Is it ok to mock or joke about child abuse and pedophaelia?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Is it ever ok to mock and joke about pedophaelia, child abuse, and even bestiality, and to show scenes in whatever form about them that makes others laugh? Do you think scenes like that should be permitted in popular media for entertainment? Or is it just a simple matter of, if you don't like it, change the channel?

Some say that humor difuses uncomfortable feelings about things, but should we ever seek to make these topics for entertainment comfortable?

What do you think?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Come on now. I know the questions are tough and the topic is uncomfortable, but I am sure you all have an opinion on this. Let's go. Fess up. What do you think about it?

[dk]

Fine.

Pedophaelia = not ok
Child Abuse = if it's on Saturday night live
Bestiality = only if it includes a goat or a donkey

Do you want to censor? I don't get it. Partial cencorship?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Thanks, dk. I hope others share their thoughts as well. When a few more do, I will add something as a reply.

[DoctorP]

Fine.

Pedophaelia = not ok
Child Abuse = if it's on Saturday night live
Bestiality = only if it includes a goat or a donkey and the King of Thailand

Do you want to censor? I don't get it. Partial cencorship?

dk....quit breaking the rules!

ok..serious now!!

Is it ok to joke about it? Yes...as long as you are joking about fictional acts and not something some sick fool actually did.

[P_chan]

The king of thailand can have sex with whatever he wants and he will still be the greatest person alive!

I agree with dk. But making fun of people by calling them a pedophile once they clearly aren't, is ok in my book.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The king of thailand can have sex with whatever he wants and he will still be the greatest person alive!

I agree with dk. But making fun of people by calling them a pedophile once they clearly aren't, is ok in my book.

You mean slandering and defaming them and covering that up with humor is ok?

[dk]

You mean slandering and defaming them and covering that up with humor is ok?
No, he means joking around about it. I like petite chicks. My friend calls me a pedophile because to him they look barely legal. To me, knowing how Japanese chicks actually look, they look 25 to me. There's a difference.

[TheNoNamedOne]

How about these scenarios?:

Character A as an old man humorously ogling over his sexual desires for character B, an underaged boy, and that ogling and what could become of it is to be the point of humor.

Or character A beating the cr@p out of his daughter just for addressing him and that being the point of seeking laughter from the audience.

[P_chan]

No, he means joking around about it. I like petite chicks. My friend calls me a pedophile because to him they look barely legal. To me, knowing how Japanese chicks actually look, they look 25 to me. There's a difference.

That is exactly what I mean!

[dk]

How about these scenarios?:

Character A as an old man humorously ogling over his sexual desires for character B, an underaged boy, and that ogling and what could become of it is to be the point of humor.

Or character A beating the cr@p out of his daughter just for addressing him and that being the point of seeking laughter from the audience.

Would you like to control what people can and cannot laugh at? I still don't get it? Because written right, damn near anything can be funny.

[dk]

But making fun of people by calling them a pedophile once they clearly aren't, is ok in my book.
I stand corrected. Only because the example I gave is actually true. My friend just has no grasp of how old people actually are.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you want to censor? I don't get it. Partial cencorship?

I think you, too, agree with censorship for the better of a community if it keeps the majority happy and in-line. Humor is just one aspect of that -- whether it be humor against political figures in China, the moral majority trying to impose levels of decency on non-Christians in media in the U.S. (i.e. incest, bestiality, child abuse), OR even in a community with members/citizens that is a microcosm of society on a somewhat virtual level -- such as here.

So, I think if you reflect on your own queston and answer it looking at all the examples above, you will answer in the affirmative that you condone and want it to protect those things valuable to you, and will impose it when given the opportunity and personal belief and reason to do so, regardless if it is based on any glaring evidence that may say it is not neeed and should not be imposed.