ellauri030.html on line 918: However, Freud believed a mixture of both tendentious and non-tendentious humor is required to keep the tendentious humor from becoming too offensive or demeaning to its victim. The innocent jokework of the innocuous humor would mask the otherwise hostile joke and therefore "bribe" our senses, allowing us to laugh at what would otherwise be socially unacceptable. Therefore, we often think we are laughing at innocuous jokes, but what really makes them funny is their socially unacceptable nature hidden below the surface.
ellauri096.html on line 142: If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury’s definition of a paradox as “an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises” (1995, 1). Take the negation of any of your beliefs as a conclusion and your remaining beliefs as the premises. You should judge this jumble argument as valid, and as having premises that you accept, and yet as having a conclusion you reject (Sorensen 2003b, 104–110). If the conclusion of this argument counts as a paradox, then the negation of any of your beliefs counts as a paradox.
ellauri100.html on line 463: The scale you just completed was the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, developed by Douglas Crowne and David Marlowe (1960). This scale measures social desirability concern, which is people’s tendency to portray themselves favorably during social interaction. Each of the 33 true-false items that you just filled out describes a behavior that is either socially acceptable but unlikely, or socially unacceptable but likely. As a result, people who receive high scores on this measure may be more likely to respond to surveys in a self-promoting fashion.
ellauri156.html on line 728: David has just sprung the trap on himself, and Nathan is about to let him know about it. The first thing Nathan does is to dramatically indict David as the culprit: “You are the man!” In stunned silence, David now listens to the charges against him. David thinks only in terms of the evils the rich man committed against his neighbor, stealing a man's sheep and depriving him of his companion. Put another way, David thinks only in terms of crime and socially unacceptable behavior, not in terms of sin. In verses 7-12, Nathan draws David's attention to his sin against God and the consequences God has pronounced for his sin. Note the repetition of the pronoun “I” in verses 7 and 8: “It was I who. . .
ellauri240.html on line 205: Metalious's father deserted his wife and three daughters when Grace was 11 years old. At that time divorce was unusual in a French Canadian family, and Grace and her sisters felt stigmatized. In high school Grace met George Metalious, who was neither Catholic nor of French-Canadian background and, thus, highly unacceptable to her family. Nevertheless, they married in 1943. A few years later, with one child already, the Metalious's moved to Durham, New Hampshire, where George attended the University of New Hampshire. It was here that Metalious began writing seriously, neglecting both her house and, eventually, three children, despite the condemnation of her neighbors.
ellauri346.html on line 327: The Jewish Press was critical of Kan’s decision to remove the video, writing sarcastically that “someone at Kan 11 found the harsh sentiment pronounced by the six girls in the video unacceptable for viewing – by a nation which just watched more than a thousand of its people being raped, beaten, beheaded, and burned alive. So they took it down.” Chickens!
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 213: In some countries, notably France, crime passionnel (or crime of passion) was a valid defense to murder charges. During the 19th century, some such cases resulted in a custodial sentence for the murderer of two years. After the Napoleonic code was updated in the 1970s, paternal authority over the members of the family was ended, thus reducing the occasions for which crime passionnel could be claimed.[citation needed] The Canadian Department of Justice has described crimes of passion as "abrupt, impulsive, and unpremeditated acts of violence committed by persons, who have come face to face with an incident unacceptable to them, and who are rendered incapable of self-control for the duration of the act."
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 709: On being asked about his previously stated ethical views that it's unacceptable to do unethical things for the greater good, he disagreed with those views and said that expressing those views was a "dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us".
8