditional communism, and critical of aspects that have manifested in the modern PRC.

As may of you know, I have been a professional magician, hypnotist and mentalist for more than thirty-five years. I have had the displeasure of knowing P&T since they hit the scene in the 80s. Penn Jillete has the emotional maturity and social graces of a spoiled 12 year old, Ray Teller is a little bit better, he's cultured and literate but still a bigot when it comes to spiritual and metaphysical matters. Both are howling atheists without the slightest shred of respect for anyone else's belief systems. They've built a fan base among the cynical, the hard-edged and the know-it-alls. The stories are legion about their callous behavior toward audience members and random people they encounter, and of fellow show-business people.

In other words, they're both total d-bags. Their opinions on anything mean nothing to me. I've never understood how anyone ever found them entertaining, but I don't care much for humor based on a foundation of disparaging or mocking other people,

BubB

BuddhaSoup wrote:

Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."

I'd make the argument, not to be argumentative, that the affinity for the PRC does fit this Cato profile.

China today is all about unmitigated 'free market' capitalism, with only a facade of traditional communism. It is hardly the communism from the Soviet era, but a financially driven totalitarianism bent on high production, high pollution, high acquisition, with a goal toward regional and global dominance. How many Russian products did your family buy in the 1970's ? Today, who made the trainers you're wearing right now? I'd say the Koch brothers and the Chinese authorities make good bedfellows.

That makes more sense than what you said before. Thanks.

I don't believe ad hominem is always inappropriate (just usually), and maybe this is one of those times it makes sense.

I'm neither a P&T fan nor a hater. I'd just never heard those things about the DL and was wondering if the de-bunkers (bozos, jerks, douchebags, etc...) needed debunking.

It's evident to me now they're committed to philosophical materialism, and Randians are, IMO, completely retarded.

danieLion wrote:I don't believe ad hominem is always inappropriate (just usually), and maybe this is one of those times it makes sense.

I'm neither a P&T fan nor a hater. I'd just never heard those things about the DL and was wondering if the de-bunkers (bozos, jerks, douchebags, etc...) needed debunking.

It's evident to me now they're committed to philosophical materialism, and Randians are, IMO, completely retarded.

And committed to really bad argumentation to make their points. They are jerks.

Agreed.

That makes more sense than what you said before. Thanks.

Sometimes it takes me a few tries to make sense.

Yes they seem like douchebags but their flavour of crapola is, in my opinion, homegrown.