A sad day for humanity or at least the public image of these women.

[AndyFromMonday]

Oh for fuck sake!

THE PROTESTING IS DESIGNED TO GET THEM FIRED SO YOU CAN'T SAY PROTESTING IS FINE AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PREFERRED RESULTS OF THAT PROTESTING!


Am I offended because these people think that cutting a mans penis off and putting it in the garbage disposal is funny? YES! Why the hell aren't you?

So you want to redefine Freedom of Speech to your liking. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

I AM offended, however, it is their right to say that. I am not in any way redefining freedom of speech, YOU are the one who is doing so. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. Any attempt to censor someone is in breach of that definition. YOU are trying to censor those women because you disagree with their opinion. YOU are trying to to get them fired because they offended you, in turn attempting to discourage them from sharing their opinion. YOU are trying to silence them because they had a different opinion to yours. How is that freedom of speech?

Like I've said before, if you want to critique them that is in your rights to do so. Trying to bring repercussions upon them for sharing their opinion is not, however, freedom of speech. It's like saying you are free to drive your car anywhere but that you're discouraged from driving it in a privately owned area since if you do so you're going to get shot. The same goes for freedom of speech. You can't say that you are free to say absolutely anything but then state that you're discouraged from saying certain things because if you do so you're going to have repercussions.

 

[Tentickles]

Pfffft, who cares? Find a topic that doesnt make my brain melt and lose IQ points.

 

[Necator15]

Oh for fuck sake!

THE PROTESTING IS DESIGNED TO GET THEM FIRED SO YOU CAN'T SAY PROTESTING IS FINE AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PREFERRED RESULTS OF THAT PROTESTING!


Am I offended because these people think that cutting a mans penis off and putting it in the garbage disposal is funny? YES! Why the hell aren't you?

So you want to redefine Freedom of Speech to your liking. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

I AM offended, however, it is their right to say that. I am not in any way redefining freedom of speech, YOU are the one who is doing so. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. Any attempt to censor someone is in breach of that definition. YOU are trying to censor those women because you disagree with their opinion. YOU are trying to to get them fired because they offended you, in turn attempting to discourage them from sharing their opinion. YOU are trying to silence them because they had a different opinion to yours. How is that freedom of speech?

Like I've said before, if you want to critique them that is in your rights to do so. Trying to bring repercussions upon them for sharing their opinion is not, however, freedom of speech. It's like saying you are free to drive your car anywhere but that you're discouraged from driving it in a privately owned area since if you do so you're going to get shot. The same goes for freedom of speech. You can't say that you are free to say absolutely anything but then state that you're discouraged from saying certain things because if you do so you're going to have repercussions.

Freedom doesn't mean "Do whatever the hell you want without consequence." Freedom is having the ability to choose to do what you want and having the responsibility of living with the consequences. If you choose to say something on national TV that large parts of the public find deeply offensive and you get fired as a result, then your decisions led you to that point, and you have to accept the consequences.

This was absolutely sick of them to say, and if they don't at least have to apologize to keep their jobs I'll be absolutely shocked.

 

[Mr. 47]

Fucking. Fucking Twisted people. The Talk and Kieu. This man was TORTURED. This man will suffer for the rest of his FUCKING LIFE. And you laugh?! Do you laugh when a man beats a woman? Do you laugh when he cuts her? Do you laugh when she dies? No one, Man or Woman, no matter their crime deserves ANYTHING on this scale. The sickest, most twisted individual does not deserve to live with such disfigurement, embaressment, and emotional and physical trauma. Idiots! Sexist, Foolish, Idiots! I doubt if any of those women new someone who were disifigured to the amount to be unable to physically have sex any more, that they would laugh at such a case. I am not a doctor but fuck, any movement in the crotch area will probably hurt like hell, I don't even know how he would be able to urinate without mechanical aid. I have never in my life have been so angry at the statement on an individual. There are ignorant statements, there are racist and sexist statements, and then there are cruel statements made by cruel people such as these. Knowing the horror that man experienced, and laughing at it.

Kieu NEEDS confinement. Cuting off a body part on any person, expecially while they are fucking AWAKE is sadistic, and the CRUELIST possible thing anyone can do to a person. Fuck mental health. See deserves LIFE.

I see no humor in this. If the man's hand was amputated in the same scenerio (or any, I hope) you wouldn't laugh. At least there are replacements for a hand, and he has another, there is none for this.

Even after this venting, I still want to scream. Wish the household wasn't asleep.

 

[direkiller]

I've never seen, or even heard of "The Talk", so I don't know what its like.

neater have I but it sounds alot like "the view"
and can best be sumed up by family guy

 

[SillyBear]

[footnote]And before someone goes on a rant about freedom of speech I only have one thing to say, is common decency not a little more important than freedom of speech.[/footnote]

No it's not, the idea that you want to "punish" people for what they said is very strange. Yes, the woman should be punished for cutting off her husband's dick. No, the women of The Talk shouldn't. Do you actually think that we should punish people for saying something you disagree with? Is this actually what you think? I understand you are afraid of your dick getting cut off and assume if the women all rise up together and talk about cutting dicks off, there will be a dick-capitation revolution. Most people aren't that sexist, and can understand that Catherine Kieu was crazy. The women of The Talk are already probably in trouble for making jokes (although they shouldn't be because joking about violence has become annoyingly taboo in our culture).

Would you be saying the same thing if this was a bunch of white people laughing at the torture and murder of a black man? Or vice versa?

No? I didn't think so.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on public television. You can't make a television show and say horrendously awful things. These people are laughing at the fact a man has had his life ruined and has been seriously injured and they are being paid for it. They should be taken off the air.

 

[Mr. 47]

@Above: Agreed. They should be pulled off the air, shows have been pulled for far less insensitive comments as that. Hopefully it will be, but they will probably pull 'silencing the women's voice' into it and it will stay.

Freedom of speech makes it legal to be a douche, but you are still being a douche.

 

[BRex21]

It's a big stretch bringing feminism into this. It was a talkshow, not a gender studies text. Working as a university lecturer, I have never encountered any text, article or presentation within womens' studies or equivalent feminist literature that has ever advocated genital mutilation, whether male or female.

You're just talking out of your ass, as though any wrongdoing by any woman is somehow a piece of feminist politics.

I don't know if its so much of a stretch, historically femenist have often rallied behind women who mutilate and/or kill their husbands, always stating that he was abusive or deserved it even when there is no such evidence of that and there are many examples of radical feminists who want men dead or castrated. Feminist organizations are currently working to shut down womens prisons in the EU and are receving serious consideration in Britain, there argument for this is that femail criminals are merely victims of circumstance, such as economics or emotional distress, this is an outright endorsement of letting this woman go free on the sole basis of her gender. Even relatively mainstream feminist literature like the vagina monologues, which is acted out in universities all across the free world, calls men the enemy and even goes so far as to say a woman giving an underage girl alcohol in order to rape her is a good thing. This isnt to say that there are no rational feminists, just that feminists themselves need to pull their heads out of the sand and see the messages that many of their organizations preach, a message of hate and violence.

 

[nbamaniac]

I feel sorry for that disconnected joystick. It could've been useful in the decades to come.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

No, I'd suggest we're hoping she gets her ability to be paid to spout said opinion to millions

So she should keep her job and get payed as long as her opinion conforms with your ideas of morality? Sorry, that's not freedom of speech.

I think you need a better understanding of the Freedom of Speech.

I don't believe I do.

My bad, I've edited my post, as I daftly left off the words 'TAKEN AWAY', which makes my opinion a bit clearer.

I meant 'I'd suggest we're hoping she gets her ability to be paid to spout said opinion to millions' taken away, just as if anyone who has a public voice was openly hostile in a sexist, racist or other discriminatory way.

They're all welcome to their freedom of speech, but as I said, it's not a right to get on TV to spread that speech to millions, or every nutter would be on there.

I'm not suggesting we take away her freedom of speech, merely lessen it to the half a dozen or so people who'd actually pay attention to such rambling nonsense if it wasn't on TV.

 

[Conza]

Now I'm sure that some of you have heard about the Catherine Kieu incident. And if you don't then it goes a little like this: Catherine Kieu cut off her husbands dick after they had an argument. Her husband filed for divorce in May and they had a fight about friends staying over the day prior to the whole dick cutting. She complained that friends of his were staying in the house he owned, so she drugged his food, tied him to their bed, cut of his dick and just to add insult to injury she threw it in the garbage disposal.


Now a few days later on "The Talk" the women that hosted the show that day talked about she was in the right for cutting off her mans dick and even laughed about the whole thing. Not only is it disgusting but quite frankly something that should not be broadcast on television.

I know that the world is a harsh place and that life is no yellow brick road, but this is shit that should not be fucking happening. I find it funny how humanity has prospered for so long with shit like this going. I would have expected us all to have killed each other long ago.

Now Escapists, what is your opinion on the matter, and do you think that women on "The Talk" should be punished in some way, no matter how major or minor.[footnote]And before someone goes on a rant about freedom of speech I only have one thing to say, is common decency not a little more important than freedom of speech.[/footnote]

Suspend the show for 3 months, its plain stupidity on the part of everyone involved on the show, but I think firing them all for incompetent broadcasting might be slightly severe. They're just fucking idiots.

EDIT: As for Catherine Kieu, she deserves a life sentence with no possibility for parol. That is so disgusting, foul and deranged, she deserves not to be allowed, well, the rest of her life frankly.

 

[Twilight_guy]

"the talk", that rip-off version of "the view"? Yeah I don't put much stock in the views of middle-aged semi-celebrity women.

I don't think that the woman was in the right because mutilation is not an appropriate response to almost any situation. I don't care how much of an asshole he might have or not have been I think there was a more appropriate solution. I think the women on "the talk" may have just been trying to get a laugh but if they are serious then they may want to considering rethinking their views of justice.

 

[HandsomeJack]

Freedom of Speech protects you only from Legal Actions of Government and the illegal actions taken against you on the behalf of others. It does not protect you from social repercussions (I recall a certain personality who's career died for refering to a women's basketball team as "Nappy-headed hoes") or from termination from work for violating thier sense of taste and respectability or company image (we had someone at my work, a German based company, fired for throwing up Zieg Hailes and goose-stepping).

Mutilation is never justified as punishment. Punishment is meant to exstinguish bad behavior, not just inflict suffering for a sense of "justice."(That would fall under "revenge") Even in the case of a repeated rapist (one poster mentioned as justifying this sort of torture) I find this ineffective, many rapists have sexual disfunction to begin with and use objects instead of thier own "equipment." Rape is as often about power and control as it is sexual impulse...mutilating them in this manner is likely to only generate more feelings of sexual frustration and humilliation and lead to more brutal (and likely lethal) rape as soon as there is opportunity.

Last two cents: There is a lot of sexism ingrained in this. We can talk of reversing roles in this but it is more productive if we look at issues without looking at the genders involved. Different genders do have different perspectives, but situations shouldnt have the genders tied to them. To demonstrate this: I watch this video thinking...

"These are horrible people who find sick glee in torture of a human who, solely because they do not identify themselves with this person, see fit to dehumanize and justify the suffering of of a victim while abosolving this person's attacker solely because they feel they identify with that person."

 

[HandsomeJack]

I do think that if there is significant protest (for which I will gladly throw my hat in the ring for) that these people should loose thier jobs over this. They do thier network's image a huge disservice acting in such a manner. Moreover if we show that we, collectively, do not want this sort of behavior on television, the free market principle should correct the presense of something that offends the sensibility of it's audience and drives them away from the shows sponsors. I suggest looking up all companies that ran adds for that showing and boycot them to put pressure on the network to drop them. A network that faces loosing it's funding is quick to comply to it's audience.

 

[evilneko]

Why not? If the jokes are incredibly hurtful and damaging to a persons reputation, why should they not face legal consequences for affecting that person life in a very negative manner?

If the statements are slanderous, okay.

If not, there is no legal problem, nor should there be. The government need not stick its nose into the situation.

I am not by any means saying that there should be no consequences at all. Employers are free to fire someone for saying or doing things they don't like. See: the firing of Gilbert Gottfried by Aflac for (IIRC) remarks he made about the tsunami and quakes that hit Japan. This is not a violation of free speech, contrary to what some might believe.

 

[Gigano]

Well, pretty nasty case aggravated assault, but on the other hand it's absurd enough that I can understand laughing at it for the sheer absurdity. Trying to justify it is reprehensible though.

And she most certainly should not be punished for speaking her mind. She had no complicity in the crime, and controversial and unpleasant opinions are what freedom of speech exist to protect, where it gains purpose and content. Her employer can fire her if he doesn't want her on the staff after expressing this opinion while doing her job, but that's it.

 

[Illithidae]

Never heard of this, but this is just sick.

Wrong on so many levels - sure, they MIGHT be able to fix him up, but it seems unlikely that he'll ever be the same. She drugged him (1), Tied him down (2), "cut off his dick" (3) and then went on to publicly humiliate him (4). So what I see here is four charges, as far as I know, that could be applied to this insane woman.

Why do I call her insane? Because she did all this because of an argument. Because he wanted some friends over. Friends. Now, I don't know about you, but it sounds pretty crazy to mutilate someone, your own spouse even, because you disagreed with them on one count of being indifferent.

So either there's a problem with these two or the whole story isn't being told. Either way ... I feel sorry for the guy. There's no way he'll ever be the same, I don't think.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Hell no to answer your footer. Common decency is nice, but nothing compared to our freedom of speech.

 

[THE_NAMSU]

And then there's those women are essentially joking about the whole thing. And some Women are actually defending this person.

Feminism gone too far isn't it? Stupid hormonal women, taking everything too bloody far.

 

[Drunkern_Hobo]

you cant jus turn it on it's head by saying that what if a woman had her breast cut off. The guy lost his manhood. The female equivalent would be to REMOVE THE ENTIRE WOMB!! To take away her sexual organs. No man would ever consider (well i hope) and yet we have women here all thinking it is funny. They should be ashamed, Congratulations to the Women of America for dropping that bar a little lower than before.