Originally posted by ColettiCome on, Coletti, that's nonsense. Christians are as free to express their opinions here as anyone. In fact if christians didn't come around and start spouting all kinds of crazy talk, then who would I have to argue with? That's why I spend more time posting here than I do on the agnostic/atheist forum at about.com, because it's more fun to argue with christians than it is to talk to a bunch of atheists who already agree with me. When I talk about christians pushing their religion on people, I'm talking about maintaining the seperation of church and state, and not whether you make some loony posts about creationism.
Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! rwingett, it you had your way, only atheists would be allowed to express their opinions. Mention God and suddenly it's - don't push you religion on me you intolerant holy roller! Give me a break!
Have a happy day! 🙂
Originally posted by rwingettI take it back then. I have to say I feel the same about atheists. Life would not be as fun without them.
Come on, Coletti, that's nonsense. Christians are as free to express their opinions here as anyone. In fact if christians didn't come around and start spouting all kinds of crazy talk, then who would I have to argue with? That's why I s ...[text shortened]... ate, and not whether you make some loony posts about creationism.
Originally posted by Asher123Humor is strange.
here we go - a toned down version of the passion for those of us with delicate souls:
http://hosted.tribalwar.com/musashi/passion.html
I heard an interview with the directors of Dumb-n-Dumber. They were talking about one scene in the movie that they made a minor fix to after showing it to a test audience.
It's the scene where one of the guys gets into a snowball fight with the attractive lead female. In his excitement, he smacks her with a snowball knocking her off her feet. The audience laughs. 😀
Then she gets up and there's a trickle of blood from her nose, and the audience goes silent. It's not funny any more. 😳
So they use some special effects to remove the blood, and suddenly the scene is funny again. 😀
A quick example of pure brilliant humour.
Watched Letterman today and saw this boy who's apparently now reached celebrity status in the USA.
In a speach by G.W. Bush, many children were invited and this particular child was standing at the front of a crowd behind Bush whilst Bush was making the speech. Anyway, he yawned about 4 times, shuffled his pants, cracked his neck and generally just fell asleep. Possibly one of the most funniest (and innocent) things I have seen in ages.
http://www.theindychannel.com/entertainment/2969461/detail.html
If anyone knows if there exists a clip, I'd love to see it again.
OK, yesterday was a bad day and my posts were narrow. I'm not saying I was in any way wrong, just unyeilding. Of course we need to use empathy when making jokes in an attempt not to offend people, and some cases like 9/11 and the Madrid bombings are pretty clear cut. But JC's life/death isn't. It happened 2000 years ago, so it's pretty unlikely he's got any close relatives around to be upset, just a bunch of guys who say they know him. Are you trying to tell me you've never laughed at a Budda/Ghandi/Harri Crishner joke? So why, just because this subject is personal to you should it be taboo?
Difference is that 9//11, Spain, or crucifixion jokes are about tragic events. Same goes for serious or other harming disabilities. You know what, When in a room with a blind guy, the last joke I'll make is one about "a blind guy walks into a bar". Simply because it is disrespectfull.
You're on a public forum where everyone will read your post. We have all built up some sort of resistan ...[text shortened]... and you probably didn't know any of them, but does that give you reason to make fun of them ?
[/b]
You seem to have totally missed the point that the clip was a parody of the film, not of Jesus' death, showing that it was mostly whipping and Jew laughing and not much else. Shouldn't you be getting upset that JC's death has been used to make Hollywood bucks, or is it OK because this depiction was to your liking, despite the fact that it was 95% made up (there is no where near enough detail in the Bible or other historical records on this portion of JC's life to fill 90 minutes)?
My point is, what should be taboo subjects for jokes. Most jokes are making fun of people whether they suffered mentally or emotionally or physically, or it'll just put them down. Should people not tell blond jokes, because there are probably as many blonds in the audience as Christians?! If you ban them all then we have no jokes, and who are you to be the judge of what's allowed or not?
nb. your post about the child falling asleep behind Bush is laughing directly at Bush and the fact taht this makes him look boring. This probably hurts the feeling of him and his script writers. He's a great man who suffers greatly in an attempt to better this misserable world andnall you can do is poke fun and belittle his efforts. I object and demand you appologuise.
Of course if you've read my opinion on Bush you know it's not my opinion, but I bet it's someones. I still want to hear your torrade of jokes that couldn't offend anyone. And I am emphasising joke here. something that would make someone older than 8 laugh.
Originally posted by pcaspianit isn't as far as i'm concerned.
Tell me, why is it acceptable here to poke fun of the death and suffering of someone ?
[/b]
the original movie was presumably not a joke at all, but the revelation of a very barbaric event.
if the parody is about the film-making or the directorship, that is one thing.
however, to make a joke about torture and death seems to me to be insensitive and inappropriate.
perhaps we could use a little less tolerance and a lot more understanding.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by belgianfreakTried reading a student rag mag recently? It reminds me of an old Viz/Student Grant joke : we had to take out all the racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, weight-ist and funny jokes.
I still want to hear your torrade of jokes that couldn't offend anyone. And I am emphasising joke here. something that would make someone older than 8 laugh.
As for a non-offensive jokes. Someone at Uni once claimed that all jokes were funny because we were laughing at the expense of someone. I thought for a while and related this joke (admittedly, only people of 8 years old and myself might find it funny):
Q: What's yellow and white and goes at 125mph?
A: A train driver's egg sandwich.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
OK, yesterday was a bad day and my posts were narrow. I'm not saying I was in any way wrong, just unyeilding. Of course we need to use empathy when making jokes in an attempt not to offend people, and some cases like 9/11 and the Madrid bombings are pretty clear cut. But JC's life/death isn't. It happened 2000 years ago, so it's pretty unlikely he's got any close relatives around to be upset, just a bunch of guys who say they know him. Are you trying to tell me you've never laughed at a Budda/Ghandi/Harri Crishner joke? So why, just because this subject is personal to you should it be taboo?
Simply respect. Firstly I actually I don't think I have heard any Budda/Ghandi jokes. And should there exists any on this forum, I would be pretty hesitant to make such jokes. In the same way when surrounded by Scotts, I will act fairly respectfull towards their memory of William Wallace. Now should you choose to make a comical joke about Jesus, the Pope and Mohammed, where you do not actually make any of them 'look' stupid ... up to you, however there is actually nothing amusing to Christians about Jesus's crucifixion itself. That is indeed the focal point of Christianity. Thus the death and torture of Jesus is still pretty pertinant today.
You seem to have totally missed the point that the clip was a parody of the film, not of Jesus' death, showing that it was mostly whipping and Jew laughing and not much else.
I fully realise it was a pardody of the film , yet its just too close to the real thing to be making fun at. The parody is of a sincere effort to portray the crucifixion of Christ.
Shouldn't you be getting upset that JC's death has been used to make Hollywood bucks, or is it OK because this depiction was to your liking, despite the fact that it was 95% made up (there is no where near enough detail in the Bible or other historical records on this portion of JC's life to fill 90 minutes)?
95% made up ? Have you even seen the film and compared with the scriptures or you just going by certain reviews ? PS: Gibson made the film knowing full well it could cost him his career. Why do you think so many distributors passed up on the film until eventually Icon picked it up ?
Should people not tell blond jokes, because there are probably as many blonds in the audience as Christians?! If you ban them all then we have no jokes, and who are you to be the judge of what's allowed or not?
Blond jokes deal with suffering/death ?
Who am I the judge ? You suggesting people should simply sit down and shut up when they are offended by someone else's actions ? I am not being 'overly sensitive' here Belgium. I'm speaking up against humour based on death and suffering. If Darwin suffered from terminal cancer and Christian's tried to make fun of this, I would do exactly the same.
nb. your post about the child falling asleep behind Bush is laughing directly at Bush and the fact taht this makes him look boring. This probably hurts the feeling of him and his script writers. He's a great man who suffers greatly in an attempt to better this misserable world andnall you can do is poke fun and belittle his efforts. I object and demand you appologuise.
Actually Bush wrote a letter to the child and joked with him about the incident. The child brought the letter in to Letterman. The childs lack of sleep the night before and the 'hot auditorium' , not Bush's speech, caused the child to be tired 🙂
cheers
Simply respect. Firstly I actually I don't think I have heard any Budda/Ghandi jokes. And should there exists any on this forum, I would be pretty hesitant to make such jokes.
I notice you ommitted Harri Chrishner (sp?) from this list. Would you feel free to laugh at them because they are not one of the big 5? How about the Pagans and Wicans who were riduculted in these forums last week, did you spring to their aid?
In the same way when surrounded by Scotts, I will act fairly respectfull towards their memory of William Wallace.
you've already stated, this is an international forum with potentially any and all ethnic and racial groups represented. So there'll be no picking on any of them form now on???
Now should you choose to make a comical joke about Jesus, the Pope and Mohammed, where you do not actually make any of them 'look' stupid ... up to you,
so now the rules are no jokes about no pain, suffering, or making religous leaders look bad? Keep that censorship rolling.
I fully realise it was a pardody of the film , yet its just too close to the real thing to be making fun at. The parody is of a sincere effort to portray the crucifixion of Christ.
you can't have your cake and eat it. If you agree to having something deep and personaly thrust into the world view don't be supprised if some people don't treat it with the respect you think it deserves
95% made up ? Have you even seen the film and compared with the scriptures or you just going by certain reviews
seriously, are you telling me that the entire dialogue is from scripture? How about all the characters? How about all their actions? Now I won't know the Bible as well as you, but what I saw was the central dialogue & events from the Bible will a lot of embelishment to pad it.
Blond jokes deal with suffering/death ?
so any joke is OK, no matter how much is offends someone, as long as it doesn't deal with daeath, or suffering, or make a religeous leader look bad... where do you make the divide?
I'm speaking up against humour based on death and suffering. If Darwin suffered from terminal cancer and Christian's tried to make fun of this, I would do exactly the same.
you've already admitted that the parady was of the film not of JC's death. If someone made a film of Darwins death that overemphasised him coughing up blood all the way through the film I'd expect the parody to have his character coughing up stupid amounts of blood constantly. It wouldn't be laughing at his death, rather at the films portayal of it.
Who am I the judge ? You suggesting people should simply sit down and shut up when they are offended by someone else's actions ? I am not being 'overly sensitive' here Belgium.
Of course people should have respect for others and moderate their jokes. If something offends you then say so, but also with respect. I was offended ny the way you jumped on someone who posted what he (and many others) thought of as a funny link.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your inoffensive joke.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
I notice you ommitted Harri Chrishner (sp?) from this list. Would you feel free to laugh at them because they are not one of the big 5? How about the Pagans and Wicans who were riduculted in these forums last week, did you spring to their aid?
You're nit picking.. Having a bad day again ?
Harri-Chrishners included. And should someone make fun of a Pagan's suffering, my stance would be the same. I happened not to have read that redicule last week.
you've already stated, this is an international forum with potentially any and all ethnic and racial groups represented. So there'll be no picking on any of them form now on???
Start reading my threads properly. Making fun of the death of a martyr, William Wallace, or what he achieved will be disrespectfull. Seeing as this is an international forum, indeed it should not be made fun at.
so now the rules are no jokes about no pain, suffering, or making religous leaders look bad? Keep that censorship rolling.
Did I say that ? If your joke will offend someone's belief system, perhaps you should re-evaluate whether you should make that joke. That stands for all cases. If however you believe a person will be able to see the funny side of it and not be offended on these forums , make the joke. You are a sad case for evolution if you believe everyone will be ok with a 'black' joke in a bar in Harlem. Use just a little common sense.
you can't have your cake and eat it. If you agree to having something deep and personaly thrust into the world view don't be supprised if some people don't treat it with the respect you think it deserves
1. I can have my cake and eat it. Why wouldnt I be able to ?
2. The parody was insulting and concerned the suffering of a man, well respected by a great percentage of the population. If you are unable to realise how that could possibly be a 'no go' area in a public forum, well then I fail to see why you consider Spain or 9/11 as faux pas.
seriously, are you telling me that the entire dialogue is from scripture? How about all the characters? How about all their actions? Now I won't know the Bible as well as you, but what I saw was the central dialogue & events from the Bible will a lot of embelishment to pad it.
So did you actually see the movie of not ? How can you claim 95% is made up, yet you havent even read the scripts that it is based on ? Curious... why do you think Jesus was unable to carry the cross all the way ? Perhaps because he was so badly flogged ?
so any joke is OK, no matter how much is offends someone, as long as it doesn't deal with daeath, or suffering, or make a religeous leader look bad... where do you make the divide?
Ofcourse not. You know I didn't state that. When you offend someone, you should appologise. I don't make sexists jokes infront of a feminist, or dumb blond joes infront of a blond, unlessI know for sure they will be ok with it. Use your common sense to determine who your targer audience is and how they might react to your humour. The difference when making jokes about suffering is that your target audience (especially in a public forum) could very well be offended. If you want to tell 9/11 or spain jokes to someone that will not mind, feel free. Just imagine how you would feel if I make fun of your father's death (or some relative) with you sitting in the crowd.
you've already admitted that the parady was of the film not of JC's death. If someone made a film of Darwins death that overemphasised him coughing up blood all the way through the film I'd expect the parody to have his character coughing up stupid amounts of blood constantly. It wouldn't be laughing at his death, rather at the films portayal of it.
1. your opinion of the Passion of the Christ and Jesus's crucifiction is not the same as my opinion on it. Just because you do not agree with that interpretation, does not give you the right to thus make fun of it. You think just because I didn't agree with the movie "Amistad", it now gives me the right to create a parody where slaves are thrown by the hundreds in the Atlantic ? Or whipped by their masters over and over? Look, this actually happened and no parody of slaves being tortured and killed is funny, or is it ?
Of course people should have respect for others and moderate their jokes. If something offends you then say so, but also with respect. I was offended ny the way you jumped on someone who posted what he (and many others) thought of as a funny link.
Curious, does that logic (many thought is was funny) also hold for me posting thus a link to a racist joke ? IE: A flash movie where african slaves get dumped in the atlantic, ofcourse with my excuse being the movie Amistad) ?
Lets put it this way. Someone makes a movie about people stuck in the twin towers, call it "09.11". Ofcourse it is dramatised as we have no real recorded convestions of it. People jump off the buildings and fall to the ground. If you do not agree that this movie was good enough or accurate enough for you, does that give you ground to make a parody about this movie ? Should we expect family members, of the deceased to thus not be offended by this parody as its "making fun of the movie.. not the events" ? Indeed should we be offended by the family members outrage over this parody ?
I want an answer here btw, please dont ignore the question.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your inoffensive joke.
Visualise this.. but its one of my all time favourites.
A hungry newly hatched, flat-mouthed frog starts his little adventure in life and comes across a funny looking big animal and asks "Hi, what are you and what do you eay ?". The animal replies, "I am a horse and I eat hay".
So the flat-mouthed frog sais "Hmm" and walks on.
He gets to another funny looking animal with a fuzzy tail and asks is "Hi, what are you and what do you eat ?" and the animal replies "I am a squirrel, and I eat nuts".
Again the flat mouthed toad sais "Hmm" and walks on.
Finally the little flat-mouthed frog comes to a big animal with funny arms and sais ""Hi, what are you and what do you eat ?" and the animal replies "I am a stork, and I eat flat-mouthed frogs"
So the flat-mouthed frog sais "Oooooh"
PS: We really need a preview button for these posts. 😉
