Didn't realize this could be a video aimed at the mentally challenged such as down syndrome. I just thought it may be a horribly executed sex-ed video from days gone past. Now that it's mentioned and I think back (don't feel the need to re-watch), I realize that this may be exactly what it is.

As to Honkytonk's comment above - it was funny when it was just a poorly executed video - but becomes unfunny once you realize she actually is "challenged". I don't know why that is though. In fact, it shouldn't be funny at all - it must be the absurdness of the content when we view it out of context.

I don't think the up-votes are from people laughing at a how-to clip aimed at challenged children. I think we laugh because we assume it's aimed at regular intelligenced people made by less intelligent people (in this case, the film-makers).

I'll just choose not to vote on this one...

the repetition and the fact that it stars a child with down syndrome, and that they felt compelled to show the ladies pad make me feel like it is.


>> ^Efflixi:

I saw a video years ago that was meant to teach mentally retarded children about sex. I wonder if this is part of the same series.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

Feel sorry for that little girl... her parents must be related.


Your ignorance is astonishing, sir. I leave you with this:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/down-syndrome/DS00182/DSECTION=causes
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/birthdefects/f/down_syn_causes.htm

Good day.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be [engaged in] a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

To be honest, I have the same motivation behind about 80% of my comments. It the "someone on the Internet is WRONG" syndrome.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Let me give two examples of something I found both pervasive, and an incitement to violence.

The first one is Sarah Palin's invention of the "death panel":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That was never something even remotely part of the Affordable Care Act, but you had it repeated and defended almost to a man by conservatives. Even the normally anti-talking point libertarians we have around here felt compelled to occasionally add "perhaps that's the basis for the 'death panels' the Republicans keep talking about..." to their criticisms of the ACA.

If you think that what liberals are trying to do is, as Senator Chuck Grassley put it, "pull the plug on Grandma", then it justifies trying to stop it by all means necessary. If talking about it doesn't work, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, and ultimately armed rebellion is okay, because it's all self defense against an unconscionable act of nihilistic genocide.

The second one is the talk about revolution and secession. The most famous are Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" about Cap & Trade, and Gov. Rick Perry winds up on TV a lot for talking about secession.

I'd also say that when I compare left vs. right on this topic, it's not so much about the quantity, but the quality and authority. The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election, while left-wing ones never did. Glenn Beck is making the case, night after night, that Obama and liberals aren't metaphorically taking us down the path of fascism and genocide, but literally doing so. That's qualitatively different from the average boisterous protester drawing a Hitler mustache on Obama or Bush's face, or some nobody like me calling him that in a comment.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.
Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

Okay, again, I think there's a big difference. The criticism of the Tea Party from the left has mostly been to call them:

• Racist
  
• Angry
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Believe a revisionist version of history
  
• Believe in a revisionist version of the Constitution
  
• Quick to resort to intimidation or violence
  
• Run by corporations
  

That's a pretty negative set of attributes. Well earned too, IMO.

Thing is, we don't really want them gone, we want them to snap out of it. We want to demonstrate to them the value of what we believe, and we want to show that the things we want and what they want aren't really so different when you come down to it.

Their criticism of us is:

• Elitist
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Weak (on terror/drugs/Ruskies/welfare parasites, etc.)
  
• Lazy
  
• Naive
  
• Run by special interests (mostly Unions and enviro-terrorists)
  
• Propagandist (we supposedly control all media, remember?)
  
• Unpatriotic
  
• Un-American
  
• Baby-killing
  
• Grandma-killing
  
• Job-killing
  
• Troop-hating
  
• Gay-loving
  
• Flag-burning
  
• God-hating
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Fascist
  

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them. They're not okay with a government that's part-conservative and part-liberal in inspiration. It's an all-or-nothing game to them.

I think that's less true in the broader right-wing movement, but the Tea Party-style of argument is in ascendance over there, and it seems like hardly anyone on the right thinks they should be trying to cool down that eliminationist streak.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head.

I agree.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.
Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected.

I agree with where you start here, but not where you end. Throughout, I am talking about condemnation, not criminalization.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

I think the kind of political junkies who come and get in my face here are kindred spirits, but I get so very, very tired of trying to break through the vitriol, and I mostly just write off responding to the people who seem to only speak to provoke.

To be frank, you have been a pretty borderline case in my book. You come across to me as someone who's commentary often only serves to raise the amount of heat and useless vitriol in conversations. I know I can dish it out myself, but I tend to dial it way back if I sense someone wants a real conversation.

I'm glad to see you do that at least a bit here.

Like you said, don't be a dupe -- don't be one of these people who carries nothing but a burning hatred of people who disagree with you, especially if you like to hang out in a place you think is 90% people who disagree with you.

More people are born hermaphrodites than are born with Cystic Fibrosis and Downs Syndrome combined. What's god trying to say with that? If I have a partly functional penis and one fully functional but useless ovary, whom do I marry?

Oh, and I just love the race argument brought up by the whitest black girl on earth. Let's say there was a way to make a black person white. Is that going to change them on the inside?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

I often confuse Down Syndrome with Autism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism


That's a pretty dramatic confusion, dude.

I often confuse Down Syndrome with Autism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

Tags for this video have been changed from 'minimate, rotten fruit, down syndrome grapefruit, thats not a knife' to 'minimate, rotten fruit, down syndrome grapefruit, thats not a knife, annoying orange' - edited by Fusionaut

Wellll, Im sure by the time a child with down syndrome is 15 the parents have LONG since come to terms with it.

The challenge would be accepting/coping with the news I would of thought.

Never the less, funny.

Why did they give it Down Syndrome?

>> ^TangledThorns:
>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^TangledThorns:
Seth Macfarlane is a closet homosexual who hates breeders like Sarah Palin but to go after her through her child is pretty low. Would he of made the same joke if she didn't have a down syndrome child?
This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.

Seth said nothing disparaging about Down's Syndrome, or about Trig. The character in the sketch is a girl, but Sarah Palin doesn't actually have a daughter with Down's Syndrome.

Are that obtuse or are you just faking it? I suspect it's the latter.


We're either "Bleeding heart liberals" or we're the "mean spirited left."

I'm beginning to think TT is either retarded or delusional.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^TangledThorns:
Seth Macfarlane is a closet homosexual who hates breeders like Sarah Palin but to go after her through her child is pretty low. Would he of made the same joke if she didn't have a down syndrome child?
This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.

Seth said nothing disparaging about Down's Syndrome, or about Trig. The character in the sketch is a girl, but Sarah Palin doesn't actually have a daughter with Down's Syndrome.


Are that obtuse or are you just faking it? I suspect it's the latter.

>> ^TangledThorns:
Seth Macfarlane is a closet homosexual who hates breeders like Sarah Palin but to go after her through her child is pretty low. Would he of made the same joke if she didn't have a down syndrome child?
This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.


Seth said nothing disparaging about Down's Syndrome, or about Trig. The character in the sketch is a girl, but Sarah Palin doesn't actually have a daughter with Down's Syndrome.

Seth Macfarlane is a closet homosexual who hates breeders like Sarah Palin but to go after her through her child is pretty low. Would he of made the same joke if she didn't have a down syndrome child?

This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.

So they say "blah blah blah long lead times" but come on. This was a beautifully engineered Troll'ing of Sarah Palin.

The downs-syndrome character in the skit isn't acting out of the ordinary in any way, except for her speech. She's acting like an average girl on a date. The ONLY thing the character says in reference to Sarah Palin is the statement that her mother is the former governor of Alaska. She doesn't "act retarded". She doesn't actually say "Sarah Palin".

So any perception that Seth McFarland is "making fun of retarded people" or "making fun of Sarah Palin" is completely in the mind and preconceptions of the viewer.

Fucking brilliant. Of course Sarah Palin is coming out in outrage over this piece. Of course BillO is up in arms and denouncing Seth McFarland as a pinhead. He's on FOX too, for fuck's sake.

Family Guy gets all that great, free publicity.