Maybe the first time I've been happy to receive a downvote. A suitably and if I may say so, attractively, nerdy analysis.

I don't know, the Batman I know might just have been arrogant enough to try something like this - he did once fistfight a bunch of white martians. Or this could be the fight as it plays out in his head while he's deciding he needs a better plan, if you've read Midnighter you know what I'm talking about.

I always thought the dark side was unreasonably maligned. That old Batman as a green lantern story was a disappointment; I now want to read a book about Batman growing up in the Star Wars universe...learning about the force...deciding the Sith had to be dealt with...

Got the Martian on my Kindle, good read.

Your video, Rare footage of the 1914 Martian conflict, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's not so much racism as xenophobia. The Russians might be white, but during the cold war, they may as well have been Martians.

And no, I don't believe Americans support drone strikes because the "get" to kill brown people. It's simply that they don't care as much about them.

You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It goes way beyond terrorism. And it's not even a US issue either.

Look at other tragedies, natural disasters, etc.

Katrina killed 1800 people. Undoubtedly a significant event. The 2004 tsunami killed nearly a quarter of a million people, but which one got more media coverage in the developed world?

So, once again, answer the question. Would you have been ok with the British government drone striking Ireland in the 80s?

His source data: NASA Archives, 23488-32

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

A more reasonable path to a semblance of sanity with regard to the abject state of political and representative corruption at the state and federal level is to stop listening to the incessant rhetoric coming from the television during these predictable and mind-numbing campaign propaganda attacks on an individual's innate common-senses during these election cycles, especially since the trend is for growing numbers of peeps who more and more by the second, get their information from sources who are not simply soldiers and propaganda arms of the very machines screwing the world over by usurping rights, making laws to enslave people daily, and further entrench their own powers to control every aspect of human life.

I would hope personally, that during election cycles both state and national, that the underlying emphasis of speeches and campaign education would firstly be the complete insanity and insult to consciousness of there being only republicans and democrats to choose from, because these arcane delineations of part are the root cause of the reason nations (Especially the United States) are heading down the path of crony-screw-everyone-but-the-people syndrome. Start by discarding the two major parties, who have done absolutely nothing but bankrupt the nation as well as your minds.

Then comes the blood in the streets, the blood of these charlatans and liars who are attempting and succeeding in becoming the omnipresent omnigarchy of the 21st Century.

Remember in Mars Attacks when the leader of the martians vaporized the entire senate during that televised news conference?
Loved that movie....

A new martian call center, perhaps?

Join a martian *cult, you say?

http://videosift.com/video/the-yep-yep-martians-discover-the-telephone-classic-sesame

The martians in that area are pissed.

Thank you x4!
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
didn't you do that before?
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*doublepromote



it's the best video of it

In reply to this comment by lurgee:
didn't you do that before?
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*doublepromote



it's the best video of it

didn't you do that before?
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*doublepromote