Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
the troll agrees with cansuck...
And the Elephant's Child's nose kept on stretching; and the Elephant's Child spread all his little four legs and pulled, and pulled, and pulled, and his nose kept on stretching; and the Crocodile threshed his tail like an oar, and he pulled, and pulled, and pulled, and at each pull the Elephant's Child's nose grew longer and longer--and it hurt him hijjus!
Then the Elephant's Child felt his legs slipping, and he said through his nose, which was now nearly five feet long, 'This is too butch for be!'"
Clearly, you know absolutely nothing about comedy.
PS- I last thought you were funny in 1996.
I'm going to have to stop reading you too Wm. St. Hump. if you post stuff like this. I've been crying for days over the poor dead baby kittens.
@21 Something has surely killed your empathetic mirror neurons.
I just have a really hard time with certain stuff involving kids and animals.
First the OH SO CUTE epileptic kittens and now this!! What the fuck is wrong with you guys? I know everybody's a little on edge after the election, but I CANNOT for the life of me get into the head of anyone who finds amusement in images like this.
What's next for chuckles around here, setting puppies on fire and going HAR HAR HAR as they frantically try to put themselves out?
COME THE FUCK ON, GUYS.
I have seen animals die naturally. That's not the fucking issue. The issue is thinking it's funny.
It's nature, it's brutal. Animals eat one another. That is not sad, it's life.
It's simple. Lizards are ugly. Baby elephants are cute. Team Elephant!
I'd say it's worth roughly the same number of laughs as George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove" attempting to convince Peter Sellers that 20,000,000 civilians killed in a retaliatory-strike nuclear exchange scenario is a preferable outcome to 150,000,000 killed.
Personally, I would tend to lump animals in with small children when it comes to deriving mirth from their misfortune...in other words, I don't.
The object of the humor doesn't necessarily have to feel they're suffering or being humiliated. In fact, comedy tends to work best when they are completely unaware of how they are perceived. For example: does a baby feel any sense of embarrassment when it pukes up strained carrots all over mom's brand new silk blouse? Probably not. But that doesn't stop people from laughing, because they can't help but feel that, were the baby in their shoes, it WOULD no doubt feel embarrassed. Projection plays an important role in humor as well; the "there but for the grace of (insert preferred diety here) go I" paradigm.
In short, we laugh at the misfortune of others simply because it's NOT happening to us.
And @60: I find that entire film uproariously funny, as do many others apparently, so no, I don't the argument is settled in quite the way I think you think it is.