blairbar:"Why mock these human emotions?"

Because making decisions on the basis of those emotions is flawed and leads to bad outcomes.

Thus we have a school here in Brisbane cancelling a dance because 2 girls claimed to have felt "uncomfortable" at a previous event.

No one asked the Chasers what their point was before they went off the deep end. It was enough that some people felt "uncomfortable": rationality was not required.

Where does it stop?

Dear Antiseptic
"Because making decisions on the basis of those emotions is flawed and leads to bad outcomes."
So my friend's son spending three of his last six days seeing his siblings fish on Bribie Island was an example of a bad outcome?. The little fellow smiled and laughed; something he hadn't done for a long time.
I have given up with some of you people; no more correspondence from me on this subject.

BB,

Humour is based on life experience, and is to a large extent a coping mechanism using absurdity to put the experience into perspective.

That the outcry is coming almost exclusively from those with no direct experience (knowing some one that has does not count)is testimony that it is only about what they consider to appropriate.

Callers on the ABC radio that had direct experience were actually the least offended, and in fact found it funny.

Every time you let a bunch of prissy busibodies tell you what to think, then your world shrinks a little.

Freedom of speech and thought is too precious to let it be erroded by vocal minority of twerps.

blairbar:"So my friend's son spending three of his last six days seeing his siblings fish on Bribie Island was an example of a bad outcome?."

No, it was a personal moment of compassion, which is all well and good. It's when matters of public policy or of public expenditure are determined on emotional grounds that we get bad decisions.

I asked "where does it stop?", which is the point you could address if you could get past the emotive response. Why is the Chaser team responsible for our reactions, as negative as they may be? Most particularly, why is the Chaser team responsible for ensuring that their output doesn't make people "uncomfortable"?

I do wish you could understand that I'm not in any way criticising or belittling the response of the people in your example. I am perfectly capable of empathising with their pain while still looking at the broader view. Once upon a time that was regarded as a good personal characteristic...

I agree with Antiseptic. The right to say what offends nobody exists in the darkest tyranny. It may be harmful to say what offends. I believe it is a greater harm to prevent saying what offends.

We cannot be sure that everything we say is right, good and proper. However, the effort to make sure that only what is right, good and proper is said prevents saying what should be said. Free speech is risky. It may cause unnecessary conflict and offense. However, its elimination ensures tyranny.

When I saw the link I was utterly disgusted that these spineless cowards could steep so low to make fun of desperately sick children. They are cowards who target innocent children. If they wanted to make fun of society values, I can think of loads more ways to do this, but to say things like "they are going to die anyway" and "why go to all the trouble?" - that's just low. Here is what I think: http://whitesinnz.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-honestly-did-not-think-it-was-funny.html