GENIUS FORUMS

I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread with suggestions of who we would like to see on The Reasoning Show.


Please get this guy: Jesus de Jesus

Why? He sounds like a complete dropkick.

Because he has people who actually believe that he is the second coming. Consider it a challenge (meaning a test of your patience, to some extent). Here is another page on him, and he is so figging obviously following the doctrine of The Church of Satan - at least to anyone who has any familiarity with it - that it is just mind-blowing.

Perhaps most importantly, in the last interview with James Randi, Kevin brought up the topic of people preferring lies. In the television spot that I just saw on Jesus de Jesus (CBS The Outsiders), in a clip he said that his followers say "we prefer his lies." This man is not stupid and I don't believe he is delusional; he knows he is lying. You once mentioned that you were not planning a proctological approach on any of the guests, but just this one time, I would love to see you shake his chain just because he has followers.

I believe that enough listeners would get enough of a laugh that they would post links to this one on other sites, and after others listen to that podcast, they may come back and listen to some of the others.

I have a feeling he would pull the plug as soon as he realised what we are about, but I'll think about the idea.

I'd be really interested in a show by somebody who is dealing with the Philosophy of mind.

Someone like Dennet,Roger Penrose or Chalmers(may have more chance with him being Orstraylian and all)

A show with Daniel Dennett would be the bomb.

Dennett declined on the basis that he wasn't doing any "media" for a few months. Chalmers would be a possibility I suppose.

Where's the line-up?

What if "I" offered to be a guest? I can even do an Australian voice-over. When I was a kid, I used to mimic Steve Ervin's voice, all the time! That show was the best!:D..."Naw, Oy'd B TOo Nevuus".

I wouldn't want to get creamed by you guys.

What are you doing here? Seriously, answer that question meaningfully or I'll ban you.

Maybe I missed it, but why are you interviewing these particular people? I mean, other than for the entertainment value, what do these sessions contribute above or beyond what simply reading up on these folks could accomplish; besides, the members electing them obviously know their story already.
I understood that "to maybe enlighten them" was not the idea, so what is?
If its to enlighten others, us, then why is it I have the feeling past guests were not known to be so good at that.

I think Maher would have something worthwhile to contribute, and the atmosphere/company may even challenge him to be even more outspoken than normal, than to the general public.
We could have his buddy Hefner join him. Shit, thrown in his 3 darlings too whynot! Make it interesting, and pc.

keenobserver wrote:Maybe I missed it...

How keenly observant *roll eyes*



(just a good natured jab - no hard feelings, friend)

Hey Dan, have you tried getting a hold of Peter Singer?

If that's something you'd go for, and if he goes for it, this interview with him might be helpful to look over and consider first, that is, if you haven't already.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

keenobserver wrote:Maybe I missed it...

How keenly observant *roll eyes*



(just a good natured jab - no hard feelings, friend)

You got a laugh out of me!
-a giggle, actually.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Hey Dan, have you tried getting a hold of Peter Singer?

If that's something you'd go for, and if he goes for it, this interview with him might be helpful to look over and consider first, that is, if you haven't already.

I've considered Singer; he's a fairly controversial as far as academic philosophers go, but I don't really know what angle we'd take in talking with him. I'll take a peek at the vid.

Steven Pinker would be a nice touch.

Christina Sommers might be interesting.

As would Thomas Ellis

And then there is the controversial Phillip Rushton

Louis Theroux

Kevin,

I’m not sure if Louis would make an interesting guest. Yes, he’s very good at getting people to feel at ease around him so that he can film their lives – warts and all. And it is true that his shows expose the mental blocks people have which allow them to glean happiness from lives that Louis, and many of the viewers, might rightly describe as “crazy”. And as important as that is to expose those mental blocks, Louis himself doesn’t ever (as far as I’ve seen) question his own judgments about these people – nor does he give us any outline of his own beliefs other than often giving voice to the modern liberal view that everyone has equal worth (except, perhaps, those people Louis has picked out to expose as complete loonies).

So, as far as I can see he's sort of interesting, but I fear that he is also extremely ordinary in his world-view. It could be interesting listening to him talking about his experiences with all those people. Is that what you had in mind Kevin?

-
Some of Louis' shows
-

Sue,

Yes, he’s very good at getting people to feel at ease around him so that he can film their lives.

Actually, sometimes he is quite confrontational like his episode in Las Vegas with the high roller gamblers. I found it very humorous how he continually deflated people’s happiness by asking them logical questions as they lost thousands of dollars.

I was actually surprised he didn’t get punched out in this episode for some of his comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbuJJqWblM

So, as far as I can see he's sort of interesting, but I fear that he is also extremely ordinary in his world-view.

Most of the guests so far have had huge mental blocks and have had very mediocre positions on many topics, why do you think this guy should be any different?

If they interviewed someone that was totally enlightened, what would Solway, Dan and Quinn say? They’d just be agreeing about everything the entire time….

Ryan wrote:

Sue: Yes, he’s very good at getting people to feel at ease around him so that he can film their lives.

Actually, sometimes he is quite confrontational like his episode in Las Vegas with the high roller gamblers. I found it very humorous how he continually deflated people’s happiness by asking them logical questions as they lost thousands of dollars.

Yes, I agree that he does confront people with the obvious – which is a lot more than most TV presenters ever do. It is really great that he’s been allowed to make these shows exposing how delusions rule people’s lives. But it is still quite shallow stuff, for the delusions are gross ones. I don’t think I’ve yet seen him deal with anything deeper or more subtle. I’m presently looking through his shows again to see if I’ve missed anything.

I was actually surprised he didn’t get punched out in this episode for some of his comments.

Yeah – I think his boyish nerdy look and English accent often save him.

Sue: So, as far as I can see he's sort of interesting, but I fear that he is also extremely ordinary in his world-view.

Most of the guests so far have had huge mental blocks and have had very mediocre positions on many topics, why do you think this guy should be any different?

Yes, you’re correct. Wishful thinking on my part wanting guests that have actually rationally thought something through to its very end.

If they interviewed someone that was totally enlightened, what would Solway, Dan and Quinn say? They’d just be agreeing about everything the entire time….

Well, there is a show coming which many people could find quite interesting due to its liveliness and passion – and that’s with the three people appearing on it often being in agreement. [I know about it because I’m one of the people. ; ) ]

Actually, I find it funny the idea that if you get a group of thinkers together that think similarly they’ll be a complete bore. Consider a group of mates that love their football. They’re all of one mind as to their love of the game, but that doesn’t stop them sharing their passion, or sharing with one another their take on the intricacies of the game.

The idea that truth could somehow be boring is so alien to my experience and to my mind that it is hard to imagine how anyone could even imagine that it could possibly be that way.

.

Sue,

The idea that truth could somehow be boring is so alien to my experience and to my mind that it is hard to imagine how anyone could even imagine that it could possibly be that way

.

From my experience, the closer two minds come to the infinite, the less often they meet up, they don’t need to meet up as much as when they were younger, and going through huge bursts of creativity and novelty, sure they still find interesting topics of conversation, but it doesn’t revolve around the fundamentals as such, its of a different quality. Less frequent, and subtler I suppose.

I’m not saying it’s boring, just different. I personally don’t see the point of a group of long time rational thinkers meeting up to simply reiterate the fundamentals and basics, it seems redundant. They’d usually discuss subtler examples from life or other related intellectual topics. Long-term rational relationships mature quite a bit over time, and leave out a lot of the assumed fundamentals, which could affect the overall effectiveness of a radio show geared towards being a teaching tool of sound reasoning.

Johnny Rotten (John Lynden?)

I'm told that a girl with whom I was briefly involved in 1999 had her call answered on the air on his internet radio show in 2000, though I have not been heard it myself. I'm sure it would make for some interesting listening!

Is there going to be another show? Are you guys losing interest in the experiment? Seems longer and longer between podcasts.

I'm post-editing the latest show right now. Took us a while to hook up with the guest as he was moving countries. Will be available sometime this week, fingers crossed. Will be out most controversial show yet - the subject was Woman/Feminism