I was preparing to be reactionary to people being reactionary, but yeah, if you are going to present two sides of a debate, then an opportunity to answer defamatory allegations should be provided. My hope is that they only left it in to make the guy look ridiculous.

Unfortunately, too many people are willing to believe whatever silly crap they hear on TV and nearly as many who are quite happy to have the stereotypes they believe reinforced by the ignorance of others.

I like this show a lot. I don't always agree with the people it has on it but I think it does a good job of trying to show different perspectives on issues. I didn't agree with the episode where a hunter went to live with a PETA family. I thought it gave PETA a pass on all their bullshit. Comparing animal testing to Nazi genocide is is disgusting in my view. But, just because I don't agree with them, that doesn't mean they don't have a right to their own opinion.

I in no way agree with what Peter Sprigg said, I think it's right wing propaganda, but he has a right to say it. These kind of views are part of the issue, right or wrong.

In the first season of 30 Days I think it was, they did a show were they took an anti-gay guy and sent him to live with a gay guy in the Castro. I thought they did a good job.

Let the anti gay guy come spend a week with me & my kids and he might be switching sides REAL quick ;o

LTP - that's what I thought. I thought that by having those obviously stupid remarks, it only made him look stupid. Sort of like when Sheri Shepard said that crap about not knowing if the world was flat or not.