Whatever happened to when Rock was just real. Bands like Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Allman Brothers Band, Lynyrd Skynyrd and so on. Hip Hop use to be great Run-DMC, N.W.A, most songs under Death Row Records. Even Country had greats like Willie Nelson and Hank Williams, Jr. but there's just no music that's real anymore (and no don't say Metal because screaming with no melody or annoying melody is bad music). I think I've finally accepted I'll just have to stick with the classics.PsychoT4Prez

Haha at all the people saying 'who?'

One of the key foundations of rock/blues in Britain. Crossroads can't be beat. Disraeli Gears is my most played LP even though I am not a huge rock fan.

Why is there an abcense of blues men on the lists?kurtoronie

I loved highschool. Years 10-12 you could pick what you wanted to study, it was awesome... Good friends, ones you will have for life... I reckon I had the best 5 teachers imaginable for year 12. Great bunch (Did have a fair bit in common with a few of them)

And by exposing that extremism they are attempting to take away any validity of PETA's work and protests...

In that regard at least giving creedence to some of PETA's good work is required. Its not exactly hard to attempt to add some validity to their work.

The problem with your analogy is that a faulty airbag is a one-dimensional obvious problem, that cannot change. Peoples minds, behaviours and beliefs are subjective and different. A broken airbag is only a broken airbag and easily changablefixable.

By the way, what makes you so sure that your view point on the episode is valid in comparison to mine? As they say, everyone has an opinion, and I am sure there are many more different ones.

I know this is quoted from Wikipedia, but the given quotes are accurate which go a far way to show just how much P&T want to get their viewpoint across..

Many critics accuse Penn and Teller of being biased in their approach to debunking their opponents' arguments. For example, Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that **** attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position. Some of these claims do not go without rebuttal: the Recycling episode does mention information on beneficial recycling though, specifically that recycling aluminum cans and other metals is in fact beneficial.

In the episode "Family Values", Penn said, "...we're fair and we never take people out of context. We're biased as all **** But, we try to be honest." Still, some critics who sympathize with the duo's over-arching message have expressed regret that they can occasionally slip into the same sensationalism as their targets, including validating their points with pundits who possess dubious qualifications. This was summed up in a review by Slate which stated: "One of the unwritten rules for winning an argument against an inflammatory, irrational opponent is to calmly adhere to a loftier set of rhetorical standards. Penn and Teller showily throw this notion out the window."

While Penn and Teller are self-professed skeptics, critics have been quick to note that **** is not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry. An otherwise favorable review by The Onion A.V. Club noted:

**** isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T's field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voiceover rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.

Anyway, thats just my opinion. Still love the show and I still love to eat as much meat as possible. Its funny that all this started over the fact that I suggested P&T weren't exactly the best source of whole information.

The PETA org has goals that are on par with what was shown on P&T. When you join, you support that cause. P&T were just trying to put that out in the spotlight so people who don't want to support that type of extremism can decide if they want to quit PETA or not. The whole point was to expose their extremism, not to tell you that every PETA member is a savage. If you interpreted the show that way, that's your fault, not their. The point of the former (was it ceo or founder?) PETA member was to show that PETA does have extremist goals. Again, it's not to show that all peta members are savages, but to show them exactly what they are supporting. DeeJayInphinity

P&T, rather than try to move the spotlight onto postive results of PETA movements, tried to take the spotlight off them altogether, which has two very big problems. 1) The minority extremists will only get worse in an attempt to spread THEIR view points (Again, not reprersentative of all the PETA movement) and 2) the small and very very positive things they do are unrecognised, and as such the group is given less creed in such matters, especially when a number of other groups do nothing to fix this ill-treatment or flat-out oppose it.

The goal of the episode is to make PETA's opinion 'obselete'. Not to highlight to already PETA members that they follow an extreme cause. They are obviously bias, and it would be close to impossible to convince them to 'turn' when many know of what good they have done.

[QUOTE="Pegasus_Shade"]'This is PETA, Extreme, Hypocritical and Imposing on your Free Will'.DeeJayInphinity

And majority of PETA members are not as extreme, or even close to the ones P&T portrayed on Bulls*it