I dont go there .

[TPFKA@W]

Most overrated show of all time.

Definitely up there on that list.

[TPFKA@W]

Yeah, men threatening to punch their wives is the ultimate in entertainment.

As opposed to today, when two men (or two women) get into a chain-link cage for the sole purpose of trying to beat the other one bloody?

It has already been pointed out he never did strike her.  And didn't most of the episodes end up like this (or some variation thereof)?

-"BB"-

With respect to the wrestling, Strawman much? Did anyone suggest that was somehow better? No. In fact it wasn't mentioned.

Now my turn. So you think it's ok to physically threaten a wife as long as you don't hit her? I bet you treat children and animals that way too.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, men threatening to punch their wives is the ultimate in entertainment.

As opposed to today, when two men (or two women) get into a chain-link cage for the sole purpose of trying to beat the other one bloody?

It has already been pointed out he never did strike her.  And didn't most of the episodes end up like this (or some variation thereof)?

(A) Boxing and MMA are both disgusting and have no welcome on my TV screen. Wrestling too is banned but that's because I have good taste, not because it is really violent

(ii) Yes, that is the classic pattern of abuse. First the verbal or physical violence and then the "I didn't really mean that. I love you" which keeps the other partner pinned in a sick relationship

(3) Guin and @w hit it out of the park!

(hit it? Oh. Er... "are 100% correct")

PS @w - he's not speaking of wrestling but of MMA

[TPFKA@W]

PS @w - he's not speaking of wrestling but of MMA

Still made of straw, irrespective. Additionally, although I don't remember well enough to say absolutely, there used to be wrestling ' cage matches I believe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes - the strawman observation is exactly correct

Yes - there are wrestling matches in cages but not chain link ones. But in wrestling as we know it on TV men and women don't "beat each other bloody" - it's all fake. He's speaking of MMA

No - it wasn't a criticism of your observation(s) - merely a slight course correction

[TPFKA@W]

Yes - there are wrestling matches in cages but not chain link ones. But in wrestling as we know it on TV men and women don't "beat each other bloody" - it's all fake. He's speaking of MMA

That is so wrong. Any beating bloody of anyone ought to be done free-range.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Joe Guy]

Speaking of The Honeymooners, it's okay if you didn't like Jackie Gleason or think the show just wasn't funny, but saying Ralph was abusive is not only wrong, it's stupid and you ought to be kicked in the head for thinking that.

It was a different time. Our humor wasn't as developed as it is now when we've finally realized that it's more funny to watch somebody vomit, fart, have a sex change, get caught in bed with another person's spouse, catch an STD or tell yo' mama so fat jokes.

Give me a break. I've got some growing up to do. I still think The Honeymooners was a funny comedy. If you didn't like it then or now, don't start inventing some PC-reason to justify your poor sense of humor.

One of these days.....

[Bicycle Bill]

As most people have realized, I was referring to MMA/UFC bouts. I feel that every time someone comes up with yet another way for someone to "compete" in an activity where the goal is to beat on someone until they are senseless or defenseless in the name of "entertainment" we are taking one more step backwards to the days of Roman gladiatorial combat.

Now, with that out of the way, let me ask you something.

• ● Are all blondes ditzy?
  ● Are all Scotsmen stingy?
  ● Are all Italians members of organized crime?
  ● Are all Germans running around in leather shorts or dirndl skirts?
  ● Are all Irishmen heavy drinkers who love a good fight?
  ● Are all Frenchmen arrogant?
  ● Are all Arabs swarthy, bearded men wearing flowing robes and a keffiyeh and riding camels?
  ● Are all mothers-in-law interchangeable with the Wicked Witch of the West?
  ● Are all gay males lisping, limp-wristed Milquetoasts?

No, but one needs to keep in mind that most humor, today as well as during the hey-day of "The Honeymooners", is/was based on exaggeration of a stereotype.  Ralph and Alice were just another stereotype that was mined for the sake of humor and one should never forget that.  So Joe Guy was correct in that regard; we cannot allow ourselves the hubris of looking back at the events and attitudes of thirty, forty, fifty, or more years ago and trying to view them through the lenses of modern-day sensibilities.

-"BB"-

[TPFKA@W]

we cannot allow ourselves the hubris of looking back at the events and attitudes of thirty, forty, fifty, or more years ago and trying to view them through the lenses of modern-day sensibilities.

Sure we can. It can help us avoid mistakes such as Japanese internment camps and that sort of thing from happening again. And by that logic no one in present day Germany should think ill of the Nazis.

[MajGenl.Meade]

we cannot allow ourselves the hubris of looking back at the events and attitudes of thirty, forty, fifty, or more years ago and trying to view them through the lenses of modern-day sensibilities.

Another strawperson. The issue is not events and attitudes of 30/40/50 or more years ago.

The issue is why on earth anyone today finds these things amusing and worth spending time watching.

It's the same people who think a whizzo idea for a TV series is... oh... a serial killer who kills only serial killers.... or a chap who makes illegal drugs but with an excuse.... and any number of other crude and badly mannered televised excuses for societal degradation.

The Honeymooners is unfunny crap and the problem isn't so much that these people are vulgar oafs - it's that we are supposed to like them being vulgar oafs. The premise of Seinfeld is to tell the non-story of four vulgar oafs but we are supposed to understand that's what they are - not applaud their oafdom and celebrate their shallow meanness as we are Ralph (and Alice too).

[Gob]

An Islamic cleric who defends domestic violence is among a string of extremist speakers touring British universities unchallenged, the Mail Investigations Unit can reveal.

Egyptian cleric Fadel Soliman spoke at five such events last year, using them to refer Muslim students to an online lecture series in which he speaks in favour of hitting women and outlines the Islamic case for sex slavery and polygamy.

Mr Soliman told students at Sheffield University that watching his lectures could be ‘a turning point’ in their lives.

In his extraordinary videos, he advises physical punishment for wives who have displeased their husbands, saying ‘the hitting must be done with a small stick’.

Explaining why it is necessary, he says that when a husband is unhappy with the behaviour of his wife, ‘after passing through two stages of non-physical interaction, the next stage must involve something physical, in order to escalate the intensity of the warning’.

The preacher is one of several extremists being permitted to espouse their views unchallenged at Britain’s universities – in a possible breach of the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, Prevent. Since September, universities and colleges are legally required to have policies to stop extremists radicalising students on campus. This includes an obligation to ‘ensure those espousing extremist views do not go unchallenged’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3wmpKTpgR

[Bicycle Bill]

we cannot allow ourselves the hubris of looking back at the events and attitudes of thirty, forty, fifty, or more years ago and trying to view them through the lenses of modern-day sensibilities.

Sure we can. It can help us avoid mistakes such as Japanese internment camps and that sort of thing from happening again. And by that logic no one in present day Germany should think ill of the Nazis.

OK, @W, I'll agree with that.  Learn from past mistakes?  Absolutely, or we will be doomed to repeat them.
Criticize something because it mirrors an older time, mindset, or a different sense of what's right and wrong?  I guess that's OK too, but not when you want to go all Orwell, "1984" and 'Ministry of Truth' on them (altering history to reflect *today's* viewpoint).

-"BB"-

[TPFKA@W]

I guess that's OK too, but not when you want to go all Orwell, "1984" and 'Ministry of Truth' on them (altering history to reflect *today's* viewpoint).

You seem bent on building strawmen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...and not responding to substance... that too.

[wesw]

my god. after what happened to women in European cities on new year s eve, you guys are outraged by the Honeymooners?

god help us.

[TPFKA@W]

my god. after what happened to women in European cities on new year s eve, you guys are outraged by the Honeymooners?

god help us.

We get anymore straw in this thread and there is going to be a massive fire.

[datsunaholic]

I'm unclear as to how throwing a literary strawman into the discussion strengthens a position that someones differing position has no substance.

What was the original argument about? The Honeymooners being funny? Why it shouldn't be considered funny? Why it's a poor role model for modern social commentary and rewards domestic violence?

To me it is a relic of a time gone by. I've never seen more than snippets because it predates ME by almost 20 years. I don't see a dire need to watch it to see if it's as bad as people today say it is vs others that think it's the pinnacle of early situation comedy.

To each their own. I found Monty Python to be funny, but Fawlty Towers to be almost unwatchable. Probably for the same reason as I can't stand most Sit-Coms, which revolve around inept people making inept decisions that don't have any consequences (if there were consequences, it woudn't be a sitcom).

But, oddly, I found Blackadder and Red Dwarf (well, early seasons of Red Dwarf) quite funny. Even though they both had the same levels of ineptitude.

But geez, entertainment is entertainment. It's written so that the intended audience will continue to "buy" it (read, watch, whatever). I got in a heap of trouble in American Lit my senior year of High School for suggesting that books didn't have to have some overwhelming social commentary, and that there didn't need to be a deeper meaning. That it was possible to be written for enjoyment, that a book is sometimes just a book. Instead of coming up with some great philosophical answer of what separates great literature from pulp fiction, I got a "You're wrong, look harder". Frankly, I use entertainment for entertainment. If there's a greater meaning and I actually SEE it, then great, but I don't see it as a necessity to dissect it for the sake of dissection.

(side note- the book in question was Ursula K Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven, which actually DOES have a deeper meaning, but being forced to find it rather than reading it as entertainment ruins the enjoyment of the novel).

[Lord Jim]

...and not responding to substance... that too.

There isn't going to be a whole lot of "substance" in a discussion that primarily involves opinion and taste...

Regarding taste it's clear that those on the other side in this debate don't have any....

One fact is that there is absolutely zero domestic violence in The Honeymooners, so bringing that into the discussion is a real "strawman"...

To describe the characters in the show as "vulgar oafs" shows such a level of ignorance about them that it makes discussing it rather pointless. Obviously the people who like the show have watched it a lot more than those who don't so there's a huge imbalance in knowledge of the subject matter between the two sides in this debate.

Also this notion that "meanness" or ineptitude can't be funny is truly weird...(not that there's any genuine "meanness" in The Honeymooners)

By that yardstick neither WC Fields or Grouch Marx could be considered funny. What I'm seeing expressed in this thread are severely stunted and limited senses of humor...I'm thankful I don't suffer from that disability.

To each their own. I found Monty Python to be funny, but Fawlty Towers to be almost unwatchable. Probably for the same reason as I can't stand most Sit-Coms, which revolve around inept people making inept decisions that don't have any consequences (if there were consequences, it woudn't be a sitcom).

But, oddly, I found Blackadder and Red Dwarf (well, early seasons of Red Dwarf) quite funny. Even though they both had the same levels of ineptitude.

I like all four of those shows, but presumably Meade sits in scowling disapproval whenever Fawlty Towers or The Blackadder is on...all that meanness and ineptitude...

Frequently, the absolutely funniest character in a show or movie is the one who is the "meanest" and/or most inept...(This is certainly true of Red Dwarf; the episodes without Rimmer are considerably less funny then the ones with him in it. Of course Meade must feel the exact opposite is the case.)

Again, I'm really grateful that I don't suffer from such a severely limited and constricted sense of humor...I think some folks around here could really benefit from having pole-ectomies performed on their rectums...

(However, I will say that I have never found The Three Stooges to be at all funny, even when I was six.)

Oh, and wes:

my god. after what happened to women in European cities on new year s eve, you guys are outraged by the Honeymooners?

god help us.

You have pulled yet another rube move; jumping into a discussion for the sole purpose of criticizing the subject matter...(speaking of rube; now there's a really good example of how meanness and ineptitude can be hilarious.... )

Believe it or not there is no rule here requiring posters to say something in every single discussion. If you don't like the subject matter, feel free not to participate.

[wesw]

one of these days, jim...., POW!!! right in the kisser!!!