Jane Doe First, as I pointed out in the title, I love this show, I give it ten stars and I have watched every episode so far, but there is one thing in the episode about animals, that I strongly dislike - the depiction of cats as repelling beings. 1. When in this episode a girl leaves food for a street cat, we hear an aggressive hissing, which is very misrepresentative, I have lived in a place, where we had a lot of homeless cats and dogs and none of them would answer to being fed with hissing or growling. This is just wrong.2. In a similar way, in a another scene, where an old lady feeds a group of street cats, there is a hissing sound too and the lady looses an eye, after this as nothing has happened, she starts looking for it. I know this is supposed to be a joke, but again no cat would behave like this. The joke is making fun of people who feed cats, reinforcing the humiliating Cat People/Lady stereotype, which is very often, mercilessly and cruelly thrown at people who are fond of cats. I thought this show is supposed to be above and against stereotypes, especially the ones used often and only for bullying.3. In one of the last scenes, one of the actors in the episode plays a cat, that is angry, that she had been neutered, which again is not true - not just cats, no animals are known to show any reaction, that they realize, that they have been neutered. Again, the joke has no purpose other than depicting a repelling cat.To be honest, I loved everything else in this episode, yes I agree letting your pet roaming and breeding uncontrollable is wrong, and yes, I agree, that cats can be a threat to some wildlife, which is why it is important to not let them roam uncontrollable in such areas, but one can see how cats are presented mainly in a negative light. In some places, inhabited by birds and other wildlife unaccustomed to this predator, cats really should be kept inside, but this is certainly not the case everywhere in the world! In all scenes of this episode, the depiction of cats is always repelling. In reality, homeless cats do not attack or show aggression towards people, it does not matter if they are alone or in a group, they just don't do it. If they are afraid, they run away, always. There are, on the other hand, completely unprovoked and in some cases even deadly attacks on people from packs of homeless dogs or from ill-behaved dogs, owned by mean, irresponsible people. Why was this not mentioned? Were the writers of this episode anti-cat (well-known phenomenon in American media) or were they afraid of losing ratings and viewers in dog obsessed America? The show rightfully pointed out the dangers for wildlife in some places in the world from free-roaming cats (but somehow implied it is valid for everywhere), and missed pointing out the negatives of free-roaming dogs. By the way, I have grown up with cats and dogs and I love both, where I come from this mentality of dog people vs. cat people is completely foreign. As I said, I love this show - I love the humor, the way information is presented, I love Adam as a host and I love the new animated series, which is exactly, what the show is supposed to be about - about ruining misconceptions, not reinforcing them.

leonwilkeson If you know exactly what a supposedly educational show is going to say before the first word is uttered, something is very wrong. In the case of Adam Ruins everything, if the topic can, in any way, be colored by one's political leanings, his is painted USSR Red. It's a shame, because it doesn't have to be this way, alas the soy is very very thick and the intellect is very very thin when Adam is around.

atlasmb "Adam Ruins Everything" is a comedy show that seeks to be educational. Like "Mythbusters", it dispels commonly believed falsehoods, but it doesn't conduct experiments, it cites scientific studies. Dr. Oz does much of the same thing, but his show focuses only on issues of health and medicine. "Adam Rules" provides guidance on broader cultural issues that could include almost any subject.If you remember the show "Intelligence For Your Life" (which starred John Tesh and Connie Sellecca), this show is similar, but it features skits that are very funny, as well as excellent graphics and special effects.The problem is that studies often contradict each other. But "Adam Ruins" tries to explain why one study's results are probably more reliable (like the fact that one study was based solely upon a sample group consisting of 17th century milkmaids in France).This show is highly recommended for viewers who like to be informed but don't appreciate the sermonizing of most advice shows. Or you can watch it only for the humor, but be warned--you will still learn a lot in the process. A deduction of one point for the common and simplistic mistake of calling the motivations of all companies, no matter their intentions or methods, "capitalistic".And one more deduction because its presentation excludes debate. Because it provides evidence and reasoning in presenting its positions, it is not asking the viewer to accept its teachings as rote learning. But the lack of opposing viewpoints means that it fails to teach to value of comparing competing ideas. For example, in the episode that minimized the value of grammatical rules, it would have been beneficial to hear the opinion of someone who believes there are costs in such a position. The ability to evaluate differing views is important in learning.

nickyngm Cancer survivors, including myself, cannot watch Adam and his denominating words said, as an example, where he cruelly jokes about infertility that survivors have and laughs and I, myself am tearing up. y submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be