How to FUCK a STRIPPER & Still Have Money Left In Your Pocket

[z/m(Ret)]

So ..BD and JC..enjoy it ..its funny for you... , and others too...if that`s what you like...but don`t start bashing us who go against this , because it is our nature

With all due respect, I think you and Techman are missing the point. First, to recognize that something said was meant for humour doesn't necessarly qualify it as "funny" and even less as "harmless humour". People like Andrew Dice Clay make ("made" in ADC's case) a good living from derogatory humour, sadly. This kind of humour exists, regretfully, and is celebrated by a large segment of people I would be tempted to describe here but won't, for fear of uttering stereotypes.

Secondly, the point of contemption is not whether or not the seminal post of this thread is funny or not. As I can see, we all pretty much agree that this is one more sample of low-life humour, filled with stereotypes and suggestions of women being nothing more than a physiological outlet. The point of contemption would be of a different nature - "freedom of speech" - and in this view, it was pointed out quite correctly that freedom of speech provides ill-intentioned people, idiots and their followers with a convenient tribune where they can utter their crap. Still, where I disagree with some of the comments made here, is to disqualify one's defence of freedom of speech on account of his supposed intentions: one who defends the principle doesn't necessarly defend everything the said principle would encompass (i.e. derogatory humour).

Tertio: if one stresses the importance of being able to "draw the line" (i.e. "how to shoot up a University campus and get away with it"), that same person must be aware of the problems of doing so: (1) who decides where the line should be drawn? (2) when does "drawing the line" become abusive? (3) Do we really know the opinion of those who are targeted by the derogations? (4) Does censorship help us, as a society, to become "better" (i.e. better educated, more sensitive and understanding, etc...)

- Someone displays a particular sensitivity over "humour" (let's call it this way to facilitate the discussion) directed towards strippers, which is reasonable. Now, let's say a group of people get all bent out of shape over a cartoon of - say - Mahomet () and that same someone who defends strippers comes up and tells the cartoon bashers: "relax, people, this is just humour". Well, sorry, but who died lately to make him God? That person is entitled to his opinion but he, by himself, doesn't have the power to draw the line for everyone (only for himself).

- Another problem with drawing the line is to know where. Dissident humour directed towards political powers, for one, can be easely marginalized whenever we draw the line. In a society of fearful (say, of terrorist attacks), technocratized (i.e. educated in strict accordance with job market requirements), distracted (by the entertainment business and pro sports), quickly-connected to/quickly disconnected from world affairs (thanks to the medias flooding citizens with continually refreshed information conveniently deprived of analysis) and passive ("I vote once every four years, hence I'm a democrat") citizens, the line can be drawn wherever the oppresive powers, religious lobbies or any sans-humour with an agenda decide to.

- Where I buy bread, every Tuesdays, there's this dude confined to a wheelchair parked near the front door. A nice guy I never miss a chance to chat with. He told me about the car accident that got the better of his spinal cord. He also made an interesting comment on humour: "Why is it that no one ever makes fun of paraplegics? I feel left out!" He noticed my frown and explained the following: "If everyone "normal" can be a target for mockery and "paraplegics" can't or shouldn't, that means paraplegics are not "normal", right?" So I asked him: "but where do you draw the line?" He simply answered; "Hey, if someone gets out of line, I'll know, and I'm capable of shooting some of my own humour at him."

- Finally, aren't we hiding our heads in the sand by censoring humour? From an educational standpoint, wouldn't we benefit more collectively from debunking and shooting back at this kind of humour than by just pretending it doesn't exist?

 

[Ben Dover]

Chef,

Here is your clarification. Thanks for asking. My comment... "it's a frigin joke... it's satire etc..." does not in an way imply that I agree with it, or find it funny. So, again -- not sure what your point is. You are weakly trying to catch me in a contradiction that does not exist.

Thanks for coming out -- we found another ball to play with while you were gone. I don't understand why you and Korbel are fixated on trying to make me look bad when you could be debating the actual topic and (possibly) adding insights that others might find useful.

This is where you storm off again...



Korbel,

Read above. Regarding Roland's comment -- He is misrepresenting my position and thus making a fool of himself, since anyone who HAS read this thread would know that I have condemned the content of the article, although I support the right of the article to exist. My suggestion to delete (or re-write) his post is simply that -- a suggestion. If he wants to leave his incorrect and uninformed post, that is his choice. I am not interested in censoring anyone. In fact, in fairness to anyone reading this, I think you should "re-post" the comments that you self-censored (ie: deleted -- remember the insults?). Especially since nobody including me ever asked you to remove that post (it was already gone when I suggested removing the others.) I wasn't trying to censor you. I was trying to save you some embarrasment.

Again, rather than insulting me with your own weak, junior high brand of humour, which in my opinion is even less funny though not quite as inappropriate as the disputed article, and instead of trying to make a villain out of me for some unknown reason, why don't you focus on defending (ok, wait... maybe before "defending" you could start with "clarifying") your own point of view. It seems that you are AGAIN unable, or perhaps just unwilling, to engage in a respectful conversation about this important topic.

Regarding the Voltaire quote:

1. Who cares who said it. It's what it says that counts
2. Many sources attribute this quote to Voltaire
3. Others refer to it as "paraphrasing" his words shortly after his death.

I have clearly stated where I stand Korbel. Where do you stand?

And now, back to Korbel... this is where you reply with another juvenille insult directed at me, ingore the topic and all of the interesting points that could be discussed, and then say that your not going to reply anymore -- until your next reply.

BD

PS: Never once did I call you or anything you said asinine. Perhaps Roland is not the only struggling with his reading & comprehension skills.

 

[hottotrot]

you have to be more seductive than them.

 

[Ben Dover]

Well...Ziggy...I do tend to agree with your outline...need some time to go over it carefully .
Chef,
That`s right..Contradictions..thank you..
Korbel, Right on the mark !
BD, Looking foolish ..in this case...dosen`t really bug me...I missed out on the "free speech debate"..maybe I`lll get back in....at least I don`t conveniently contradict myself..I won't delete my post..may edit it...later..will look into this after lunch....

How can you know if you agree that Korbel is "right on the mark" BEFORE you've read the entire thread? Also, I did not contradict myself. This would also be apparent had you READ ALL OF MY COMMENTS. I, Voltaire, and those people who paraphrased him after his death, stand by your right to post whatever you want, no matter how silly it makes you look.

_________________________________________

Ziggy -- very stimulating food for thought. Unfortunately, it seems that some folks have their blinders on and are unable to contemplate or hypothesize at such an elevated level. Soon they will be saying that you support the article, then the name calling starts. You must have a large set of balls to have thrown down the gauntlet in an attempt to shed light on this topic, when even after repeated explanations and clarifications some members here still don't understand what we are discussing -- even though they know they're against it -- whatever it is!

You are much better at explaining things that I am, and obvioulsly have the literary prowess to back up your theories. Sadly, this may only serve to make you more frustrated in the end. I hope that's not the case.

BD

 

[chef]

Chef,

Here is your clarification. Thanks for asking. My comment... "it's a frigin joke... it's satire etc..." does not in an way imply that I agree with it, or find it funny. So, again -- not sure what your point is. You are weakly trying to catch me in a contradiction that does not exist.

When you said it was "a humorous essay" I concluded (incorrectly now, it seems) that YOU considered it humorous. Therein lay the contradiction as you were not explicit within that statement that you did not consider it humorous. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for coming out -- we found another ball to play with while you were gone. I don't understand why you and Korbel are fixated on trying to make me look bad when you could be debating the actual topic and (possibly) adding insights that others might find useful.

I am not trying to make you look bad. I am all for freedom for freedom of speech; it just bugs me no end when its defenders propose that anything and everything be subject to it, i.e. you never have to draw the line. It's a moral issue that (wo)men greater than you and I have agonized over. Fortunately, but for now, this board is more concerned with amoral issues.

This is where you storm off again...

I'll try to be quiet this time.

 

[korbel]

no matter how silly it makes you look.
BD

Hello BD,

And with all your assertions toward fairness, respect, and free speech regarding your posts and other posters, how does your insufferable habitual insults make you look?!!!!! Now PLEASE...give me one.

Know thyself,

Korbel

 

[Ben Dover]

Just like it bugs me to no end when people impose their own brand of blatant hypocricy in such a manner as to affect my life in any way. I didn't say that we should never draw the line... I just don't want it to be drawn for me by you. If anyone if going to draw the line for me, it will be me.

I'm still baffled by Korbel's refusal to explain why it's ok (in his mind) to post reviews of graphic (paid) sexual encounters with prostitutes, including various forms of unprotected sex etc... things that are actually happening, not just words on paper... when many people would consider those reviews to be indecent, degrading and a perfect candidate for censorship? When Korbel offers the girl a drink, you know, just to get her more relaxed and in the mood... what about that?

Since you and he seem to agree on most things, perhaps you could let me know YOUR thoughts on this.

Roland -- what about you?

I still didn't hear from Techman, to whom I also asked the same question.

It is puzzling how you guys are so quick to condemn free speech when you don't like what it says, but when you do, or when you yourself are the AUTHOR, well then it's another story, right?

BD

 

[Ben Dover]

Hello BD,

And with all your assertions toward fairness, respect, and free speech regarding your posts and other posters, how does your insufferable habitual insults make you look?!!!!! Now PLEASE...give me one.

Know thyself,

Korbel

Give you one what?

"no matter how silly it makes you look" is something that a kindergarten teacher could say to a 5-year old and be assured of complete appropriateness and compliance with school rules. If you consider this as "flaming" then you are the most sensitive guy in the history of online discussion boards.

Are you planning on contributing any content to this discussion?

BD

 

[Mod 6]

Thread closed.

We're getting off topic and we'll just let tension go before it degenerates.

Thread closed.