7 Responses to “The Podcast : Episode 10”

1. Ashes Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

   XD Oh crap I can’t stop laughing! The announcer guy and the ITunes review thing were hilarious. I said earlier that you should fuck the haters, and I still stand by that even now. You’re doing a good job and reaching out to people, even if it’s only a few. No matter how idiotic, intelligent or odd we need as many view points out there as possible, or else we’ll be silenced by the big-shots who are trying to control us. Luckily yours just happens to fall in to the middle category.

   The poem at the end was great as well. I may just have to make a poem about ketamine and E because it inspired me, that and goddess knows enough of my work is inspired by those things. What rhymes with ketamine will be the problem though bwahaha.

   You really did a good job on address the topics at hand like always and I can’t wait for your next show.

   

2. angryhippie Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

   Thanks as always!! I really enjoyed playing with the itunes comment. And I loved the back and forth. Even if it did make me feel a bit schizophrenic!

   That’s a fav poem of mine. Ketamine is harder to rhyme, but if you call it ‘K’ you’re set. Otherwise you’re limited to amphetamine, or something like “to set the scene”…anyway, that’s awesome that it inspired you!!

   Much love!

   

3. Dino Says:
   January 31st, 2008 at 12:55 am

   Hey Rob!

   Let me preface this with: You know I love your show, and loooooove listening to your rants, your poetry, and your rhetoric. However, I heard some problematic stuff in this particular episode, and I hope you’ll address it at some point.

   When you began making the argument about the foetus not being capable of free-standing life, I was disturbed, as it seemed as if you were making a value judgement about people whose lives are sustained through artificial methods. I’m not talking about premature babies who are on oxygen or otherwise, but those of us whose bodies are not fully equipped to live life “on its own,” such as people who are paralysed, people whose congenital issues cause them to rely on machines, and otherwise. See, it’s not that I have a problem with the argument that a baby’s life should not be considered [a valid entity until its ability to survive outside of the mother's uterus]. Frankly, until very late in the game, it’s a clump of cells for fuck’s sake. What I did take issue with is that you didn’t follow through with that argument to its natural conclusion, and got distracted by the next line of reasoning. Again, I’m pro abortion. We really /can’t/ support the number of babies coming into the planet. However, I do wish that you had completed that line of reasoning, and provided it a conclusion before moving forward.

   Meanwhile, using the population explosion as a valid reason for culling foetuses is actually aligning oneself with /very/ problematic stances that come from hunters. Just because they’re using that argument doesn’t meant that we should. From what it sounded like, it felt like “If you’re going to make a bullshit argument, watch me make one.” Not to be funny, but I refer to one of your earliest quotes that turned me on to your podcasts, “We don’t just think we’re morally superior; we actually are.” It’s in that spirit that I call to your attention my sense of disquiet with how you presented the material.

   To summarise: I’m with you more or less 100%. However, when you’re speaking to an audience, I think it’s important to make sure that you’ve really got your reasoning in order, so that they can’t come back at you, and poke bullshit holes in your argument based on stuff that we all know you didn’t mean in the first place.

   XOXO

   Dino

   

4. Dino Says:
   January 31st, 2008 at 1:19 am

   Oh. PS. Check out that twunt’s other feedback he left for other shows. It’s /all/ negative. Looks like s/he gets off on trashing podcasts. I’d ignore it if I were you.

   

5. angryhippie Says:
   January 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   Dino,
   Let me preface this by saying…”oh, yeah, well, you…suck!” LOL Soooo just kidding. You know I got mad love for you!! Seriously, thanks for the comments! I’ll read this on the next ep, so that it can serve to clear things up. For that, again, I thank you.

   As far as point one, I’ll say this, and hope it helps…I made an apples to oranges comparison in the heat of the moment, and quickly moved on from it as it really did not have much place in the discussion. Those of us who find themselves being kept alive with breathing or feeding tubes in a nonresponsive state (like Terry Schiavo was for a time when our Senate tried to pass a law to prevent her ‘murder’), in my opinion, these people are not technically ‘living’ in the common sense. As would be my choice. I would include a living will, to ensure that my wishes would be respected. I know that it is not the same instance, and again, I shouldn’t have made the comparison, especially in such an unclear way. With this in mind, my original thinking was to relate the two as in terms of choice. Why can we make that choice for our families, but not for an unborn fetus? I realized this was a bad comparison, as it was only in terms of the choice, but as was pointed out by Ravenfire just a little bit ago, and like you said, it does leave it open for critics to combat the lack of logic see-through. It was poorly handled and for that I wish to apologize. Now as far as making a judgment about those lives, again, I was only speaking in my own case, but I would like to be clear, that anyone who needs medicines, oxygen tanks, and things such as this to maintain their life is not who I am speaking about. I was merely talking about those unresponsive persons in comas who show no sign of brain activity. As far as premature babies, who have not experienced and known life, and have not yet breathed on their own, in my opinion are still not technically ‘living’, now is this making a value judgment, if so, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to. As someone who was ‘born’ premature, I feel like the time that I was officially on my own, and breathing finally and separated from both the chord and the machines, that I was finally ‘alive’. I hope that helped to clear things up, and as I said, I will carry this onto the next ep! Thanks again.

   Now, as far as the overpopulation argument. I use this, in comparison to the hunting argument commonly thrown out in it’s defense, because I feel that we as humans have only the right to exercise control over our own species’ population. Abortion is one of the methods we have to do this. We however have no right to impose any means of ‘population control’ on another species. Especially given the fact that we are responsible for the animals supposed overpopulation. Again, we’ve taken all their available space and left them with so little, it’s no wonder they appear to be overpopulating. So I stand by the argument, because I firmly believe it’s our place to control our own, and no other species’ population. To do so, would be to assume that it’s our place, right, or responsibility. And I don’t think it is….and I’m not saying that people should be forced into population control, I’m just saying that we need only be concerned with our own.

   Anyway, as always, thanks for the listen and the wonderful feedback!! Mad props and love!

   By the way, we just got your cookbook in and it’s amazing!

   

6. Kris Dove Says:
   February 24th, 2008 at 3:16 am

   Here’s my reply toDino’s comment, with another angle
   Quote:
   When you began making the argument about the foetus not being capable of free-standing life, I was disturbed, as it seemed as if you were making a value judgement about people whose lives are sustained through artificial methods. I’m not talking about premature babies who are on oxygen or otherwise, but those of us whose bodies are not fully equipped to live life “on its own,” such as people who are paralysed, people whose congenital issues cause them to rely on machines, and otherwise. See, it’s not that I have a problem with the argument that a baby’s life should not be considered [a valid entity until its ability to survive outside of the mother’s uterus].
   The reason this is different is because in the case of those people whose lives are sustained through machines… well, exactly(!), it’s a machine sustaining them, not another sentient being, being forced to against their own will, and at the cost of their own health and some small risk to their own life. That’s the crux of it.
   __________________

   

7. angryhippie Says:
   February 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am

   Thanks, Kris, for that. It is nice to gt other ideas, or ideas that help complete the argument. I appreciate it!

   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail