i just skimmed this argument, as i usually do with acme's, but i think the point he is trying to make is that something is only as funny as it is, as in a vacuum, that you could apply a certain value to the level of hilarity.
for example, season 6 episode 14 of the simpsons was 7.9/10 funny, wheras season 22 episode 6 was only 3/10 funny.
this argument of course, is funny, but in a retarded way.
2/10 from me, perhaps if i got high it would be a 2.5/10.. although since smoking pot just sends me into a spiral of horror and unescapable fear, it'd like go to a -2014/10.
i guess, since we seem to be crapping on about it (and i don't want to do any work) we could posit that a universal hilarity rating could exist but only if you took into account every single persons ratings, somehow obtained non-subjectively, perhaps similar to a lie detector test or by measuring the relative contraction of the sphincter, and averaged it out.
But it would (of course, of course, of course) only be valid for the exact instant the test was administered, so you would need to hook up the entire population of the planet's sphincters to a giant humourtrographic supercomputer and..
.. you know what? fuck it, I don't know how you guys can be bothered arguing this shit.
May 18, 2013, 05:27:05 PM
May 13, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
April 19, 2013, 02:15:52 AM
September 28, 2012, 07:14:55 PM
May 13, 2012, 05:48:22 AM
October 09, 2011, 08:19:26 PM