I want to start this one off by saying I'm not trivializing anything that happened in history, nor the contributions of any of the people listed below. That being said:
- Let's take a famous person, who is generally recognized as having made amazing contributions to society, and was assassinated. For example: JFK, MLK, or Abraham Lincoln.
- Instead of being shot, they died by getting kicked hard in the balls. Once.
- Would this, at all, change how you thought of them? Would it change how the world thought of them?
-Caveat #1: Other than the ball kicking, they were killed by the same people in the same place, on the same date and time. The only thing that changed is what killed them.
- Caveat #2: And it wasn't like John Wilkes Booth kicked Lincoln so hard his foot ripped through his small intestines. He just kicked him in the balls, Lincoln went "Ow!" keeled over, and died.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Hypothetical #3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
so your saying, someone would have filmed JFK getting kicked in the nuts (and subsequently dying)?
Yup. Everything is the same, except nad-smashing instead of gun-shooting.
I assume we're working up towards some sort of "There was a second nut-kicker" joke?
Why Did the Government issue steel toed boots to the Secret service that day AND ONLY THAT DAY!
The truth is out there.
OR! What if the cause of death wasn't being kicked in the balls, but opening a Curiosity Shop that sells old mugs to Mark Hamill?
(Just for you, Alex.)
What, having vital organs damaged by metal projectiles isn't funny enough?
Is dying by getting kicked in the balls less sad because a) the fact that a ball-kicking was all it took makes the person less worthy/ deserving of sadness, or b)the sadness is tempered by the "humor" of the way he died, or c) both?
Also, I'm pretty sure that's how Houdini died.
Post a Comment