On 2012-01-05 05:56, funsway wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-04 20:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-04 20:18, Corbett wrote:
Was the original post on this thread for real? Am I being punked?

? you know funsway?

Of course it was serious -- my feeling that some serious ethical considerations are involved.

The various posts only justify this view, methinks. Personal attacks, projections, misquotes, etc. can only come from sosme sense of guilt or sensitivity -- I have pushed a "hot button."

I have never asked anyone to agree with my view that any reference to personal violence (against another) as a solution to anything is ethically wrong -- direct, metaphorically, allegorically, humorously or folly. I posted this so that readers could consider their own ethical views with regards to comments involving suggested personal violence.

I don't really care what your conclusion is -- only that you have been "taken there" -- which is what ethical consideration is all about. Pretending to assign any other view, attitude, emotion, etc. to me is silly.

That fact that disability concerns are involved are secondary to the cultural training of accepting personal violence as "normal" -- making the allusion more terrifying, perhaps. Each person is "less than able" in some way -- and thereby afraid/protective of thier personal space and self-image. Methinks the attempts here at humor only shows the unwillingness to address this fear, or make conscious ethical decision about what you do in communication.

I keep thinking that the practice of magic should result in higher character of those involved. I watch and learn. though this thread is about ethics, none of the responders have used that term -- interesting.

On 2012-01-10 22:36, Steve_Mollett wrote:
I'm gonna go punch Howdy Doody in the face.

On 2012-01-11 12:35, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
So, where is the line here? Is it OK to say anything (legal) about anyone as long as most conclude it is a joke? Would it be acceptable if the mag had substituted "your mother" in place of Stephen Hawking?

On 2012-01-11 12:35, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
So, where is the line here? Is it OK to say anything (legal) about anyone as long as most conclude it is a joke? Would it be acceptable if the mag had substituted "your mother" in place of Stephen Hawking?

On 2012-01-11 14:13, FrenchDrop wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-11 12:35, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
So, where is the line here? Is it OK to say anything (legal) about anyone as long as most conclude it is a joke? Would it be acceptable if the mag had substituted "your mother" in place of Stephen Hawking?

No, it wouldn't be acceptable -- but only because it wouldn't make any sense, since my mother is not a world-renowned physicist.

You ask if it's okay (legal) to say anything about anyone as long as most conclude it's a joke. That's a good question and very appropriate to the discussion. First off, it's legal to say anything about anyone, period (short of making clear, unambiguous threats to do them physical harm, at any rate). That's because, thanks to the First Amendment, there are no laws that make it illegal to say anything you like. The fact that a thing is not illegal, however, doesn't mean you can't be sued for it. And that's where your question becomes very relevant.

When the adult magazine Hustler published a piece, intended to be humorous, that implied that Rev. Jerry Falwell had had sex with his own mother, Falwell sued the magazine's publisher, Larry Flynt. In a famous, landmark legal decision, the court ruled that Flynt had not libeled Falwell, because the piece in question was clearly intended as a joke, and no reasonable person who read it would conclude that Falwell had ever literally had sex with his mother. (No judgment was made regarding whether the piece was actually funny or in good taste; it was enough that the piece was clearly intended as a joke and not as a statement of fact.)

Likewise, no reasonable person who reads the David Acer article in Genii is going to conclude that David Neighbors is the kind of person who would punch a quadriplegic man in the face -- or even that Acer thinks he is. Therefore, the article did no real harm to Neighbors or his reputation.

So. Can you say anything about anyone as long as most conclude it's a joke? Yeah, pretty much.

On 2012-01-11 13:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Does Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" cross any lines? After all, what it suggests is far more dreadful than punching someone in the face.

On 2012-01-11 14:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think you've misread MM's question, as suggested by your rewriting the "(legal)" after the "okay" and not after the "anything," as he had written it. The question isn't (as I read his post) whether it's "okay" meaning "legal," to say "anything" (the question you addressed very well), but RATHER whether it's "okay" to say anything that is legal. He doesn't want to know that it's legal; he wants to know whether it might be "not okay" even given that it's legal.

Which may not change your answer.

On 2012-01-11 13:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Does Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" cross any lines? After all, what it suggests is far more dreadful than punching someone in the face.

On 2012-01-12 01:02, writeall wrote:
The Right or Wrong Section of the Forum.

It seems it is much harder to be right in this thread than clearly and convincingly wrong.