Michael Stuart Kelly

Chicken chicken chicken

Recommended Posts

I think I cruise hostile websites more for kernels of humor than for anything else. They sometimes turn up some hilarious stuff like the video below. If only they would stick to humor...

(sigh)...

It's a thing long on chicken and short on rooster, I guess...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my God!

I got this video off of Noodlefood. Don't tell me that I think the same thing is funny as, er... that person, and nobody else sees the humor in it!

*%#**&@$-#!!!

(hanging head and sprouting tears...)

Woe is me! Woe is me! chicken chicken Woe is me!

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my God!

I got this video off of Noodlefood. Don't tell me that I think the same thing is funny as, er... that person, and nobody else sees the humor in it!

*%#**&@$-#!!!

(hanging head and sprouting tears...)

Woe is me! Woe is me! chicken chicken Woe is me!

Michael

You probably like Beethoven also...

Bill P (smiling)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I don't think the reason is nationality or culture.

After reflecting, I came up with a speculation. Those who postulate that logic and math have no relationship to reality are not amused when structures of logic and measurement are shown with a random bit of reality inserted where others are supposed to fit. For those who hold that logic and math reflect the way the universe is made, removing the reality and inserting a random item is funny in a slapstick kind of manner.

And it is very funny. God knows I translated enough Power Point documents that ended up, after a lot of blah blah blah, having the same cognitive import as "chicken." It is very funny to see that verbalized and made concrete.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the audience sure thought it was funny, so I guess it was a success for him. There is no such thing as "absolute humour" just like there is no "absolute right or wrong" :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the audience sure thought it was funny, so I guess it was a success for him. There is no such thing as "absolute humour" just like there is no "absolute right or wrong" :rolleyes:

If I take your first born son, as a baby, and barbecue and eat him, it is not absolutely wrong? And in revenge you hack me to death with a machete, you are not absolutely right? Arguments for the subjective are one thing, but to use comedic routines as an argument against morality--and morality has to do with absolutes however finely refined--is a light broth in a heavy sea.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the audience sure thought it was funny, so I guess it was a success for him. There is no such thing as "absolute humour" just like there is no "absolute right or wrong" :rolleyes:

I assume (based on the content and the "rolleyes") that you are joking. What is sad is that some say similar things and aren't:

1) Relativists who argue that because taste in food, humor, music differ and there is no "one right music, etc..." then the same must hold in ethics/morals

2) Some Objectivists who seem to believe that there is "one right music," . . . .

Both groups are of course in error.

Bill P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant, are you suggesting it would be better to eat his son raw?

It's not an absolute. But I've never heard of cannibalistic sushi.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?

General; Dropping an atomic bomb that saves millions of lives by ending a long war is much more right than not doing that action. May I recommend Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?

GS,

You already have your own standard by which to answer those things:

... there is no "absolute right or wrong" :rolleyes:

I take a different view because I use a different standard.

For instance, I hold that, barring those extremely rare cases of being stranded in the snowy wilderness with no food and a child having already died, it is absolutely wrong to eat children. And it is absolutely wrong to drop an atomic bomb on a city during peace time.

Since you hold that there is no absolute right and wrong, to be consistent you have to hold that it could be right to eat children within normal society and to drop an atomic bomb on a city during peace time.

Chicken? Chicken chicken?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take a different view because I use a different standard.

For instance, I hold that, barring those extremely rare cases of being stranded in the snowy wilderness with no food and a child having already died, it is absolutely wrong to eat children. And it is absolutely wrong to drop an atomic bomb on a city during peace time.

Since you hold that there is no absolute right and wrong, to be consistent you have to hold that it could be right to eat children within normal society and to drop an atomic bomb on a city during peace time.

Chicken? Chicken chicken?

Michael

You are qualifying what is right and wrong under certain conditions so you are in effect admitting it is not an absolute process - it is not ALWAYS wrong to eat children. Morals are guidelines to live our lives by but there are not ALWAYS applicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?

General; Dropping an atomic bomb that saves millions of lives by ending a long war is much more right than not doing that action. May I recommend Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!".

Are you saying there was absolutely no other way to stop the war besides dropping 2 atomic bombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?

General; Dropping an atomic bomb that saves millions of lives by ending a long war is much more right than not doing that action. May I recommend Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!".

Are you saying there was absolutely no other way to stop the war besides dropping 2 atomic bombs?

That seems to have been the best choice at the time. A naval blockade of Japan would probably have starved millions to death. An invasion would have created millions of casualties. The war had the inertia of a falling hammer and only the Japanese themselves had the power to stop that hammer--by surrendering. If I had been in WWII I could have manned the Enola Gay, even knowing full well what was going to happen. My motivation: to get the war over with as fast as possible.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS,

Are you defining "absolute" to mean "no standard"?

Or, for that matter, when you say "always" you are qualifying the term. "Always" is a standard of measurement.

Maybe absolute to you means one standard but not another? That sounds like an arbitrary usage of common terms.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?

General; Dropping an atomic bomb that saves millions of lives by ending a long war is much more right than not doing that action. May I recommend Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!".

Are you saying there was absolutely no other way to stop the war besides dropping 2 atomic bombs?

One would have been better, and three almost became necessary. What's your point? Death is death; by what weapon matters not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The war had the inertia of a falling hammer and only the Japanese themselves had the power to stop that hammer--by surrendering.

--Brant

This reminds me of the bully in the playground who sits on you until you say 'uncle'. The US could have rendered the Japanese military machine useless without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians even if the emperor didn't say 'uncle'. a blockade could have been in place without starving millions of civilians. The real problem is that once fights get started they quickly get out of control. This applies equally to flame wars and world wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...