A Completely Different Look at Banned Books

[Drkshadow03]

. . . And reading meaning that isn't there: The Tale of Scrootie McBoogerBalls (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267108) (South Park).

* Warning: May be explicit for some viewers.

[PeterL]

So why has Catcher in the Rye ever been banned?

The program is an excellent reductio ad absurdam argument. I wonder if my writing makes people puke as much.

[Drkshadow03]

So why has Catcher in the Rye ever been banned?

The program is an excellent reductio ad absurdam argument. I wonder if my writing makes people puke as much.

It must be good if it does!

Heh. The more I watch/read satire the more I realize how many satires ignore formal logic.

[mortalterror]

It must be good if it does!

Heh. The more I watch/read satire the more I realize how many satires ignore formal logic.
I don't know if that is exactly true. My impression of comedy is that it's a methodical mis-application of logic. Good comedy tends to be based on common fallacies, and the way that human beings will improperly order information. Something is only funny if we recognize it as an error and that suggests a shared idea of reality and what the truth is. I made a brief note to that effect in my diary last October:


Comedy is logic turned on it's head. It follows a simple argumentative pattern.

A+B=C

Punchlines are easy. They are usually just a matter of deriving an irrational conclusion to a logical premise. The easiest form of a punchline is the non-sequitor, a Latin word meaning “does not follow.” It implies pure randomness and can be anything. There is one correct answer to a syllogism and the possible irrational answers are infinite. It is an independent clause, a random variable unrelated to the preceding two premesis.

A+B=x

Two peanuts were walking down the street. I had sex with your mother.

The answer with a squeued conclusion based on common logical fallacies is more effective because it requires less of a jump to understand it. The non-sequitor derives it's power from surprise. The logical fallacy gains it's punch from it's wit.

A+B=D

Two peanuts were walking down the street. One was assaulted.

The setup to a joke is harder because it is comprised of two parts which have to make logical sense, and often the parts must work together with themselves if not with the conclusion. Coming up with two truths is often more difficult than coming up with a lie. Hypothetically, there is only one truth and so many possible lies. Also, the payoff is all at the easier end of the business. That is unless your joke is formed by drawing a rational conclusion from irrational premises.

E+F=C

The Bible's true. The priests don't lie. We're all going to heaven!

[JuniperWoolf]

Eeeew, I HATE their vomit episodes.

[PeterL]

It must be good if it does!

It may. Most of the test readers didn't even comment at all, too disgusted to say anything without puking.


Heh. The more I watch/read satire the more I realize how many satires ignore formal logic.

Satire is not simple, but it follows the rules of logic, but the way the evidence is expressed is different from the ordinary. The best satires are taken as literally true by some people.

[Quark]

Eeeew, I HATE their vomit episodes.

Yeah, the puke joke (if it is a joke--I'm not sure if it follows formal logic) got a little tired by the third act. We got the point the first time, but they really went in for the gross-out.