There is a promo for a local news program about a really sad story. A woman 'sold' her sister on the internet. The sister is mentally challenged. The woman sold her sister 20+ times per day and only got 8 months in jail.
The announcer ends the spot by saying "why isn't more being done to protect innocent victims?"
Do you see the ambiguity....
One interpretation has the mentally challenged sister as the innocent victim.
BUT -- The woman accused of sellling her sister sold her multiple times...
so, who is/are the innocent victim(s)... the sister that got sold, or the multiple people who bought the sister--- they were the victim of an internet scam....
Is it sick of me to see the second interpretation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No, because you're starting to worry that your eight day cat feeder is an internet scam.
I'm a sick person because now I'm wondering if your 8 day cat feeder is actually a mentally challenged person good at repetitive tasks.
It is a good thing I wasn't drinking a pop when I read this... it would have been coming out my nose...
The service couldn't have been very good, she was returned at least seven times daily. With that track record I'd have found a better sister to sell.
Post a Comment