dressing up as Madeleine

abi2007 wrote: »

Exactly.. so lets drop the discussion about my sig and stick to the thread

Well no because you're missing my point. You think it's sick to joke about a child that was abducted but not about giving away a baby because you don't have the money. I don't find it offensive but many people might. I'm trying to show you how silly it is to call a joke sick because of your own personal taste. A joke is just a joke regardless of the subject matter

This thread - - - - -> Best thread ever. Carry on people.

abi2007 wrote: »

OMG I get you... give it a rest!

right so it's ok to joke about it

/thread

Is this the first thing the muppets get offended by in 2009? Bravo, lets see some petitions and and angry letters, let the fcukwittery commence.

abi2007 wrote: »

If you think it is then thats up to you.. I personally think its not.

Right so i'm off to report your sig for offending me

MagicMarker wrote: »

You make your girlfriend dress up as a little girl?

Dude, that's sick!! Like, OMG.

You think thats bad?
My gf makes me dress up as Maddie

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no, there is not a big difference. now we have the rules:

it has to not have actually happened
it's ok if it happened as long as it happened 22.3/22.5/50 to 100 years ago
it's ok as long as the person being joked about deserves it

you can come up with a million "reasons" why one thing is offensive and another thing isn't but those reasons only exist in your head. you found it offensive so now you're trying to think up differences to rationalise why your particular taste is the "right" one.

And you're trying to rationalize why your view that it's okay is the 'right' one.

The reasons only exist in my head and that's why it's offensive? Surely the reasons it's not offensive only exist in your head too? :pac:


I'm not saying my taste is 'right'- but I think it's fairly obvious that a guy who killed 6 million people is a little less defensible (and therefore more deserving to get the piss taken out of him), than an innocent four year old?

Can we agree on that?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

of course i'd be pissed off but i'd also acknowledge that it's a joke

edit: actually no i wouldn't be pissed off. i'd realise that it's human nature to make jokes about these things

Is it human nature? I don't know about that- some people find it funny , some don't. The old 'human nature' excuse doesn't wash with me, tbh.

So you wouldn't be a teeny bit annoyed that somebody thought it would be hilarious to take the piss out of the fact that your child is missing, and possibly dead?

You'd want to have the patience and understanding of a saint, and frankly, I'd commend anyone who would be that tolerant of such a thing.

However, clearly, the McCann's don't feel that way and I don't blame them.

So you wouldn't be a teeny bit annoyed that somebody thought it would be hilarious to take the piss out of the fact that your child is missing, and possibly dead?

Applying empathy to every joke like situation is going to be fun alright. Zzzzz.

Has it not crossed your mind that people read so much doom and gloom bull**** everyday that they like to make fun of everything and anything. Its a damn sight better than reading the news and acting like it was you who lost the people who died that day.

abi2007 wrote: »

I wouldn't give my daughter away.. it's true that i can't really afford her but if i did give her away.. to a good home that can it would be for her good. anyway this is not about my sig!

So some people choose to find good homes for their kids and others choose to "disappear" theirs. Whats the problem?


At the end of the day , a funny joke is a funny joke, whether its said the day after an event or 20 years later(assumign it hasnt been done to death by that stage)

useful_contacts wrote: »

, im talking about people making fun of a missing child that could still be alive

Theres optimism and theres belief to the point of lunacy. You sir may already be across the line.

abi2007 wrote: »

I'm ENTITLED to

I fcuking hate when people say that.

At least this thread was a break from the only other 2 topics currently on boards, "lets cannonise all members of Hamas" and "why I hate FF".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no i'm not. my view is that freedom of speech is absolute and people shouldn't be allowed give arbitrary rationalisations as to why people shouldn't say or do certain things that offend them

Eh, is it me or does something not quite add up there?

You're saying it's grand to make possibly offensive jokes, but saying that they're offensive is 'not allowed'?

You ( or anyone else) can make offensive jokes all you want. Just don't act surprised when people call you on them.

If you accept that it's your right to make the joke, the you should accept the responsibility that comes with it i.e. expect people to get p1ssed off.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

whether it's offensive or not doesn't come into my view, I'm simply saying he should be allowed do whatever he wants

Well, is it offensive or not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've given the impression that it's a-okay. I'm rather confused by your statement that ' whether it's offensive or not doesn't come into my view'. Surely that's the whole crux of the matter?

In any case,yeah, he can do what he wants. It's a free country. Is he being marched off to a gulag for what he did? No. He's just facing the back lash that comes with making such a joke. It comes back to the whole 'rights and responsibility' thing.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no, you see this is the fundamental difference. you say "it's fairly obvious". but that's what everyone says when they're trying to say that someone shouldn't do something that offends them. it's fairly obvious to you but not necessarily to your neighbour. what's "fairly obvious" changes by location and time. in some places a joke about a certain prophet gets you executed for example. when you start to curtail what people are allowed to say based on what certain people say is "fairly obvious" you start down a bad road imo

Let's make one thing clear- I never once said he shouldn't be allowed to do what he did. What I'm defending is the McCanns right to be offended.

You've nicely avoided my question there by going down the route of semantics.

I'll re-phrase the question then- who is more defensible, a murdering dictator or a four-year-old child? And who, therefore, is more deserving to be made fun of?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

every time a celebrity dies or something tragic happens, my inbox fills up with jokes about it, e.g. santa didn't come to the tsunami victims, he just gave them a wave. i got that joke within hours of the tsunami. people use humour to cope with tragic events. they always have and always will

Why would the people who send these messages need to 'cope with' a tragic event such as the tsunami? I'm guessing that it doesn't actually affect them- considering they still have a computer to send jokes like that.

I think it would be more accurate to say people will use cheap humor to get attention and for shock value. They always have and always will. If people find things like that funny, then fair enough. All I'm saying is people have a right to say they're offended by it.