How did Jesus die for our sins?

[Tom Sawyer]

No, he was offered that because he was a smart, insightful man. The world is littered with smart, insightful men whom nobody pays attention to, though. Stewart's cutting humour and his ability to create a compelling story out his mockery of the absurdity of others' stupidity and hypocrisy is what got him the following so that people paid attention to his insights instead of ignoring those insights in the same way that they ignore the insights of so many others.

Having good arguments is meaningless unless you also have the tools to get people to pay attention to those arguments. Humour is one of the best ways to do that.

Yes, but it's the insights that, in the end, make him a game changer. That, and younger people not going anywhere else to get their news.

And there's a reason that they went to him for their news instead of an equally insightful person who gave a dry and boring account of the same issues on PBS. It was because he was extraordinarily funny and entertaining and made them laugh their asses off and they ended up learning something at the same time.

I mean, do you feel that Stewart had insights on issues which other people did not have? If so, what were those insights? I see him as having said the same thing that hundreds of others were also saying but because of the way he said it (ie - his humour and mockery), he got people to listen a lot more.

 

[Ramaraksha]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

Easy - the goal is to get to heaven - a magic land of plenty, but most people have done wrongs in their life and so here comes a way out. Just join the religion, pray to this nice guy and bingo off you go to heaven

It is a nice marketing tool to get people to convert

Nothing to do with morals or ethics

My sins are mine, if i have done harm, it is up to me to correct them.

These religions abuse the victim - the victim is twice-raped by saying the criminal is absolved of his sins. In real life we don't let rapists and pedophiles walk free

But the latter actually happened at penn state - the pedophile walked free for several years abusing young boys. He was able to do that because the admin ignored the victim. The first time he was caught, the guy, the coaching staff and the admin got together and pardoned the pedophile. Who was missing from this meeting? The victim! Why? Because the victim wouldn't be so quick to forgive, because the victim would demand that this go public, that this pedophile face the law!

Just a cheap religion trolling for converts, telling them what they want to hear

 

[Horatio Parker]

And there's a reason that they went to him for their news instead of an equally insightful person who gave a dry and boring account of the same issues on PBS. It was because he was extraordinarily funny and entertaining and made them laugh their asses off and they ended up learning something at the same time.

I mean, do you feel that Stewart had insights on issues which other people did not have? If so, what were those insights? I see him as having said the same thing that hundreds of others were also saying but because of the way he said it (ie - his humour and mockery), he got people to listen a lot more.

Show me who else did anything like his Crossfire appearance.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You mean thee time when he mocked and ridiculed the setup of CNN's business model and got everyone realizing how poorly it was put together through making them laugh at how badly he was dissing and humiliating them? Or are you claiming this was him treating others' positions with respect?

Complaints about the setup of CNN's programs was not new. Stewart's cutting humour when talking about it was got people paying attention t what he was saying as opposed to paying attention to all the others who'd said it before him.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You mean thee time when he mocked and ridiculed the setup of CNN's business model and got everyone realizing how poorly it was put together through making them laugh at how badly he was dissing and humiliating them? Or are you claiming this was him treating others' positions with respect?

Complaints about the setup of CNN's programs was not new. Stewart's cutting humour when talking about it was got people paying attention t what he was saying as opposed to paying attention to all the others who'd said it before him.

Again: Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table, on the air, on tv, than anyone else. Show me a comparable clip.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You mean thee time when he mocked and ridiculed the setup of CNN's business model and got everyone realizing how poorly it was put together through making them laugh at how badly he was dissing and humiliating them? Or are you claiming this was him treating others' positions with respect?

Complaints about the setup of CNN's programs was not new. Stewart's cutting humour when talking about it was got people paying attention t what he was saying as opposed to paying attention to all the others who'd said it before him.

Again: Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table, on the air, on tv, than anyone else. Show me a comparable clip.

Dude, he did not "bring more insight". Similar levels of insight were all over place. The complaints about the structure of CNN's programming were not uncommon. What Stewart offered was not a new and different insight which was not being offered elsewhere, it was an ability to present those insights in a manner which got people to listen. His method of delivery is what got him the ability to present these insights on these forums when the other people presenting those insights weren't given a seat at the table.

It was his cutting humour and mockery of the absurdity of the stupid and hypocritical positions that people were taking (ie - the things you're against) that made him so successful and got people listening to him. He's the poster child for the effectiveness of this form of argumentation.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Again: Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table, on the air, on tv, than anyone else. Show me a comparable clip.

Dude, he did not "bring more insight". Similar levels of insight were all over place. The complaints about the structure of CNN's programming were not uncommon. What Stewart offered was not a new and different insight which was not being offered elsewhere, it was an ability to present those insights in a manner which got people to listen. His method of delivery is what got him the ability to present these insights on these forums when the other people presenting those insights weren't given a seat at the table.

It was his cutting humour and mockery of the absurdity of the stupid and hypocritical positions that people were taking (ie - the things you're against) that made him so successful and got people listening to him. He's the poster child for the effectiveness of this form of argumentation.

You're only addressing half my statement.

Read some of the thousands of comments on that clip and compare how many who talk about how funny he is to those who say he owned CNN.

Don't try and box me into a "humor is disrespectful" stance. Not what I'm saying. I think to gratuitously introduce ridicule of positions not taken is as disrespectful as gratuitously offering up shit like "I will pray Jesus forgives you".