ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th January 2019, 02:41 PM   #361
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
This is the point where Banquetbear made the error of thinking that because it included the AAA statement, that was all that was in the link.
...so here we are, days after I've dropped out of the conversation, finally getting around to answering the question that I asked you in this particular post:

Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...the Reason article cites the statement from the AAA, which I cited in my first link and I quoted in its entirety. I can't see what you are talking about. I might be missing it. Can you quote exactly what they said?
Was it really so hard for you to "copy and paste?"

Unfortunately for you the quote from the cite doesn't back up your position, and it validates my position. My question to you was:

Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...do you have a cite for the organizers stating the black and gay joke was why they asked Patel to leave the stage?
The snippet you quoted doesn't show this. This wasn't official comment from the organizers. The editorial comment from Reason states "The Spectator, though, lists one of the allegedly inappropriate jokes". "Lists one of" denotes more than one reason. Those additional reasons have been expanded on throughout the thread. The quote from the Spectator said that the AAA officials deemed it inappropriate: but it doesn't say that this was the reason why he was asked to leave the stage.

So I was correct in my initial appraisal of that particular citation. It didn't answer my question. If you had simply answered my request for a specific quote when I asked for it we could have reached this point days ago.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 02:43 PM   #362
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,199
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You're really out of the loop. The Federal Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario both passed laws making it mandatory that you use certain language when referring to gender.
Here's a good example of someone putting dogma over reason and evidence.

This just isn't true, but it's nevertheless circulated widely among the snowblowers.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 02:53 PM   #363
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
People bought tickets to see him. The organizers knew what he was going to be doing and yet they claim they didn't know. At best you can say they didn't do their due diligence.
I am not aware that the organizers claimed that so I cannot answer.

Quote:
That it is censorship.
You probably should look up what censorship is.

Quote:
there isn't outrage, there is faux outrage. SJWs decided that an anti-racist, anti-homophobe, joke was actually racist and homophobic. Now SJWs try to justify their actions by repeating the lies and ignoring evidence.
I need a source for that.

Quote:
If you are talking about unrelated things, say so. If you feel they are related, tie what you are saying to the incident under discussion.
If you are confused about the context of a comment you can find the original post that is being replied to: Search the quotes in the comments until you see one that contains the username and a little arrow beside it. Click on the arrow and it will take you to the original post.

Quote:
From the horse's mouth. The video! WATCH THE ******* video!
Is that the one with the bad audio? Cause that one's not very helpful to me.

Quote:
Then why sell tickets to his show? Why didn't they just say "Our special Asian this year is Nimesh Patel! You can see his videos on Youtube!
If you don't understand why people see live shows instead of watching youtube videos then don't go to live shows. No need to make an issue of it.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 03:17 PM   #364
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
I am not aware that the organizers claimed that so I cannot answer.
Well, you did warn us you were uninformed.

Quote:
You probably should look up what censorship is.
Here, I'll help you out:

Quote:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution
Censorship can be preventing someone from speaking, or preventing people from hearing the speech of others. This group of SJWs managed to do both.

Quote:
I need a source for that.
Admitting you are uninformed ceases to be an excuse as soon as you admit you are uninformed. From their it is incumbent on you to become informed on what has already been said and the evidence provided.

Quote:
If you are confused about the context of a comment you can find the original post that is being replied to: Search the quotes in the comments until you see one that contains the username and a little arrow beside it. Click on the arrow and it will take you to the original post.
I responded directly to your post but you said your statement had nothing to do with the incident so there isn't much point discussing it. Now you say I was mistaken and it has something to do with the incident so i will go back to my original point. The joke wasn't racist as you claimed.

Quote:
Is that the one with the bad audio? Cause that one's not very helpful to me.
Well, everyone else heard it just fine. Patel asks what she found offensive and she said "Your black/gay joke."

Quote:
If you don't understand why people see live shows instead of watching youtube videos then don't go to live shows. No need to make an issue of it.
Your the one who didn't seem to understand. You claimed the audience could have seen his jokes on Youtube. I agreed and asked why you thought they advertised that he would be doing his stand up routine live instead of just sending them to watch him on Youtube? Now you say you know why, so why?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 6th January 2019 at 03:21 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 03:46 PM   #365
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Well, I will try again. Maybe I was not clear.

Here are things I consider to be attempts at shutting down speech:
-Laws that punish certain speech.
-Terroristic acts to deter such speech
-Harrassment with the same aim
and certainly other things.
I would add stopping a performance and shutting off a microphone as a very literal way of shutting down speech. Note that I'm not saying they don't have a legal right to. What I'm saying is that young people in the 80's/90's made different choices about people who said controversial things.


Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Being asked to leave just does not seem to belong there. Free speech doesn't mean that you have a right to be listend to. It certainly does not mean that you have a right to be paid for it.
Another strawman. I never mentioned "free speech" and tried to avoid discussing how people often misinterpret it's meaning.

Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Is there a call for a boycott that I am not aware of?
Another non-sequitur I can't make any sense out of given the context.

Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
You mentioned that "college age people made champions out of Frank Zappa (PMRC) Howard Stern (FCC) who was repeatedly fined for indecency". AFAICT today they are more open to sexual matters than any previous generation. It looks to me like they continue to push the boundaries of acceptable decency.
I just don't see a shift.
Goal post changing/apples and oranges. Being more open in one area doesn't mean other areas haven't become closed. And this thread is not about the sexual openness of young people today.


Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
No. You have to sit through the entire show or else you are shutting down my speech. That I can appear in other venues make other posts is irrelevant for reasons that will not be spelled out.
Your example is quite ridiculous, as was the one you gave in another post equating throwing a book out to shutting down the press (?). Leaving a show you don't like is not shutting down anyone's speech, but cutting a microphone is - quite literally. Where did that example even come from?
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 04:09 PM   #366
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Well, you did warn us you were uninformed.
I am glad that you appreciate my honesty.

Quote:
Here, I'll help you out:

Censorship can be preventing someone from speaking, or preventing people from hearing the speech of others. This group of SJWs managed to do both.
No, you misunderstand. If someone throws a comedy CD in the trash, that's not censorship. Censorship is when someone seeks to suppress the texts on the CD in all its forms.
Likewise, when a teacher tells you not to talk in class, he is not censoring your speech. You can say what you have to say at any appropriate time. You just can't do it there and then.

Quote:
Admitting you are uninformed ceases to be an excuse as soon as you admit you are uninformed. From their it is incumbent on you to become informed on what has already been said and the evidence provided.
Well, I guess it's not worth bothering with. We can agree on that, at least.

Quote:
I responded directly to your post but you said your statement had nothing to do with the incident so there isn't much point discussing it. Now you say I was mistaken and it has something to do with the incident so i will go back to my original point. The joke wasn't racist as you claimed.
That's not what I said.

Quote:
Well, everyone else heard it just fine. Patel asks what she found offensive and she said "Your black/gay joke."
That's nice for everyone else. And you're saying she was lying then?

Quote:
Your the one who didn't seem to understand. You claimed the audience could have seen his jokes on Youtube. I agreed and asked why you thought they advertised that he would be doing his stand up routine live instead of just sending them to watch him on Youtube? Now you say you know why, so why?
Because it's fun. Have you ever bought something expensive just because it felt nice to own it? It's like that, just with people.
There isn't a rational way to explain it. Either you feel it or you don't. It's like trying to explain why being drunk feels nice.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 04:29 PM   #367
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
The term SJW may be new, but PC Culture is basically, the culture of Social Justice Warriors, and if Carlin were alive today, bits such as these would be addressed directly at SJW's:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Can you imagine the kids from Columbia hearing this bit? If they reacted so negatively to a progressive joke that is basically saying that being gay and black is tough in this society, they wouldn't last more than ten seconds of this Carlin bit before their brains just imploded.
What a funny bit. "Severe appearance deficits" He did leave off "vertically challenged", one of my favorites. PC culture is so amusing.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 04:40 PM   #368
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
I would add stopping a performance and shutting off a microphone as a very literal way of shutting down speech. Note that I'm not saying they don't have a legal right to. What I'm saying is that young people in the 80's/90's made different choices about people who said controversial things.
I'm trying to think of a way to determine that.
What I find is that in my life I have become much less willing to put up with people that give me grief. When I was a kid, a teen, I called people friends who I'd today just cut ruthlessly from my life.
You give a guy money to make you laugh. He annoys you and so you throw him out. Seems straightforward to me now but I am sure that I would have put up with it as a kid.

Quote:
Another strawman. I never mentioned "free speech" and tried to avoid discussing how people often misinterpret it's meaning.
Fair enough. that's my bad.

Quote:
Another non-sequitur I can't make any sense out of given the context.
If they called for a boycott of Patel, that would be an attempt to shut him down.

Quote:
Goal post changing/apples and oranges. Being more open in one area doesn't mean other areas haven't become closed. And this thread is not about the sexual openness of young people today.
Oh no! This one's not on me. Indecency is exactly what Howard Stern and Frank Zappe were about. That is exactly apples to apples.

Quote:
Your example is quite ridiculous, as was the one you gave in another post equating throwing a book out to shutting down the press (?). Leaving a show you don't like is not shutting down anyone's speech, but cutting a microphone is - quite literally. Where did that example even come from?
I thought that you were alleging that they were trying to censor him. Now I understand that you were complaining about them literally shutting him off.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 07:00 PM   #369
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
You give a guy money to make you laugh. He annoys you and so you throw him out. Seems straightforward to me now but I am sure that I would have put up with it as a kid.
There were many people in the audience. They all paid to listen to him. It seems like the best solution for those who were annoyed by him would be to leave, and let the others who weren't annoyed continue to hear the performance that they paid for.

The only reason not to do it that way is that they were also annoyed that other people were hearing it, in which case the only solution is to do as you say and throw him out.

If there were other sets with other performers left to come (from reading the thread I don't think there were, but I've only been skimming), then throwing him out might make sense as in that case leaving would mean both missing his performance and those others.

From all this I conclude that throwing him out was more about not wanting others to hear what he said than about individuals not wanting to listen to what he said.

This doesn't yet show that throwing him out was the wrong choice. I'm only trying to make clear that I disagree with the framing in what you wrote above.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 08:09 PM   #370
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
If they called for a boycott of Patel, that would be an attempt to shut him down.
Still don't get why a boycott was even brought up. They didn't name a battleship after him or build a statue either. Who cares about the stuff that didn't happen?

Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Oh no! This one's not on me. Indecency is exactly what Howard Stern and Frank Zappe were about. That is exactly apples to apples.
I disagree. Nitpicking about the reason they were fined/harassed/shut down/censored/whatever seem pointless and irrelevant.


Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
I thought that you were alleging that they were trying to censor him. Now I understand that you were complaining about them literally shutting him off.
Pointing something out is not the same as complaining. You're constant reframing of what I and other posters have said is tedious.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 08:12 PM   #371
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Because it's fun. Have you ever bought something expensive just because it felt nice to own it? It's like that, just with people.
There isn't a rational way to explain it. Either you feel it or you don't. It's like trying to explain why being drunk feels nice.
Except there were a lot of people who paid to have that fun and a couple of people (Organisers so we can be pretty sure they didn't pay.) decided no one was allowed to hear his jokes. That is classic censorship. There were as many articles written by people saying they were really enjoying themselves as there were people saying they weren't.

On another note: Do you suppose that the $4000.00 they claim to have made from the event was after they refunded the audiences money or before? Did they refund the money? Ethically they should have.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 10:13 PM   #372
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It isn't an argument so much as a counter argument to your claim tht rape jokes aren't funny in our society any longer. You don't know much about it but you make out like you're an expert.

What on Earth makes it appear as if I 'make out like I'm an expert'?! Anything at all? Or is it just you trying to come up with an actual argument but being unable to do so?
And when has a counter argument stopped being an argument?

Quote:
Yes.

Too bad for you.

Quote:
And further to your false claim about Carlin's jokes not being relevant: Carlin's videos get about 2 million views per year and he is still referenced by comedians and their audiences as one of the true kings of comedy. You assume it is only because they haven't listened to his rape jokes, I contend it is specifically because they have listened those jokes and realize he is a comedian telling jokes, not a condoner of rape. As reference: One of the top comedians today gets about 3 million views per year while lesser comedians get about 400 thousand views. Carlin seems to be relevant despite what you claim.

If you had read what I'm actually writing, you would have noticed that I'm talking about one Carlin joke, not all of them. I'm not even talking about all of Carlin's rape jokes. I'm talking about one specific joke, and I've mentioned which one in order to make it absolutely clear, but some people appear to be unable to see that. You are arguing against your own strawman.
Carlin's so-called relevance is irrelevant.

Quote:
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that anyone is suddenly going to become a rapist because they heard a George Carlin, or Jim Jeffries, joke. But there are stupid people and some did make that claim about Jefferies so he put a special disclaimer in his routine which made it even more hilarious.

Yes, of course there are stupid people, but it appears to be impossible for you to understand that there are also stupid jokes, which isn't very clever.
Who made that claim about Jefferies? Was it this one? Because what she appears to be saying is that Jim Jefferies' rape jokes promote misogynistic rape culture, and I think that she's probably right.

Quote:
In his opening sequence he claimed that when a man put his fingers inside the vagina of an unconscious woman it was not really rape. He said women should be flattered to have their drinks spiked and be sexually violated. He criticised the women who challenge his misogyny, calling them "uptight (insert expletive word for female genitalia here) who can't take a joke".

Jefferies then joked about fat women, lying women, ugly women, beautiful but boring women, dumb women, and made plenty of references to the different types of women he had had sex with. He also admitted that he'd like to have sex with a 16-year-old.
Stand-up comedian Jim Jefferies' misogynist jokes fall flat (Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, 2015)

One man feels the same way about Jim Jefferies' rape 'jokes':

Quote:
You made a number of jokes insinuating that women should consider it a “compliment” to be drugged and date-raped. You teased that it is “not good to rape often.” You said something to the effect that it didn’t really matter whether Bill Cosby raped 30 women or 50 women, because once he had raped over 30 his penalty would be the same, so he might as well “just go for it”.

A few times you inserted ‘disclaimers’ in which you explained that you are “just a comedian” and that your misogyny is simply a gag, a performance, implying that it’s all just for laughs. Nothing in your act, you say, should be interpreted as anything more than theatrical comedy. You stressed this repeatedly. Apparently you intend your audience to differentiate between your ‘serious’ disclaimers and your ‘innocent’ litany of rape jokes.
Open letter to Jim Jefferies (James Shelley, Dec. 17, 2015)

But at least Jefferies appears to be able to grow up and realize that you may get laughs from jokes that aren't actually funny. It's too late for Carlin, but it's not too late for you.

Quote:
“But there's definitely jokes that I did that I wouldn't do now. That's just maturity. I'm not an angry young man any more. You go through different phases in your life. All I ever wanted was to do the jokes that I thought were funny, and there's jokes that I look back on in specials and cringe at some of the material I did. But it's there, it exists, and people were laughing at it at the time and there's probably still some people who will laugh at it now.”
Jim Jefferies enjoys giving his guests just enough rope (Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 4, 2018)

I like the stuff I've seen Jefferies do on Comedy Central so far.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 09:02 AM   #373
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Yes, I am. But apparently you don't want to explain why you think the rape joke is hilarious.
Aahhh, once again the impulse to try to understand someone else's subjective perception. The same impulse that led you to want to know what makes people want to have sex with unwilling partners. Next thing, you'll be asking someone to explain to you why they like a particular type of food that you personally don't like. Good luck with that, buddy!
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 09:15 AM   #374
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,346
Once again, Ron Tomkins.
You get upset when people criticize unfunny rape jokes, and you get upset when people try to understand what goes on in the minds of rapists. I think I see a pattern ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 09:16 AM   #375
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Once again, Ron Tomkins.
You get upset when people criticize unfunny rape jokes, and you get upset when people try to understand what goes on in the minds of rapists. I think I see a pattern ...
I'm not upset. Bad attempt at armchair psychology noted
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 09:26 AM   #376
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,346
Yes, different people, different tastes, right RT?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Aahhh, once again the impulse to try to understand someone else's subjective perception. The same impulse that led you to want to know what makes people want to have sex with unwilling partners. Next thing, you'll be asking someone to explain to you why they like a particular type of food that you personally don't like. Good luck with that, buddy!

Some people like sex, some people like rape, and it's all just a difference of taste. Rape just tastes better to some people, right?
I don't really doubt where the impulse for that sad excuse for an explanation comes from.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 09:37 AM   #377
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Comedian's doing a set. The set is generally well-received, but he does tell one joke that gets mixed results. Some audience members like it, others do not. At this point, rather than allow the set to continue, and let the comedian kill or bomb in the time-honored way of live performances, the program organizers stop the set and dismiss the comedian.

The reason the organizers give for stopping the show is that the one joke was not just bad (i.e., not overwhelmingly funny to the entire audience), but that it was offensive - so offensive that the show could not be allowed to go on.

Their claim was disputed of course. Some of the dispute happened between the comedian and the organizers on stage, after the show had been stopped.

So that's the situation.

The main question is, were the show's organizers reasonable in stopping the show and dismissing the performer?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 10:21 AM   #378
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,082
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So that's the situation.
In your head maybe but that's not what happened that night.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 7th January 2019 at 02:03 PM.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 11:16 AM   #379
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
There were many people in the audience. They all paid to listen to him. It seems like the best solution for those who were annoyed by him would be to leave, and let the others who weren't annoyed continue to hear the performance that they paid for.
Sure, that's a reasonable opinion. However, the decision had to be made by people who were there and who had been entrusted to make the decision.

Quote:
The only reason not to do it that way is that they were also annoyed that other people were hearing it, in which case the only solution is to do as you say and throw him out.
It's certainly not the only reason. It doesn't take much creativity to come up with other reasons.
When the organizers threw him out he was arguing with an audience member that he had brought on stage. The most obvious explanation to me is that they wanted to shut down that argument.
They sided with the paying customer instead of with the paid employee. Welcome to the real world, Mr Patel.

Quote:
From all this I conclude that throwing him out was more about not wanting others to hear what he said than about individuals not wanting to listen to what he said.
We can rule this out with confidence.
Preventing others from hearing his jokes would require making youtube take him down and such things. Throwing him out does obviously not make the audience unhear the jokes.
They did not attempt to do what say, and so we should conclude that they did not intend to.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 11:31 AM   #380
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
In your head maybe but that's not what happened that night.
As far as I can tell, that's exactly what happened. What part did I get wrong?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 11:50 AM   #381
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
Still don't get why a boycott was even brought up. They didn't name a battleship after him or build a statue either. Who cares about the stuff that didn't happen?
I brought it up because I misunderstood what you were saying. It has nothing to do with what you were actually saying. My bad, let's move on.

Quote:
I disagree. Nitpicking about the reason they were fined/harassed/shut down/censored/whatever seem pointless and irrelevant.
Stop right there and put down those goal-posts.
Content certainly matters.
So kids supported Howard Stern who was censored for his indecency.
How would the same kids have reacted to members of the SA apartheid regime laying out their views? Possibly the support would have been more mixed?

Quote:
Pointing something out is not the same as complaining. You're constant reframing of what I and other posters have said is tedious.
I don't know what I can possibly do about that. I do my best to be polite and ask questions where opinions don't seem to make sense. I admit where I misunderstand something. What more can I do? I am open to suggestions on how I can communicate better.
I assume that the answer is not to mock you as a snow-flake or tell you that you don't know the real world.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 12:19 PM   #382
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Stop right there and put down those goal-posts.
Content certainly matters.
So kids supported Howard Stern who was censored for his indecency.
How would the same kids have reacted to members of the SA apartheid regime laying out their views? Possibly the support would have been more mixed?
You're the one moving goal posts. How is the SA apartheid regime relevant in this thread in any way? Are you comparing Nimesh Patel's set to them? Lenny Bruce, Frank Zappa, Howard Stern, etc are/were entertainers who got in trouble for things they said publicly. That's the parallel. Your false parallels are not useful, as are your reframing, transference, confirmation bias and strawmen in your posts in this thread.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 01:33 PM   #383
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
You're the one moving goal posts. How is the SA apartheid regime relevant in this thread in any way? Are you comparing Nimesh Patel's set to them? Lenny Bruce, Frank Zappa, Howard Stern, etc are/were entertainers who got in trouble for things they said publicly. That's the parallel.
Being against the apartheid regime was a big political issue in 1980ies USA. You were talking about attitudes of college age kids at that time.
I see a direct line between the anti-apartheid activism of that time and the anti-racism of today.
I also see a direct line between the supposed indecency of people like Howard Stern and ,say, pornhub today. That's not to say that Howard Stern has anything to do with pornhub. It's to say that if the FCC had jurisdiction over pornhub they would fine it into oblivion just like they fined Howard Stern.

I am explaining here why I do not see a big shift in attitudes. For many decades college people have been more sexually liberal than the general population. That is still the case.
Also for many decades, the same college people have been more anti-racist than the general population. That is still the case.

I am not making a comparison between Mr Patel and any member of the apartheid regime. I am talking about the shift in attitudes among college age people that you perceive. I do not believe that such a shift happened.

Quote:
Your false parallels are not useful, as are your reframing, transference, confirmation bias and strawmen in your posts in this thread.
Use arguments, not accusations.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 01:34 PM   #384
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Some people like sex, some people like rape, and it's all just a difference of taste. Rape just tastes better to some people, right?
I dated a woman, dated her twice actually, who was completely into being raped. And I don't mean the "tie her up with a silk scarve and pleasure her" rape, I mean the "duct tape her up, beat her, choke her into unconsciousness" kind.

Not my bag and my mistake was thinking great sex every night with multiple orgasms would satisfy her. It did briefly but she was soon back to begging for the rapongs.

By your standards, not only is she a misogynist she is also a creator of rapists! She had three children, two male, one female. I suppose you think that at least tge boys are rapists and the girl a probable rape creator in her own right.

The joke is funny because it is predicated on older women's tendency to complain that men are only interested in youth. From there it's funny on several levels; rapists not getting the memo, older women not happy about that kind of equality, etc.

Maybe not your taste, and not Carlin's best, but it is a well crafted joke.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 01:42 PM   #385
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by dann View Post
What on Earth makes it appear as if I 'make out like I'm an expert'?! Anything at all? Or is it just you trying to come up with an actual argument but being unable to do so?
And when has a counter argument stopped being an argument?




Too bad for you.




If you had read what I'm actually writing, you would have noticed that I'm talking about one Carlin joke, not all of them. I'm not even talking about all of Carlin's rape jokes. I'm talking about one specific joke, and I've mentioned which one in order to make it absolutely clear, but some people appear to be unable to see that. You are arguing against your own strawman.
Carlin's so-called relevance is irrelevant.




Yes, of course there are stupid people, but it appears to be impossible for you to understand that there are also stupid jokes, which isn't very clever.
Who made that claim about Jefferies? Was it this one? Because what she appears to be saying is that Jim Jefferies' rape jokes promote misogynistic rape culture, and I think that she's probably right.




One man feels the same way about Jim Jefferies' rape 'jokes':




But at least Jefferies appears to be able to grow up and realize that you may get laughs from jokes that aren't actually funny. It's too late for Carlin, but it's not too late for you.




I like the stuff I've seen Jefferies do on Comedy Central so far.
So you think Jefferies was talking about material he did in 2016-2017 as his "earlier" material that he aged out of and not the stuff he did when he first got into comedy?The rape joke segment I posted was from 2016.

I think you are dreaming.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 03:29 PM   #386
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Being against the apartheid regime was a big political issue in 1980ies USA. You were talking about attitudes of college age kids at that time.
I see a direct line between the anti-apartheid activism of that time and the anti-racism of today.
I also see a direct line between the supposed indecency of people like Howard Stern and ,say, pornhub today. That's not to say that Howard Stern has anything to do with pornhub. It's to say that if the FCC had jurisdiction over pornhub they would fine it into oblivion just like they fined Howard Stern.

I am explaining here why I do not see a big shift in attitudes. For many decades college people have been more sexually liberal than the general population. That is still the case.
Also for many decades, the same college people have been more anti-racist than the general population. That is still the case.

I am not making a comparison between Mr Patel and any member of the apartheid regime. I am talking about the shift in attitudes among college age people that you perceive. I do not believe that such a shift happened.


Use arguments, not accusations.
My argument is that you use many logical fallacies including strawmen, negative reframing, transference and now conflation in your posts. I agree to disagree with you on based on this. Thank you for your time but I am finished.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 03:48 PM   #387
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Sure, that's a reasonable opinion. However, the decision had to be made by people who were there and who had been entrusted to make the decision.
Yes, that decision had to be made by each individual, and most of them decided to stay and watch the show, as far as I can tell. There was no necessity for anyone else to make it for them.


Quote:
It's certainly not the only reason. It doesn't take much creativity to come up with other reasons.
Perhaps I lack your creativity, but maybe you can share?

Quote:
When the organizers threw him out he was arguing with an audience member that he had brought on stage. The most obvious explanation to me is that they wanted to shut down that argument.
Once again, there was no need to do so. The audience member could have simply left. The other audience members, had they not wanted to participate in that, could have left.

Again, the only thing that differentiates the choice to either simply make the personal decision to leave and the decision to stop the show is the effect it has on the rest of the audience.

Quote:
They sided with the paying customer instead of with the paid employee. Welcome to the real world, Mr Patel.
And against all of the paying customers who were denied the rest of his show, which they had paid for.

If 10 people are having dinner at your restaurant and 5 of them don't like it, you can go in and tell them that the restaurant is closed and start taking the food off the table, but you can also just let the individuals decide whether or not they want to eat your possibly not very good food. It seems to me that you're not doing your customers a service by denying them that choice.


Quote:
We can rule this out with confidence.
Preventing others from hearing his jokes would require making youtube take him down and such things. Throwing him out does obviously not make the audience unhear the jokes.
They did not attempt to do what say, and so we should conclude that they did not intend to.
Preventing the rest of the audience who were there on that night from hearing the rest of his his set may not be the same as preventing anyone from ever hearing another joke by him, but it's still preventing others from hearing his jokes.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 04:17 PM   #388
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
And against all of the paying customers who were denied the rest of his show, which they had paid for.
...we haven't heard a single story from a single audience member complaining that they "didn't get what they paid for", and I'm sure if they did then they would have gotten a refund. It wasn't just about Patel. It was a cultural festival that provided "platform for a diversity of Asian American artistic expression", and featured "dinner, fashion show, and performances from groups both on and off campus." At $10 dollars per head, even with an abbreviated headline act I don't think its unfair to say that everyone who attended "got their money's worth."

So lets stop worrying about something that nobody that was actually there is complaining about.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 04:28 PM   #389
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
My argument is that you use many logical fallacies including strawmen, negative reframing, transference and now conflation in your posts.
No, I'm afraid that's just an assertion.
To make an argument you have to present facts and then show how your conclusions logically folows:
EG: You have not presented any justification for your accusations, therefore you are not making an argument.

Quote:
I agree to disagree with you on based on this. Thank you for your time but I am finished.
No problem. When you feel stronger and ready to argue with for a more mature argument you can always come back.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 04:49 PM   #390
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The main question is, were the show's organizers reasonable in stopping the show and dismissing the performer?
The venue can stop the show and dismiss any performer it wants, for any reason.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 04:54 PM   #391
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The venue can stop the show and dismiss any performer it wants, for any reason.
You can answer my question any way you want, but not all possible answers are reasonable. For example: The answer you chose to give. Not reasonable.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 04:56 PM   #392
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
No, I'm afraid that's just an assertion.
To make an argument you have to present facts and then show how your conclusions logically folows:
EG: You have not presented any justification for your accusations, therefore you are not making an argument.


No problem. When you feel stronger and ready to argue with for a more mature argument you can always come back.
So much for you pretending to be civil and not a troll. I don't post on a forum for critical thinking to spend time on someone who won't/can't filter out their own logical fallacies. You can have the last word if you like.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 05:16 PM   #393
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You can answer my question any way you want, but not all possible answers are reasonable. For example: The answer you chose to give. Not reasonable.
Why not? Do you disagree that the venue can stop the show and dismiss the performer for any reason?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 05:32 PM   #394
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yes, that decision had to be made by each individual, and most of them decided to stay and watch the show, as far as I can tell. There was no necessity for anyone else to make it for them.

[paragraph moved*]

Once again, there was no need to do so. The audience member could have simply left. The other audience members, had they not wanted to participate in that, could have left.

Again, the only thing that differentiates the choice to either simply make the personal decision to leave and the decision to stop the show is the effect it has on the rest of the audience.

And against all of the paying customers who were denied the rest of his show, which they had paid for.

If 10 people are having dinner at your restaurant and 5 of them don't like it, you can go in and tell them that the restaurant is closed and start taking the food off the table, but you can also just let the individuals decide whether or not they want to eat your possibly not very good food. It seems to me that you're not doing your customers a service by denying them that choice.
The audience members had paid for a certain experience and implicitly trusted the organizers to deliver that experience. They decided that removing Patel was in the interest of delivering that experience.

You're saying how you would have handled a comedy show. I see nothing wrong with how you would have handled it. It seems like a good way. But the fact is that you were not entrusted to do so. The audience did not pay for you to make the decisions.

I heard Patel tell his side of the story on Rogan's show. I did come away with the impression that Patel had been rude to the audience. I have since googled the students' side of the story and find that they tell basically the same story. I don't think PC played a strong role in the decision. I also think that many critics of this decision are not at all interested in free expression (based on the comments at reason.com)

Quote:
[*moved paragraph]Perhaps I lack your creativity, but maybe you can share?
I already gave you the one I found most plausible: That he was being a dick on stage.

But suppose that the organizers wanted to present a show that strictly followed certain guidelines. Let's say they really wanted to put on a fully PC show.
In that case the organizers would have had a duty to remove any performer not following these guidelines.

That's basically what happens in Disneyworld. Many who come there would be outraged if a disney character told a dirty joke. They expect a conservative safe space and are implicitly paying for that.

Putting together such a festival is an exercise in freedom of expression. If they cannot enforce the necessary rules then that freedom is denied.
The perfomer can give his performance elsewhere. (Ok, that may not be true for Disneyworld performers but it's certainly true for Patel.)

That's freedom. The organizers are free to provide such an experience. The audience is free to pay for it or not. The employees are free to follow the guidelines or seek other employment.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 05:33 PM   #395
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
So much for you pretending to be civil and not a troll. I don't post on a forum for critical thinking to spend time on someone who won't/can't filter out their own logical fallacies. You can have the last word if you like.
I tried to imitate Patel's closing words. I think he was quite rude and condescending. I guess I made that point.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 05:36 PM   #396
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why not? Do you disagree that the venue can stop the show and dismiss the performer for any reason?
It doesn't answer my question. It answers a question nobody is asking. It resolves a matter not in dispute. The only way to make your answer more unreasonable would be if you insisted on pressing it. Which you have.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 05:44 PM   #397
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It doesn't answer my question. It answers a question nobody is asking. It resolves a matter not in dispute. The only way to make your answer more unreasonable would be if you insisted on pressing it. Which you have.
Then let me rephrase. I think that it is reasonable for the venue to be able to stop any act and dismiss any performer for any reason.

I had assumed that you would be able to read that meaning from what I wrote, but I guess not. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. Now, again, do you disagree?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 06:11 PM   #398
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
To make an argument you have to present facts and then show how your conclusions logically folows:
The hypocrisy of your statement is glaring. You made many claims that are directly contrary to the evidence and jumped to conclusions based on evidence you made up.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 06:14 PM   #399
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,129
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Then let me rephrase. I think that it is reasonable for the venue to be able to stop any act and dismiss any performer for any reason.

I had assumed that you would be able to read that meaning from what I wrote, but I guess not. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. Now, again, do you disagree?
I disagree for all the reasons I have mentioned throughout this thread. However, this is even more egregious because they interrupted the show they hired him to do.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 06:18 PM   #400
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I disagree for all the reasons I have mentioned throughout this thread. However, this is even more egregious because they interrupted the show they hired him to do.
You don't think a venue gets to decide whether to let someone continue a show or not?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.