Jump to content


Episode 109 — Tea Time!


6 replies to this topic

#1 Earwolf Admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:04 AM

Cannibalism, fire, coyote attacks, homelessness, what's there not to love? Our guest this week is the hilarious Danny Lobell who is spending the month on the west coast and volunteered an hour of his trip to the podcast. It's a slippery slope as we talk about death penalty, and identity fraud, drifting into his dark (but super funny) side. Enjoy!

#2 Julia Hays

    Earwolf Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey native. New to Los Angeles.

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:18 AM

Coyote conspiracies!
I write inappropriate things on Twitter - @JuliaEveHays.

#3 D T

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:53 AM

"WE SHOULD GROW OUR OWN TEA!

...

Well, I guess it's not the right climate for tea."

That was the best.

#4 Papa

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:57 AM

About the death penalty when Andy said something to the effect of "back in the day ... it went down like this". Back in the day there was slavery. Either something is acceptable to you currently, or it isn't, right?

I think it's usually bad to borrow the past's sensibility, things tend to progress, especially concerning rights.

Just thoughts, love you both and great show! Danny is terse and very funny

#5 Nate Ellis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationDenver, Colorado

Posted 02 March 2012 - 11:20 PM

View PostPapa, on 02 March 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

About the death penalty when Andy said something to the effect of "back in the day ... it went down like this". Back in the day there was slavery. Either something is acceptable to you currently, or it isn't, right?

I think it's usually bad to borrow the past's sensibility, things tend to progress, especially concerning rights.

Just thoughts, love you both and great show! Danny is terse and very funny


Sure, there were horrible aspects of society two centuries ago. But the justice system hasn't necessarily improved when it comes to dealing with morality. Going outside of the law to stick up for your personal freedoms seems completely moral ( drug use, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and vigilante justice in certain cases also seems fair. "Back in the day" doesn't always mean the specific era in which slavery was it's most prevalent.

#6 Papa

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:59 AM

View PostNate Ellis, on 02 March 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Sure, there were horrible aspects of society two centuries ago. But the justice system hasn't necessarily improved when it comes to dealing with morality. Going outside of the law to stick up for your personal freedoms seems completely moral ( drug use, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and vigilante justice in certain cases also seems fair. "Back in the day" doesn't always mean the specific era in which slavery was it's most prevalent.


I know it doesn't. Slavery is a bit of a lazy go-to, my intention however was to highlight the simple logical fallacy I see in any statement hinged on a romantic and nebulous view of the past. The same way people say the world has gotten more and more violent as society has evolved, when almost every metric proves the contrary ( Steven Pinker's done great work on this).

Laws try to save us from each other, unfortunately they too often try to save us from ourselves. Morality is exercised ad hoc, between an entity and either itself or other entities. I think the purpose of laws is to try and abstract from the immediate in order to influence decisions made in any case without prejudice for the better, for all involved (hopefully.) Anyone even modestly discerning knows that this isn't written in stone, humans will be scoundrels, whether they be lawmaker, lawyer, judge, or criminal.

Say what you will about vigilante justice's moral worth, codifying it in law is entirely unlikely, vigilante is the operative word after all.

What we're concerned with though is the letter of the laws involving capital punishment. A lot of people might think that the case for abolition is mostly based on people's concern for a true criminal's rights. Whereas I believe it to be a careful consideration based on the fact that we've killed -- and stopped short of killing-- a lot of people who were definitely innocent.

Death is final, too final for the state to be allowed license to mete it out. These aren't loose armed men in a mall threatening people, they're in custody, and some of them are very innocent.

"Not even for Hitler" goes the old phrase, kind of hard to swallow, but ultimately worth it I think.

sorry for the length, it's kind of a fascinating subject

#7 Nate Ellis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationDenver, Colorado

Posted 07 March 2012 - 05:06 PM

View PostPapa, on 07 March 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:


I know it doesn't. Slavery is a bit of a lazy go-to, my intention however was to highlight the simple logical fallacy I see in any statement hinged on a romantic and nebulous view of the past. The same way people say the world has gotten more and more violent as society has evolved, when almost every metric proves the contrary ( Steven Pinker's done great work on this).

Laws try to save us from each other, unfortunately they too often try to save us from ourselves. Morality is exercised ad hoc, between an entity and either itself or other entities. I think the purpose of laws is to try and abstract from the immediate in order to influence decisions made in any case without prejudice for the better, for all involved (hopefully.) Anyone even modestly discerning knows that this isn't written in stone, humans will be scoundrels, whether they be lawmaker, lawyer, judge, or criminal.

Say what you will about vigilante justice's moral worth, codifying it in law is entirely unlikely, vigilante is the operative word after all.

What we're concerned with though is the letter of the laws involving capital punishment. A lot of people might think that the case for abolition is mostly based on people's concern for a true criminal's rights. Whereas I believe it to be a careful consideration based on the fact that we've killed -- and stopped short of killing-- a lot of people who were definitely innocent.

Death is final, too final for the state to be allowed license to mete it out. These aren't loose armed men in a mall threatening people, they're in custody, and some of them are very innocent.

"Not even for Hitler" goes the old phrase, kind of hard to swallow, but ultimately worth it I think.

sorry for the length, it's kind of a fascinating subject


Very well said. What I think Andy and Liz are referring to with their ideas of the death penalty and the " back in the day" statement in particular is the idea that when something horrible happens to us, it's at least a nice feeling to know there is an option to definitively end the person who caused it. Call it cathartic. I do agree that as a society, we should strive to be less illogical and primal with our anger, and be more constructive with it. However, we put the burden of lawfully killing someone on society's shoulders, so when an innocent person is put to death, the scope of morality and authority becomes blurry and confusing. If someone has their family taken from them by an individual, and the victim enacts vengeance, the burden of that death is on them, but so is the satisfaction of being the judge, jury, and executioner.

It's a tricky subject and you're probably right, maybe I've seen Kill Bill far too many times.