Thursday, May 05, 2005

Craig Ferguson Drops Bill Maher on Late, Late Night

Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg for this one:

CBS
Late Late Show
May 3, 2005

Bill Maher: "I think that there is no perspective. People have no perspective, especially about crime. You know, zero tolerance. You know, of course, nobody ever wants to see a child, you know, diddled. That’s just plain wrong. But even the people who are testifying against him, they’re saying that he serviced them. They didn’t service him."


Craig Ferguson: "You don’t have kids, do you, Bill?"

Maher: "No."

Ferguson: "No. I have a son. It makes me crazy, this thing, this Michael Jackson thing. It drives me, the idea of someone touching my kid, I would go, I nearly swore there. I’d go crazy."

Maher: "Very wrong. But, you know, I remember when I was a kid. I was savagely beaten once by bullies in the schoolyard. Savagely beaten. If I had a choice between being savagely beaten and being gently masturbated by a pop star. It’s just me."

Ferguson: "The always controversial Bill Maher, everybody."

Maher: "What? That’s it?"

Ferguson: "Bill Maher. We’ll be right back with Rain Pryor."

This is the answer to swine-ish behavior. Well done, Mr. Ferguson. I'll be tuning in.

24 comments:

Tlaloc said...

I'm not sure it's clear what you are driving at, Hunter.

S. T. Karnick said...

Hunter, I've enjoyed the occasional brief snippets I've seen of Craig Ferguson's work on LLN, and I'm very glad to see that he refused to tolerate Maher's foulness and asininity. I applaud Mr. Ferguson's good sense.—STK

Tlaloc said...

He makes a pretty good point (Maher) people work themselves into a fit about sexuality due in large part to our societal hang ups which naturally come from a few thousand years of christianity demonizing it.

What other explanation is there for ludicrous meagan's laws which require sex offenders to be stigmatized for life while murders are not?

S. T. Karnick said...

What this commenter says is just perfectly stupid. It is an utterly idiotic notion. Religion has NOTHING to do with people wanting to protect their children from sexual predators. The latter is a natural human impulse, and only a sociopath or a perfect fool could think otherwise. The people who are for Megan's laws are largely the same ones who want murderers put to death or at least incarcerated for life. They surely don't want them to be less stigmatized than sex criminals! Stigmatization would not nearly be enough. No one ever suggested such an insane idea. This is an obvious straw man argument, and as the record shows, it will soon be followed by another equally vile and lamebrained one.—STK

Hunter Baker said...

I think that Ferguson hit the nail squarely on the head when he asked Maher if he had children. Tlaloc, if you don't have kids, you may not be able to get it.

Anonymous said...

It's clearly societal. In fact, societies exist today in which twelve-year-old girls are married off to elderly men. We have a sex hang-up, and that's why you feel the way you do about your children.

S. T. Karnick said...

"Societies exist today in which ...." is the inevitable prelude to an indulgence in the fallacy of special pleading. Societies exist that do every possible thing, a good many of which run directly counter to what is entirely normal to human beings. That is astronomically far from establishing as normal any particular thing that these vaguely alleged, unnamed societies may do. That argument, far from being "clear," as anonymous says, is entirely worthless.

Look, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Cuba, and Communist China never tolerated the sexual abuse of children. Those were nations besieged by religious hangups? Don't be idiotic.—STK

S. T. Karnick said...

In addition, to equate marriage (which, whether consensual or arranged by the family, has been the overwhelming norm throughout human history and is hence entirely normal and not attached to any religious position) with the homosexual use of young persons by older ones (which is quite rare, thank Heaven) shows exactly how openly foolish is the position to which one must retreat in order to defend the notion that sexuality is entirely fungible. It is not an argument for finding out what is good for people, as the writer portrays it. It is a pathetic attempt to destroy all moral thought.—STK

James Elliott said...

"Societies exist that do every possible thing, a good many of which run
directly counter to what is entirely normal to human beings."


But what then is normal? You're running smack dab in to nature versus nurture! You are ascribing your own sociocultural norms as "the" norms.

Strawman 1: Anonymous never mentioned religion. You did. So, that's you're hang up.

Strawman 2: "only homosexuals molest children." BULLSHIT. The vast majority of child abusers are heterosexual, and all the most common is hetero father with daughter.

Strawman 3: Your definition of traditional marriage. Even in the
Enlightenment, the typical age of marriage for a young woman was around 16. Before that, even in Western European culture, girls as young as 12 or even under would be married in Church-sanctioned matches between noble families. Indeed, before the 15th century, there was no formal marriage ceremony for peasants. Marriage as we define it came in to being after the Dark Ages and only for noble families. The Church sanctioned these marriages in order to avoid brother-sister intermarriages to prevent noble
families from consolidating too much power. Not only do you ignore Western history, you ignore the Bible, The Torah, The Koran, Middle Eastern societies, African societies, tribal cultures, and Asian cultures.

Maher's point, which was really quite poorly stated, is that this crime, which Jackson has yet to be CONVICTED of, pales in comparison to murder. Is it OK? No, but a vast majority of the psychological problems that stem from it come from society's stigmatization of sexuality, and by extension the victims of sex crimes. One of the reasons so few victims come forward, and that so many victims feel guilty and at fault is because, at some point, molestation or rape feels physiologically good. Where society
gets hung up, and therefore where these victims get hung up, is in
separating the physical act from the emotional one.

Which is all of a roundabout way of saying that you didn't answer Anonymous's point except with nonsensical strawmen that can be easily picked apart if someone takes the time.

S. T. Karnick said...

Rubbish. James F. Elliott took the time, as he suggests, but utterly failed because the strawmen being knocked around are entirely of his own invention, not mine.

Strawman no. 1 is perpetrated solely by James F. Elliott. It is an entirely new and fictional addition to the discussion. I did not ascribe my culture as the norm (indeed citing several very different cultures to make that exact point!); I solely pointed out that the anonymous interlocutor had miserably failed to establish the necessary assumption behind his/her statement: that "It's clearly societal." Neither anonymous nor James F. Elliott has adduced any evidence for this essential point.

Strawman no. 2 is, like strawman no. 1, entirely a product of the mind of Mr. Elliott. To wit, I never remotely suggested that "only homosexuals molest children."

Strawman no. 3 is another fiction from Mr. Elliott. I never said anything about what I consider to be the appropriate age for marriage, nor suggested an opinion on the matter. Anonymous brought up that subject; I didn't. Moreover, I did not define traditional marriage, Mr. Elliott did. His vague references to Western history, the Bible, tribal cultures, etc., carry no weight whatsoever, given that he does not give any specific evidence whatever that they contradict any particular definition of marriage.

Mr. Elliott introduces another, unacknowledged straw man if he is suggesting that I have ever said that Michael Jackson is guilty of anything. A look at the previous discussion clearly establishes that I have done no such thing. My claim is that Maher's defense of child molestation is utterly heinous. And it is.

As to Mr. Elliott's attempt to explain the odious Maher's blunderings, Maher did not refer to murder. He referred to a beating by schoolyard bullies. As to molestation being less heinous than murder, another straw man introduced by Mr. Elliott, I have no set opinion. I do know, however, that Maher is a swine and that his defenders are consistent only is their use of the most naked and graceless of sophistries.

Finally, please note that any further comments using obscenities will be deleted. And do not be cute about pretending to wonder what sort of language will be considered acceptable.—STK

S. T. Karnick said...

Two small corrections: in the third-to-last sentence of the previous, please read as "consistent only in their use of the most naked and graceless of sophistries." In addition, I should note that Mr. Elliott's straw man no. 1 is his claim that I introduced the subject of religion into the discussion. This claim of his is obviously false, as a look at earlier comments will prove: the commenter Tlaloc brought the subject up in mentioning "our societal hang ups which naturally come from a few thousand years of christianity demonizing it. "—STK

Jay D. Homnick said...

The bottom line of all this is the amazing fact that S. T. Karnick called Tlaloc "perfect" twice.

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have never imagined it possible.

Tlaloc said...

"What this commenter says is just perfectly stupid. It is an utterly idiotic notion. Religion has NOTHING to do with people wanting to protect their children from sexual predators."

I didn't say that now did I? I said that Christianity's sexual hang ups have led to our societies bizarre reaction to treating rape as worse than murder.


"The people who are for Megan's laws are largely the same ones who want murderers put to death or at least incarcerated for life. They surely don't want them to be less stigmatized than sex criminals!"

Then they should push for an equivilent to megan's law for murders byut they don't. The proof as they say is in the pudding. People who push for megan's law are blinded by a hysterical fear of sex in general and allow it to overcome rational thought.


"This is an obvious straw man argument, and as the record shows, it will soon be followed by another equally vile and lamebrained one.—STK"

On the contrary it's an argument born out by simply looking at the deeds and words of those who support such laws.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, if you don't have kids, you may not be able to get it. "

I have two kids and I do get it: people, especially parents, have occasional flashes of irrational paranoia. I get them too. The difference is I don't act on them.

Tlaloc said...

"Societies exist that do every possible thing, a good many of which run directly counter to what is entirely normal to human beings."

It cracks me up that you don't realize how this statement disproves itself. You imagine there is some mythical "normal" set of behaviors for human beings when there is not. Only things that are more or less normal to a given group. Basic rule of anthropology.

Tlaloc said...

"Strawman no. 1 is perpetrated solely by James F. Elliott. It is an entirely new and fictional addition to the discussion. I did not ascribe my culture as the norm (indeed citing several very different cultures to make that exact point!);"

You refered to some universal norm which does not exist, without that your argument falls apart as JFE pointed out.


"Strawman no. 2 is, like strawman no. 1, entirely a product of the mind of Mr. Elliott. To wit, I never remotely suggested that "only homosexuals molest children.""

Of course you did. The topic was pedaphilia and when marriage came into question you said "In addition, to equate marriage with the homosexual use of young persons by older ones..." Clearly implying that pedaphilia is a product purely of homosexuality.


"Strawman no. 3 is another fiction from Mr. Elliott. I never said anything about what I consider to be the appropriate age for marriage, nor suggested an opinion on the matter."

You suggested that marriage in it's current form is a matter of widespread tradition when you said "marriage (which, whether consensual or arranged by the family, has been the overwhelming norm throughout human history and is hence entirely normal and not attached to any religious position)". That position is false.

Jesus, Karnick you really do belong at the National Review. You spew a bunch of BS and then pretend you never said it when called on it.

S. T. Karnick said...

The interlocutor fails to recognize that we don't need Megan's Laws for persons executed or incarcerated for life. Hence his argument on that matter fails.

He also fails to see the difference between the notions of what is normal and what is common. They are two entirely different things. Hence his claim of self-contradiction on that score fails.

"You refered to some universal norm which does not exist, without that your argument falls apart as JFE pointed out."

False. I did not say that our culture is universal, nor that any culture is universal. What I said is that there are recognizable norms to human behavior. And there are.

"The topic was pedaphilia and when marriage came into question you said "In addition, to equate marriage with the homosexual use of young persons by older ones..." Clearly implying that pedaphilia is a product purely of homosexuality."

This claim, too, is clearly false. I was obviously referring to the case at hand, the Michael Jackson trial, which was the topic of Maher's idiotic statements which Mr. Ferguson so rightly cut off. The individual in making this claim is committing the fallacy of Each and All. To wit, he jumps from a statement acknowledging that "some instances of X are committed by persons of category Y" to the conclusion that it means "all instances of X are committed by persons of category Y."

"You suggested that marriage in it's current form is a matter of widespread tradition when you said 'marriage (which, whether consensual or arranged by the family, has been the overwhelming norm throughout human history and is hence entirely normal and not attached to any religious position)'. That position is false."

Again, false. The straw man I cited was James Elliott's claim that I brought up an opinion about the appropriate age for marriage. As I said, anonymous brought it up. As to the present commenter's further claim that I "suggested that marriage in it's[sic] current form is a matter of widespread tradition," that claim is obviously false given that I explicitly included arranged marriages as an element of the definition, which is not a common element of marriage in our culture today.

What has happened here is that some people desperately trying to pretend that all human behavior is highly fungible have become extremely agitated by some claims of natural limitations on human variety which they find very threatening. In response, they have done precisely what these good and tolerant types of people always do in such situations. They have attacked the messenger by distorting his position, falsely attributing statements and implications to him, and then claiming bad faith on the part of the person who has had the indecency to disagree with their sad little latitudinarian fantasies. Truly pitiable behavior. But at least they have progressed to the point of abbreviating their vulgarities. Perhaps if they continue to visit this site, they shall eventually learn how to read and to think. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.—STK

Tlaloc said...

"The interlocutor fails to recognize that we don't need Megan's Laws for persons executed or incarcerated for life. Hence his argument on that matter fails."

Not all muderers are incarcerated for life. If they were you'd be correct since they demonstrably aren't you are wrong.


"False. I did not say that our culture is universal, nor that any culture is universal. What I said is that there are recognizable norms to human behavior. And there are."

I'm curious how you plan to extricate yourself from this painted corner. Do tell what the norms are and how they are recognized.



"This claim, too, is clearly false. I was obviously referring to the case at hand, the Michael Jackson trial, which was the topic of Maher's idiotic statements which Mr. Ferguson so rightly cut off."

No actually it wasn't clear at all, in fact I personally doubt that you meant the MJ trial at all and instead are modifying the course of events to try and negate your mistake.



"As to the present commenter's further claim that I "suggested that marriage in it's[sic] current form is a matter of widespread tradition," that claim is obviously false given that I explicitly included arranged marriages as an element of the definition, which is not a common element of marriage in our culture today."

Dude. I put your direct quote in there and you still pretend not to have said it? Ballsy. Petty but ballsy.


"In response, they have done precisely what these good and tolerant types of people always do in such situations. They have attacked the messenger by distorting his position, falsely attributing statements and implications to him, and then claiming bad faith on the part of the person who has had the indecency to disagree with their sad little latitudinarian fantasies."

Nice persecution complex. I quoted you directly just so you'd stop pretending that you were misrepresented but you showed me by straight up lying about the situation. I guess that'll teach me not to treat you like a reasonable person capable of honest discourse. By all means continue making claims and then denying them, I'll be conversing with Hunter who seems capable of standing by his claims.

Ciao.

S. T. Karnick said...

Anyone can check the record and spot the misquotations and distortions in the interlocutor's latest claims and previous ones, as when he added the word "current" to the discussion of marriage and thereby entirely distorted the meaning of the passage in which it occurred, and when he pretended that society routinely treats murderers better than child molesters.

Despite all his distortions, the matter at hand remains this: the interlocutor's notion that "people work themselves into a fit about sexuality due in large part to our societal hang ups which naturally come from a few thousand years of christianity demonizing it." The idea that child molesting--the subject at hand--is just fine and is considered bad only because Christians have demonized it for a few thousand years (despite the fact that their faith came into existence only 2000 years ago) is the topic. That claim is utterly preposterous, and no amount of distortion of people's counterarguments can change that.—STK

Tlaloc said...

Aw what the hell.

Speaking of distortions...

"The idea that child molesting--the subject at hand--is just fine and is considered bad only because Christians have demonized it for a few thousand years (despite the fact that their faith came into existence only 2000 years ago) is the topic."

No the idea that a specific crime is punished in far excess of it's harm due entirely to the sexual hang ups of our society was the point. I suspect you were smart enough to understand the concept and chose to misrepresent it.

Yes rape is bad, but no rape isn't worse than murder. Your desire to see it subject to punishments which you do not ask to befall murderers is an indication that you are irrational in regards to this issue. Your further statements and then denial of making such statements only goes to support the conclusion.

And yes, I'm only replying because I'm bored. I have no doubt you'll claim that all this logic stuff is simply another distortion meant to separate you from your ridiculous positions and orphaned statements.

S. T. Karnick said...

Another example of absolutely bizarre falsehoods perpetrated by this character: "Your desire to see [rape] subject to punishments which you do not ask to befall murderers is an indication that you are irrational in regards to this issue." That is an entirely absurd claim. I never said or even suggested any opinion whatever on what I believe to be the appropriate punishment for murder, nor, for that matter, did I specify what I consider to be the correct punishment for rape. More lies on the part of this person.—STK

Tlaloc said...

Gee, Karnick, you might just have to assume that if you defend the megan's law people will assume you agree with it. Perhaps you could put a big disclaimer at the beginning of your "devil's advocate" posts that says:

>>>>Warning, nothing I say should be attributed as representing anything I actually believe.<<<<

That'd certainly prevent these misunderstandings where I mistakenly assume you were arguing in good faith.

S. T. Karnick said...

It's not my fault if certain people insist on pretending not to understand the simplest things. To wit, the record clearly shows that I did not defend Megan's Laws; I observed only that the person's argument against the people who support such laws was flawed. As it was, and is.—STK

Anonymous said...

People push for Megan's Law not because of a fear of sex but because they want to prevent sexual violence. The rate of recidivism is so high in sexual abuse and rape cases that people have a valid reason to be fearful.

Megan Kanka was raped, her head bashed against a dresser, suffocated, and then killed with strangled by a man who had before been convicted of sexually based crimes. Megan's Law is in place to warn citizens so that a tragedy may be prevented. Perhaps if something like Megan's Law had been in place years ago, Megan Kanka's parents would have been informed and been able to warn their daughter to stay away from the man who killed her.

Prudishness or 'hang-ups' are not the reason that sexual abuse is harmful. Abusers who twist sex into something physically and mentally painful are the people that make it harmful.