apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (02/21/86)
In article <152@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >In article <1175@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes: >>In article <140@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>>I've got a theory: Most people are not assholes. Most people do not think >>>rape is funny. Therefore most people who found the joke funny, did for the >>>reason Fr. Woolley claims. >> >>Your "therefore" doesn't actually reflect any logical implication (draw a few >>sets of differing sizes and you'll see what I mean). > >Of course not. It represents reasonable inference. Remember that the >language as used in mathematics is not identical to the language as used in >everyday speech. What I wonder is, why did you bother making this >statement... > >> However, I'm beginning to >>think that you're half-right. A significant fraction of those net-readers who >>enjoyed the joke did so because they interpreted it in Fr. Woolley's sense, >>and didn't notice other messages in the joke. > >...especially since you apparently understood what I said? > >And, by the way, that "significant fraction" is, I strongly suspect, damn >near 100%. Or do you really think a "significant fraction" of net readers >think rape is funny? > If you were actually interested in the truth, rather than in attacking my views, you would have noticed that about half of those who have *disagreed* with me nonetheless reject Fr. Woolley's interpretation of the joke. The humor, they say, is in the naivete of the prostitute's reaction. (They maintain that it's not offensive because it refers only to one individual.) Again, if you were interested in the truth, you would notice that it is *not* reasonable to infer that those people who find a putatively offensive joke funny are representative of the net population as a whole. I have no idea what your motives are, but the pursuance of reasoned debate clearly isn't among them. (Feel free to complain about the "gratuitous insult" of this posting, as you did earlier about Nancy Parsons'. But reread your earlier posting in this discussion first.) Hugs and kisses, Adrian Kent