Beavis Is Alive And Well...

[Mephura]

Orthogonal,
While this was not aimed at me directly, and while it is true that you might not read this, I still feel it necessary to comment on some of the points you raised herein. If nothing else, perhaps some one else might read this and see something that helps there understanding of what I see as the issue involved.

I have to remind myself the reason for Internet insults is that the antagonist is protected by anonimity. When people meet face-to-face it’s generally true that “the only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.” No one here would insult me to my face. This reminds me of the “courage” some people summon to flip-off a pedestrian before they apply their foot to the gas pedal of their SUV.

If you think that the points I raised here would be kept silent in person, Pm me and I would be glad ot give you my address. If you really feel it necessary to hear these words from my mouth, you have a welcome invitation.

It’s particularly odd that some of you have expressed outrage that I would ask the question, “What are we laughing at?” in an Ethics, Morality and Justice Forum. If you went to Skydiving Club meeting would it drive you crazy that I wanted to talk about parachutes? I mean, really, who does this orthogonal think he is, asking us to question our notion of ethics in a forum devoted to Ethics?

What I see odd is that when questioned about yours, you take offense. I have explained several times what it is exactly that I find humerous, what I am laughing at, and why. I'm not expressing any kind of outrage. I am simply asking that you examine your position fully. I don't recall having mine questioned by anyone here except tiassa. You see a birth defect, and you claim to have some knowledge of such things. As such, your position is justified. However, I see a normal human being, as do others here. In light of that, you still maintain that we are uncompassionate because we find the similarity humerous. This point, while being trivial here, gets built upon shortly.

Suppose you went over to a new girl friend’s house for dinner, and suppose that just as the meal begins your friend’s sister comes from her room to take her place at the table; only you notice that she has several trace indicators of Down’s Syndrome: microcephaly, flattened nose and low-set ears. Now suppose when you look at her you start to laugh your ass off.

Here, already, the point grows. If I thought the girl had Down's syndrome, I wouldn't laugh. Nor would I laugh sitting across from the man pictured.

Now, what do you think would happen? If the old man were present he might just come across the table at you. If he’s a bit less hot-headed than me he’d probably just ask you to leave and never return.

Most people, in my experience, would ask what you are laughing at.

When your, now, ex-girlfriend asks you what you were thinking, I can just hear you saying, “But how could I have known for sure that she suffers from a mild case of Down’s Syndrome? It’s possible that a person just looks like that, you know, funny, cartoon like.”

Again, you are trying to save face by twisting words. Never once did I say the man was cartoon like. I said there is a similarity between him and the cartoon character pictured. There is a big difference there, though you might not think so. For instance, if the cartoon character pictured had been of daffy duck, I would have thought the whole thing stupid as he looks nothing like daffy duck.

It’s the same with the man with the extended forehead. Do we really have to see a physician’s report of his health history in order not to laugh at him?

Again, I am laughing at the similarity, not at him.

And leaving aside his possible birth defect, do you really think he wants to have an unusually prominent forehead?

I wouldn't know. There are many things about myself physically that I don't like. Would I change them? No.
What you are addressing here is the man's self esteme and not relevent to the conversation.

Given that most of you are already laughing at his face, do you think it helps him to meet women?

Again, I'm laughing at the similarity, not is face. Perhaps this is too subtle a difference for you to pick up on.
Also, his success with women isn't the issue.

Jesus, we run to have surgery if we think our own nose is a bit too large. Don’t you think he might do the same if there were some corrective proceedure available?

Speak for yourself. I live with how I look. IMO, people that do run to surgeons for things of that nature have deeper problems than just their appearance.
As for your question, you are now just making guesses at his personality and character. You have little proof of a birth defect, and even less for that question.

There’s yet another aspect of this example that I want to discuss. Tiassa alluded to the issue in his mention of Lil’ Black Sambo. By prefacing his picture with the story which described his off-beat offence, the moral street was effectively cleared to heap-on the ridicule.

They prefaced it with a picture of the man and the cartoon character, mainly because that was the connection they wanted to make. It wasn't a news article, though they linked to a few, it was someone's personal website.

What if the story showed a instead a man with a disfigured face along with the headline, “Wounded Soldier Returns From Iraq.” Even if his face were comical, would you split a gut laughing at a horribly burned face of a wounded soldier? No one except small children would do that. But why not?

To answer your question, because it isn't funny. Now if someone was to say somethign like 'toxic avenger returns from fighting in iraq' and has a picture like this beside it, and this man happens to look alot like that, some people would laugh.

As I said, it’s the oldest trick to try and show that the moralizer is a hypocrite. But what you forget is that even if I were a closet monster, how would that fact bear on the argument that I’m making? If Ted Bundy himself said that it was unworthy of a man to laugh at those who are less fortunate, would the fact that he is saying it make it somehow less true? Moral arguments rise or fall on their own merits; not on the personal merits of those making the argument.

And what point exactly is that? You see your point disappears if you do not veiw the guy as some sort of pitiable freak. You are saying "Don't laugh, he has a defect!", meanwhile the rest of us just see a guy thta looks like beavis. No defect, just a normal guy. With out first viewing him as a an object of pity, you have no point. That is our point: That you are raising yourself above others just so that you might feel you are more compassionate because you pity them.

I haven’t budged an inch from my orginal contention. I think we ought to ask ourselves what we’re laughing at.

I have looked at what it is I am laughing at. The issue here is that I don't see what you see, and I am not laughing at what you seem to think I am. Your grounds for condemation have evaporated, and yet you stick to your original contention. That is the problem.

And I’m telling you that laughing at another person’s misfortune is unworthy of a man. And this is precisely the place (An Ethics, Morality and Justice Forum) to make this claim.

Give me one example of humor involving people that you think is beyond being linked through some convoluted logic to "another person's misfortune" and i will prove you wrong. We don't see the misfortune you do. Personally, I think you are just looking to deep into it.

I don’t have to be Mother Theresa in order to point out a deficiency; even a convicted killer can prompt a thinking man to reconsider the way that he behaves.

No one ever said you had to be. Nor did anyone here ever once say they were beyond reproach or a shining example of 'perfect morality'.

I suppose if some of you saw me in a church pew (wouldn’t happen) kneeling in prayer, you’d likewise would poke the person next to you, saying, “Just look at him acting so holy!” This, despite my having repeatedly said that I’m an imperfect human. Which of you have been equally as candid or displayed a similar humility?

Hmm... If I knew you to be a truly 'unholy' individual, then yes, I would say such a thing. I've never claimed to be perfect. Infact if you look through my early posts here, you will see alot of that. Or perhaps you would like to see me lay myself out for public examination? Here you go:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32231

Personally, I find this whole display of your silly. It's almost like you are trying to paint yourself as a mytyr or beyond reproach.

Once the two bottom-feeders of Sciforums moved in this thread was effectively finished.

Name calling. Nice. And here I thought you didn't play that game.

I said this is what I’m supposed to say to play your game. You conveniently forgot to quote the next two sentences where I not once, but twice refuse to say this.

Oh wait.. you don't.

 

[Tiassa]

WOuld you have me quote every post before my last one?

Sure. If necessary.

How exactly would you have me show you that something isn't there?

My point exactly.

It would make more sense for you to show me where one of the people active in this discussion (myself, you, gendanken, wess, orthogonal, xev, and chaleco) other than you or orthogonal have said anything mocking about the guy's forehead.

Orthogonal objected to making someone's appearance the center of humor. You imply in one post that he's oversensitive, and then later that he's insensitive.

But Orthogonal objected to making someone's appearance the center of humor.

• Mephura thinks this is oversensitive.
• Gendanken thinks this is insensitive.
• Chalaco calls Orthogonal a clown, a sap, a milksop, an autocrat, shallow, hypocritical, and then goes on to be patronizing.
• Wes is asking to be filled in on these issues.

Since that time the emphasis has been on how this man is a normal human being as opposed to poor pitiful soul with a birth defect.

So the mundane is a great source of humor. That's fine with me.

Self-superiority? That I find the similarity ammusing means I feel superior?

You feel superior enough to laugh at someone's natural appearance.

I find the similarity amusing, not the man.
I don't find anythign amusing about what he did or, now upon reflection on the issue, he himself.

This is part of the problem. To me, the only reason "Beavis" is funny is because the guy was acting like Beavis.

You're the one hung up on appearance.

I will do so as soon as you show me where anyone said it was. And where do you continue to get this "attention to the physiological aspect"?

Well, that "attention to the physiological" was just confirmed by you, for instance. So don't act so surprised.

Orthogonal, meanwhile, is telling us all that we are cold, calloused individuals because we don't view him as deformed.

Just for sport, and since you couldn't before ... let's see you back that one.

Or is this going to be another one of your claims that you can't show because it's not there, Mephura?

Note that i said active in the discussion.

Next time, just try answering the question.

Most of us made the choice to take the words at face value and use the connotation that we are all well aware of.

A little late for that, Mephura. I've already addressed this issue:

The reason I raise this definition here is because, while someone might have chosen to make a technical dissection of the words, "birth defect," nobody chose to undertake that aspect.

Rather, the argument now seems afoot that the problem comes in Orthogonal choosing to use the word "defect" to describe the object of people's humor or dissatisfaction.

And so I ask again, are we going to call this man's forehead an example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength?

You know, if you disagree with the point, that's fine. But don't just ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist.

If you choose to make issue over the semantics, you are forced into explaining what exactly qualifies as a defective human being.

What? People have placed this man's appearance in a disparaging position by making it an object of humor. You think they're not regarding the anomaly as defective? Well, they could be praising it (as a point of beauty and evolutionary accomplishment) or consider it neutrally, but no, people choose to find various degrees of amusement.

If you think this treatment of his appearance lands his appearance outside the range of remarkably defective, I would invite you to show how the disparagement is in fact praise or neutral consideration.

No. The argument comes in because orthogonal's "compassion" is based upon his veiw of the man as 'defective'.

I see that as your own shallow reading.

Again I ask, where did this come from? Are you implying that if it isn't an "example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength", it must, by default, be deformed, defected and a testament to evolutionary weakness?

Would you laugh at his forehead if you considered it a testament to evolutionary strength? Are folks ridiculing his appearance merely because they're jealous?

The point pertains to the basis of the humor, Mephura. Didn't mean to confuse you so badly.

And that is nothign more than a difference in our senses of humor.

Does humor exist in a vacuum independent of the rest of what you are? Or do your qualities and shortcomings lend to your interpretation of what humor is?

A difference in our senses of humor, to be sure. But in what prinicples is that difference most markedly demonstrated? At present, I would suggest the simple fact that I accept humor is largely invested in cruelty and prefer other forms of humor, while you seem to revel in the cruelty of humor.

The only thing I found "remarkable" in the least or amusing here was his similarity to beavis. Show me another man that bears the similarity, and I will probably find it just as amusing.

I'm just going to guess that you wouldn't understand right off the bat why I think you're as shallow as a dry mud puddle.

I don't recall anyone saying he was beautiful.

Exartly.

How so?

I find it very curious that some people would be so devoted to their disparagement of others that they would simultaneously argue oversensitivity and insensitivity. I find it very curious that some people would be so devoted to their disparagement of others that they would willingly restrict themselves to making jokes based on someone's appearance.

I find your dedication to the mistreatment of others rather curious.

We see someone who is not defected. Someone that could be anyone of us. There is no superiority. We laugh because the similarity is ammusing.

What a circle of excuses.

• He is not inferior or defective.
• We choose to laugh at his appearance.
• What are we laughing at?

Is it his beauty? Is it the unusual aspect of his appearance? What is it?

Are you telling me that ridicule of his appearance is actually praise for his beauty?

Orthogonal see some one who is deformed. That implies superiority. From that position of superiority, he chastens us for not having it.

You can't show that without isolating the basis of your objection to Orthogonal in a vacuum and ignoring the context of the topic he responded to.

No twisting nessecary.

Whatever. So tell me, why do you presume Orthogonal's context as negative while presuming the other side to be positive?

The simple fact is that people chose to laugh at someone's appearance. The simple fact is that you choose to proudly announce that you laugh at someone for their natural appearance.

Since we are changing the subject, would it still be cruel if it was a white guy in a suit going after a $20 bill?

Depends on how Jewish or WASPish the guy looked. If it was a GenX post-grunge raver, sure, it would be fair.

Your inquiry is incredibly simplistic.

Claire Huxtable and other intolerable "TV women"

From I Love Lucy to Dharma and Greg, and beyond and between and seemingly before, the battle of the sexes has been a strong source of television comedy over the years. In the 1980s and 90s, especially, the "reign of the bitch," occurred, in which feminist principles were abused to the extreme and feminist women came out looking very foolish. Claire Huxtable? Smart woman, but I'd never want to spend any time with her. The phrase, "The Claire Huxtable Shake," used to be a well-known reference. Picture a woman--aesthetically, we're more used to a black woman doing this--standing with her hands on her hips, shaking her head side to side, occasionally waving a finger in the air and speaking low and angry at about ninety miles an hour. Like the time I read a bit from Leviticus during a religious rally, contradicting the preacher. Some high school girl--a local Baptist school--bussed into the University for the lecture, got up doing some revival bit, shouting Ephesians and waving her hands in the air. Afterward, a couple of people gave me their positive two cents, and one of them even asked how it was that I didn't laugh during the "Claire Huxtable explosion". A shallow treatment of women and feminism on television has actually contributed to the 90s Limbaugh-inspired "feminazi" paranoia. The women held up as examples of why feminism was the end of society always reminded me of sitcom women.

Especially when one sets out to make it so.

My point exactly.

Cruelty is the basis of this humor, and you have set out to defend that.

What the...?

Don't confuse yourself, then.

I hadn't realized I was. If taking what is presented and coming to the obvious conclusion isn't what one is supposed to do with a written message, I'm amazed mankind has made it this far.

*Man #1 reads a message*
Man#2:what's it say?
Man#1: "send help."
Man#2: I wonder what that means...

Well, Mephura, one must be educated in how to read and write before they can communicate effectively with the written word.

Beyond that, you occasionally have to get over yourself.

The word defect frist came into this conversation in the term 'birth defect'.

I've commented more on the problems of the term "birth defect" than anybody who has a problem with it.

So when you decide to show yourself capable of undertaking points I've already considered, I'm bound to give your argument a little more credibility.

That term was introduced as the reason orthogonal felt compassion for this man and the reason we shouldn't laugh.

I thought you said no twisting was necessary.

Oh, well.

If you are going to claim that his appearance was already being treated as a defect, I am going to continue to wait for that list of standards that we should judge them by.

Well, we can start with the dictionary link I posted.

the conotation that orthogonal has since supported by introducing his long list of them (birth defects)

Since you've ignored the discussion of the term "birth defects" up until now, I would prefer that you read up on what's already there. I don't mind covering points twice, but when you haven't given them any attention in the first place, well, I would hope you would at least do both of us the honor of reading what you're responding to.

Personally,I find fault in yours. It would appear that we are at an impasse.

Too bad. I keep hoping you can coherently explain your position.

So you are saying that you have presumed his moral ground more acurately than others?

Nope, I'm reading it more openly. See, unlike many who are affected to various degrees by the vestigial myth of original sin, I try not to presume such things about people. I see people who are well-known for causing useless friction (Mephura, Gendanken) and one new provocateur (Chalaco) pushing the issue. When I read Orthogonal's words, I could have made an interpretation similar to yours, but that would require throwing out every memory of dealing with Orthogonal in the past. So when I see people whose issues are generally founded in comprehension making such a shallow murmur over something like that, I really do pause to wonder if this is about anything other than your egos. I mean, you're pursuing a defense of essential cruelty in order to get histrionic over Orthogonal's distaste for such childish humor.

How about we add 'anyone who has been called deformed due to the size of their forehead' to that list? I know it just doesn't have the same ring, the same flow as the rest of them, but that is the heart of the issue

Look, Mephura, instead of the usual barrage of questions about comprehension, I'll reduce it to a simple question:

• How stupid would you like me to perceive you to be?

In other words, good show, Mephura. That was my point.

How can you raise those examples in defense of a man who is doing the same damn thing?

I'm not.

Duh.

Or perhaps quit making assumption about people based on how they look.

You want to defend actions that are, in essence, analogous to stereotyping, be my guest. Just don't try to throw the blame on me for it.

Just for sport, and since you're apparently afraid to, back that one.

So I shouldn't ignore what orthogonal is doing?
Thanks for your approval.

See? Again, how stupid would you like me to perceive you to be?

I don't approve two-bit punks like yourself. Get an honest argument, Mephura. Don't just tell me what to think, show me how your defense of arbitrary cruelty is so right.

Strange, it was blatantly obvious to me.

Because you were out looking for an issue to pick, Mephura.

If I wanted to pick a fight, I would've probably said somethign about a superiority complex concering his percieved wisdom (hence the quoting and the 'understanding' he has on all thing philosophical), or what makes him think his morals are so much better than anyone else's, or even how his very posting style seems to reek of arogance

That all has been covered already, to a certain degree.

like he is constantly talking down to everyone and should be respected as a voice of wisdom.

Sounds like you have an inferiority complex.

No, Tiassa, I'm not just looking to "pick a fight".

Too bad you didn't actually read my post to Wes.

I'm starting to reconsider my answer to his question.

Should I take this as an invitation to remark on things there if I see fit?

Go for it. Keep throwing darts long enough, and you're bound to hit something, Mephura.

 

[Chalaco]

Hmmm, might I mention I do not care. Might I also mention that you three, or four, are arguing amongst yourselves, doing it in private messaging might prove to be more efficacious and might not tarnish your "net-ego" so much..... perhaps.

*awaits to be rebuked*

 

[Mephura]

Tiassa

Sure. If necessary.My point exactly.

Talk about circles. You say something is there, I say it isn't, then you say your point exactly? Interesting. If it isn't there, then why did you say it ws in the first place?
Perhaps you were just confused by the wording, so I will make this one simpler for you. I claim that you and O are the only two mocking his forehaed. You say prove it. To me this would indicate that you believe the rest of us are. Now, given my responce:

"Would you have me quote every post before my last one? How exactly would you have me show you that something isn't there? It would make more sense for you to show me where one of the people active in this discussion (myself, you, gendanken, wess, orthogonal, xev, and chaleco) other than you or orthogonal have said anything mocking about the guy's forehead. ..."

Now you tell me that nothing being there, ie the lack of cranial insults by the other members partaking in this discussion, is your point exactly?
(the fact that you back this up with quips about my shallow reading and confusion only adds to the absurdity)

Orthogonal objected to making someone's appearance the center of humor.

Very good.Mind you your words aren't his. The closest he came was in his opening post in which he still refered to the man's head as malformed.
So the question, right from the bat, is why did he object to it?
(and reguardless of how well you know him, use his words and not your own to support your answer.)

You imply in one post that he's oversensitive, and then later that he's insensitive.

Yes, my oppinion changed as the cause of his words became evident. Had he viewed the man as normal, like the rest of us, I would have maintained that he was oversensitive. However, once it became clear that the basis of his 'compassion' was looking down on the man, my assessment changed.
This confuses you why?

But Orthogonal objected to making someone's appearance the center of humor.

Prove it.

• Mephura thinks this is oversensitive.
• Gendanken thinks this is insensitive.
• Chalaco calls Orthogonal a clown, a sap, a milksop, an autocrat, shallow, hypocritical, and then goes on to be patronizing.
• Wes is asking to be filled in on these issues.

Wow.. How you managed to get that is beyond me. If you would look close at the thread you would notice that gendanken only agreed with my assessment of his 'insensitivity' as you call it. You seem to be dropping alot of details in the attempt to make you point.

So the mundane is a great source of humor.That's fine with me.

Yup, that's life.

You feel superior enough to laugh at someone's natural appearance.

Tiassa, I've only said what it is that I am laughing at about 7 times now. Why do you choose to ignore it still?
Other than that, here is a nice example of where you choose to avoid a direct question in order to not weaken your point.

This is part of the problem. To me, the only reason "Beavis" is funny is because the guy was acting like Beavis.

Alright... So does that make you cruel and heartless? Maybe this birth defect of his is the reason he acts that way.

You're the one hung up on appearance.

What is amazing is that you honestly think that.
It's also surprising that you have now come to the point of making assertions with out any supporting evidence. I've said I find the man physically funny looking once, in my first post here, and have since retracted that statement.
So, prove it.

Well, that "attention to the physiological" was just confirmed by you, for instance. So don't act so surprised.

How so? The only thing I see 'confirming' it is your hollow assertions.

Just for sport, and since you couldn't before ... let's see you back that one.
Or is this going to be another one of your claims that you can't show because it's not there, Mephura?

Those are my words true. But by your logic, if we aren't compassionate, we must be the opposite. (if you are confused on where i got that one, see your bit about whether or not his forehead is a "testament to evolutionary strength")

Next time, just try answering the question.

Wow.. let me translate for you. No, i didn't, nor do i see it as relevent to the discussion considering at the time it was posted the discussion didn't exist and poster hasn't taken an active role in the discussion since its inception.

You know, if you disagree with the point, that's fine. But don't just ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Strange how you read two paragraphs directed at the point in question as ignoring it.

What? People have placed this man's appearance in a disparaging position by making it an object of humor. You think they're not regarding the anomaly as defective? Well, they could be praising it (as a point of beauty and evolutionary accomplishment) or consider it neutrally, but no, people choose to find various degrees of amusement.

Talk about ignoring. Still waiting for you to tell us what exactly make a 'defective' human being defective. (and yes, we all know what the dictionary says the word means. That is a general definition. I am askingyou for a specific set of criteria for determining what makes a particular example defective. In this case a human being.)

If you think this treatment of his appearance lands his appearance outside the range of remarkably defective, I would invite you to show how the disparagement is in fact praise or neutral consideration.

For that I would have to know what you consider to be a defective human being. I don't have a definition of one. (I personally don't veiw people as defective or not, so am having a hard time understanding what it is you are trying to get at.)

I see that as your own shallow reading.

And the insulting continues...
At least try backing up your assertions with something Orthogonal has said.

Would you laugh at his forehead if you considered it a testament to evolutionary strength? Are folks ridiculing his appearance merely because they're jealous?

Way to avoid the question, yet again.
Is there a reason you choose to do so?

The point pertains to the basis of the humor, Mephura. Didn't mean to confuse you so badly.

The only thing I am cunfused by is you inability to answer a direct question or give examples backing your assertions.

Does humor exist in a vacuum independent of the rest of what you are? Or do your qualities and shortcomings lend to your interpretation of what humor is?

Wow.. this is really getting off topic now. I'll indulge you regardless:
I would imagine that some humor is fairly universal amongst the species while other types/examples are more specified due to environ, interests, and yes, shortcommings and other qualities.

A difference in our senses of humor, to be sure. But in what prinicples is that difference most markedly demonstrated? At present, I would suggest the simple fact that I accept humor is largely invested in cruelty and prefer other forms of humor, while you seem to revel in the cruelty of humor.

That would mark the difference then. I don't believe that humor is largely vested in cruelty, and i would look at children as an example. I think that most humor is, in it's purest form, not cruel or cruely intended. I would certainly agree that it can be taken as such though. What you see as reveling in the cruelty of humor is you simply seeing evil where I don't.
This is much akin to some believing that there is nothing wrong with recreational drug use and others finding it horrible.
It's simply a matter of differences of perspective.

I'm just going to guess that you wouldn't understand right off the bat why I think you're as shallow as a dry mud puddle.

Oh, I can imagine. Now, while we are trading witty insults, can you imagine why I think you are as dense as a block of lead?

Exartly.

You know, I find this habit of yours of posting totally ass backwards things for the sole intention of having people disagree (because they are ass backwards) simply so you can say "exactly" odd. Any particular reason why you do it?

I find it very curious that some people would be so devoted to their disparagement of others that they would simultaneously argue oversensitivity and insensitivity.

As would I. Point this fellow out so that we might discover his motives.
In case you missed it, there has been no simultaneous arguments of opposites here. I explained that above since you seemed to have trouble following.

I find it very curious that some people would be so devoted to their disparagement of others that they would willingly restrict themselves to making jokes based on someone's appearance.

Again, as would I. Show me these restricted people so that we might question them as to why.

I find your dedication to the mistreatment of others rather curious.

So do I, considering I'm not. Honestly man, where do you come up with these unfounded accusations?

What a circle of excuses.
• He is not inferior or defective.
• We choose to laugh at his appearance.
• What are we laughing at?

The problem with your little circle is that I've never said the second.
Again, and since you've had trouble reading the other times I've written it, I will bold it this time:
It is the similarity I find humorous, not his appearence.

Is it his beauty? Is it the unusual aspect of his appearance? What is it?

Are you telling me that ridicule of his appearance is actually praise for his beauty?

You know, I've only answered this for you aboutu 9 times now. I don't think repeating it again is going to help you.

You can't show that without isolating the basis of your objection to Orthogonal in a vacuum and ignoring the context of the topic he responded to.

Odd, he has a nice long post listing off possible causes of the deformity.
Or were you refering to the implies part? If that be the case I would ask you to show your implications to be true in this vacuum of yours. (which is really funny because latter on you base your whole argument here on happenings not even in this thread.)

Whatever. So tell me, why do you presume Orthogonal's context as negative while presuming the other side to be positive?

I've presumed what to be positive? Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? By this logic, if I like cold weather I can't equally like hot weather.
Stop with all the resumptions please.

The simple fact is that people chose to laugh at someone's appearance. The simple fact is that you choose to proudly announce that you laugh at someone for their natural appearance.

Really? The simple fact is this: I have said about ten times now that it is the resemblance and not the appearance. You fail to see the difference, so there is little i can do to help you. I even gave you an analogous example which you chose to ignore to try to help you. I can't do anymore for you. You just don't want to see, so your eyes will remain closed.

[/quote]Depends on how Jewish or WASPish the guy looked. If it was a GenX post-grunge raver, sure, it would be fair.[/quote]

Interesting answer. To bad it isn't to the question posed.

Your inquiry is incredibly simplistic.

All I am looking for is simple answers. When I want a complex convoluted answer, I know who to turn to.

From I Love Lucy to Dharma and Greg, and beyond and between and seemingly before, the battle of the sexes has been a strong source of television comedy over the years. In the 1980s and 90s, especially, the "reign of the bitch," occurred, in which feminist principles were abused to the extreme and feminist women came out looking very foolish. Claire Huxtable? Smart woman, but I'd never want to spend any time with her. The phrase, "The Claire Huxtable Shake," used to be a well-known reference. Picture a woman--aesthetically, we're more used to a black woman doing this--standing with her hands on her hips, shaking her head side to side, occasionally waving a finger in the air and speaking low and angry at about ninety miles an hour. Like the time I read a bit from Leviticus during a religious rally, contradicting the preacher. Some high school girl--a local Baptist school--bussed into the University for the lecture, got up doing some revival bit, shouting Ephesians and waving her hands in the air. Afterward, a couple of people gave me their positive two cents, and one of them even asked how it was that I didn't laugh during the "Claire Huxtable explosion". A shallow treatment of women and feminism on television has actually contributed to the 90s Limbaugh-inspired "feminazi" paranoia. The women held up as examples of why feminism was the end of society always reminded me of sitcom women.

Interesting tidbit.. thank you for sharing.

Cruelty is the basis of this humor, and you have set out to defend that.

Wrong. Cruelty, in your oppinion, is the basis for this humor. I've not set out to defend cruelty in any way shape or form. You just want to see it that way.

Don't confuse yourself, then.

Hey, man, you want to babble on about eric cartman, fine by me.
*hold hands up and walks away slowly*

Well, Mephura, one must be educated in how to read and write before they can communicate effectively with the written word.

And here I thought the reading bit was all about see what was actually there and not making wild acusations.
Silly me.

Beyond that, you occasionally have to get over yourself.

Wow.. now if that ain't a case of the pot and the kettle.

I've commented more on the problems of the term "birth defect" than anybody who has a problem with it.

And that applies to what I said how?

So when you decide to show yourself capable of undertaking points I've already considered, I'm bound to give your argument a little more credibility.

Personally, I could care less what you think me capable of. If you wish to not read what is written, see what isn't there, and fabricate shit, fine by me. Have fun.

I thought you said no twisting was necessary.

Read his posts, T. It's all right there in black and white.

Well, we can start with the dictionary link I posted.Since you've ignored the discussion of the term "birth defects" up until now, I would prefer that you read up on what's already there. I don't mind covering points twice, but when you haven't given them any attention in the first place, well, I would hope you would at least do both of us the honor of reading what you're responding to.

Actually, I replied to it with two paragraphs. Condescending just a tad, don't you think? (Not that that is a surprise)

Too bad. I keep hoping you can coherently explain your position.

It's there when you actually want to read it.

Nope, I'm reading it more openly. See, unlike many who are affected to various degrees by the vestigial myth of original sin, I try not to presume such things about people. I see people who are well-known for causing useless friction (Mephura, Gendanken) and one new provocateur (Chalaco) pushing the issue. When I read Orthogonal's words, I could have made an interpretation similar to yours, but that would require throwing out every memory of dealing with Orthogonal in the past. So when I see people whose issues are generally founded in comprehension making such a shallow murmur over something like that, I really do pause to wonder if this is about anything other than your egos. I mean, you're pursuing a defense of essential cruelty in order to get histrionic over Orthogonal's distaste for such childish humor.

I'm well-known for causing useless friction now?
Interesting. I can think of two threads that might make you say that. Other than that you have me stumped. Is that what this is all about? You still holding a grudge over that hater's thing?
Tiassa, considering you have not had much experience with me or my issues, I cannot see where you have the ground to make such generalities. I also cannot see how your past dealing with orthogonal should color your oppinions here. Basically, you've just said you came in here with a bias towards one side of this argument, didn't fairly consider the side you opposed and did it just to start "useless friction".
I've had no previous dealings with orthogonal. So if your previous dealings are the only thing stopping you from reaching the same conslusion I have, I do not see your point. I am basing my argument on what has been said in this thread and that alone. Since you seem unable to do so, I will not bother replying to any further postings from you here.
It would be pointless.

Look, Mephura, instead of the usual barrage of questions about comprehension, I'll reduce it to a simple question:

• How stupid would you like me to perceive you to be?

Actually, before this, I took you to be an intelligent person. That you were better read than I am was no question. I thought you to be a fairly open and considerate person, despite the one previous encounter I have had with you.
However, taking that you have admittedly entered into the discussion with a bias, sunk to petty insults, made arbitrary accusations, and generally attacked my intelligence with no real reason other than it's your style, I am force to reconsider that assessment of you.

In other words, good show, Mephura. That was my point.

Whatever you say chief.

I'm not.

Duh.

whatever...
totally pointless.

Just for sport, and since you're apparently afraid to, back that one.

Yup yup.. you got me pegged.

See? Again, how stupid would you like me to perceive you to be?

I don't approve two-bit punks like yourself. Get an honest argument, Mephura. Don't just tell me what to think, show me how your defense of arbitrary cruelty is so right.

And more name calling..
Honest argument you say? I had one, captain bias.
I'm not going to try to show you anything tiassa. You only see what you want.

Because you were out looking for an issue to pick, Mephura.

Of course! How could I have been so blind to my own intentions.

That all has been covered already, to a certain degree.

If you say so.

Sounds like you have an inferiority complex.

Cute. Again, doesn't have any relevence to the conversation. It's only possible use could be as a personal jab.
Thanks.

Too bad you didn't actually read my post to Wes.

Actually, I did. I read it before responding to you the last time.
Quite the arrogant accusation.

I'm starting to reconsider my answer to his question.

I don't really care.

 

[15ofthe19]

FWIW, I think the funniest line ever uttered on South Park was "CRIPPLE FIGHT!". I laughed for a week after that episode.

My first cousin was born with an open spine. He wore a brace on his back, and his legs when we were kids. Growing up together, I got a decent appreciation of what it's like to be born with a disability from playing with Drew. He never let it stop him from doing whatever we felt like doing.

Do I think of Drew when I watch that episode? Not really. But even if I did, so what? It's still funny as hell.

Oversensitivity, and the desire to be offended are a cancer on the ass of the world.

 

[Tiassa]

If it isn't there, then why did you say it ws in the first place?

I thought it was rather straightforward. Read through it again, give it a few seconds' thought, take a deep breath, and then try to fill me in on what confuses you.

Oh, hell, I see how confused you are. Let's work backwards, just for kicks:

• Talk about circles. You say something is there, I say it isn't, then you say your point exactly? Interesting. If it isn't there, then why did you say it ws in the first place?

• Sure. If necessary.

• WOuld you have me quote every post before my last one?

• Amazing. Just for sport, Mephura , back that one up.

• The only two people I see here saying the man is inferior in any way are you and orthogonal.

Now then, would you like that in order?

Mephura: However, I don't view this man as inferior. The only two people I see here saying the man is inferior in any way are you and orthogonal. I don't know about his intelligence, so I can't comment on that as you have chosen to. I suppose I could make assumptions about it, but I really don't see the point.

Tiassa: Amazing. Just for sport, Mephura, back that one up.

Mephura: Would you have me quote every post before my last one?

Tiassa: Sure. If necessary.

Mephura: How exactly would you have me show you that something isn't there?

Tiassa: My point exactly.

What I asked you to back up was your assertion that the only people saying the man was inferior was myself and Orthogonal.

This is exactly what you have asked how you could show if it isn't there.

As I said, Mephura: My point exactly.

In the meantime, respecting your appeal to your response--

"Would you have me quote every post before my last one? How exactly would you have me show you that something isn't there? It would make more sense for you to show me where one of the people active in this discussion (myself, you, gendanken, wess, orthogonal, xev, and chaleco) other than you or orthogonal have said anything mocking about the guy's forehead. ..."

--how would you say the context of the paragraph changes my reading of the situation? I'd like to know, since the issue that confuses you seems quite straightforward to me; perhaps in the future we can avoid it.

As to the substance of that paragraph of yours, well, you're mixing the issues just a little.

Start with the idea that the negativity toward the forehead is invested in the humorous aspect that helps make this topic remarkable in the first place. Where I see humor in a guy who resembles Beavis doing an Arnold Layne, some people see humor in a guy who looks like Beavis.

Now, think about those lines of mine about whether or not anybody wants to call this guy's forehead an example of beauty or evolutionary prowess. The fact that nobody does is indicative of the fact that a neutral consideration of his appearance is the best we can hope for under these circumstances.

The condemnation is tacit. The defective condition is implicit: humor is based on a perceived imperfection that causes a perceived shortcoming; the one thing we do agree on is that calling someone Beavis ain't a kindness, though what that means seems a difficult issue to resolve.

Basically, I'm waiting for someone to shut me up by making an honest case that the humor is neutral, or even complementary to the individual. I do not think that case can be made.

The primary issue seems rather quite simple to me:

• Goofy posts topic.
• Bells makes comment.
• Orthogonal makes objection.
• Goofy acknowledges objection.

This is where things get strange.

• Mephura accuses Orthogonal of oversensitivity.
• Orthogonal responds.
• Mephura picks context of birth defect and stakes an issue.
• Gendanken announces Orthogonal null and void based on words birth defect.
• Tiassa asks Gendanken why.
• Gendanken essentially agrees with Mephura, issues threat.
• 15ofthe19 agrees with Gendanken with no clarification.
• Chalaco posts inflammatory post.
• (Tiassa and Chalaco exchange posts; Tiassa and Gendanken exchange posts).
• Wesmorris inquires regarding oversensitivity and abuse.
• Mephura responds to Tiassa.
• Orthogonal responds to Mephura--addresses birth defects, also comparison of dehumanization vs. birth defect.
• Xev enters to take up side issues with Orthogonal.
• Orthogonal (something--this is apparently its own subdrama)
• Mephura responds to Orthogonal.
• (Orthogonal and Xev exchange posts).
• Gendanken responds to Tiassa (also to Xev)
• (Xev and Gendanken exchange posts).
• Tiassa responds to Mephura.
• Gendanken sounds off.
• Xev responds to Gendanken.
• Tiassa responds to Wesmorris.
• Wesmorris responds to Tiassa.
• Wesmorris responds to Xev.
• Orthogonal apparently bids adieu.
• Mephura responds to Tiassa.
• Mephura responds to Orthogonal.
• Tiassa responds to Mephura.
• Chalaco offers two cents.
• Mephura responds to Tiassa.

Which just about brings us up to the present. Notice that the original issue of mockery was over in a total of four posts. What happened next is inexplicable to me, as a number of people rush to the defense of the mockery.

So the question, right from the bat, is why did he object to it?
(and reguardless of how well you know him, use his words and not your own to support your answer.)

Because the humor is based in a ridiculing of something the man did not choose for himself.

Think of Boy George. I'm not going to ridicule the guy for his identity issues in and of themselves. But if he's trying to match a hideous top with the wrong skirt, the effect is (A) disastrous, (B) something he chose for himself, and (C) something I'm going to chuckle at.

Very simply: The humor is condemning of the man's forehead. If it were not a statistical anomaly, were it not "malformed" compared to statistical regularity, it would not be worth mentioning at all in terms of a topic, would it? Not just in the context of to you or I, but what about the mundane is really newsworthy? (Headline: Another normal person has another normal day!)

Yes, my oppinion changed as the cause of his words became evident. Had he viewed the man as normal, like the rest of us, I would have maintained that he was oversensitive.

How to raise the issue without a tinge of sarcasm?

Okay ...

People with various congenital, cosmetic, or other "defects" (again, see the bloody definition of the word) are, in fact, "normal." Acknowledging the "defect" does not change the moral aspect of normalcy in the slightest.

Sarcasm would compel me to accuse you of gross insensitivity here, but rather I see an issue that doesn't need sarcasm. Rather, it's a matter of where you draw your boundaries.

And while I find this aspect revealing, I don't yet know what to make of it when placed beside the tacit condemnation in the humor which qualifies the man's forehead in this topic as a defect.

(Also, since we're combing that finely, who is "the rest of us"? Did you not just advise me, "Mind you your words aren't his." How valid should I consider the extended argument, or should we just be dealing here with you?)

Prove it.

Seriously? Did you read his posts or just shoot off?

Okay, just for review:

• Tiassa: But Orthogonal objected to making someone's appearance the center of humor.

• Mephura: Prove it.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's fine that we condemn what he's done, but that doesn't give us a carte blanche to ridicule the size of his forehead. (Orthogonal)

Any questions, Mephura? The above comes from Orthogonal's first post in this topic. Specifically, these sentences come immediately after the salutation.

How you managed to get that is beyond me. If you would look close at the thread you would notice that gendanken only agreed with my assessment of his 'insensitivity' as you call it. You seem to be dropping alot of details in the attempt to make you point.

Well, try starting with a question. I wouldn't know where to begin clearing it up for you.

Yup, that's life.

You might as well tell me that God says it's so. What makes the mundane funny?

Maybe this birth defect of his is the reason he acts that way.

Inasmuch as the moon is responsible for increased violence over a period in a society, sure, it's possible.

What is amazing is that you honestly think that.

Well, for starters, Mephura, you're the one who invests the joke in his appearance. I need more before the situation becomes funny for me. Breaking and entering, cross-dressing, and a personal flashback to a Pink Floyd song, for instance.

It's also surprising that you have now come to the point of making assertions with out any supporting evidence.

What? You're not actually reading things closely, anyway.

Besides, when you confess to things like the man's appearance being the sole source of humor for you, I think the fact is rather quite self-evident.

I've said I find the man physically funny looking once, in my first post here, and have since retracted that statement.

What a brilliant retraction. ("It's not just his appearance. It's his appearance when compared to what he looks like. Or, to be simpler, his appearance compared to his appearance.")

In the meantime, you are defending the process of making factors of a person's appearance that are beyond their control the center of humor. What proof do you want? It started with your first post to Orthogonal and dominates your discussion of issues with me. Hello?

How so? The only thing I see 'confirming' it is your hollow assertions.

Yawn.

At this point, you're just being a cheap provocateur, Mephura. You're still just dodging an issue:

Tiassa: Look at the discussion you stepped into, Mephura and look closely at where you chose to stand . . . . Convince me that this is complementary. Since you seem to take exception to the phrase birth defect, please explain to me how the attention to the physiological aspect is supposed to be complementary?

Mephura: I will do so as soon as you show me where anyone said it was. And where do you continue to get this "attention to the physiological aspect"? What are arguing? The only attention to the "physiological aspect" is one of two things:
His similarity to a cartoon character or orthogonal's calling it a birth defect.
I would say one is far more "attention to the physiological aspect" than the other.

Take a look at your response.

• "I will do so as soon as you show me where anyone said it was." I mean, crap, Mephura, that's the point! Nobody has said it was. It goes toward the point about the negative focus of the humor. Remember that? I mean, really, where did that response of yours come from?

• "And where do you continue to get this "attention to the physiological aspect"?" Well, what's funny, Mephura, though not particularly, is that it was listed in the very post you were responding to. I mean, really ....

• "The only attention to the "physiological aspect" is one of two things . . . I would say one is far more "attention to the physiological aspect" than the other." Yeah, the one that takes the time to laugh at someone's appearance. Oh, I'm sorry, let me phrase that mo' betta, the one that takes the time to laugh at someone's appearance compared to that someone's appearance.

And yet we go round and round and here you are, huffing, "Prove it."

Hey, Mephura, try reading the posts you're responding to. You've already passed the point of asking for what's already on the record.

Those are my words true. But by your logic, if we aren't compassionate, we must be the opposite. (if you are confused on where i got that one, see your bit about whether or not his forehead is a "testament to evolutionary strength")

It's not surprising to me that we've now reached the point where you're afraid to answer the issues, but at least give it a shot.

(Oh, and re: your parenthetic note there, you almost had a point, but two out of three is actually a day late and a dollar short, Mephura.)

Wow.. let me translate for you. No, i didn't, nor do i see it as relevent to the discussion considering at the time it was posted the discussion didn't exist and poster hasn't taken an active role in the discussion since its inception.

This is why I'm not surprised. You've already shown that you're afraid to deal with the issues.

Strange how you read two paragraphs directed at the point in question as ignoring it.

Let's take a look at those paragraphs, since I know you'll be afraid to make the detail yourself (your record speaks clearly, Mephura):

• The reason I raise this definition here is because, while someone might have chosen to make a technical dissection of the words, "birth defect," nobody chose to undertake that aspect.

Most of us made the choice to take the words at face value and use the connotation that we are all well aware of. The same connotation that orthogonal reinforced by introducing the list of birth defects, some of whcih fatal.

The reason being this: If you choose to make issue over the semantics, you are forced into explaining what exactly qualifies as a defective human being.
Since you seem to want to make that point, why don't you tell us what standards we should use to discern these defective individuals from the norm. What is the acceptable limits (to remain non-defective) of human physiology?

• Rather, the argument now seems afoot that the problem comes in Orthogonal choosing to use the word "defect" to describe the object of people's humor or dissatisfaction.

No. The argument comes in because orthogonal's "compassion" is based upon his veiw of the man as 'defective'.

• And so I ask again, are we going to call this man's forehead an example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength?

Again I ask, where did this come from? Are you implying that if it isn't an "example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength", it must, by default, be deformed, defected and a testament to evolutionary weakness?

My use in that instance of the words "birth defect" in quotes was linked to a dictionary entry for the term "birth defect." While somebody may have taken a technical issue with Orthogonal's words of birth defect (the point I made), nobody did in that sense; and Orthogonal would go on to cover that base, though you don't seem to have considered that possibility.

Your choosing to view Orthogonal's perspective as you do in the second example is entirely your own problem. You seem to act as if he invented the idea that this man's forehead was somehow a defect out of thin air. He did not. As I've stated before, I find his use of the phrase "birth defect" to be within the context of the topic which made that forehead an object of humor.

And if you stop to think about that for just a minute, the third example there comes into focus.

Imagine this:

• Joe walks into a bar. He orders a beer and while he's enjoying the game on TV the two guys on the barstools next to him start making nigger jokes. Joe, curious about the humor that remains in these jokes, asks these fellows why they're making jokes about someone's skin color. The one nearest Joe says, "How can you be such a racist? Why are you noticin' someone's skin color?"

You make about as much sense as the fellow calling Joe a racist.

The point is that nobody is holding our topic image up as an example of beauty.

And on top of it all, you keep coming back to points that indicate that you pretty much ignored the text in question, which is what I pointed out to you, which is what you questioned, which leads us up to this point.

I mean, it's like I noted: "A little late for that, Mephura. I've already covered it."

Part of your error was in splitting up the paragraphs. While it does make responses more organized to break them up, do remember to read them contiguously, as well.

Still waiting for you to tell us what exactly make a 'defective' human being defective. (and yes, we all know what the dictionary says the word means. That is a general definition. I am askingyou for a specific set of criteria for determining what makes a particular example defective. In this case a human being.)

Defect is in the eye of the beholder.

Now, here's an example of why you'll want to read paragraphs contiguously. This paragraph will address the prior, short paragraph. Any issue which makes a thing less than ideal can be considered a defect. Whether or not you choose to invest the word in the description or not, the humor relegates the physical feature to the status of a defect, a blemish, an imperfection, something that stands out as remarkable, and is placed at the center of humor.

There's a great line in an episode of The Simpsons ("The Springfield Files," 3G01):

Later, with wires attached to him, Homer runs on a treadmill in naught but his underwear. Mulder and Scully watch.

Mulder: Wait a minute, Scully. What's the point of this test?

Scully: No point. I just thought he could stand to lose a little weight.

Mulder: His jiggling is almost hypnotic.

Scully: Yes. It's like a lava lamp.

Technically, it's a very insensitive bit. It's a fat joke. But nobody says "fat". The closest anybody comes is that Homer could stand to lose a little weight.

For that I would have to know what you consider to be a defective human being. I don't have a definition of one. (I personally don't veiw people as defective or not, so am having a hard time understanding what it is you are trying to get at.)

It all works toward the context of "defect." In the end, you seem to have a problem with Orthogonal's use of the word, and I think that perspective relies on the idea that the word comes from thin air, is utterly unjustified within the context of the topic. And I think it's quite fair to say that all Orthogonal did was put a term to the reality of the idea before him--humor based on a negative exploitation of involuntary aspects of a human being.

Remember, the guy on the barstool never said nothin' 'bout no skin color. That's why Joe is a racist.

And the insulting continues...
At least try backing up your assertions with something Orthogonal has said.

See the above, which is a reiteration of things I've said before.

And you find that insulting? The idea that assigning a random context to Orthogonal in order to continue your criticism of him is shallow?

Absolutely ridiculous, Mephura.

Way to avoid the question, yet again.
Is there a reason you choose to do so?

Let's see if we can get you up to speed, Mephura:

•
And so I ask again, are we going to call this man's forehead an example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength?

Again I ask, where did this come from? Are you implying that if it isn't an "example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength", it must, by default, be deformed, defected and a testament to evolutionary weakness?

• Would you laugh at his forehead if you considered it a testament to evolutionary strength? Are folks ridiculing his appearance merely because they're jealous?

The point pertains to the basis of the humor, Mephura . Didn't mean to confuse you so badly.

Way to avoid the question, yet again.
Is there a reason you choose to do so?

Now, let's start with that first response of yours I noted. "And I ask again ...." What I actually need you to help me with is where you asked the first time. I'm losing that part in the ocean of words, partially because the straight quote/respond chain breaks there. I mean, you say, "again," yet it looks like it's the first time you ask.

And for all the avoiding you think I'm doing, the issue is already addressed. I'm unsure what exactly your question is, since you won't actually tell me.

The only thing I am cunfused by is you inability to answer a direct question or give examples backing your assertions.

Go ahead and list the questions you think aren't answered. Go ahead and list the accusations you think aren't supported.

If you're going to whine about it, put two cents' effort into it.

Wow.. this is really getting off topic now.

Really? So while we have a difference in our senses of humor, the bases of that difference are irrelevant?

I would imagine that some humor is fairly universal amongst the species while other types/examples are more specified due to environ, interests, and yes, shortcommings and other qualities

Just offhand, do you think our fellow in the topic image considers his appearance comedic? (Don't get me wrong; it's possible.)

More to the point, though, what is the difference between the idea of a difference or the difference(s)? We have a difference, but what is that difference? How we define cruelty?

Certainly, children have an innocent humor, but we're not about to relegate our fellow posters to the status of "children" in order to justify superficial and exploitative humor. There is the humor of the absurd, but such isn't evident in the topic post or the early responses. "Chicken Kiev?" That was a funny joke when I was a kid. But "Toxic Avenger" jokes about pictures of children with radiation sickness? Yeah, they looked like B-class horror props, but that didn't seem funny. Perhaps it's an extreme example, a bit ghastly, but the problem with everybody getting along by tolerating insensitivity is that it's tantamount to agreeing to be part of civilization only when civilization glorifies the uncivilized. When I was at the University of Oregon, there was a woman who went everywhere with a really mean-looking dog. (The dog was a sweetheart, though.) She wasn't blind, she didn't need a guide dog. But nobody on the campus stopped that dog from tromping through cafeterias or classrooms or dormitories. And when you looked her in the permanently-bloodshot eyes, through the mask of molten flesh that was the result, I'm told, of being set on fire by her assailant, you understood why nobody screwed with her on the issue of the dog. And the entire I time I was there, nobody--not the stoners or trippers or anarchists (people generally loose with their mouths at the wrong time, for instance)--said word one about the fact that she resembled a certain movie character. What's up with that? After all, the incident was over, she wasn't in physical pain anymore, and don't we want her to normalize? Yeah, but I want her to be the first one in my presence to crack the joke. Then we can all laugh honestly and not chuckle behind her back. It'll never happen.

There was a time when certain things went unspoken because people realized it was best for everyone if that was the way it was. In a larger sense I can't figure out whether we've stopped trusting each other to a certain degree--at having three people in the world I can have various degrees of unspoken communication with, I'm told I'm rather quite lucky. To clarify the degree of unspoken communication I mean, one of the reasons I stopped lying to friends, family, employers--basically anytime I needed to and could reasonably hope to get away with it--wasn't initially out of conscience, but because the gasping desire for liberty among my corner of the generation left us with so many lies that nobody really trusted anyone fundamentally anymore. And what happened then was that you couldn't ever risk backing somebody's lie, no matter how right the cause seemed to your conscience, because you couldn't trust anybody to not blow it. It was, incidentally, the final necessary lesson that convinced me that what most consider morality is actually attained not by striving toward it, but by resigning oneself to it. Simply, a thick enough web of otherwise inert lies eventually demanded so much energy to maintain that it wasn't worth the effort. It was not a moral attainment to resolve against all but the most conventionally-restricted deceptions--e.g. political spins--but a practical necessity. And somewhere in there is the vast difference between the world I knew that found it easier to just carry on with life and deal with people one by one, and the world I know now that seeks on every count to advance civilization by glorifying the least civilized aspects of our conventions.

This is much akin to some believing that there is nothing wrong with recreational drug use and others finding it horrible.

I honestly don't know where to begin with that one.

Thanks for the chuckle. How 'bout that?

It's simply a matter of differences of perspective.

Okay, now ... just work in the abstract.

Now, I'm not slamming you with this line, but rather aiming at the insufficiency of that particular measure. Okay?

Now, it seems to me that when you get right down to it, all that separates you from Hitler is a matter of differences of perspective.

Severe, perhaps. But again, just so you have no question in your mind: The use of that comparison is not meant to equate you in any way to Hitler. I can just as easily say that what separates me from Hitler is a matter of differences of perspective. All I mean to show you is that "a matter of differences of perspective" is a terribly vague standard.

How we regard cruelty seems to be part of that difference.

You know, I find this habit of yours of posting totally ass backwards things for the sole intention of having people disagree (because they are ass backwards) simply so you can say "exactly" odd. Any particular reason why you do it?

Because exartly is one of my favorite oddball words. It actually brings a nice, clean, unadulterated smile to my face when I have the occasion to use it.

To the other, though, I can't help it if you're trying to argue my lines. It's rather amusing to read, though.

You don't recall anyone saying he was beautiful? Well, once again: Exactly. That's the point.

It's important to remember that the point pertains to the basis of the humor.

As would I. Point this fellow out so that we might discover his motives.

Well, you've explained your own part well enough that I accept they are two different arguments in two different time frames.

I explained that above since you seemed to have trouble following.

Um, Mephura ... why don't you check that attitude problem of yours right there? I mean, since "above" means, earlier in the same post. Don't be so quick to bluster.

Again, as would I. Show me these restricted people so that we might question them as to why.

Well, in your case, I'm still waiting for a response that makes sense.

So do I, considering I'm not. Honestly man, where do you come up with these unfounded accusations?

Okay. You're right, Mephura. You didn't suggest that Orthogonal's criticism of making someone's appearance the center of humor was wrong, did you? You didn't suggest it was oversensitive, did you? You didn't decide that it was, in fact, insensitive, did you? Do you realize that what you are objecting to is an objection to superficial and exploitative humor? Do you realize that you objected to an objection to ideological mistreatment of other people?

The problem with your little circle is that I've never said the second.
Again, and since you've had trouble reading the other times I've written it, I will bold it this time:
It is the similarity I find humorous, not his appearence.

The difference you insist on, while it exists, is as superficial as the humor itself. Comparative, but based on appearance nonetheless.

You know, I've only answered this for you aboutu 9 times now. I don't think repeating it again is going to help you.

So ... neutralize the disparagement or make it into something positive.

Or were you refering to the implies part?

Actually, the self-righteousness anger of your response is indicative of the problem. In perceiving the words, you turned around and assigned them the worst possible context:

A birth defect? The guy has a large forehead and you label it a birth defect? I see a guy that bares a resemblance to a cartoon character, but is nevertheless, a normal human being. You see someone that is defected, subhuman. Is that the nature of your compassion? To judge anyone that doesn't conform to your narrow view of what is 'normal' as defected? Look at your own words, and speak to me about the nature of your heart.
Why the implied insult? Because I find the picture comparison funny, I am suddenly the type of individual that would pick his nose, etc in public? Is that the view you have of those that disagree with you; Rude, crude individuals with little or no social skills?

No wonder your 'compassion' is so free flowing. You view the rest of the world, or more precisely those that don't share your views and general appearance, as being deformed, ignorant, stupid, uncouth, and miscreants. You look at society as being less than you are and thus worthy of your pity and compassion.

Frankly, I think the issue you raise is ridiculous. And the tantrum that goes with it ....

What disgusts you comes from within yourself--it is what you choose to assign to Orthogonal's character according to your own priorities.

Only if I throw out the posts leading up to Orthogonal's objection--essentially pretend they don't exist--does his consideration of the issue seem out-of-place. Only if I pretend your response to him doesn't exist, while also pretending that the posts leading up to his initial objection don't exist, can I start to see the issue you raise. Surprise me--show me some other way to get there.

I've presumed what to be positive? Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? By this logic, if I like cold weather I can't equally like hot weather.
Stop with all the resumptions please.

Er ... never mind.

Okay, anyway ... you suggested Orthogonal was oversensitive. You told him to lighten up. Again, you're like the dude on the barstool calling Joe a racist. Oh, wait, I don't want to be presumptive in any sense, do I? So ... how often do you go out of your way to defend something with no merit, or something that is negative?

Here, to save you some difficulty--which perception is based on your performance in the current topic--I'll even explain that question for you: Look up above at where I ask you the question, and ask yourself again, "Do you realize that what you objected to was an objection to exploitative humor?" Now, are you going to tell me at any point that you like defending negative things, things you think are wrong? More directly, are you going to tell me at some point that you intentionally attacked what you thought was the right thing, being Orthogonal and defended the wrong thing, e.g. exploitative humor? If the answer is, "No," then I think the point becomes fairly clear.

I mean, you're not going to say that Orthogonal is being oversensitive but humor based on appearance is wrong, are you?

Nor, in the new form (insensitivity), are you going to change that aspect from the oversensitivity argument, are you?

Does the humor become somehow wrong specifically because Orthogonal is insensitive as compared to being oversensitive? I don't think so; if the humor is right or wrong or a shade of gray, it is such regardless of whether or not anyone voices the objection.

Here, think of a simple difference:

• Does someone happen to look like a chicken? What is it about them that makes them look like a chicken? Is it really an appropriate source for humor? Would you teach children to laugh at someone whose appearance makes them look somewhat like a chicken?

• The other day on CNN they showed a picture of a guy being brought into court. He was the suspect in the "Chicken Suit" robbery, in which a guy dressed up in a chicken suit for a holdup. They showed his picture to specifically make a joke about the fact that he looked kind of like a chicken. And it was kind of funny. What makes this acceptable to me is that this guy chose that bleach job and haircut.

You fail to see the difference, so there is little i can do to help you.

You could try explaining the difference instead of just insisting on it.

Interesting answer. To bad it isn't to the question posed.

How so?

All I am looking for is simple answers. When I want a complex convoluted answer, I know who to turn to.

Sometimes the issues don't oblige your demand for simplicity.

Interesting tidbit.. thank you for sharing.

My pleasure. Although I admit that it kills me how little sh@t I get for that sort of stuff around here.

Wrong. Cruelty, in your oppinion , is the basis for this humor. I've not set out to defend cruelty in any way shape or form. You just want to see it that way.

Show it in a positive light, then. Or at least neutralize it. That's something that's lacking in the misdirected response, a neutralization of Orthogonal's issue.

Hey, man, you want to babble on about eric cartman, fine by me

All you have to say is that you don't watch the show, or haven't seen the episode.

And here I thought the reading bit was all about see what was actually there and not making wild acusations.
Silly me.

They're part of the same issue. And yes, silly you for not realizing that. The rush for a good line can be a detriment to the quality of the zinger. Such as the example you've provided.

In the meantime, apply my response that you've quoted in the context of your own ... example. (e.g. mankind)

And that applies to what I said how?

You're taking the wrong issue with "birth defect." And if you were taking the right issue, it would be such a small one that it really wouldn't be worth pursuing.

Personally, I could care less what you think me capable of.

Quite convenient. That explains why you don't bother showing much.

If you wish to not read what is written, see what isn't there, and fabricate shit, fine by me. Have fun.

This, from you?

Read his posts, T. It's all right there in black and white.

Make the case. That, in the end, is rather important to the discussion. For all your talk, you've never bothered to make the case.

Actually, I replied to it with two paragraphs. Condescending just a tad, don't you think?

No more or less condescending than your response.

It's there when you actually want to read it.

Where?

I'm well-known for causing useless friction now?

It's entirely possible that I'm thinking of someone else. But for some reason, the word "now" strikes me as extraneous.

Interesting. I can think of two threads that might make you say that. Other than that you have me stumped. Is that what this is all about? You still holding a grudge over that hater's thing?

Nope. My irritation with you at present has grown with this topic.

Tiassa, considering you have not had much experience with me or my issues, I cannot see where you have the ground to make such generalities. I also cannot see how your past dealing with orthogonal should color your oppinions here. Basically, you've just said you came in here with a bias towards one side of this argument, didn't fairly consider the side you opposed and did it just to start "useless friction".

Let's try to go in order there.

• not much experience with (Mephura's) issues - You should give better examples of yourself, then.
• past dealing with Orthogonal - It tells me a great deal about the interpretive issue you raised.
• bias - No, Mephura. I treat all people being as irrational and belligerent as you pretty much equally.
• useless friction - The history of this topic does not support that issue. After all, you chose to address me.

I've had no previous dealings with orthogonal.

And yet you chose the nastiest interpretation of his stance you could. Why?

So if your previous dealings are the only thing stopping you from reaching the same conslusion I have, I do not see your point.

It is statements like that which suggest so strongly that you're not really reading my posts, Mephura. I've explained that I find the use of the phrase "birth defect" to be within the context of the post, and therefore not offensive. And as I noted above--you chose the worst possible interpretation you could. What were the other cues? You haven't really provided them, have you? I mean, look at that string of assignations in your response to him: "You see," or, "You view," or "You look," or "You think," ad nauseam.

Great, now we know what you think. Beyond that, what is it worth?

I am basing my argument on what has been said in this thread and that alone.

Are we including in that your individual perspective or are you claiming outright objectivity?

Since you seem unable to do so, I will not bother replying to any further postings from you here.
It would be pointless.

Well, since you're not reading my posts, that's probably the better thing for you to do.

Actually, before this, I took you to be an intelligent person. That you were better read than I am was no question. I thought you to be a fairly open and considerate person, despite the one previous encounter I have had with you.
However, taking that you have admittedly entered into the discussion with a bias, sunk to petty insults, made arbitrary accusations, and generally attacked my intelligence with no real reason other than it's your style, I am force to reconsider that assessment of you.

You're welcome to do so, Mephura.

But why don't you try answering a question, for once? I mean ... just hang onto that for a second.

Whatever you say chief.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble, little brave, if you'd just tried paying attention to the posts you were responding to. I mean, look up just a little bit. "I am basing my argument on what has been said in this thread and that alone. Since you seem unable to do so, I will not bother replying to any further postings from you here." Since I seem unable to? Oh, poor you, Mephura. If you're going to base your actions on something so erroneous, enjoy. That you choose to ignore those aspects that pertain to this topic in making such a stupid declaration is your own problem. But just can the "poor me" bit.

whatever...
totally pointless.

You could have tried, at any point, to make your case. But you didn't seem interested in that, did you, Mephura?

Yup yup.. you got me pegged.

According to your pattern, it would appear that I do.

And more name calling..
Honest argument you say? I had one, captain bias.

What? What do you expect? Do you want me to pretend that your, "Thanks for your approval," response was genuine?

I can do that, but in that case, I would hold myself answered about how stupid you would like me to consider you.

I'm not going to try to show you anything tiassa.

That's been your problem in this topic ever since you chose to address me.

You only see what you want.

How would you know? It's not like you've actually been paying attention to my posts.

Of course! How could I have been so blind to my own intentions.

Cute. I never said you were.

Personally, I think you know exactly what you were up to from the word go. And you can feign innocence all you want, but your behavior in this topic is quite clear, starting with your "oversensitive/lighten up" post defending cruelty at the center of humor, and continuing with your assignation of the worst traits you could think of to Orthogonal, and onto your post addressing me. You could have started backing your accusations at any point, but chose not to.

I mean, really ... "more name calling"? You are a two-bit punk. If that somehow offends you, then perhaps you owe Orthogonal an apology for assigning horrible character traits to him. Poor you, right Mephura?

If you say so.

That's the spirit, especially for someone who's deliberately not paying attention.

Cute. Again, doesn't have any relevence to the conversation. It's only possible use could be as a personal jab.
Thanks.

Whatever you say, li'l brave.

Actually, I did. I read it before responding to you the last time.
Quite the arrogant accusation.

Well, you should have accounted for it in your responses at some point.

I don't really care.

I suspected that some time ago. It's been showing in your posts.