I guess the real question is: When deciding what's funny, which audience member is more moral? This house has been divided by a debate about "humor." Specifically, if something (in this case a Youtube clip) isn't really a "funny incident" but it still makes you laugh, is it still really "humor?" Apparently some people (including one living at my address) think it's morally wrong to laugh at something which is "real and bad" even when it looks funny. (See, I don't think this. I think if it's funny, it's funny.) Some people also think it's more acceptable to have a laugh at something which first started out first as "comedy," even if the clip leads to painful accidental injury to some poor bloke during the "comedic" act. (I think the following: If it's not funny, it's not funny.) Frankly, even if it did come from Boing Boing, Clip B only pained me to watch it. However, every sin
