AlexO'Keefe

The problem with dogs licking peanut butter off balls (hard to believe the things we debate on the interwebs), I used the example of a six-year old being expected to sign a lease. Even if you qualify that the dog has no societal scrutiny or shame, the human party still does and brings that burden into the relationship. Since the dog cannot fully understand the full terms and potential meaning of the agreement (societal ideals and taboos that a human involvement adds) it's unfair and potentially exploitative. Deliberately or involuntary, information is withheld from one party.

Ah, but I present the example of developmentally challenged or brain damaged people. We can't grant dignity only to the rational and those who we expect to reach rationality because that would allow the abuse of permanently mentally incapacitated people. Also, the expectation of rationality is a flawed argument, it's Aristotelian teleology. Basically, an acorn will grow into a tree but an acorn is not a tree. You are putting effect before cause which forsakes most scientific reasoning. This argument is also used in the personhood; because a fetus will one day be a rational being, it is afforded certain rights.

I agree with you that there are murky lines in Natural Rights for animals and it has recently led me to believe that killing animals is immoral. So I admit cognitive dissonance because I do eat meat. I think the main argument allowing for animals to be killed is a Natural Law argument or maybe Devine Command, descendant from biblical ideals; we either have a natural prominence over animals because of survival of the fittest or because god told Adam so. Survival of the fittest is void by the social contract and religious ethics shouldn't be impressed onto others.

Also, Gemberling has the Relativist ideology of a first-year college student; this fuels his entire "open-minded" morality. I won't elaborate too much about the fallacy of this world view but basically the argument unravels upon its own reasoning. It alleges that since morality is a social construct, it's fabricated and arbitrary. Relativists claim ultimate objectivity yet at the same time decide what is moral and what is not. Gemberling dismisses his detractors as wrong and mucked by societal taboos but if he truly followed this world view he would take a more agnostic approach to ethics. Gemberling defended bestiality as a "rich cultural tradition" using social examples of Colombian donkey fucking and asian vaginal eels while at the same time declaring that morality based on social examples is bullshit and contrived. Relativism is ultimately very subjective and self-righteous; by using it to negate an opponent's argument you negate your own.

HILARIOUS episode but Gemberling is fucking depraved. He's funny, but he's kinda a sick fuck. I think he's been so insulated by his own opinion and defending it that he's gotten a degree of aloofness and cognitive dissonance. He hesitated, deflected and qualified Besser's question about reporting a neighbor's bestiality. The debater didn't come with strong stances or knowledge of ethical principles. The best way to show a flawed argument is to extend its perimeters to generally accepted taboos. So I will use pedophilia. Dogs have intelligence on par with 2-3 year old children, children at this age are controlled by impulses, unimpeded by cultural taboos. Like the dog, they don't have constructs of shame or high levels of cognition. Would it be okay to have sex with a child or any being simply because it doesn't have developed ego/superegos? You would say no because although children are primarily focused on receiving pleasure (being held by parents and other instant gratification), some pleasures are potentially traumatizing. Animals aren't as dumb and unaware as people think, regardless of whether an animal enjoys sex is unrelated because it can permanently traumatize them - I've seen many stories of horses, dogs and gorillas who grow a Pavlovian response after long-term sexual abuse. They often turn their butts towards any visitors, all they know is sex and they've developed a terribly dependency and fear of it. A variation of the argument of "well if the animals enjoy it, who cares?" is used by rapists, some guys who have been raped become hard despite displeasure - it's a subconscious reaction. But you are permanently fucking up someone's relation to sex, and using them as an ends to a means as Kant would say. The biggest reason the bestiality taboo exists is because animals will never be able to fully consent; it's like expecting a six year old to sign a lease. They won't fully understand the terms and extent of the relationship; the communication barrier will always prevent that.

Listening to this brought me back to the early Who Charted days discovering the enigma of Kremer. I demand that Armen gets his own Earwolf show; "Weitz Up?" with Armen Weitzman.

DUCCA LIVES! My favorite CBB character, I missed him so.

ummmmmm no, that woman was a character dummies, stop ragging on CBB for experimentation!

Call Me Mr. Soup Kitchen because I like eating bums -- buttholes that is. This is Comedy Bang Bang.

I was listening to this episode right before my class started and Neil's rap made me laugh uncontrollably in a silent room of miserable students. Thanks Bang Bang! And somebody get him on Rafflecast's Building A Track

Well I understand what that guy's saying, sometimes Scott can get stuck on a particular bit for a little too long. Like when every episode had the anti-comedy contest of Alive or Dead or Hollywood Facts. But if you don't like something the show will eventually evolve and find new things to be obsessed with. I've listened since the start of the podcast and there are very few bits that perpetually stick; maybe everyone fast-forwarding to plugs. I appreciate the Scott's experimentation and it's not always gonna work for everybody all the time. So have some patience and enjoy the show!

This is a brief and off-topic comment but there really should be a Morgan Spurlock character. He seems ripe for satire, he's just signed on to direct a new One Direction documentary

Jeff is really trying to get that "Big bowl of" phrase to catch on.

Hey Earwolf can we get a Stargoyle plushie? A Sir Richard light glove would be an acceptable consolation.

This episode clicked a lot better for me than some of the previous ones. Judd is a really affable guy although... I do wish his movies were a little shorter... Just because I love them and I'd be able to love them even more abridged!