Conservative Radio host loses it on air, enjoy the meltdown

Forums: Politics, Ethics, Beginning Of Life
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This one is classic.

Remember that stupid "What if a terrorist had a timebomb" scenario people used to justify torture?

Well, it looks like they can dish the "stupid hypothetical" questions, but they can't take it. Some guy calls in, and asks the following question:

"If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?"

The ensuing meltdown is just too much fun. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you have absolutely no way to answer without contradicting yourself.

Click the link, and enjoy.

Source Link (Wingnut Petri Dish)

Direct link to audio

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,214 • Replies: 54

No top replies

Hehe...sweet.

0 Replies

That is a bloody riot!

0 Replies

"It doesn't make me angry."

0 Replies

That was just sad. Poor guy gets owned, then has to reinflate his own ego by repeating, "I'm smarter than you."

Somebody call Stewart Smally.

0 Replies

Wow.

This is why I don't listen to talk radio. I know there are some out there who listen to Limbaugh and his ilk just to be incensed and outraged, but I find them frustratingly dumb. The situation brought up by the caller was not a "Catch-22" or a set-up or anything like that: it was a fair question that the host only dodged because he could yell really loud and could cut off the call whenever he liked (which was far too late -- Limbaugh would never have even taken the call). The hypothetical didn't pose a false dilemma: it posed a real dilemma for anti-abortionists who truly believe that life begins at conception and that a blastocyst is the equivalent of a child.

As for the hypothetical itself, it is something that Judith Thomson would call a "Trolley Problem." For anti-abortionists who believe that life begins at conception, this poses a significant moral quandary. For those who don't believe that life begins at conception, there is no quandary at all.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Wow.

The situation brought up by the caller was not a "Catch-22" or a set-up or anything like that: it was a fair question that the host only dodged because he could yell really loud and could cut off the call whenever he liked (which was far too late -- Limbaugh would never have even taken the call).

Exactly on point. I learned never to bother with talk radio again after I got on the air with O'Reilly. I just wanted to make a point of how absurd it was how hard people were really reaching to defend Bush when one of his scandals was going down (I think it was the whole "no one knew the levees were going to break" thing), and simply started with "You know as well as I that if this happened during Clinton's presidency, you would be ripping him apart now."

He immediately cut the call and went on a 10 minute rant about Clinton. I was just pissed that I said the "C" word and thus, justification to rail on and on about him.

Of course he didn't address my point, either. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I can't hear it. I just get this weird video thing.

0 Replies

Oh wait.... now I got it to work....

0 Replies

<snork>

I don't listen to much talk radio -- Air America once in a while. I love it when they have someone from the "other side" call in and they just calmly beat them back.

Those ranting talkers just make my eyes go pop.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

The situation brought up by the caller was not a "Catch-22" or a set-up or anything like that: it was a fair question that the host only dodged because he could yell really loud and could cut off the call whenever he liked (which was far too late -- Limbaugh would never have even taken the call). The hypothetical didn't pose a false dilemma: it posed a real dilemma for anti-abortionists who truly believe that life begins at conception and that a blastocyst is the equivalent of a child.

What!! "it was a fair question"...."didn't pose a false dilemma"??!!?? Of course it was unfair and posed an unrealistic "stupid hypothetical" situation. That was the whole point of Justanobserver's original post.

Unless of course, you are arguing that the scenario of torturing the terrorist with a timebomb is "a real dilemma" and "fair question" for human rights activists who truly believe that there is no justification for torture.

Both hypothetical situations are absurd and not worth the breath to argue, which I think was the point of the talk show host.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

What!! "it was a fair question"...."didn't pose a false dilemma"??!!?? Of course it was unfair and posed an unrealistic "stupid hypothetical" situation. That was the whole point of Justanobserver's original post.

I'll leave it up to Justan to explain what he meant by his original post. But what exactly is "unfair" about the hypothetical?

slkshock7 wrote:

Unless of course, you are arguing that the scenario of torturing the terrorist with a timebomb is "a real dilemma" and "fair question" for human rights activists who truly believe that there is no justification for torture.

Of course that's a fair hypothetical. Why wouldn't it be?

slkshock7 wrote:

Both hypothetical situations are absurd and not worth the breath to argue, which I think was the point of the talk show host.

The host argued that the hypothetical was absurd because he had no way to answer it without making himself look like either a hypocrite or a dimwit. What's your excuse?

0 Replies

I never saw the attraction to these talk shows.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'll leave it up to Justan to explain what he meant by his original post. But what exactly is "unfair" about the hypothetical?

Its unfair to require a real response to an unreal question.

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
Unless of course, you are arguing that the scenario of torturing the terrorist with a timebomb is "a real dilemma" and "fair question" for human rights activists who truly believe that there is no justification for torture.

Of course that's a fair hypothetical. Why wouldn't it be?

Already answered.

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
Both hypothetical situations are absurd and not worth the breath to argue, which I think was the point of the talk show host.

The host argued that the hypothetical was absurd because he had no way to answer it without making himself look like either a hypocrite or a dimwit. What's your excuse?

And have you stopped beating your wife? When you answer the latter, I'll answer the former.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I never saw the attraction to these talk shows.

For once,we agree on something.
I never did understand why people put so much stock in them.

0 Replies

I don't like rightie talk shows. I am more pro-choice than pro-life. But I think the guy called in with a question for which there was no correct answer, that he took his time formulating so that there could be no correct answer. And so I don't understand why so many people on this thread and the caller are so self-congratulatory for stumping the loudmouthed talkshow host.

Hell, if you're that happy you could make somebody look stupid with a loaded question, what makes you any better than the guy you stumped?

0 Replies

Furthermore, who ever said anything about torturing terrorists with timebombs? That's just stupid.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Its unfair to require a real response to an unreal question.

I'm sure you did really well on standardized tests.

slkshock7 wrote:

And have you stopped beating your wife? When you answer the latter, I'll answer the former.

Well, I'm not married, so there's no wife for me either to beat or to stop beating. But that's not a hypothetical question, that's begging the question. And I never asked you to answer any hypothetical question, so I'm not expecting an answer from you. On the other hand, if you wanted to volunteer an answer, I wouldn't stop you.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I don't like rightie talk shows. I am more pro-choice than pro-life. But I think the guy called in with a question for which there was no correct answer, that he took his time formulating so that there could be no correct answer.

Why couldn't there be a correct answer? If someone believes (1) that blastocysts are human beings, and (2) that, given the choice of saving one human being or five human beings, it is better to save five, then the correct response is that saving five blastocysts in a petri dish is, all things being equal, better than saving one two-year-old child.

Of course, the person who would give that response is made to look like some kind of callous monster or else like a complete idiot, but that's not the fault of the question, that's the fault of the respondent's position.

snood wrote:

And so I don't understand why so many people on this thread and the caller are so self-congratulatory for stumping the loudmouthed talkshow host.

Granted, stumping a loudmouthed talk show host, especially a third-rate one like Andrew Wilkow, is setting the bar pretty low. But sometimes we must content ourselves with small triumphs.

snood wrote:

Hell, if you're that happy you could make somebody look stupid with a loaded question, what makes you any better than the guy you stumped?

All things considered, it is always better to be the stumper than the stumpee.

0 Replies

Conservative Radio host loses it on air, enjoy the meltdown

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know