Though plays usually had ostensibly cruel punishments for the gods (like Prometheus or Sisyphus) as a way of showing a moral lesson. Usually, really violent movies today are in it mostly for the violence (such as those by Scorsese, de Palma, Tarantino, etc).
(04-22-2014, 11:21 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, for being hanged, drawn, and quartered, is the person dragged by the horse to the execution?
I think the Brazen Bull is actually the worst out of those three in my opinion. The whole breathing thing and the time scale of crucifixion make it a big contender. All of them are extremely terrible though.
I wonder if lethal injection hurts at all... I imagine overdosing on morphine probably wouldn't hurt. I also have reason to believe drowning is a really easy way to go. Sorry, just thinking of non-painful ways to die now.
To be honest, I'd rather be bullied than crucified, just because of the timespan of the ordeal. And drowning seems pretty bad: cold and wet in the total darkness of the sea, you struggle against your instinct to breath for as long as you can - but eventually your body succumbs to the pressure of suffocation, gasping for air that isn't there. Instead you're uncontrollably gulping in water, your lungs entrenched by it. This isn't the end yet, however, as you still have to suffer horrifying, agonizing moments (minutes?) of asphyxiation, until eventually your consciousness drifts away. Then sometimes later you die.
I think maybe swallowing a grenade would be the way go, as far as violent deaths go. I'm not sure how fast all brain-activity is terminated after getting decapitated, but getting one's head blown to pieces should compromise any pain pretty fast.
Cheerful post of the day.
(04-23-2014, 03:16 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2014, 02:50 AM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno, no one actually gets hurt in movies (barring accidents, of course).
But that's besides the point, and in fact reinforcing one of my subpoints; that it's fun simply because it's fictional.
I'm just saying, how are we any different, fundamentally, from the ancient Greeks, since both our cultures love violence?
Because no one actually gets hurt in movies - barring accidents, of course.
I'd say our recognition that the love of violence comes second to other people's love of not getting violated constitutes a significant difference.
(04-23-2014, 03:45 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]Though plays usually had ostensibly cruel punishments for the gods (like Prometheus or Sisyphus) as a way of showing a moral lesson. Usually, really violent movies today are in it mostly for the violence (such as those by Scorsese, de Palma, Tarantino, etc).
Yes, the only reason Scorsese and Tarantion make movies is to display violence, and that itself only for the purpose of displaying violence.
Nah, when you drown you actually pass out pretty early on, probably before you swallow any water. And it doesn't hurt significantly more than just holding your breath for a long time. I know because a friend of mine almost drowned himself doing laps underwater for swim team. He passed out and we had to pull him out of the pool. (Well, I say we, but I wasn't there, it was one of the other lifeguards who was also on the swimteam.) If no one had been there he would have died.
I'm pretty sure if you can accidentally drown yourself for the sake of swim practice it must not actually be that bad.
I've been wondering for a while.
Is it "wrong" to make jokes about autistic people, or about individuals who are autistic?
One could argue that it's okay to joke at the expense of a certain group of individuals if they are capable of laughing at themselves (think Gabriel Iglesias making jokes about being fat or Mexican), but in the case of certain autistic people (think Axelfox), it's near-impossible to take something as a joke rather than something malicious. Because of this, a certain form of humor may be inherently offensive to them.
Would this, in turn, make it "wrong" to joke about autistic people (or rather, to be more pedantic, those specifically incapable of taking a joke because of a psychological problem)? If so, where does one draw the line when it comes to off-color humor?
I'm not a fan of that type of humor myself because of the possible implications of laughing at a group's expense (like people who went through the Holocaust or 9/11; I feel that many jokes may trivialize these events), which is why I'd rather laugh at myself (though off-color humor is usually also really predictable and boring as well, imo).
In general, I try not to make jokes about specific people.
I mean, I joke around with my friends and such. But I try to make those jokes specific to them. (They know I'm teasing, and they tease right back.) For instance, I have a friend who has a pot belly. Non-maliciously, I'll tease him about how his wife is feeding him too much. He'll tease me about how I'm 25, and my metabolism will start slowing down like the rest of them. lol
But...when it comes to broad jokes aimed at a group. I try to avoid those. 1) Because I hate generalization of any kind; it annoys the crap out of me. 2) Because I think that fitting autistic people (or whatever group) into a mold is just ignorant. Yeah, sure, they're different. But why should we make fun of them for being autistic? Why should we tease someone who may not (or may, in some cases, and take offense to it) release that you're joking? It's one thing if you don't realize a guy is autistic or something. It's another if you know he is and then decide to tease him anyway; it shows either ignorance or bad taste, depending.
Also, I think the Gabriel Iglesias jokes are mainly jokes at his own expense. He makes jokes about being fat and Mexican, because he just happens to be a fat Mexican guy. So, he's poking fun at himself more than anything else.
Yeah, I usually don't make jokes about people or groups (I tend to make puns rather, and have more of a British "sophisticated" humor than anything) but a lot of my friends wind up telling the same dirty or off-color jokes over and over, and it gets boring after a while, and some jokes are just not funny in the first place and they repeat them to everyone. The good news is that my friends can and will poke fun at themselves from time to time (like one of them who always jokes about being overweight).
My point isn't that humor at the expense of others isn't funny, but that humor that theoretically only hurts its target is kind of cruel, even if it can be construed as humor by others.
(05-29-2014, 04:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I think the Gabriel Iglesias jokes are mainly jokes at his own expense. He makes jokes about being fat and Mexican, because he just happens to be a fat Mexican guy. So, he's poking fun at himself more than anything else.
Of course. That's where I was getting at; he jabs at himself which in turn allows others that fit in a similar category as him (overweight or Latino people) to also laugh along. Self-deprecation is mostly done to make humor easier to swallow (whereas insult humor is the opposite). It also shows a confidence which in itself strengthens a group, imo. This is why Dave Chapelle, for instance, will make n*gger jokes, being a black man himself.
(05-29-2014, 05:58 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I usually don't make jokes about people or groups (I tend to make puns rather, and have more of a British "sophisticated" humor than anything) but a lot of my friends wind up telling the same dirty or off-color jokes over and over, and it gets boring after a while, and some jokes are just not funny in the first place and they repeat them to everyone. The good news is that my friends can and will poke fun at themselves from time to time (like one of them who always jokes about being overweight).
Yeah, my university classmates were the same. (It's odd to be saying "were". Has it only been 2 weeks since graduation?...) Same jokes, same puns. Over and over. And they were always terrible.
Quote:My point isn't that humor at the expense of others isn't funny, but that humor that theoretically only hurts its target is kind of cruel, even if it can be construed as humor by others.
I agree.
Quote: (05-29-2014, 04:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I think the Gabriel Iglesias jokes are mainly jokes at his own expense. He makes jokes about being fat and Mexican, because he just happens to be a fat Mexican guy. So, he's poking fun at himself more than anything else.
Of course. That's where I was getting at; he jabs at himself which in turn allows others that fit in a similar category as him (overweight or Latino people) to also laugh along. Self-deprecation is mostly done to make humor easier to swallow (whereas insult humor is the opposite).
Yeah, but a responsible comedian doesn't push it too far, imho. There's a fine line, of course.
Quote:It also shows a confidence which in itself strengthens a group, imo. This is why Dave Chapelle, for instance, will make n*gger jokes, being a black man himself.
Well, I never agreed with Chapelle's "nigger" jokes. I get why he makes them. I just don't feel like a responsible comedian should be making racial slurs. Personal thing, mostly.
(05-29-2014, 06:43 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I never agreed with Chapelle's "nigger" jokes. I get why he makes them. I just don't feel like a responsible comedian should be making racial slurs. Personal thing, mostly.
Idk, Black people say nigger like... all the time, so it's part of their vernacular. So I don't see why he should censor it out if that's just everyday language.
I've kind of already had this conversation here (and on UG) before. So, I won't repeat myself. I'll simply say I don't think anyone should use any racial slurs, ever. And leave it at that.
So even if it makes the conversations less natural? Should they also censor it from Mark Twain and other similar stories?