Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

BesidesIllegal

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    59

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by BesidesIllegal

  8. Posted

    Real quick guys

     

    if you could have sex with any animal from history, who would it be?

     

    I'm going with Wishbone.

     

     

    including fictional animals from fictional histories?

     

    Charlie Tuna, because he could give vocal consent and he kinda smells like a vagina

     

    OR

     

    the sky dragon thing from The Neverending Story. He wants it.

    • Like 2

  9. Posted

    You did a great job, and the show was hilarious. That said, I do think for future reference, this is the wrong way to approach it. Being reasonable and agreeable are good qualities in a debate, but these guys don't need any kid gloves and definitely don't need any help finding comedy fodder. It would have been equally funny with a truly outraged caller like Matt wanted. Things tend to work better with the caller just being honest and themselves and not strategizing to be funny. Maybe for other shows this is a totally understandable mentality, but not so much this one. Again, very fun debate! I don't think you were trolling and you made plenty of serious points, it's just a slippery slope mentality for callers in general.

     

     

    Engineer Brett!

     

    What an honor. Thank you for the constructive criticism, and the advice. I feel like a running theme in this thread is that the words in my original post were not as well put as they should have been (My fault), and that has lead to them maybe being misconstrued. I just want to re-iterate that what I stated WAS an honest opinion, and I was not "strategizing" to be funny. And being a fan of everyone involved, I definitely understand that they do not need kid gloves. My apologies to everyone involved if it seemed like that. I really didn't mean to imply that I had any intention of pushing the show in a different direction to suit my own agenda. In fact, I was surprised at the amount of time they kept me on the show.

     

    I didn't have some grand scheme for the call. I simply answered a request to give my opinion, researched some talking points, realized that my stance on the topic wasn't as black and white as I thought, and attempted to go into the call with a relatively open mind while not taking things too seriously. Again, thanks for the criticism, you know more about how these shows work than I or anyone else in the thread.

  10. Posted

     

    It's not your job to try to make the show funny nor is it your job to decide that the topic doesn't deserve a debate just because Gemberling has a strong opinion. When Matt asked for a serious debater to come on the show, coming on with the attitude "haha im going to ignore Matt's request and show off how funny I am because a real debate isn't funny" is a dick move. If Matt didn't think that he could have started a scene based on a serious debate, he wouldn't have asked for a serious debater to come on in the first place.

     

    Edit: I am referring to your statement

     

     

    This is the exact sentiment Matt tries to discourage.

     

     

    Did the episode really make you this mad?

     

    It seems like you really want a chance to get on the show and give your side of the debate. Again, why don't you ask Matt and try to do a better job?

     

    To say that I "decided the topic didn't need a debate" is ridiculous, because I WAS IN THE DEBATE. At no point did I say "I don't think we should talk about bestiality. I don't want to debate this". And I certainly didn't ever try to force my humor into the scenes. I'd love for you to show me where Matt tries to discourage people from giving him and others on the podcast information for scenes.

     

    Here's the thing: my honest opinion is the one I stated on the show during the debate. So if you're getting mad at me for not being as angry as you wanted me to be, or not being as hardcore-anti bestiality as you wanted me to be during the debate, it's a waste of your time. I truly think that the only moral way to have sex with an animal is by letting it come to you on its own accord, letting it initiate on it's own accord, and then letting it leave on it's own accord, and that's what I stood by. I stated that, and presented my reasons why. You seem to think that's a joke. It might sound funny, but it's a legitimate opinion. One that I got to express and you didn't, which is why I think you're so mad.

     

     

     

    I've seen a lot more posts here and on the live stream saying they greatly enjoyed the episode than posts telling me that I was a dick. So I think it went alright. If you didn't like it, why didn't you ask to join the debate in the first place. After all,

    I'm the only person who posted to volunteer.

     

    If Matt didn't like it, he should and could have cut the whole segment, or stopped the interview short. But he didn't. So until Matt Besser comes on here and tells me I'm a dick, I'll kindly ask you to fuck off.

    • Like 6

  11. Posted

     

    I think it would have been possible to make some serious arguments without the conversation devolving into a shouting match. Also, you don't know that Gemberling wouldn't have changed his mind because no one has really presented a good argument on the show.

     

    I wish someone would have brought up what is to me the most obvious and central counter argument: animals are similar to human minors in that they are both unable to consent. If an adult has sex with a child, it is still abuse even if the child initiates the act or even if the adult claims that the child "enjoyed it." The same standards hold true for animals. As a society, we are advanced enough to know that children and animals do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and meaning of sex.

     

    I haven't re-listened to the episode so I'm not sure if they edited it out, but I DID bring up the connection between human minors and animals. I didn't really get a chance to expand on it since 1) Matt's a new dad and didn't want to talk about it 2) It was pretty hard to get a word in edge-wise. And I think that John Gemberling's stance on bestiality is well known if you listen back to the two episodes it was discussed in, it seems obvious he wouldn't be changing his mind. But hey, you're more than welcome to ask Matt to go on the show and do the debate justice in the way you see fit. Maybe you'll be the guy who changes his mind.

     

    I do agree the debate was really weak, Don you can say there was no point in yelling at him but that was kinda the point of the segment.

     

    As much as I'm not into having sex with animals, if I girl or guy wants to be penetrated by an animal whats the harm. I gotta agree with John. I mean in ancient Greek mythology Zeus appeared as many different animals and as a swan impregnated a female human. I mean King Minos' wife had sex was impregnated by a bull and that's how the Minotaur was born.

     

    Have you ever tried to take an animal to the Vet? Most are extremely hard to get there, they don't do things they don't want to do. Plus who actually hasn't seen bestiality, I'm not saying jerking off to it but just seen it with friends or anything in High School? I mean everyone knows who Mr.Hands is...

     

    I'm suprised you were unhappy with the debate yet side with Gemberling. Seeing as my goal was to establish some common ground between someone who opposes bestiality and one who thinks it can be done in a harmless fashion, wouldn't it be more pleasing for you to see a "victory" for your side as opposed to somebody shouting views you don't agree with over the 5 comics people actually came to listen to? You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, and I respect that. But I would measure the success of this episode by the funniness of the scenes the debate inspired, not the debate itself.

    • Like 3

  12. Posted

    Hilarious episode but I was disappointed that the debate guy clearly didn't present a serious argument, seemed like he was just trolling the show and trying to be funny. He didn't make any real points or present a real counter argument. No animal rights advocate would have argued "beastiality is okay if your eyes are closed and your hands are in the air." I can't believe Matt and the other guests took this guy seriously. I think Matt should vet these debaters and their arguments before letting them on the air if he wants to have a serious discussion.

     

    Hey Noah,

     

    I'm that guy from the debate, and I feel I should clear the air about me "trolling" the show. I had no intention of going on I4H and putting one over on Matt and the gang. In fact, when I first learned I was going to be on the show, I WAS preparing a serious argument. But then I thought of something: I'm not going to be able to change Gemberling's mind, and nobody wants to hear a screaming match that goes nowhere (and certainly nobody wanted to hear some loser call in and berate the hell out of a much funnier comedian) I decided that my job in the segment was not to give a mediocre lecture on philosophy to some amazing comics, but to instead provide them with fodder for good comedy. I'm sorry if I disapointed anyone hoping for an official stance on bestiality, I just wanted to maybe find some common ground with Gemberling and inspire some funny scenes.

    • Like 9

  14. Posted

    This episode is a checklist of what makes a 10/10 CBB episode:

     

    The Dream Team of Scott, PFT and a straight man

     

    A PFT character who's dead/can communicate with the dead

     

    A bizzare Would You Rather, preferably one that involves genitals

     

    Any reference to the song Wipeout

     

    Cake Boss throwbacks

     

    Negative feelings towards the Plugs theme

     

    etc etc etc

     

    Best CBB episode.....ever?

    • Like 1
×