Did Letterman cross the line?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think the most significant difference, Tribesman, is the fact that the butt of this joke was a named minor, whose family is already dealing with the complex issues surrounding teen pregnancy. It's hardly fair for either of the Palin girls to be thrust onto the national stage in such a derogatory manner, which could problems for them later in life. It could even be construed as defamation of character in a court of law.

That said, I tend to side with freedom of speech on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, Letterman can mercilessly torment a young orphan with down syndrome and elephantitis, and I wouldn't bat an eye. As repugnant as I may find such a thing on a personal level, he should have the right to poke fun at everyone, as long as it is not direct and intended defamation. The consequence to him comes in the form of a loss of viewers and even sponsors. Sponsors who continue to support him risk the loss of part of their customer base and a reduced effectiveness in their advertising, and that is all the further it needs to go.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Quite telling indeed , it tells us once again you that cannot read and comprehend Aramike.
Don't worry though as I am in a helpful mood today. So why don't see if you can find a responsible grown up to help you with understanding the following....
What is "rape"? What is "statuatory rape"?


Now for other people who can actually understand words and who might just think that the topic of underage sex isn't suitable material for a funny joke lets move it up a notch to see how quickly your point falls apart.
How about jokes about child sex abuse?
Outrageous, surely there is nothing funny about peadophiles abusing children is there.....so how many of you have laughed at the jokes about Michael Jackson or priests?

Blah, blah, "you can't read and comprehend MY incomprehensible and ultimately pointless statements".

Good one. I'm going to file that under the "Repeatedly Grasping at Straws" category, which ironically resides right beside the "Tribesman Doesn't Know the Definition and Application of 'Context'" drawer.

Oh, and I don't disagree that Michael Jackson jokes are funny. But it seems so very easy to comprehend the distinction that Michael Jackson jokes are on Michael Jackson, and the Palin jokes are on the daughters, (ostensibly the older one, although CONTEXT would suggest it was about the younger one, but you don't know what context means so that's okay).

[TDK1044]

Letterman made a joke that was not very funny and was in poor taste. This was made worse because it turned out that it was the younger Palin daughter at the game.

End of issue.

I think the most significant difference, Tribesman, is the fact that the butt of this joke was a named minor

Yes , but the question didn't specify that , it just asked when is a joke about underage sex funny . The only answer is that a joke is funny when it is funny.

Blah, blah,

Then of course along came a muppet who can't think and made his usual mess of attempting to comprehend simple things by changing underage sex into something else as a futile attempt to try and pretend he has some sort of point to make.
So Aramike, are you a natural born idiot or did it take you years of practice?

[SteamWake]

I think this thread has run its course.

Enough with the personal sniping already take it to PM if you want to do that.

[Safe-Keeper]

Whats with all this angst with Palin anyhow.

Are they threatend by her somehow? (They=Liberal elite)

Oh? If that's the case (that attention is proportional to angst), one wonders why everyone is so petrified of Obama, Al Gore and Kerry.

Most people wouldn't find any joke about rape funny

Oh? Making juvenile jokes about rape, unfortunately, seems to be incredibly popular these days in my eyes.

Up theirs... Bring it on. Jokes about anything and anybody should be made, and as long as they are meant as jokes, I really can't see the harm...

The problem is that we Westerners don't understand how important Islam is to Muslims - even in the US, you rarely if ever see people believe in and practice religion with the same fervor. Certainly not in Scandinavia. A blogger I followed once published an essay about how she had lived in Oman, and a friend of hers there recounted to her that once he dropped a Qur'an to the floor accidentally once. His classmates were outraged (even though it'd blown over by the end of the period, after apologies and whatnot). Islam is life itself to these people, and we Westerners forget both this and that we, too, are incredibly easily offended when values we hold to be vital to our society are in question. Imagine some politician stating that rape of children should be legalized. With values important to us questioned, Would there be a huge outcry, or would everyone sit in a circle, sing kumbaya and praise freedom of speech? Aren't there a lot of people who want prison sentences for burning flags?

Also, it's easy for us to make this a question of principles and publish the cartoons because we see the alternative as some kind of arbitrary defeat, but a bit less so for the people who are actually harmed, physically, by bombings and other threats to their persons due to the actions of some "freedom of speech advocate" half a world away.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes , but the question didn't specify that , it just asked when is a joke about underage sex funny . The only answer is that a joke is funny when it is funny.


Then of course along came a muppet who can't think and made his usual mess of attempting to comprehend simple things by changing underage sex into something else as a futile attempt to try and pretend he has some sort of point to make.
So Aramike, are you a natural born idiot or did it take you years of practice?

The joke wasn't about underage sex. It was about statuatory rape.

Nice try with your futile effort to keep riding the "you can't comprehend" me card. You're right - I can't. Because you're too big of an idiot to communicate properly.

The joke wasn't about underage sex. It was about statuatory rape.

Are you really that dumb?
I had asked before , but obviously you can't read and comprehend.
So here we go again , try hard and concentrate to see what the words of the question mean.....
What is statutory rape?
Come on it ain't a hard question .
Would you like some help ?
Statutory rape is consensual sex when people are underage .
Work it out aramike , go on put the pieces together , its so simple that even you should be able to manage.
Statutory rape IS underage sex.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Are you really that dumb?
I had asked before , but obviously you can't read and comprehend.
So here we go again , try hard and concentrate to see what the words of the question mean.....
What is statutory rape?
Come on it ain't a hard question .
Would you like some help ?
Statutory rape is consensual sex when people are underage .
Work it out aramike , go on put the pieces together , its so simple that even you should be able to manage.
Statutory rape IS underage sex.

Really? Are you going to stand by these words?

Statutory Rape: an adult having illegal sex with a minor.
Underage Sex: A minor engaging in sex.

Those are two very different things.

It's fun to be nitpicky with someone who gets so riled up as you do. Dance, puppet.

Obam's kids coudn't spell their way out of a paperbag. That's not funny, dad couldn't work himself out of one either. Without the teleprompter.

Obama is less well spoken than Bush was. Obama just uses a teleprompter.

Really? Are you going to stand by these words?

Yes.

Statutory Rape: an adult having illegal sex with a minor.
Underage Sex: A minor engaging in sex.

No , the legal definition is very clear . Statutory rape is when one or both parties is below the statutory age of consent, any consensual sex involving someone underage is statutory rape. Sorry to confuse you with legalities , but its a legal issue isn't it.
When both parties in a case are below the age of consent then it is the eldest who is the defendant.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes.

No , the legal definition is very clear . Statutory rape is when one or both parties is below the statutory age of consent, any consensual sex involving someone underage is statutory rape. Sorry to confuse you with legalities , but its a legal issue isn't it.
When both parties in a case are below the age of consent then it is the eldest who is the defendant.

What's funny about that is that the legal definition is not clear. It depends on the particular law, which changes from state to state, at least in the US.

But in any case, I'm shocked that you didn't respond with what was coming to be the standard vitriol. I'd thought you'd TOTALLY bite on the fact that statutory rape must involve a minor, therefore would include underage sex.

Oh well, maybe next time...

fact

Would that be fact or "fact"

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Would that be fact or "fact"

Wait, so you're disputing that statutory rape must involve a minor?

Having a hard time comprehending, are you?

Wait, so you're disputing that statutory rape must involve a minor?

yes thats what was written ...in your strange imagination

It was you who thought it was something it wasn't.
In fact you started off by confusing statutory rape with rape which are two completely different things.
You really are letting yourslf down very badly in this topic Aramike.

But hey lets try again , read this quote slowly .

Statutory rape IS underage sex.

Now if that is too confusing for you try it the other way round
Underage sex IS statutory rape.
OK , got that ? It is quite easy.
Now a slightly harder one for you to ponder.
What does "underage" mean ?


So now for the really important question....
Are you just going out of your way to demonstrate your lack of comprehension ?