![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by manic666 on March 29, 2009, at 12:49:13
In reply to Lou's request to discuss aspects-, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2009, at 8:31:04
were do you get material for jokes, off people that like to laugh, you only upset people who want to be upset, you say no disabled ,even old people ,im disabled ,i dont work because of illness , an as i say my buddies call me mental , i dont take offence . material for jokes come from all kinds of people or there would be none, the guy in my joke was disabled, but i didnt make fun of him he had the last laugh with his well endowed member.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2009, at 20:14:19
In reply to Re: Lou's request to discuss aspects-, posted by manic666 on March 29, 2009, at 12:49:13
> were do you get material for jokes, off people that like to laugh, you only upset people who want to be upset, you say no disabled ,even old people ,im disabled ,i dont work because of illness , an as i say my buddies call me mental , i dont take offence . material for jokes come from all kinds of people or there would be none, the guy in my joke was disabled, but i didnt make fun of him he had the last laugh with his well endowed member.
manic666,
You wrote,
[...my buddies...].
Is not part of posting on an internet forum dependent on who the audience could be? Would you agree or disagree that what could be said among buddies could be different than what one could write in an internet mental-health forum? If you agree, could you post any differences that you could think of as to what you could or could not post verses what you could say among buddies?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on March 29, 2009, at 20:48:09
In reply to Lou's request for agreement/disagreement-awdeense » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2009, at 20:14:19
And I feel if you don't want to read joke threads you don't have to. I'm female and not offended. I've read thread on babble that pertained to sex many times. No I don't have an example. To me it's part of life and even when out if I don't like a joke I don't comment just ignore it. But that is only me. And there are many more people on the internet. Phillipa
Posted by manic666 on April 2, 2009, at 2:48:48
In reply to Lou's request for agreement/disagreement-awdeense » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2009, at 20:14:19
lou, buddies means friends an my friends are on this forum mabye even you, so please dont go out of context its not smart.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2009, at 9:07:54
In reply to Re: Lou's request for agreement/disagreement-awdeense, posted by manic666 on April 2, 2009, at 2:48:48
> lou, buddies means friends an my friends are on this forum mabye even you, so please dont go out of context its not smart.
manic666,
You wrote,[...buddies means friends...even you...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that and as to what authority, if any, you used to state such.
If you could clarify what you are wanting to mean concerning that, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote here.
I may be one of the few people here that have a background that gives me an understanding about the word {buddy} that may be unbeknownst to some here. You see, the word is one that comes from aspects of {fraternalism}, {brotherhood}, which is about being the Latin as {fraternus} or {frater}. If we examine your statement,[...buddies mean friends...], I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean;
A. Any buddy is also a friend?
B. Some friends are also buddies?
C. Some buddies of one could not be a friend of such?
D. Friends are equivalent to buddies?
E. other possibilities that if you say that I {may} be your friend, what is the criteria that you use to determine if a member is a friend or not?
If you could examine the choices and post here what you are wanting to mean by [...friends means buddies...], the word {buddy} is generally accepted to mean one engaged in an action to do the same thing as the others, like drinking buddies, (but I think that there is more to it than that), but then could one be doing the same as another and not be a friend? And if you could post here your authority or rationale for your reply, if any, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 11, 2009, at 21:09:17
In reply to Lou's request for clarification- bdy » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2009, at 9:07:54
Yup buddy and friend are the same. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2009, at 20:09:28
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification- bdy » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on April 11, 2009, at 21:09:17
> Yup buddy and friend are the same. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...buddy and friend are the same...]
I am unsure as to what authority you may have used to state that, for {same} could generally mean that the things that are the same corrospond in a way so that the things that are the same are interchangable.
The word {buddy} is a word that I have a particular learning about from my background in fraternalism. This background could be unbeknownst to some because of the history of fraternal societies, sometimes called {secret societies}. These societies that predated the guilds in England were orginized for helping each other in times of need and were made up of people of similar occupation. Some of these were those that worked with stone or brick that were called the Masons, and those that worked in the fields or forests were called the Foresters, and those that did anything else were called, as I understand it, Odd Fellows.
The members shared what is known as fraternalism, comming from the Latin, fraternus or brotherhood, being a brother, or a frater.
Going beyond that definition was the type of brother that shared in a common activity. Those brothers were different from just being a frater of one in the orginization.
I do not like to talk about some of the ancient practices of fraternal orginizations. You see, the fraternal societies generally came from England and Europe to the United States and there was slavery then. And there was piracy. And there was plunder of the innocent. Those activities could end up with those working together in those activities to share in what they got in their shared activity, even in plunder.
Now those that did such things had a special name comming from what they called the spoils and that name {morphed}, as I understand it, to the word {buddy} before slavery was abolished. If you would like to know the name, you could email me if you like.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 14, 2009, at 21:41:29
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-psoiols » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2009, at 20:09:28
Lou buddy is the same to me don't need an authority. I'm half English Decent and a Quarter German And One Quarter Dutch. Just a term used interchanably to me. I never went away to college just traveled locally. Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2009, at 13:02:48
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-psoiols » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on April 14, 2009, at 21:41:29
> Lou buddy is the same to me don't need an authority. I'm half English Decent and a Quarter German And One Quarter Dutch. Just a term used interchanably to me. I never went away to college just traveled locally. Love Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...buddy is the same {to me}...I'm half...I never went away to college...]]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the above. In,[...same (to me)...], thank you for clarifying that the word {buddy} is the same as {friend} to you, for that could mean then that the two words could be of the nature that others could think that they are not interchangable.
In,[...I'm half...] could you give some additional infomation as to how that is related to this topic, if it is related?
In,[...I never went away to college...], could you give some more infomation if that fact is related to the topic as to if the words buddy and friend are interchangable?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 15, 2009, at 20:01:09
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-nvrwntawegh » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2009, at 13:02:48
Lou no neither are related to buddy and friend. Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on April 17, 2009, at 0:07:35
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-psoiols » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2009, at 20:09:28
>there was slavery then. And there was piracy. And there was plunder of the innocent. Those activities could end up with those working together in those activities to share in what they got in their shared activity, even in plunder.
Don't worry, Lou, all those things are alive and well, especially plunder.
Posted by Sigismund on April 17, 2009, at 15:50:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-psoiols » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 17, 2009, at 0:07:35
>especially plunder.
Think economics or foreign policy.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 19:31:22
In reply to manic jjjjjjjjjjoke no harm ment thank you, posted by manic666 on March 28, 2009, at 5:42:40
> woman puts an ad in paper, looking for man, wont hit me,an wont walk away from me,and must be good in bed,man arrives at her door in a weelchair.with no arm or legs.oooooo she says you have no arms to hit me, and no legs to run away.but what are you like in BED, man replies how do you think i rang the door bell,
manic666,
Could you post an answer to the following, if you know, and if you do not know, could you post what your thinking could be concerning such? If you could, then I could have a better idea of what your post could have the potential to convey and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.In,[...arrives at her door in a wheel- chair..]
1.Could you specify, if you know, how he arrived at her door in a wheel-chair if he has no arms or legs?
2. Do you know why the man is in the condition that he is? Could he be in that condition because;
a.he was born without arms and legs and no one knows what the cause was?
b. he had his limbs blown off in an explosion as a soldier?
c. his mother was given a drug by a doctor that caused him to be born with no arms or legs?
d. he was in an accident?
e. other not specified that you could think of?
In,[...how do you think I rang the door bell?...]
B. Do you know where the door bell was positioned? If so, where was it positioned in relation to him being in the wheel-chair?
C. Do you know how the man was able to ring the bell being that he had no arms or legs? If so, could you post here your idea of how he rang the bell?
In your subject line,[...joke...],
D. What type of support (redacted by respondent)
E. Could you think of any people that could not think that your post is amusing? If so, could you list any of those type here?
F. In your opinion, could a paralyzed person think that your post here is amusing?
G. In your opinion, could a person that has a loved one that is paralyzed think that there is amusment in your post?
H. other aspects not stated...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 21:25:21
In reply to Lou's request- » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 19:31:22
> > woman puts an ad in paper, looking for man, wont hit me,an wont walk away from me,and must be good in bed,man arrives at her door in a weelchair.with no arm or legs.oooooo she says you have no arms to hit me, and no legs to run away.but what are you like in BED, man replies how do you think i rang the door bell,
>
> manic666,
> Could you post an answer to the following, if you know, and if you do not know, could you post what your thinking could be concerning such? If you could, then I could have a better idea of what your post could have the potential to convey and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A.In,[...arrives at her door in a wheel- chair..]
> 1.Could you specify, if you know, how he arrived at her door in a wheel-chair if he has no arms or legs?
> 2. Do you know why the man is in the condition that he is? Could he be in that condition because;
> a.he was born without arms and legs and no one knows what the cause was?
> b. he had his limbs blown off in an explosion as a soldier?
> c. his mother was given a drug by a doctor that caused him to be born with no arms or legs?
> d. he was in an accident?
> e. other not specified that you could think of?
> In,[...how do you think I rang the door bell?...]
> B. Do you know where the door bell was positioned? If so, where was it positioned in relation to him being in the wheel-chair?
> C. Do you know how the man was able to ring the bell being that he had no arms or legs? If so, could you post here your idea of how he rang the bell?
> In your subject line,[...joke...],
> D. What type of support (redacted by respondent)
> E. Could you think of any people that could not think that your post is amusing? If so, could you list any of those type here?
> F. In your opinion, could a paralyzed person think that your post here is amusing?
> G. In your opinion, could a person that has a loved one that is paralyzed think that there is amusment in your post?
> H. other aspects not stated...
> Loumanic666,
In F and G and H, I meant that if you have an opinion concerning that, that you email me with your opinion instead of posting it if you have one.
My apology for leaving that out.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
PS.
Also, if others have an opinion concerning anything in this thread, you could also email me if you like.
I also appreciate all of the emails that I have received so far in relation to your opinions concerning aspects of this thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 21:46:40
In reply to correction-Lou's request-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 21:25:21
> > > woman puts an ad in paper, looking for man, wont hit me,an wont walk away from me,and must be good in bed,man arrives at her door in a weelchair.with no arm or legs.oooooo she says you have no arms to hit me, and no legs to run away.but what are you like in BED, man replies how do you think i rang the door bell,
> >
> > manic666,
> > Could you post an answer to the following, if you know, and if you do not know, could you post what your thinking could be concerning such? If you could, then I could have a better idea of what your post could have the potential to convey and have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > A.In,[...arrives at her door in a wheel- chair..]
> > 1.Could you specify, if you know, how he arrived at her door in a wheel-chair if he has no arms or legs?
> > 2. Do you know why the man is in the condition that he is? Could he be in that condition because;
> > a.he was born without arms and legs and no one knows what the cause was?
> > b. he had his limbs blown off in an explosion as a soldier?
> > c. his mother was given a drug by a doctor that caused him to be born with no arms or legs?
> > d. he was in an accident?
> > e. other not specified that you could think of?
> > In,[...how do you think I rang the door bell?...]
> > B. Do you know where the door bell was positioned? If so, where was it positioned in relation to him being in the wheel-chair?
> > C. Do you know how the man was able to ring the bell being that he had no arms or legs? If so, could you post here your idea of how he rang the bell?
> > In your subject line,[...joke...],
> > D. What type of support (redacted by respondent)
> > E. Could you think of any people that could not think that your post is amusing? If so, could you list any of those type here?
> > F. In your opinion, could a paralyzed person think that your post here is amusing?
> > G. In your opinion, could a person that has a loved one that is paralyzed think that there is amusment in your post?
> > H. other aspects not stated...
> > Lou
>
> manic666,
> In F and G and H, I meant that if you have an opinion concerning that, that you email me with your opinion instead of posting it if you have one.
> My apology for leaving that out.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> PS.
> Also, if others have an opinion concerning anything in this thread, you could also email me if you like.
> I also appreciate all of the emails that I have received so far in relation to your opinions concerning aspects of this thread.manic666,
I would like for any responses to any of my requests in this post here to come to me via email if you like, including the others besides F-H.
Also, I have some links that I would like to share with interested members here that could IMO be of helpful infomation concerning what other psychologists/psychiatrists think of aspects in this thread in relation to people's mental health.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on April 19, 2009, at 15:15:52
In reply to Lou's request- » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2009, at 19:31:22
>In your opinion, could a paralyzed person think that your post here is amusing?
Try this. The author is (if still alive) a quadriplegic.
"He Won't Get Far on Foot" John Callahan
Some of it is wildly funny.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 19, 2009, at 20:44:25
In reply to Re: Lou's request- » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 19, 2009, at 15:15:52
> >In your opinion, could a paralyzed person think that your post here is amusing?
>
> Try this. The author is (if still alive) a quadriplegic.
> "He Won't Get Far on Foot" John Callahan
> Some of it is wildly funny.Sigismund,
You wrote,[...Try this...some of ot is ..funny...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to purport concernoing your post here.
I have not read the book in question so I do not know if there is something he deems to be amusing and what it could be as to if it concerns him or others. A book offerd for purchase could be a different aspect as a joke offered to the public on an internet mental health site. And is not the author of the book telling his own account? And could not other paralyzed people have a different view?
I think that there are standards used in circumstances when a determination is wanting to be made as to if a joke is acceptable in relation to the audiance it is presented to as to what the population of the group could be. These standards are my understanding as to whhat could serve as a test to determine acceptability of jokes in a group.
I have made a list of things from my readings that I think could be a way to determine if a joke is acceptable or not according to my thinking. The first test is to determine the subject or subjects of the group that the joke is about. The following are a list of those that I would use as the first test to see if any of the following could be the subject(s) of the joke:
A. race, religion, gender,age, sexual orientation and political affilliation
B. nationality, including Appalachian origin
C. Disability including obesity and prior psychiatric treatment and anything concerning a person with diminished capacity either physical and mental.
After that test, the next test I would use is:
D. Does the joke label certain individuals, or groups, as being inferior?
F. Is the humor positive or negative?
I have read articles by psychologists/psychiatrists concerning this issue here. Here is a quote from Dr. Joni Johnston, psychologist,:
This comes from her about humor as to how it could be related to mental health.
"Research has shown that there is a distinctive difference of the health benifits of positive and negative humor. Negative humor, i.e., humor that is exclusive or offensive, does not have the same positive psychological effects on one's body and mind. Apparently, our bodies are as sensitive as our feelings; we psychologically respond to hurtful as if our bodies were under attack."
Now my ways may be different from your ways. Could any here post your way to determine if a joke here could be good for your mental health if it is different from my way?
Lou
G.
Posted by Sigismund on April 20, 2009, at 14:58:21
In reply to Lou's reply- » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 19, 2009, at 20:44:25
Lou, a good joke for me is one which makes me laugh, and it's only going to do that if the unexpected is involved. It doesn't have to be kind or unkind to do that. I didn't find the joke funny, but I'm not sure we show our concern for the disabled by not making jokes of this kind. Having public facilities (like wheelchair ramps) would be better. Maybe having a humane infrastructure in our cities? In Japan there are public toilets (not many, but I was in one) catering to people with colostomies. All we (in the anglosphere) do is cut taxes.
Is it suitable for a mental health website?
There's lots worse here, in particular capricious blocks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2009, at 5:41:02
In reply to Jokes » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 20, 2009, at 14:58:21
> Lou, a good joke for me is one which makes me laugh, and it's only going to do that if the unexpected is involved. It doesn't have to be kind or unkind to do that. I didn't find the joke funny, but I'm not sure we show our concern for the disabled by not making jokes of this kind. Having public facilities (like wheelchair ramps) would be better. Maybe having a humane infrastructure in our cities? In Japan there are public toilets (not many, but I was in one) catering to people with colostomies. All we (in the anglosphere) do is cut taxes.
>
> Is it suitable for a mental health website?
> There's lots worse here, in particular capricious blocks.Sigismund and friends,
It is written here,[...a good joke...makes me laugh...doesn't have to be kind or unkind...I am not sure we show our concern...suitable for a mental health website?...lots worse here...]
In my thinking, I have listed criteria that I would use to determine if a joke on a mental health site is acceptable or not by first identifying the subject(s) of the joke.
This identification process could be done by asking:
A.Is the subject identified by evidence?
B. Is evidence needed to identify the subject(s)?
If no evidence is needed to idntify the subject(s), then it is generally acceptesd that the subject falls into the catagory of being (self-evident). This happens like when Scott identified the subject(s) as a fat lady, for there was not needed evidence to substantiate that the subject was already defined, thus being (self-evident).
Then after the subject(s) could be identified, a determination could be made as to if the subject is the object of ridicule or amusement. This can be self-evident or there could be substantiated evidence. One way for this determination to be made could be by examining if or if not the subject(s) could be the object of ridicule or amusement. This is generally accepted as being called the {butt} of the joke. This could be needing evidence to substaniate or it could be (self-evident). One way to determine it is to take out the subject and sse if it makes sense. If not, then it is generally acepted that it is needed to have the subject in the joke so that then the subject is the (butt) or target of the amusment or ridicule as being self-evident.
Now it is generally accepted that for one to be an object of ridicule, that the subject(s) becomes the object of laughter, or that the joke is dependant on the subject being the object of the amusment or laughter. I posted a classic song, (How Can You laugh, When You Know I'm Down), for reasons undisclosed by me yet.
There is much more to this in a mental health community that I would like to share with members or readers here by email.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2009, at 17:11:04
In reply to Lou's reply-rvrneejp » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2009, at 5:41:02
> > Lou, a good joke for me is one which makes me laugh, and it's only going to do that if the unexpected is involved. It doesn't have to be kind or unkind to do that. I didn't find the joke funny, but I'm not sure we show our concern for the disabled by not making jokes of this kind. Having public facilities (like wheelchair ramps) would be better. Maybe having a humane infrastructure in our cities? In Japan there are public toilets (not many, but I was in one) catering to people with colostomies. All we (in the anglosphere) do is cut taxes.
> >
> > Is it suitable for a mental health website?
> > There's lots worse here, in particular capricious blocks.
>
> Sigismund and friends,
> It is written here,[...a good joke...makes me laugh...doesn't have to be kind or unkind...I am not sure we show our concern...suitable for a mental health website?...lots worse here...]
> In my thinking, I have listed criteria that I would use to determine if a joke on a mental health site is acceptable or not by first identifying the subject(s) of the joke.
> This identification process could be done by asking:
> A.Is the subject identified by evidence?
> B. Is evidence needed to identify the subject(s)?
> If no evidence is needed to idntify the subject(s), then it is generally acceptesd that the subject falls into the catagory of being (self-evident). This happens like when Scott identified the subject(s) as a fat lady, for there was not needed evidence to substantiate that the subject was already defined, thus being (self-evident).
> Then after the subject(s) could be identified, a determination could be made as to if the subject is the object of ridicule or amusement. This can be self-evident or there could be substantiated evidence. One way for this determination to be made could be by examining if or if not the subject(s) could be the object of ridicule or amusement. This is generally accepted as being called the {butt} of the joke. This could be needing evidence to substaniate or it could be (self-evident). One way to determine it is to take out the subject and sse if it makes sense. If not, then it is generally acepted that it is needed to have the subject in the joke so that then the subject is the (butt) or target of the amusment or ridicule as being self-evident.
> Now it is generally accepted that for one to be an object of ridicule, that the subject(s) becomes the object of laughter, or that the joke is dependant on the subject being the object of the amusment or laughter. I posted a classic song, (How Can You laugh, When You Know I'm Down), for reasons undisclosed by me yet.
> There is much more to this in a mental health community that I would like to share with members or readers here by email.
> LouFriends,
It is written here,[...is it suitable for a mental health website?...]
There is a large body of research available to use to determine the suitability of jokes that have people as subjects for a mental health website. Some apects that one can use to make that determination could be:
A. Does the joke reinforce harmful prejudgements about the people?
B. Are the people in the joke disadvantaged? A joke about a politician or a lawyer or a psychiatrist would not be the same as a joke about a person that is disabled or disfigured or is in a state that involves suffering for the person or the family of the person
C. Is the subject person of such that they cannot change the condition mentioned?
D. Is the subject person a recipiant of misfortune?
E. Does the joke need one to need to pretend that aspects do not exist?
F. Does the joke point out the misfortune?
G. Is there absurdity?
H. Could humiliation be felt by a person if they are a member of the group of people in the joke after they read it?
K. Could a member feel ashamed to be a member of the website if the joke is allowed to stand in relation to that other jokes are sanctioned?
Those are some of the aspects that psychologists/psychiatrists have published about as to how those effect one's mental health in relation to jokes.
The question before us is the criteria that determine the acceptability or not of particular jokes in a mental health website that is for {support}, which could then have a different audience from, lets say, a private group of people.
If you would like to see links to research articles on this subject that I have, you could email me if you like.
Lou
Posted by manic666 on April 22, 2009, at 3:40:59
In reply to Lou's reply-continued, posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2009, at 17:11:04
he managed the wheel chair , it was a voice command chair , fancy not getting that,an he lost his arms an legs,though smokeing related illness, next question lou an make it a bit harder for more me to make up that was to easy
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 7, 2009, at 17:57:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-continued, posted by manic666 on April 22, 2009, at 3:40:59
> he managed the wheel chair , it was a voice command chair , fancy not getting that,an he lost his arms an legs,though smokeing related illness, next question lou an make it a bit harder for more me to make up that was to easy
manic666,
I am unsure as to who the author is of what you posted about the man with no arms or legs in a wheelchair.
If you could reply to the following, and if you know any of the answers to post what the answer is, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Do you know who the author is?
B. Do you know how old the story in your post is as to how long ago it was published?
C. Did you know of the person that is the subject?
D. If you do not know the person that is the subject, how do you know, if you are stateing that as a fact, what caused him to have no arms or legs?
E. If the subject person was operating the wheelchair alone, is it feasible, in your opinion, to operate a voice activated wheelchair on a sidewalk or street alone and navigate it to an entrance door?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 7, 2009, at 21:31:40
In reply to Lou's request for clarification- » manic666, posted by Lou Pilder on May 7, 2009, at 17:57:48
Lou it was handed down through generations of buddies and since I have a blind son don't consider it offense just me. Sometimes laughing about a disability helps relieve some of pain, and sometimes not. No way I know of to read brains. I sent it to my Son. He thought it funny. But of course not all will. Now got to post ebay and sleep. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2009, at 6:28:06
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification- » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 7, 2009, at 21:31:40
> Lou it was handed down through generations of buddies and since I have a blind son don't consider it offense just me. Sometimes laughing about a disability helps relieve some of pain, and sometimes not. No way I know of to read brains. I sent it to my Son. He thought it funny. But of course not all will. Now got to post ebay and sleep. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...it was handed down through generations of buddies...laughing at someone's disibility helps relieve some of pain...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.Is it the joke that was handed down through generations? If so, how far back in time does it go to the original? If it goes back more than 80 years, how did a voice-activated wheelchair get into the story?
B. Are you advocating that any joke can be posted here about a human being that is disfigured or paralyzed as long as some people, or just one person, finds that it is funny to them? If so, could, in your thinking, jokes about Jews be posted here also as long as one person or many people find that it is amusing to them?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2009, at 12:31:28
In reply to Lou's request for clarification- » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2009, at 6:28:06
Lou you know we are friends right? I'd never do a thing to hurt you or your feelings. No not this joke in particular any joke that in someones opinion could be funny. I do get that if someone is sensitive to their disability or religion they could get offended hence maybe a joke trigger of content? By the way I have many Jewish friends. Who knows with my German background maybe I am Jewish also??? Religion is a topic isn't it for the Faith board? Lou you're my buddy, my friend same to me. Maybe the meaning isn't the same to others. But to me it is. Love Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.