Christopher Hitchens: A winner, or a ********?

Christopher Hitchens truly illustrates the difference between atheist and skeptic.

He is an interesting man, but he needs to approach his own ideas with more skepticism.
 
Hitchens is interesting and funny at times but no way I'd put him at the top of intellectual debaters or whatever. For one thing he has a hard time debating fairly and he talks over his opponent frequently. And he often dominates the conversation and I don't mean in terms of quality but rather he talks and talks and just will not stop.
 
I enjoy watching Hitchens debate and his short media appearances. I think his wit is outstanding; his overpowering rhetorical whip, at times, is refreshing.

I’ve also enjoyed his book about Orwell and Thomas Paine. I’ve yet to read God is Not Great, although I suppose the general arguments in that particular book are pretty much the same as what he’s presenting in his debates.
 
He is undeniably a very bright guy, but he has his blind spots like most of us. I would have to say, yeah, he's a winner - he has a lot more cash than I will ever have. I might add that being a winner and being a ********** are in no way mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
People who fly jet airplanes into buildings should be dehumanized. Period.
Click to expand...
I don' t think most of us have any problem feeling contempt for terrorists and have no idea why you think anyone except small minority do. The problem involves extending that contempt to everyone else in the populations from which they spring. And I also think that deliberately trying not to understand what might motivate people to do things (beyond "They're evil!!!") is just stupid. Certainly, some are just evil. Other's feel justified. Truly evil people are a minority. It might be worth understanding why those who feel justified feel that way. And I'm not saying them feeling justified in anyway justifies their actions - so don't pull that out of your ......well, you know.
 
Non-theism is not a dogma. Are some of us forgetting that? The mere fact that he does not believe in a god ought not, and does not necessarily dictate his view on this war.

I happen to not agree with him, but why should I? Because we are both godless we both must agree on everything else? Nonsense.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Exactly.

I want to kill those who celebrate 9/11. Then we can try to understand them after they are dead.
Click to expand...
You are simplifying the issue. The issue is not simple, because no issue is simple.

You want to kill those who celibated 9/11. Fine. Well and good. Are we talking about actual terrorists? Or everyone in the Arab world who felt happy? What if they didn't think the terrorists were right then, but think they're right now because of our actions? What if they celibrated because they have absolutely no context for understanding what happened on 9/11, only that they were told that Americans were bad, and something bad happened to the people they were told were bad?

Issues are never simple.
 
I think it was rather simple that day, when these terrorists boarded those planes, and whenever a kamikaze goes to a market.

Either you do it or you don't. They chose the wrong option.

Simple.
 
GreyICE said:
You are simplifying the issue. The issue is not simple, because no issue is simple.

You want to kill those who celibated 9/11. Fine. Well and good. Are we talking about actual terrorists? Or everyone in the Arab world who felt happy? What if they didn't think the terrorists were right then, but think they're right now because of our actions? What if they celibrated because they have absolutely no context for understanding what happened on 9/11, only that they were told that Americans were bad, and something bad happened to the people they were told were bad?

Issues are never simple.
Click to expand...

To the contrary - most issues are incredibly simple. It's just that most people don't have the back bone to solve them.
 
elemental said:
Non-theism is not a dogma. Are some of us forgetting that? The mere fact that he does not believe in a god ought not, and does not necessarily dictate his view on this war.

I happen to not agree with him, but why should I? Because we are both godless we both must agree on everything else? Nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think it's less of "non-theism = dogma", but more of, "Good author that I respected and read the works of, has an opinion I really cannot respect".

It happens all the time. Some people have a favorite author, and then find out their author, say, hates homosexuals or is racist or promotes something that we don't. I've found this happening to me myself.

So no, no one's advocating some kind of "non-theistic dogma". It's just people losing respect for someone that they had a lot of for.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Hitchens is arguably one of the greatest intellectuals alive today. Unbelievably well-read, funny and articulate, I would run a mile before debating the man on any issue.

He has contributed much aid to the Atheist 'movement' and provided people such as myself with valid arguments against theism.

That said, I am perplexed at his stand on the Iraq War, which he still stands behind all these years later, being a champion of its.. well, whatever it exactly was supposed to do. Dawkins and Harris, both seeing the Iraq War as a reckless intervention, appear to be as bemused as I am.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, I'm basically the exact opposite on the issues you bring up.

I agree with Hitchens on the Iraq War, but I don't feel he is articulate, and I wouldn't hesitate to debate him on any issue where I disagreed strongly. Anyone who knows what they're doing in that setting, probably even a half-decent lawyer or a very good high school debate team member...would mop the floor with him.

I think it might be better to start a new topic on the issue of "articulation" rather than pull this one away from the Iraq War.
 
Most stuff written by Hitchens is a great read, whether you agree with him or not (and I disagree with him on some things). His wit is both razor sharp and delicious. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of it.
 
"Wit" can be "delicious"? What kind of flavor does it have? Chocolate? Hazelnut?

Maybe it doesn't stop there. Does "Intelligence" have a the aroma of spring flowers? Or does willpower have a texture like soft leather?

Anyways, yes, I agree. Hitchens' wit definitely appeals to my tastebuds.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Is it a waste of time for historians who try to understand the mind of Hitler?
Click to expand...

That depends.

If you're trying to understand him to delay or find an alternative to opposing him, then yes, it's a waste of time.

If you're trying to understand him in the context of history after already having defeated him, then no, it's a great way to spend your time.

Undesired Walrus said:
Why you are taking this anti-intellectual stance is something you have not elaborated upon.
Click to expand...

Because all too often "understanding" is taken to be synonymous with "identifying with" and it evokes images of uber-lefty intellectuals such as Ward Churchill writing essays blaming the victims who were murdered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom