Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Why are people's mind blown? It's wrong. The chicken was not suicidal.
bob Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Why are people's mind blown? It's wrong. The chicken was not suicidal. Just because there was no note, does not mean the chicken did not want to end it's life...
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Everyone crosses the road to get to the other side. The point is that since it is a chicken, you expect it to be some sort of difference and therefore a joke. But the anti-climatic ending is an obvious statement. You people are reading too much into it. And even if the chicken did want to go to the "other side" and kill itself. It makes absolutely no difference and is certainly not worthy of this much attention.
Jonnas Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I've been assuming people's responses to the "epiphany" were being ironic at the silly interpretation. Please tell me that's what it was.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I think the joke is that a chicken would actually fail at crossing the road, therefore being stuck by a vehicle, passing away, and reaching 'the other side'. Not a case of whether it wants to or not, but rather than it would be incapable of successfully doing so. Addressing whether it's suicidal or not, is pretty ridiculous. I think the attention is fully warranted as most people assume it to just be an anti-climatic joke, when in fact, it looks to be actually quite clever and all of have missed that side of it for all these years. There are at least two other jokes I can think of which represent this dual nature, however, I can't write them down.
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I would hope so Jonnas but I don't trust people to be normal.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Everyone crosses the road to get to the other side. The point is that since it is a chicken, you expect it to be some sort of difference and therefore a joke. But the anti-climatic ending is an obvious statement. You people are reading too much into it. And even if the chicken did want to go to the "other side" and kill itself. It makes absolutely no difference and is certainly not worthy of this much attention. This whole post is really just a matter of opinion. Why speak so factually on the matter when you're such a fan of people's opinions and having them? I have, for probably 20 years of my life, never seen the joke in this mind-blowing light. I don't think it's fair of you to come and tell me that's not worthy of anything. I would hope so Jonnas but I don't trust people to be normal. This will come in to your definition of normal, which you've also brought up before. I don't understand how you can have some such opposing views, sometimes.
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I think the joke is that a chicken would actually fail at crossing the road, therefore being stuck by a vehicle, passing away, and reaching 'the other side'. Not a case of whether it wants to or not, but rather than it would be incapable of successfully doing so. Addressing whether it's suicidal or not, is pretty ridiculous. I think the attention is fully warranted as most people assume it to just be an anti-climatic joke, when in fact, it looks to be actually quite clever and all of have missed that side of it for all these years. There are at least two other jokes I can think of which represent this dual nature, however, I can't write them down. It's not quite clever. There is no other side to it. You are making it up. People are making it up. This reminds me of the U2 Vertigo fiasco where everyone thought that Bono went 1, 2, 3, 14 on purpose for many reasons but then it turns out he was drunk and bad at Spanish. Stop reading so ridiculously into it. Additionally, even if this other angle where it would reach the "other side" because it was ran over were true. It would still be very uninteresting.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) I've been assuming people's responses to the "epiphany" were being ironic at the silly interpretation. Please tell me that's what it was. What's silly about the interpretation! It's a perfectly valid one! It's not quite clever. There is no other side to it. You are making it up. People are making it up. This reminds me of the U2 Vertigo fiasco where everyone thought that Bono went 1, 2, 3, 14 on purpose for many reasons but then it turns out he was drunk and bad at Spanish. Stop reading so ridiculously into it. Additionally, even if this other angle where it would reach the "other side" because it was ran over were true. It would still be very uninteresting. The you'll need to destroy my above explanation of how it does have another side to it(other side, lol) in order to claim that, I see it sitting as perfectly valid right now. I'm also pretty sure you didn't invent the joke, and thus can't attest to its true intent with such unwarranted certainty. Edited March 19, 2012 by Rummy Automerged Doublepost
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 This whole post is really just a matter of opinion. Why speak so factually on the matter when you're such a fan of people's opinions and having them? I have, for probably 20 years of my life, never seen the joke in this mind-blowing light. I don't think it's fair of you to come and tell me that's not worthy of anything.[/Quote] I am a fan of people's opinions? If anything, I think most people have horrible, distorted and illogical opinions. This will come in to your definition of normal, which you've also brought up before. I don't understand how you can have some such opposing views, sometimes. I was just messing there when I said normal. I didn't really know how to describe it. Some fusion of underestimating people and being surprised by really strange opinions.
Jav_NE Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Oh come on, when everyone first heard that joke they thought it was literally to just get to the other side of the road. No-one ever thought it could mean to get to the other side of life - hence the minds being blown. I guess thinking it through, it does imply that the chicken knows it wouldn't make it across, hence sounding suicidal, but meh. New angle to age-old joke = win.
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 What's silly about the interpretation! It's a perfectly valid one! The you'll need to destroy my above explanation of how it does have another side to it(other side, lol) in order to claim that, I see it sitting as perfectly valid right now. I'm also pretty sure you didn't invent the joke, and thus can't attest to its true intent with such unwarranted certainty. I can attest to the obvious intent of the joke, which is amazingly clear.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 But you can't refute my explanation, therefore your argument is invalid :p
MoogleViper Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I think most people have horrible, distorted and illogical opinions. Such as thinking the Big Bang Theory is funny?
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 But you can't refute my explanation, therefore your argument is invalid :p The question is "Why" the chicken crosses the road. This creates intent. Therefore, the chicken has to want to kill itself and be suicidal. Alternatively, it could want to reach the literal other side and be run over unintentionally, and then reach the metaphorical other side. But that is irrelevant, because the answer to the initial question of "why", is still answered by the intent, which continues to be to reach the other side of the road.
MoogleViper Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 And there's not subtext or any reason that the chicken has died, nor any references to death (unless "cross the road" is some euphemism for suicide that I'm unaware of). Therefore, whether you read that into it or not, it still doesn't make sense as a joke.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Ah, but the joke there is that it crossed with the intent to get to the other side, but rather unfortunately, ended up on the other side. The outcome IS relevant in that it got to the other side, albeit not the one intended, and thus it is still a valid joke.
Cube Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Ah, but the joke there is that it crossed with the intent to get to the other side, but rather unfortunately, ended up on the other side. The outcome IS relevant in that it got to the other side, albeit not the one intended, and thus it is still a valid joke. But in that, the answer is still "to get to the other side (of the road)".
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Indeed, but the joke is in the fact that it's implied the chicken died, and got to the other side. I'm sure we could kill many a joke but making it all too literal, but that's where the humour lies.
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Ah, but the joke there is that it crossed with the intent to get to the other side, but rather unfortunately, ended up on the other side. The outcome IS relevant in that it got to the other side, albeit not the one intended, and thus it is still a valid joke. Where it ended does not matter. That is not what the question asked. It asked about the chicken's intent, and not the destination. Indeed, but the joke is in the fact that it's implied the chicken died, and got to the other side. I'm sure we could kill many a joke but making it all too literal, but that's where the humour lies. But it's not implied anywhere.
Cube Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Why did the chicken cross the road? A chocolate-chip muffin.
Rummy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 The joke is that it achieves its aim of the other side, but it's the wrong other side. That's the joke. It's a joke, not a literal question to be answered literally. 'Two fish in a tank, one says to the other 'How do you drive this thing?' is a joke. Of course, I could criticise it for many a reason. Firstly, fish can't talk. Secondly, if they're talking about a fish tank, you can't drive it and this is stupid. Thirdly, if they're talking about a literal tank then are they in water or not? If they're not they'd be dead, and still unable to talk. 'Why didn't the skeleton go to the dance? Because he had nobody to go with!' Well, how is a skeleton going anywhere of its own volition...etcetc Why did the chicken cross the road? A chocolate-chip muffin. Lol, I've run out of the day's thanks! Otherwise I would.
Diageo Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 The joke is that it achieves its aim of the other side, but it's the wrong other side. That's the joke. It's a joke, not a literal question to be answered literally. 'Two fish in a tank, one says to the other 'How do you drive this thing?' is a joke. Of course, I could criticise it for many a reason. Firstly, fish can't talk. Secondly, if they're talking about a fish tank, you can't drive it and this is stupid. Thirdly, if they're talking about a literal tank then are they in water or not? If they're not they'd be dead, and still unable to talk. 'Why didn't the skeleton go to the dance? Because he had nobody to go with!' Well, how is a skeleton going anywhere of its own volition...etcetc Lol, I've run out of the day's thanks! Otherwise I would. The two jokes you specified are puns. The chicken joke is not a pun.
Recommended Posts