I got punched!

[zrinkill]

It's not about fighting over a joke. It's about common decency and respect. I don't blame the old guy for stepping up like that. Doesn't even matter what the D-bags lame explanation/excuse was.

If he tried that stunt in a local grocery store around here he would get the same treatment. I have no doubt about that. Probably by someone who simply witnessed it.

You don't try and exploit other people in that way just to get your 15 minutes.

Great Post.

 

[joseephuss]

I fully understand the older gentlemen confronting the guy about this. I got no problem with that. I just don't see why he escalated to punching him so quickly. That seemed excessive for the circumstances even if he truly believed the guy was really farting on his wife. Even so, when you do stupid pranks you put yourself in precarious position and you run the risk of someone overreacting. You just have to deal with it at that point.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

It always has been. If I were to offer my opinion of someone as a fart, how would it not be speech?

"What's your opinion of politician A? *fart*" is protected speech.

Just FYI, you don't have free speech rights. It's 2011 in the real world.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You'd have a point if it was a real fart. The sound is not offensive or assaultive, it's the smell. The guy just as easily could have drug the soles of his shoes across the ground making a weird sound or his stomach growling making an odd sound. Those aren't offensive. What if he had belched in their general direction?

If there's no smell, cause it's fake, what's offensive about it to make it an assault?

Again?

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

You'd have a point if it was a real fart. The sound is not offensive or assaultive, it's the smell. The guy just as easily could have drug the soles of his shoes across the ground making a weird sound or his stomach growling making an odd sound. Those aren't offensive. What if he had belched in their general direction?

If there's no smell, cause it's fake, what's offensive about it to make it an assault?

Defense used for past transgressions? :laugh2:

 

[Hoofbite]

Why do we need to assume she's disabled? She's using a motorized scooter.

I must admit that I'm deeply intrigued by your reasoning here. You'll grant Jake all the assumptions (i.e. he fake farted on the entire store before getting to these people) in the world despite a lack of visual evidence. Yet, at the same, you're suspicious of this elderly woman's true motivations for using a motorized cart. That's very interesting.

I'm granting him the assumption that he records multiple fake farts at a time. Something that isn't a far leap when you consider the other videos there are dozens of people in the same location.

And I am not suspicious of the elderly woman. I was just pointing out that she doesn't have to be disabled to be in the cart and even if she was it doesn't register on the level that cracking a joke at the expense of a mentally handicapped person does.

Furthermore, regarding your assertion that pranking the physically disabled is more acceptable than pranking the mentally disabled, I would point out that people who are forced to use motorized scooters are often embarrassed by it. When I worked at a grocery store, I encountered a woman who was literally reduced to her tears by the fact that her mobility impairment prevented her from walking around the store normally.

Often times, these people want to draw as little attention to themselves as possible. Jack was deliberately bringing unwanted attention to this woman, and her impairment prevented her from escaping an awkward and embarrassing situation as easily as you can.

So you'll excuse me if I don't see much difference between pranking mentally disabled people and physically disabled people.

They may be embarrassed by it but they are aware enough to allow their embarrassment to be known. That's why I make the distinction between physical and mental handicaps. If you are physically handicapped, you can still voice your desire to not want to be involved. You still have decisive power in the matter (I know some of the other prank shows like CKY2K/******* have to get signed waivers to put someone on film like that. May not be the case in this instance but it would add another level). You can tell the guy you are not okay with him doing so.

On the other hand, if you cannot comprehend what he is doing (not saying mental handicaps are an all-or-nothing situation, there are varying levels of functioning capability) you cannot tell him that you are not okay. Essentially, he would violate the person's autonomous right to make decisions and in doing so is treating them as less than a person.

I draw the line because one person can make informed decisions and the other cannot.

Did it ever occur to you that he may target different people for different reasons? The fact that he pulls this prank on different people does not mean that he's not targeting them. He could simply be targeting them for different reasons.

Sure, he could be. But that doesn't change the fact that he hits all segments of the population, no matter the reasoning.

How do comments about what I personally find intellectually stimulating and/or funny equate to me inferring that you're a terrible human being?

They were separate comments and they are my opinion of what you were implying. If it wasn't your intent, fine. This is just how they came off.

The first:

If you find him humorous and intellectually stimulating, you're free to do so. I just find him to be a ******.

This one looked to be a smug attack at someone's intelligence. In reality, there is nothing intellectually stimulating about what he is doing. You know it as well as I do. In light of that, saying that someone gains some sort of intellectual satisfaction from something that offers none comes off as someone questioning another's intelligence. As I said, JMO.

The second:

If you find it funny to make artificial flatulence sounds in the face of elderly disabled people, that's certainly your right. I see no humor in it whatsoever.

This one came off as an emotional appeal. Along the same lines as the first but just a different angle. Essentially presenting a helpless victim that most would feel empathetic for, implying those who do not are of piss poor character.

As I said, both my opinion on the matter. The second may be looking too deep but the first I feel is pretty accurate portrayal.

 

[Idgit]

You'd have a point if it was a real fart. The sound is not offensive or assaultive, it's the smell. The guy just as easily could have drug the soles of his shoes across the ground making a weird sound or his stomach growling making an odd sound. Those aren't offensive. What if he had belched in their general direction?

If there's no smell, cause it's fake, what's offensive about it to make it an assault?

It wasn't clear from context, but that's why I qualified that post with 'Actually farting.' As opposed to a fart-simulation. But, since the guy who's wife received the fart-simulation thought it was real, he was reacting to what he thought was a real 'assault.'

Responding with a pop to the face might not have been legal, but it probably was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

[Hoofbite]

It's not about fighting over a joke. It's about common decency and respect. I don't blame the old guy for stepping up like that. Doesn't even matter what the D-bags lame explanation/excuse was.

If he tried that stunt in a local grocery store around here he would get the same treatment. I have no doubt about that. Probably by someone who simply witnessed it.

You don't try and exploit other people in that way just to get your 15 minutes.

What part of common decency throws fists first and asks questions later?

Seriously, the guy walked to him told him it was a joke. The old man wouldn't listen and then after being told again that it was a joke the guy starts swinging.

Hell, what part of common decency swings on a man walking away like that?

 

[YosemiteSam]

It's not about fighting over a joke. It's about common decency and respect. I don't blame the old guy for stepping up like that. Doesn't even matter what the D-bags lame explanation/excuse was.

If he tried that stunt in a local grocery store around here he would get the same treatment. I have no doubt about that. Probably by someone who simply witnessed it.

You don't try and exploit other people in that way just to get your 15 minutes.

Nahh, I've got to disagree here. If the guy farted right up on someone and walked away. He would deserve to be hit, but the fact that he made it clear that it was only a joke and was messing around should have been enough to stay his hand. Now if he kept messing with him, then I would say otherwise.

If you son did that to you would you hit him even though you knew he was using a fart machine or something? No.

 

[YosemiteSam]

What part of common decency throws fists first and asks questions later?

Seriously, the guy walked to him told him it was a joke. The old man wouldn't listen and then after being told again that it was a joke the guy starts swinging.

Hell, what part of common decency swings on a man walking away like that?

The guy told him it was fake and a joke, the question was answered before he took a swing at him. If that guy took a swing at me like that, he would have been lucky if I didn't kick his knee in.

 

[The Ominous]

This topic is pure gold. Some of these responses are just :laugh1:

 

[peplaw06]

It wasn't clear from context, but that's why I qualified that post with 'Actually farting.' As opposed to a fart-simulation. But, since the guy who's wife received the fart-simulation thought it was real, he was reacting to what he thought was a real 'assault.'

Responding with a pop to the face might not have been legal, but it probably was appropriate under the circumstances.

It was pretty clear from the video that quite a bit of time passed between when they were in the aisle together and when the old man punched the younger guy. If they didn't smell anything, then what's the beef? I don't see how you can believe it's a real "assault" when you don't smell anything.

Then on top of that, the young guy showed him the noise maker and told him a couple of times it was just the sound.... not a real fart. There's no legal justification for the old man assaulting the young guy.

You may think what he did was appropriate, the crotchety old man tried to teach the young whipper snapper a lesson in respect. But if there was an actual assault anywhere, it was perpetrated by the old man.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

This topic is pure gold. Some of these responses are just :laugh1:

I mock the mock outrage. :laugh2:

 

[vta]

What part of common decency throws fists first and asks questions later?

If you look at the word you just typed, you'll find the answer. COMMON decency is an agreement of what is and what isn't decent. Obviously fart-boy doesn't engage in agreeable standards of. It was funny for sure, but he got what he deserved.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If you look at the word you just typed, you'll find the answer. COMMON decency is an agreement of what is and what isn't decent. Obviously fart-boy doesn't engage in agreeable standards of. It was funny for sure, but he got what he deserved.

...and considering he didn't press charges the old man did NOT get what he deserved. That guy did NOT physically assault him, therefore there was no reason for him to bring violence into it.

 

[vta]

...and considering he didn't press charges the old man did NOT get what he deserved. That guy did NOT physically assault him, therefore there was no reason for him to bring violence into it.

All's well that ends well.

 

[trickblue]

All's well that ends [strike]well[/strike] smell.

FTFY...

 

[ScipioCowboy]

They may be embarrassed by it but they are aware enough to allow their embarrassment to be known.

Interesting theory. However, in both instances in which Jack makes artificial flatulence sounds in the face of the elderly disabled woman, he walks away. He doesn't stay in the same aisle.

In essence, he takes advantage of her inability to move around as well as he does. How is she supposed to alert him to her discomfort when he constantly walks away?

Even if she had expressed her discomfort, all available evidence suggests it wouldn't have mattered. Later on when the husband confronts Jack about the noise, he continues to make it. Clearly, Jack didn't care about the personal feelings of this couple.

That's why I make the distinction between physical and mental handicaps. If you are physically handicapped, you can still voice your desire to not want to be involved. You still have decisive power in the matter (I know some of the other prank shows like CKY2K/******* have to get signed waivers to put someone on film like that. May not be the case in this instance but it would add another level). You can tell the guy you are not okay with him doing so.

On the other hand, if you cannot comprehend what he is doing (not saying mental handicaps are an all-or-nothing situation, there are varying levels of functioning capability) you cannot tell him that you are not okay. Essentially, he would violate the person's autonomous right to make decisions and in doing so is treating them as less than a person.

I draw the line because one person can make informed decisions and the other cannot.

Once again, how can she voice her "desire to not want to be involved" when he walks away after he makes the noise? In fact, he ran away when the husband initially tried to confront him. I have news for you: This woman isn't running anywhere.

When you talk about "violating someone's autonomous rights", I assume you're referring to a person's ability to express his or her feelings of discomfort. Did you ever consider that taking advantage of someone's physical disability might also constitute a violation of autonomous rights?

Jack put the elderly woman in a position where her mobility impairment prevented her from tracking him down and alerting him of her discomfort. He even hid from her when they were looking for him. This is no different from taking advantage of a person's mental disability. It seems that, according to your own usage of the term, Jack is indeed violating this woman's "autonomous rights."

Either way, your distinction here is irrelevant to my point. If she's trying to avoid attracting attention herself, pointing out her embarrassment is only going to make her feel even more self-conscious. The damage is already done regardless of whether or not she's able to express her discomfort.

I'm granting him the assumption that he records multiple fake farts at a time. Something that isn't a far leap when you consider the other videos there are dozens of people in the same location.

And I am not suspicious of the elderly woman. I was just pointing out that she doesn't have to be disabled to be in the cart and even if she was it doesn't register on the level that cracking a joke at the expense of a mentally handicapped person does.

In my experience working at a grocery story, the vast majority of people who use motorized carts are physically impaired in some way. I must admit, I find it baffling that you would defend Jack so ardently yet, at the same time, cast aspersions about this woman's usage of a motorized cart.

They were separate comments and they are my opinion of what you were implying. If it wasn't your intent, fine. This is just how they came off.

The first:

This one looked to be a smug attack at someone's intelligence. In reality, there is nothing intellectually stimulating about what he is doing. You know it as well as I do. In light of that, saying that someone gains some sort of intellectual satisfaction from something that offers none comes off as someone questioning another's intelligence. As I said, JMO.

The second:

This one came off as an emotional appeal. Along the same lines as the first but just a different angle. Essentially presenting a helpless victim that most would feel empathetic for, implying those who do not are of piss poor character.

As I said, both my opinion on the matter. The second may be looking too deep but the first I feel is pretty accurate portrayal.

Thus far, you've accused me of making a purely emotional and hyperbolic appeal with the following statement: "If you find it funny to make artificial flatulence sounds in the face of elderly disabled people, that's certainly your right. I see no humor in it whatsoever."

So, once again, I'll ask you to specify what is inaccurate or hyperbolic about the above statement? Is it not truthful? Is it not an accurate description of what occurred? Did Jack not make artificial flatulence sounds in the face of an elderly disabled woman?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Idgit]

It was pretty clear from the video that quite a bit of time passed between when they were in the aisle together and when the old man punched the younger guy. If they didn't smell anything, then what's the beef? I don't see how you can believe it's a real "assault" when you don't smell anything.

Then on top of that, the young guy showed him the noise maker and told him a couple of times it was just the sound.... not a real fart. There's no legal justification for the old man assaulting the young guy.

You may think what he did was appropriate, the crotchety old man tried to teach the young whipper snapper a lesson in respect. But if there was an actual assault anywhere, it was perpetrated by the old man.

Yep. Hard to say what the old guy did or didn't understand, but I don't dispute that if there was an actual assault, it was by the old guy. We both know that what's legal and what's appropriate aren't always the same thing. Just because you have a legal right to be a dick, you're not compelled to exercise it.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The pranks been done a million times. The joke is supposed to be on the one w/ the gas problems.

The older couple is disabled and felt victimized. W/ that guys quick trigger he would have found a reason at some point