The Devil did NOT

Post Reply New Topic

My at least as good 49.5% [I am bigger as she is] STRONGLY urged that I post this for PPR comedy lovers.

Enjoy or...

Views expressed herein are not necessarily anybody's, nor can I guarantee they are not.

http://www.andrewklavan.com/2011/05/05/koc-abort-abort/

I would never use the word "comedy" in relation to anything related/relating to abortion, and that video's presenter "shot himself in the foot" a bit when/while/by referring to some births as being "illegitimate".

As long as he did not shoot the messenger in the foot.

Which in this case I am.

Frankly, I think the comedians should stick to being funny - but half of them are self-described "philosophers" and "activists". Some are almost as good as the famous philosophrer Rodney Dangerfield.

And it is important to hear from them and not just the dry as dust fact spreaders.

I find this slightly amusing, BUT... I don't think the guy's arguments are very compelling, thus causing less enjoyment. I end up wanting to argue against this. Particularly given that I think the "child" part is downright idiotic.

Yes, or even Dizzy Dean: "There sure seems to be a lot of room out there in left field ..."

Last edited by leejosepho on 24 May 2011, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It sometimes helps to keep things simple.

Why is it that whenever there are people chortling and gibbering about abortion, it's almost always the anti-choice folks?

I am so glad you asked that question.

You see, I was intuitively dissatisfied with the claim that the comedians are more persuasive than the academics because of the emotion beind their message.

People do not listen to Chomsky because they want to be convinced [heck, I don't listen to him period]. They listen because here is a Brain or a Celeb or a Pol agreeing with what they have already decided.

Nor do they listen to the activist - philosopher - comedian because they want his powerful emotive suasion to convince them. They listen because the specialist can do a better job of dissing a person or idea they have already decided to despise / hate / fear.

A Christian comedian is not going to go yuck-yuck about the incarnation or the resurrection - unless it is the view of them OTHER Christians with the bad doctrine. A cool [translation into English = non-theist] comedian is not going to point up the logical inconsistencies, however absurd, of the abortion movement or laws.

The class clown is going to poke fun at the weird guy who sits in the back row and won't make eye contact. Nobody but the crowd of losers is going to poke fun at the popular crowd.

So I think we can drop the persuasive descriptor. The comedian is persuasive only in that he points out which side is the weirdo losers and which is the side of the cool kids, giving those to dumb to figure out what is cool a chance to jump on the bandwagon.

leejosepho -

I tend to agree that this is not a productive use of Mr,.Klavan's resources. Despite what has been said of fighting fire with fire, and the constant temptation to strike back when slapped on the cheek, I think we dare say that those who can see straight owe it to at least themselves to rise above the level of the middle school playground where the opposition is comfortable.

This was done purely as an experiment, acting on a suggestion from the most significant human in range. The results have been somewhat surprising - I would have expected more outrage even with my name on the post. But n the other hand it has for me clarified the what gives with the comics question.

Cool, er ... cool.

and yet jon stewart and the today show tends to be a million times more relevant then 99 percent of the news shows out there.

Knowing neither him nor the Today Show of Today - and not much of any day's today show - I cannot comment beyond saying that in my experience 99% of news shows and 99% of newspapers are less informative than the average commercial. Which would tend to support your statement.