Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on July 20, 2015, 03:23:37 PM
-
http://sircolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pastor-Priest-Rabbi.jpg
This one entitled 'A pastor, priest and rabbi walk into a bar ...'
-
"...what a marvellous way to build interfaith understanding. "
((c) Bernard Righton)
-
http://sircolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pastor-Priest-Rabbi.jpg
This one entitled 'A pastor, priest and rabbi walk into a bar ...'
Ye Gods and Little Fishes! Couldn't you find an older one than that?
Funny yonks ago, but a bit old hat now.
To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..
-
That's not really religious is it. I knew it as:
A man walked into a bar
"Ow!"
-
To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..
That only applies to jokes about Muslims. Hindus and Buddhists never did seem to be particularly joke-prone; whilst Christians - especially pastors - are quite happy to tell jokes at their own expense. The reason this particular one was deemed funny was because the artist is American and its an American site. I suppose I also found it humorous because I've never seen a visual representation of it. Its only ever been a verbal joke.
-
To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..
That only applies to jokes about Muslims. Hindus and Buddhists never did seem to be particularly joke-prone; whilst Christians - especially pastors - are quite happy to tell jokes at their own expense. The reason this particular one was deemed funny was because the artist is American and its an American site. I suppose I also found it humorous because I've never seen a visual representation of it. Its only ever been a verbal joke.
Fair enough.
However I would dispute your point about it only being Muslims who get offended.
I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.
The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.
-
I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.
And I wonder who developed this list? Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos? I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups. Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.
The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.
In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces? ;)
-
Did the lawyers compiling the list remember to exempt themselves? Probably could include them as politicians?
-
I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.
And I wonder who developed this list? Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos? I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups. Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.
I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians.
The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.
In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces? ;)
I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians. Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present
Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.
-
........
Matt, could you reformat this post so as to get the quoting correct. Its late at night and my brain isn't up to unscrambling the quoting errors. Thanks.
-
........
Matt, could you reformat this post so as to get the quoting correct. Its late at night and my brain isn't up to unscrambling the quoting errors. Thanks.
Can someone carrying less years and more brain cells than I please assist?
-
I believe it was meant to look like this:
I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.
And I wonder who developed this list? Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos? I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups. Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.
I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians.
The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.
In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces? ;)
Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present
Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.
-
I believe it was meant to look like this:
I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.
And I wonder who developed this list? Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos? I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups. Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.
I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians.
The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.
In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces? ;)
Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present
Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.
Thanks!
-
For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny! Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.
-
For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny! Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.
I disagree.
Humour is one of those things which is peculiarly personal; one person's humour is another's derision.
A friend of mine thinks that Roy 'Chubby' Brown is the greatest and funniest comedian ever. Personally I find his "humour" anything but humourous, like Frankie Boyle, relying almost totally of an obscenity every other word.
-
For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny! Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.
This seems to imply you believe in Objective Humour?
-
For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny! Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.
I disagree.
Humour is one of those things which is peculiarly personal; one person's humour is another's derision.
A friend of mine thinks that Roy 'Chubby' Brown is the greatest and funniest comedian ever. Personally I find his "humour" anything but humourous, like Frankie Boyle, relying almost totally of an obscenity every other word.
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
-
In fairness NS I find bashers one of the most amusing people on here.. especially when he's being serious ;)
-
In fairness NS I find bashers one of the most amusing people on here.. especially when he's being serious ;)
It must be hurting by now. Your tongue in your cheek, that is! ;)
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh. If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh. If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.
But funny is as already covered is subjective, and if I find something like the cartoons funny, then that is humour. Further cruel is subjective
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh. If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.
But funny is as already covered is subjective, and if I find something like the cartoons funny, then that is humour. Further cruel is subjective
Cruel is cruel! Unless the person/organisation, whatever, being satirised is in some way objectionable, then why be cruel? An example that springs to mind (for some reason) is the Duchess of Cornwall. She's not my kind of person, but some of the stuff aimed at her, is acutely unkind. We can all think of people who become the butt of unkind humour, euphamistically called satire.
-
And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.
-
And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.
I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh; but feel guilty about it. I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.
-
And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.
I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh; but feel guilty about it. I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.
I think the question of guilt should be balanced with whether the joke is 'speaking to power'. If the joke is made against those who have power, it isn't something to feel guilty about even if it is cruel. That said, the then become a a discussion about what power is and who holds it.
-
And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.
I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh; but feel guilty about it. I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.
I think the question of guilt should be balanced with whether the joke is 'speaking to power'. If the joke is made against those who have power, it isn't something to feel guilty about even if it is cruel. That said, the then become a a discussion about what power is and who holds it.
I think that's right: Government, politicians, Bankers, etc, are fair game; though mostly it is impersonal. When it comes to singly out individuals it is less clear.
-
I think that's right: Government, politicians, Bankers, etc, are fair game; though mostly it is impersonal. When it comes to singly out individuals it is less clear.
Yep, agree, but govt, bankers are individuals. If you just treat them as institutions then you end up tarring individuals who may not only have acted with propriety but fought with other members of such institutions to do so as if they had not.
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh. If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.
Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.
That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.
-
I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.
What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?
Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh. If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.
Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.
That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.
Spot on.
-
]Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.
That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.
Spot on.
So this is BA, Prof D and me agreeing! Beats the fact that yesterday I spent nearly all of it agreeing violently with cyberman
-
]Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.
That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.
Spot on.
So this is BA, Prof D and me agreeing! Beats the fact that yesterday I spent nearly all of it agreeing violently with cyberman
Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.
-
Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.
Oh agree - but I wasn't really thinking of the atheist/theist thing
-
Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.
Oh agree - but I wasn't really thinking of the atheist/theist thing
Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.
But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.
On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.
-
Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.
But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.
On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.
Indeed, as theists go I have previously noted my liking for BA's brand.
-
Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.
But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.
On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.
Indeed, as theists go I have previously noted my liking for BA's brand.
Agreed - could imagine sharing a beer with him ... not so some others here!
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
...too many beers?
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.
Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.
Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!
Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.
Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!
Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.
It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists". He has done this using humorously caricatured KJV OT language, "-ites" being a common suffix for groups of people therein.
Anyone could have figured that out, Matt. Even your wives.
-
And lo the theites were mightily relieved.
Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.
Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!
Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.
It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists". He has done this using humorously caricatured KJV OT language, "-ites" being a common suffix for groups of people therein.
Anyone could have figured that out, Matt. Even your wives.
Glad it is clear to you. Completely lost on the rest of us.
General tip - when making a post, best to make it understandable by everyone - even if people don't agree, at least understandable.
-
Completely lost on the rest of us.
The rest of us? Well, two of you anyway. And your companion is this quandary is not what you'd call an intellectual heavyweight, Prof.
-
Completely lost on the rest of us.
The rest of us? Well, two of you anyway. And your companion is this quandary is not what you'd call an intellectual heavyweight, Prof.
Nope - three people commented on the lack of clarity of the post. And it only seems to be you who appears to understand it.
-
It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists".
Did you actually read my earlier posts, where I clearly said I wasn't interested in the atheist/theist pigeonholing.
So my comment about BA seeming like a person I could share a beer with was about him as an individual, not him as one of a group of theists. And there are a good number of theists on here that I also say the same about. And also quite a few non theist that I couldn't imagine having a beer with (and some theists).
So get that chip off your shoulder and stop thinking that everyone pigeonholes by religious belief. Perhaps you do, but not everyone.
-
It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists".
Did you actually read my earlier posts, where I clearly said I wasn't interested in the atheist/theist pigeonholing.
So my comment about BA seeming like a person I could share a beer with was about him as an individual, not him as one of a group of theists. And there are a good number of theists on here that I also say the same about. And also quite a few non theist that I couldn't imagine having a beer with (and some theists).
So get that chip off your shoulder and stop thinking that everyone pigeonholes by religious belief. Perhaps you do, but not everyone.
It's not my chip or my shoulder, chum, so cool your jets. I was just explaining to you something someone else wrote.