the line changes when someone is truly offended and it moves cause some people have though skin and others dont you tell a fat joke to someone who is fat and knows it, and also knows he should do something about it he might not hold a grudge or he may evan truly laugh about it not the emberasing laugh, you can tell the same fat joke to a woman who is fat and has just lost 2 pounds and she thinks how well she is doing and after the joke is told she runs to the refrigorator eats ice cream for 2 days and dosent stop crying.
i realize that engrish is not your first language but it makes it so much easier for me to understand what you are saying if you don't just type words out as if you were just talking to me without any puncutaion or capitalization it takes a lot more effort on my part to extract the meaning from your words so if you would be so kind as to incorporate more effort into writing properly then i think more people would be able to understand you and more apt to reply and continue good discussions also if you starting using the quote system that would help in knowing what parts you're replying to and help the discussion be more easily followed
You know what I mean?
the line is clearly not visible and one should do his best to know the person you tell something that may offend him it is the only way to hope you wont cross the line.
That was kinda my point; that the line can't really be targeted.
Well the topic is kinda asking the question - When does tergetted bullying for fun and comic effect cross the line between valid comedy and just unacceptable targetting?
Isn't the FCC enough bureaucratic nonsense to fill a room with a steaming pile of excrement, as if bleeping out the word "fuck" is really morally better than just letting it ride? It's not like you're tricking anyone. We all know what the word was, so why ruin a perfectly good movie? It's functionally useless, and what a terrible waste of taxes.
Resolved in the sense of being determined... being "targetted".
But it can be resolved in the sense that society can decide where it draws the line between comedy and targeted bullying whilst also weighing up principles like free- speech.
I don't think we can. We know there has to be one there somewhere, but we're never going ot be able to put our finger on it.
But it can be resolved in the sense that society can decide where it draws the line between comedy and targeted bullying whilst also weighing up principles like free- speech.
I don't think we can. We know there has to be one there somewhere, but we're never going ot be able to put our finger on it.
Well we have laws and they are our best attempt to do that.
Imperfect? Certainly. But this is our method of implementing the resolution.
Sure, but the scenario you described in Message 71 wouldn't be illegal and we both figured it is wrong
So... is that really any resolution to what were trying to target?
If the vast majority of people can find something funny that was intended as comedy, what kind of moral considerations weren't already taking into account before laughing?
Sometimes shits funny and you don't have a choice in laughing so you can't really be taking any moral considerations into account beforehand. And then sometimes people feel bad about laughing at things afterwards, when they stop and actually think about it.
Oh - Since your thread mentions the Mosque and my thread about the Mosque got shut down because of elevated tension between a cig and a comic, I'll post this here.
quote:DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — A Saudi prince who has aided the imam spearheading a proposed Islamic center near New York's ground zero is appealing for another site not associated with the "wound" of the Sept. 11 attacks, a report said Thursday.
In interview excerpts published by the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was quoted as saying that moving the planned mosque and other facilities would respect the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks and allow American Muslims to choose a more suitable location.
Seems as though even the Saudi Price, and not just right-wing "nutjobs," feel the mosque in that area would disrespect the memory of those killed in the attacks.
He goes on to say:
quote:"Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York," the prince was quoted as saying by the magazine, which said the full interview will be published Sunday. "The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11.'"
Since I don't care one way or the other, I really don't think such a measure should be taken. But I can appreciate the emotional position the price has taken and find it rather commendable.
™ Version 4.2
