nekkid wimmin

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The fact is, as said before, best jokes are almost always are at the cost of somebody, be it sikhs, poles, or blondes. There is no need to get hurt by them.

Hm... In my mental ontology they belong to the "worst jokes" category. My favorite jokes are precisely those that are made at nobody's expense. Like
hacker humor:
"Fascination with form-vs.-content jokes, paradoxes, and humor having to do with confusion of metalevels (see meta). One way to make a hacker laugh: hold a red index card in front of him/her with "GREEN" written on it, or vice-versa (note, however, that this is funny only the first time).
See also Hacker Writing Style
Another example:
William Safire's Rules for Writers

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

>I think you are reading too much into it
There's a difference - Sardarji jokes suggest that Sardars are dumb - and this one suggests Muslims are malicious - and I don't want that becoming a trend.
>The claim it is making is that Bill Clinton... yada yada yada
As I said earlier, using the name 'Bill Clinton' is of no significance to the core insult to Muslims contained in this 'joke' - if that's the last thread you're hanging on, <snip> there you go
Map, Safire's Rules are hilarious
[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Nanhesru Ningyake ]

[Javed Sardar]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In fact, it's basically true. If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes there would be few if any hijackings.

If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes there would be few if any hijackings.
If Christians were put in prison there would be no Christain criminals.
If Hindus were not permitted on roads there would be no naxalities (local rebels in India).
Great idea by a great person.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Javed Sardar:
If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes there would be few if any hijackings.
If Christians were put in prison there would be no Christain criminals.

Completely different comparison. Or are you going to claim that only Chrisitans commit crimes?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:
There's a difference - Sardarji jokes suggest that Sardars are dumb - and this one suggests Muslims are malicious - and I don't want that becoming a trend.

Are you suggesting it is okay, or somehow a lesser offense, to suggest that somebody is of limited intelligence because of the ethnic group they belong to, compared to suggesting that a subset of another group is malicious?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
are you going to claim that only Chrisitans commit crimes?

oppss...
No, he is saying that if all christians are behind bar then no christian will commit crimes.
It does not say that there will be no crime.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Are you suggesting it is okay, or somehow a lesser offense, to suggest that somebody is of limited intelligence because of the ethnic group they belong to, compared to suggesting that a subset of another group is malicious?

I think that's a good point that NN has made. On the surface it looks are both (calling one as dumb or terrorist based on ethnicity) are really the same. However, being dumb is not a crime and does not affect anybody else (generally) but being a terrorist is a crime and it affects a lot of people. So if you think that way, branding somebody as a terrorist because of his ethnicity is probably a lot worse that branding somebody as dumb.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <ravish kumar>:
No, he is saying that if all christians are behind bar then no christian will commit crimes.

Which is an absolutely true statement. So why is he offended by the also true statement that if Moslems were not permitted on airplanes that there would be few if any hijackings in the US?

[Michael Ernest]

If hypersensitive programmers weren't allowed to tell or listen to jokes then we wouldn't have life-draining topics like this one.

[Mark Milan]

The only group that should be banned from planes is hijackers. And maybe hypersensitive programmers.
And Bill Clinton.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Apparently Iraq/US jokes are allowed, but the joke has to be on Iraq.

So? You got a problem with that? I am sure over at SadaamRanch they have their own rules about jokes.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
If hypersensitive programmers weren't allowed to tell or listen to jokes then we wouldn't have life-draining topics like this one.

I find this very amusing. It's amazing how desperate people are to be offended.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Which is an absolutely true statement. So why is he offended by the also true statement that if Moslems were not permitted on airplanes that there would be few if any hijackings in the US?

I think statement should be :
if Moslems were not permitted on airplanes that there would be no muslim will be hijacker in the world?
Your all relatives will die infront of you == You will live the longest among your all relatives
AW jokes should be taken as joke ........
But at the same time

I am sure over at SadaamRanch they have their own rules about jokes

Do you want to say that, you can make fun of Iraq and not US ???
Then my dear bro, you should not insult some one else broter if you cannot see others to insult your brother.
If I can make fun of Sardar, I am ready and believe me I listen also jokes on my community.
One joke on my community, if you can get it :
Thakur's full form is
Tha=>Thet Bhuddhi (no mind)
Ku => Kukarmee (doing all bad things)
r => Rangeelay (going to brothel and all)
I was thinking that its an International site, looks like its US site

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
... the also true statement that if Moslems were not permitted on airplanes that there would be few if any hijackings in the US?

Do you think that the following statement is also true?
If Catholic priests where not allowed to be in contact with kids there would be few if any child-abuse cases?
I personally think this statement is false as the statement you made about highjacking.
Generalising too much often denotes simple minds.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by <ravish kumar>:

I was thinking that its an International site, looks like its US site

Well, to get down to the heart of things, this site is/was about Java. Since 9/11, things have changed. The beautful thing is, it's unlikely anyone who bothers to spend time here had anything to do with it, and yet the event continues to manifest itself in various ways in MD.
This site runs from a US location. It is owned and operated by a US citizen. Very many, but not all, of its moderators/sheriffs are US citizens or live here.
We could all hope that promoting Java certification itself is a premise with no national boundaries. As for what goes on in MD, it's a different matter. This forum is intended for people to tell jokes. The arbiters of what's ok and what isn't -- as opposed to what's funny or not -- is, and you should know this by now, largely of US influence.
My advice here: keep your umbrage local. Don't inflate your concerns into those of millions of people some of whom have no clue what Java is. No one here speaks for Muslims or Americans or Christians or anyone else. I can't even speak for another sheriff or moderator, except for Map who of course heeds my every whim.
We're not a government agency so there are no constitutional rights to invoke here. Our funding, if it can be called that, is private. Advertising revenue here isn't. So I really don't know what strings NN or anyone else hopes to pull in these complaints, but if persuasion hasn't changed the mind of the site owner, I'd say the campaign has run its course.
One last thing: trying to raise one statement to a level of outrage by comparing it to another statement that is "equally outrageous" and intended to inflame others is cheap, adolescent rhetoric. It's the mark of a cheap education and an even cheaper regard for viewpoints that are not your own. Even Meaningless Drivel doesn't need that.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

Do you think that the following statement is also true?
If Catholic priests where not allowed to be in contact with kids there would be few if any child-abuse cases?

It's a disservice to be so specific. How about: if men were not allowed to ride in planes or come in contact with kids or buy guns, etc., etc., there'd be few if any cases of all-around misery in the world?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

Do you think that the following statement is also true?
If Catholic priests where not allowed to be in contact with kids there would be few if any child-abuse cases?

That would only be true if only Catholic priests were child molesters. But the vast majority of cases involving child molesting do not involve Catholic priests. (By the way, more cases of child molestation involve Protestant ministers than Catholic priests.) But we know that every plane hijacked in the US within the last 10 years was hijacked by a Moslem. Therefore if Moslems were not premitted on planes there would be no hijackings is a more reasonable statement.

[R K Singh]

repeating ..
jokes should be taken as jokes...
my statement which I should have not written as we all know that it is an international site.
But I have to write it because someone said that SaddamRanch can have their own set of rules.
I just want to say that dont localise it by saying these words (SaddamRanch)
Yes, I am not US citizen like lot of moderators & sheriffs. Yes, I dont run this site from my country.
My advice here: keep your local jokes local.
If you accept that joke on Iraq (though you have not accepted that directly) is OK here then you should be brave enough to take joke on US also.
OR keep your local jokes of Iraq local and Don't inflate your concerns into those of millions of people who always have no clue what Saddam is.
AW I was reading this thread and avoiding becasue there was nothing to discuss till........
My 2 cents .. take jokes as jokes. Let it be on Iraq OR on US or on India ....... but there are jokes which makes everyone smile. So if one cant stop then avoid copy and paste of such jokes.
PS: be cautious, some jokes are really dirty.
I have heard same Sardar jokes on Irish also. These jokes are where you can fit anyone.
Little Johny can be always replaced by local Pappu Raja.
If a joke can not be applicable on all or replacable by anyone else then its meant for one particular community and thats wrong.
Can you replace muslim hijacker with someone else....
I can replace Bill Clinton with Musharaf OR L.K. Advani and this joke will still serve its purpose.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
But I have to write it because someone said that SaddamRanch can have their own set of rules.

With a winking smiley after it. (Hint, that means I am kidding.) Why not try purchasing a life or perhaps just a clue. Either one will be of great help to you. :roll:
Please show me the anti-US jokes that have been deleted from this site. You won;t find any. We deleted one joke that was offensive because we had several Pakistan-Indian wars fought in MD and we didn't want another. Now go find something more important to do. :roll:

[Dave Vick]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Please show me the anti-US jokes that have been deleted from this site.

Thomas, think about that for a second...
As far as the whole joking thing goes I am moe than willing to read, and laugh at jokes aimed at the United States. It is when the jokes are no longer funny that they are in danger of being deleted. The joke that started this whole thread was funny and ti was funny because it was signed by Bill Clinton. A few of you have tried to say that it doesn't matter who it is signed by that the joke is funny because it degrades moslem and women. You are missing the point, the only reason it is funny is because of who it was signed by. There might be some cultural differences working here or least some lack of knowledge that is causing this entire debate.
If you dont think a joke is funny you are more then welcome to say so, if the moderators think a joke is too inflamatory they will probably delete it. However, just because you don't unerstand a joke doesn't mean that it isn't funny. On the other hand even if a joke is funny doesn't mean it isn't inflamatory.
The moderators have the final say (well, ok the middle say, Paul has the final one), if you wish to bring a point up then please do so. However, once you've brought it up and it has been discussed and it is determined that the joke is reasonable then please let it go. You are not going to convince anyone here, the joke isn't going away, ok you think it is derogatory towards muslims, fine I understand that you think that it is, I happen to disagree. Let's all just agree to disagree and stop beating a dead horse with a broken stick.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Dave Vick:

Thomas, think about that for a second...

You weren't supposed to point that out!

[Jim Yingst]

Please show me the anti-US jokes that have been deleted from this site. You won't find any.
Thomas, I hope you realize that this bit of Mapraputan logic doesn't actually prove anything either way. :roll: [I now see this has already been mentioned, but what the heck, I'll leave it.] And if we replace "deleted" with "closed" -- I expect if we dug around a bit we could find a few things that some people thought were jokes, that others perceived as anti-American baiting. But I don't really want to encourage people to dig through all the history of questionable posts in MD. Most of them we heard enough about the first time.
You are missing the point, the only reason it is funny is because of who it was signed by.
It's possible to understand a point and disagree with it - that's not missing it. The "joke" in question has been around for a while without the Bill Clinton signature (which was the only new aspect I saw in the version Paul posted). Some people evidently thought it was funny even then. Others obviously did not. Even with the signature - I have no problem agreeing that the signature part is funny. But that does not succeed in completely redirecting the joke. If the first 90% of a joke is offensive to someone, they're probably going to remain offended even after reading the last 10%.
One last thing: trying to raise one statement to a level of outrage by comparing it to another statement that is "equally outrageous" and intended to inflame others is cheap, adolescent rhetoric.
If the intent is to inflame, I agree. But if put in more muted terms I think this is also a viable approach to try to explain to others why you find something offensive by swapping the perspectives around for people. It's hard to contruct a good analogy that is truly equivalent, due to a large number of cultural and historical differences. But the excercise may still be illuminating. Here's my attempt.
Imagine you're at a party which has a large number of Nation of Islam members. (For those who don't know, this is a variant of Islam somewhat popular among African Americans.) Someone tells a joke about how if you're traveling in the South (USA) and run into trouble with the KKK, it's possible to escape by lighting a bible on fire and throwing it across the room. The KKK members, being Christian, will of course be preoccupied with putting out the fire to avoid further damage to the bible, that they will be too busy to pursue immediately. Ha-ha. Pretend for the sake of argument that the joke is at least a little better told than this. But not much.
Now, is it so difficult to imagine that non-KKK Christians in the audience might find this "joke" at least mildly annoying? They might well be thinking that:
(a) The KKK may call themselves Christian, but that doesn't make them so.
(b) The KKK members are not going to be distracted by such a stupid tactic anyway, just incensed.
(c) For that matter, is the implication that Christians in general are incapable of doing anything other than protecting the bible in this situation? Get real.
(d) And wouldn't burning the bible just offend any other non-KKK Christians in the area? Why would you want to do that?
(e) This is a really lame joke - what's so damn funny?
Now imagine the same joke retold at another party, except at the end it was revealed that the guy suggesting the bible burning was actually a fool. (Big revelation, I know.) The same set of thoughts might still be passing through the listeners' mind - especially if they heard the original version of the joke. And they might well be wondering what the people around them were really laughing at - the final revelation, or the stuff before it? And what if they speak up about it, and someone defends the joke saying that well, it's true that the KKK do identify themselves as Christian? My response - so what? It's still a lame joke, and it shouldn't be surprising that some Christians find it objectionable.
Moving back to the "real" world of MD - I realize that some of the outcry over this joke may seem like an overreaction. I don't want everyone to be walking on eggshells at all times worrying about how anything they way might be misinterpreted by someone. But I am dismayed that there seems to be very little understanding here for why some people may find this joke offensive. If it's really so difficult to see, then I advocate a simple guideline: jokes about someone else's religion are almost always a bad idea. I'd really rather not have them here. While this one may not be so bad that it requires deletion, I don't want to see a trend in this direction - and will start deleting in the future if I do see such a trend.
[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[paul wheaton]

I think that the thing about the priest could be the root of a joke.
I think any joke will offend somebody if that somebody wants to be offended.
My philosophy on life is: If you aren't pissing somebody off, then you just aren't living!
My humor needs are huge. And to fill those humor needs, there are a lot of jokes that are very offensive to a lot of people. Some are even too much for me. I ignore those and go on to the other ones.
I still like my joke. I like naked women. I like Bill Clinton's skirt chasing. I think the joke even contains an education: I never knew muslims weren't supposed to be around naked women. It's a wonder that we don't run out of muslims! Granted, there is a flaw in the logic: not all hijackers are muslims. But if you want to get that nitpicky, you're gonna wipe out 90% of the jokes out there - and that just won't meet my humor needs.
As for shock and suprise that I would be so icky: I'm no saint. I'm no guru. I'm just a putz that made his own web site and a bazillion people showed up.
A long time ago I used an electronic community that had thousands of cool people. And then a few people bitched about this and that. So rules were made so that nobody would be upset. The rules got longer and longer and longer. In the end there were about a dozen people sitting around arguing about more changes to the rules.
So, bring on the jokes! Sure, we might delete some and sure we might leave some that piss people off.
We'll all make the best of it.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
With a winking smiley after it.

You are moron
Please see a winking smiley after it(Hint, that means I am kidding.)
Yes, I saw that winking smiley after it. And frankly I dont know why have you put there.
Why not try to understand the joke was not on Bill Clinton or just delete it. Either one will show that you are great person.
...and I was thinking that I would get reply with these lines in quote

Can you replace muslim hijacker with someone else....
I can replace Bill Clinton with Musharaf OR L.K. Advani and this joke will still serve its purpose.

I think you forgot to put Winky smiley after it
"Please show me the anti-US jokes that have been deleted from this site."
OR you dont know how to use smileys, get some common sense
[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:
So rules were made so that nobody would be upset. The rules got longer and longer and longer. In the end there were about a dozen people sitting around arguing about more changes to the rules.

Paul I agree 100% on that. There should be few if any rules.
I believe more on self restraint.
My intent was only to show contraddictions in some javaranchers statements and the fact that a joke often is based on half-truths, prejudices and simplistic view.
FYI: As far as I know Muslims can watch naked women since everybody knows that sin is in the eye of beholder. The important thing is respect which Bill Clinton does not show of course.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
...

Let me ask you this... is this a true statement? If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes, the Twin Towers would still be standing and 2,000 people wouldn't have had their lives snuffed out.
If you can't see that the comment about SadaamRanch was a joke then you really are an idiot. Calling someone a moron is never a joke. I am finished discussing this with you. Have a nice life.
[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Tom Hughes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[QB]
Let me ask you this... is this a true statement? If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes, the Twin Towers would still be standing and 2,000 people wouldn't have had their lives snuffed out.
[QB]

That is not a *true* statement, it's pure conjecture.
T.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tom Hughes:
That is not a *true* statement, it's pure conjecture.

Are you saying that it is conjecture that the people responsible for destroying the World Trade Center were Moslem?

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Are you saying that it is conjecture that the people responsible for destroying the World Trade Center were Moslem?

No. He is say that the Twin Towers might have crumbled for other reasons in the meantime, say an earthquake or any other accident.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

No. He is say that the Twin Towers might have crumbled for other reasons in the meantime, say an earthquake or any other accident.

So then we might as well invade Iraq and kill a lot of civilains because they might just die in a volcano or flood or something anyway.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

So then we might as well invade Iraq and kill a lot of civilains because they might just die in a volcano or flood or something anyway.

No offence Paul, but I find your logic really bizarre sometimes.
All I meant was your statement wasn't true. The terrosists could have snuck on to the plane, pretended not to be muslims, brainwashed someone to do it, somehow electronically taken control of the plane *or* some other non-muslim extremist group may have blown it up (the US has many enemies you know).
T.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

My intent was only to show contraddictions in some javaranchers statements and the fact that a joke often is based on half-truths, prejudices and simplistic view.

Conjure up a joke that isn't based on half-truths, prejudices, simplistic views, or some element of surprise. Go on, I dare you.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Let me ask you this... is this a true statement? If Moslems were not permitted on airplanes, the Twin Towers would still be standing and 2,000 people wouldn't have had their lives snuffed out.

Well, it is most definitely a true statement in a mathematical sense because this fact is known that WTC was downed by terrorists who were muslims.
However, it is very interesting to see how you changed your stance from what it was when I was saying there would be less problems in India if there were no fraudulent conversions.
Again, I have no objection to your changing stance....I'm just observing.

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Go on, I dare you.

Funny Songs

[Mark Milan]

OK...
Knock, knock.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Conjure up a joke that isn't based on half-truths, prejudices, simplistic views, or some element of surprise. Go on, I dare you.

What about a play on words or does tha count as 'some element of surprise'.
e.g. these oldies but goldies :
Q. Why was the mushroom invited to lots of parties?
A. Because he was a fungi to be with.
Q. Why did the fungi leave the party.
A. Cause there wasn't mushrooom.

[Marcus Green]

Ever heard the expression "I have a gun, fly me to Cuba", was that generally uttered by those of the moslem faith? To me the butt was not Bill but a religion. What next, black men are sexually rapacious and lazy style jokes?.
Marcus

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
However, it is very interesting to see how you changed your stance from what it was when I was saying there would be less problems in India if there were no fraudulent conversions.

But you missed the point. I never said that we should keep Moslems off of planes!!! I stated that it would be unfair to do that since the vast majority of Moslems are peaceful, law-abiding people. If you want to write jokes about Christians and "fraudulent" conversion, be my guest. Because this whole conversation is about a joke that someone found offensive.

[Michael Ernest]

Ah, sweet sophistries.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
Ever heard the expression "I have a gun, fly me to Cuba", was that generally uttered by those of the moslem faith? To me the butt was not Bill but a religion. What next, black men are sexually rapacious and lazy style jokes?.

If the joke is signed by George Wallace then it might even be humorous since it would be making fun of the ignorance of George Wallace. As far as hijackings to Cuba, we haven't had one in 30 years.