Archives for category: The world as described in jokes

I’ve recently spent a few days in the Danube Delta.DSC_1146egreta mareWhen traveling on water, I was issued a ‘life-jacket’ – no picture, you all know what one looks like.

At one point, I was joking with the guide.

‘Harnessed like this, no one can do anything but wait to be rescued. It’s impossible to swim wearing such a thing.’
‘Ha!.
You thought this was meant to save your life, didn’t you?
Well, in reality its role is to keep your corpse afloat so that those looking for you wouldn’t have to dredge the river.’

I remembered the joke while reading this article.

“Apple doesn’t purposely make its terms and conditions long and boring and difficult to read. In theory it could shorten them, or summarise them, or pull out a few bullet points at the beginning to let you know if something has changed since you were last confronted with them. But if it was to do so someone could argue in court that insufficient emphasis was placed on something buried further down in the document. And Apple doesn’t want that to happen.”

“A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a word. An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of them wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules, goats and pigs, the husband asked sarcastically, “Relatives of yours?” “Yep,” the wife replied, “in-laws.” “

Remember that these two are described as being a couple! Going somewhere together…

And not an out of the ordinary one, judging by what happens around us.

OK, I can understand differences of opinion between people – how ever close their relationship. What I cannot understand is this ‘need’ to aggravate things. To make the other one feel just as bad as ‘I’ do.

Why cannot we focus on the really important issues?

Like in this instance:

“A five-year-old boy was mowing his front lawn and drinking a beer. The preacher who lived across the street saw the beer and came over to harass the kid. “Aren’t you a little young to be drinking, son?” he asked. “That’s nothing,” the kid said after taking a swig of beer. “I got laid when I was three.” “What? How did that happen?” “I don’t remember. I was drunk.” “

Just stumbled upon this joke:

One day, all the human body parts started arguing about who was on top… The mouth said, ”I should be on top because, without me, you wouldn’t be able to eat.” Then the stomach said, ”Ya but if it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t be able to digest and transfer all the minerals and vitamins throughout the body, I should be on top.” Then the heart said, ”I should be on top because I’m the one who takes the blood from point A to point B. Without me, the body would die.” Then the brain said, ” Well, without me, you wouldn’t be able to move, eat, digest or allow circulation of blood, so I should be on top.” Now, the asshole was beginning to get annoyed, ”You know, I should be on top because I can just shut my hole and then shit will accumulate and block the digestive track and screw all of you up.” It was chaos, everyone was yelling and fighting. Finally, the asshole got fed up, ”That’s it, I’m fed up, I’m shutting up my hole.”

So for a few days, the body couldn’t shit and the brain had trouble moving, the stomach digesting, the mouth eating and the blood flow going, everyone was begging the asshole to open up, The brain said, ”Please open up, you made your point, your on top, just open up.” The asshole smiled, ”So everyone agrees that I’m on top?” ”YES” everyone shouted. ”OK!” so the asshole opened up and the body could shit again. The moral of this story is, you have to be an asshole to be on top…“

Isn’t this interesting?

A bunch of guys are too thick to understand that they cannot live one without the others and to learn what mutual respect really means, one of them decides to teach the group a well deserved lesson and it is he who ends up being considered an ass-hole…

On the other hand… there are so many examples of ass-holes who end up ‘on top’ simply because they are the ones willing to do anything in order to get there – not caring at all if their actions hurt everybody else who happens to be around… AND because those who end up being hurt don’t see it coming or are too lazy, too thick or both at the same time, to do anything about it…

ohms-law-illustrated

 

… unless ‘offered’ with a pointed toe cap!

 

pantof-ascutit

 

 

I hear a lot of people discussing about the need to choose ‘the lesser evil’.

Otherwise the ‘greater evil will prevail’ they warn us.

I’m afraid that those who fall into this trap actually validate the idea that ‘evil is acceptable’.
Every time this subject comes up I keep remembering the joke about an older man asking a young lady:
‘Would you sleep with me if I gave you a million bucks?’.
‘Well, I’m not that kind of girl… but you know, that’s an awful lot of money… I could help my old parents… I could go back to school… OK…”
‘But what if I gave you $100?’
‘I told you I’m not a hooker!’
‘That’s already been settled. All that’s left for us to do now is to negotiate the price.’
Same thing with ‘choosing the lesser evil’. Once you’ve  accepted that evil is inevitable … you’re sure to get some. And keep getting it until you quit playing their game.
That doesn’t mean we schould quit voting all together. It would send the wrong message. Even if you don’t go to the voting booth because you are disgusted by the available options the ‘analysts’ interpret your stance as ‘they’re so despondent that they don’t care anymore about their own fate. They they don’t have enough energy left in them to protest so no need to change anything. Or, maybe, things might be allowed to become even a little worse. For them, of course.’
What we need to do is vote what we really like, even if that candidate doesn’t stand the slightest chance. This way the intention of the voter is absolutely clear – ‘I want exactly this’.
If there is no acceptable option, we can always check the ‘non of the above’ box – if available – or take the necessary steps to annul your vote – the specifics depend on local rules and regulations. Again, this sends a rather clear message. ‘I refuse to play into your hands and accept that evil is inevitable’.

Islam Europe

I’ve just found this cartoon in my e-mail.
It was captioned: “The Winning cartoon in an organized competition.”

I instantly remembered some very wise words I’ve read long time ago:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will, I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against that person on the Day of Judgment.”

All religious teachings, all of them, maintain that ‘a man reaps what he sows’. It doesn’t really matter if the ‘result’ will come as a sentence delivered by a divine judge or if it will be just another bead in the string representing the life story of an individual.
I, for one, don’t see much difference between ‘fate’ and ‘karma’.

Then how come we keep acting as if we’ve never been warned?

“In my two visits to Auschwitz, the Nazi concentration camp in Poland, I learned that holocausts and genocides do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, there is almost always a vicious campaign of incitement directed against the target group preceding them. What is troubling today, with the recent uptick in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents worldwide, is that extremists and zealots are not the only ones inciting their followers. In a number of Arab countries, Muslim children are taught ideas that distort the true meaning of the Quran and hadith too.”

o-gay-prophet-570

Love, more powerful than hate.

Oscar Hoffman, an excellent Professor of Sociology at the Bucharest University, kept telling us, his students:

“For a proposition to be ‘true’ it is not enough for it to be ‘logical’, it also has to make sense from the epistemological point of view.”

Rather hard to swallow, specially for young individuals… and since most students tend to be … well… at least young at heart… it wasn’t simple for us to follow him.

Here’s a story that might help.

“A young man knocks on the door of a great Talmudic scholar.

“Rabbi, I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?”

“No.”

“Hebrew?”

“No.”

“Have you ever studied Torah?”

“No, Rabbi, but I graduated from Harvard summa cum laude in philosophy, and received a PhD from Yale. I’d like to round out my education with a bit of Talmud.”

“I doubt that you are ready for Talmud. It is the broadest and deepest of books. If you wish, however, I will examine you in logic, and if you pass the test I will teach you Talmud.”

“Good. I’m well versed in logic.”

“First question. Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“The burglar with the dirty face.”

“Wrong. The one with the clean face. Examine the logic. The burglar with a dirty face looks at the one with a clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face looks at the burglar with a dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes.”

“Very clever. Another question please.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We established that. The burglar with the clean face washes.”

“Wrong. Both wash. Examine the logic. The one with a dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face thinks his face is dirty. So the burglar with a clean face washes. When the one with a dirty face sees him washing, however, he realizes his face must be dirty too. Thus both wash.”

“I didn’t think of that. Please ask me another.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Well, we know both wash.”

“Wrong. Neither washes. Examine the logic. The one with the dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face thinks his face is dirty. But when clean-face sees that dirty-face doesn’t bother to wash, he also doesn’t bother. So neither washes. As you can see, you are not ready for Talmud.”

“Rabbi, please, give me one more test.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither!”

“Wrong. And perhaps now you will see why Harvard and Yale cannot prepare you for Talmud. Tell me, how is it possible that two men come down the same chimney, and one emerges with a clean face, while the other has a dirty face?”

“But you’ve just given me four contradictory answers to the same question! That’s impossible!”

“No, my son, that’s Talmud.”

OK, but where’s the promised link?

Well, who wrote the Talmud in the first place?

A countless number of people who have figured out there’s no such thing as a definitive answer for any question?
That books should be written to help other people develop their minds, not to ‘mold’ them?
That books should be read as an exercise for the ‘thinking muscle’, not in (vain) search for ‘the absolute wisdom’?

Still looking for that link?
Keep reading, only take greater care when choosing them books.

(another version of the same story ends up like this:

“Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is “narishkeit”, foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

May we all have the wisdom to ask, and answer, the wise questions!)

“One day a blonde woman entered an auto body shop claiming that she’d suffered extensive damage to her new car. The mechanic thought he’d have some fun with her so he told her that she didn’t need him to fixed all the dents. He said she could fix them herself by blowing into the tailpipe as hard as she could and they’d all pop out. The woman went home and proceeded to get down on her hands and knees in the driveway. She was blowing into the pipe as hard as she could and her face was turning purple when another blonde woman walked by and asked what she was doing. After hearing the whole story the second blonde pauses for a moment then responds, “Hello! The windows are down”.

What am I to laugh about here? A jerk who misleads a dimwit into believing that blowing up a tailpipe will fix ‘all the dents’? A woman who rightly observes that blowing into a space which is not airtight will accomplish absolutelly nothing?

Or this one:

“A woman yells to a blonde walking along a river, “How do I get on the other side!?” The blonde says, “You are on the other side!”

In general this manner of relating to the surrounding reality is hailed as being ‘good for you’.

And it usually is but only as long as those involved remain inside the realm of reason:

“Three convicts were on the way to prison. They were each allowed to take one item with them to help them occupy their time while incarcerated. On the bus, one turned to another and said, “So, what did you bring?”

The second convict pulled out a box of paints and stated that he intended to paint anything he could. He wanted to become the “Grandma Moses of Jail”. Then he asked the first, “What did you bring?”

The first convict pulled out a deck of cards and grinned and said, “I brought cards. I can play poker, solitaire, gin, and any number of games.”

The third convict was sitting quietly aside, grinning to himself. The other two took notice and asked, “Why are you so smug? What did you bring?”

The guy pulled out a box of tampons and smiled. He said, “I brought these.”

The other two were puzzled and asked, “What can you do with those?”

He grinned and pointed to the box and said, “Well according to the box, I can go horseback riding, swimming, roller-skating….”  

“Jack goes to his friend Mike and says, “I’m sleeping with the pastor’s wife.
Can you hold him in church for an hour after services for me?”

The friend doesn’t like it but being a friend, he agrees.
After the services, he starts talking to the pastor, asking him all sorts of stupid questions, just to keep him occupied.
Finally the pastor gets annoyed and asks Mike what he’s really up to.
Mike, feeling guilty, finally confesses to the pastor… “My friend is screwing your wife right now, so he asked me to keep you occupied.”

The pastor smiles, puts a brotherly hand on Mike’s shoulder and says… “You’d better hurry home now.
My wife died five years ago.” “

Found on HotRodders.com

%d bloggers like this: