Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2014 4:42 PM
185 online now:
Coyote, edge, kjsimons, lasthero, NoNukes, Parasomnium, PaulK, Taq, Taz (9 members, 176 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 732,905 Year: 18,746/28,606 Month: 2,017/2,305 Week: 222/671 Day: 68/68 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 186 (644674)
12-19-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Butterflytyrant
12-18-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
your comprehension is fucking terrible.

From your reply you do not actually understand anything that I wrote.

Have another go at reading my post.

Hey mallethead, there was nothing in your post to me, to comprehend. it was simply a contradictory statement implying that you fellas might have the same respect for a dying theologian. Yesh right, that is going to happen

So what was the overwhelming message i missed? I mean come on, the guy was a journalist, he wasnt even a trained philosopher. His arguments were 101 stuff. They put me to sleep

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-18-2011 9:27 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-23-2011 2:33 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 533 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 107 of 186 (644694)
12-20-2011 4:49 AM


Darwinism rewards those that leave offspring and Hitch had kids. So like a cockroach, rat, bacteria or pondscum, Hitch did his job.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 6:49 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Pressie, posted 12-20-2011 1:38 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12597
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 108 of 186 (644698)
12-20-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Portillo
12-20-2011 4:49 AM


Darwinism rewards those that leave offspring ...

No.

So like a cockroach, rat, bacteria or pondscum, Hitch did his job.

There are those who claim that God had a son. Would you say that that makes him comparable to a cockroach, rat, bacterium or pondscum?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Portillo, posted 12-20-2011 4:49 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9258
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 109 of 186 (644719)
12-20-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by rbp
12-19-2011 5:45 PM


The other half is composed of equal portions of red and blue lasers:


I don't know nothin' 'bout Hitch, the man. All I've heard of is the #GodIsNotGreat stuff and a coupla quotes here and there.

People here have said they disagree with some of what he said. What are some of the more controversial positions he's taken? I think someone mentioned politics. I don't care about the atheism stuff, what else did he do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by rbp, posted 12-19-2011 5:45 PM rbp has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2011 10:22 AM Catholic Scientist has acknowledged this reply
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2011 1:18 PM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-20-2011 2:20 PM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Rahvin, posted 12-20-2011 4:27 PM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3135
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 110 of 186 (644723)
12-20-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Catholic Scientist
12-20-2011 10:08 AM


What are some of the more controversial positions he's taken?

For starters: his position on the Iraq war and seemingly implicit support of GWB. His paycheck came from journalism, but his rise to fame was his atheism. So, in that respect, a lot of people see him as more of a champion for the freethought/atheist movement.

I don't care about the atheism stuff

Then you don't really care about Hitch. His polemic debates with religious types, his vocal opinions against all things religious, are what made Hitch, Hitch. You will notice that he wasn't "center stage" until the release of God is not Great. It wasn't until then that any of the other main players even heard of or met him (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Dawkins).

What I have also noticed is that the dissenting views of him never really came out until he died. It would appear that no one had the cojones to call him out on his controversial opinions. Yes, people mentioned it, but not in the magnitude that people are talking about it now.

Now, I could be wrong because I enjoyed watching/listening to Hitch debate religious figures, not for his political views because that his what I saw him as: a champion for the "New Atheists", if you will.


Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-20-2011 10:08 AM Catholic Scientist has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6274
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 111 of 186 (644755)
12-20-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Catholic Scientist
12-20-2011 10:08 AM


People here have said they disagree with some of what he said. What are some of the more controversial positions he's taken? I think someone mentioned politics. I don't care about the atheism stuff, what else did he do?

He had quite a number controversial opinions around violent solutions. He once said we were bombing Afghanistan out of the stone age. That we should hate our enemies; kill our enemies, and voiced some general support for lethal violence against Islamists as the only rational response. I remember him once saying something like 'Want to be a martyr? Allow me to help with that.'

I can't find any of the specifics now, but that kind of rhetoric is what some people feel a little uncomfortable endorsing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-20-2011 10:08 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 784
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 112 of 186 (644759)
12-20-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Portillo
12-20-2011 4:49 AM


quote:
Darwinism rewards those that leave offspring and Hitch had kids. So like a cockroach, rat, bacteria or pondscum, Hitch did his job.
Wasn't Jesus the son of god according to some versions of your holy book? There's still capital punishment for blasphemy in some countries, you know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Portillo, posted 12-20-2011 4:49 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 601 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(1)
Message 113 of 186 (644766)
12-20-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Catholic Scientist
12-20-2011 10:08 AM


the man tried to Destroy Mother Teresa

quote:
Hitchens condemns Teresa for having used contributions to open convents in 150 countries rather than establishing the teaching hospital toward which her donors expected her to apply their gifts. He claims that Teresa was no "friend to the poor," and that she opposed structural measures to end poverty, particularly those that would raise the status of women. He argues she was a tool by which the Catholic Church furthered its political and theological aims, and the cult of personality that she developed was used by politicians, dictators and bankers to gain credibility and assuage guilt, citing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Keating and Michčle Bennett as examples.

I mean C'mon, MOTHER TERESA!?!.

the guy was a troll. I am glad he is dead, fuck him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-20-2011 10:08 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2011 3:01 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2011 3:31 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 4:03 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 127 by Omnivorous, posted 12-20-2011 11:27 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
rbp
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 114 of 186 (644769)
12-20-2011 2:28 PM


Hitchens is absolutely right..

You should read more on Mother Theresa if you really think she is such a saint.

"wiki writes:

Chatterjee writes that while she was alive Mother Teresa and her official biographers refused to collaborate with his own investigations and that she failed to defend herself against critical coverage in the Western press. He gives as examples a report in The Guardian in Britain whose "stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages ... [include] charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse",[77] and another documentary Mother Teresa: Time for Change? broadcast in several European countries.[58]

The German magazine Stern published a critical article on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. This concerned allegations regarding financial matters and the spending of donations. The medical press has also published criticism of her, arising from very different outlooks and priorities on patients' needs.[68] Other critics include Tariq Ali of the New Left Review and the Irish investigative journalist Donal MacIntyre.[76]

She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[78] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."[79]

The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.[68] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast hospice, on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not.[80]

Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Teresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Teresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives include unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving.[81]

Christopher Hitchens and the German magazine Stern have said Mother Teresa did not focus donated money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.[82] Mother Teresa accepted donations from the autocratic and corrupt Duvalier family in Haiti and openly praised them. She also accepted 1.4 million dollars from Charles Keating, involved in the fraud and corruption scheme known as the Keating Five scandal and supported him before and after his arrest. The Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, Paul Turley, wrote to Mother Teresa asking her to return the donated money to the people Keating had stolen from, one of whom was "a poor carpenter". The donated money was not accounted for, and Turley did not receive a reply.[83]

Arent you always on about how you dont trust the media etc? Apparently you believe the lie that mother theresa was a good person. She wasent.

the guy was a troll. I am glad he is dead, fuck him.

Ezekiel 18:23
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Edited by rbp, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2011 3:39 PM rbp has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 2210
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 115 of 186 (644774)
12-20-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Artemis Entreri
12-20-2011 2:20 PM


Artemis writes:

I am glad he is dead, fuck him.

Another beautiful Christian, graceously bowing a respectful head. Jesus would be proud of you. You're a credit to your religion.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-20-2011 2:20 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-21-2011 10:49 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3135
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 116 of 186 (644776)
12-20-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Artemis Entreri
12-20-2011 2:20 PM


I mean C'mon, MOTHER TERESA!?!.

Most definitely Mother Theresa. I know you see her through your catholic rose colored glasses, but perhaps before launching into a tirade, you would do well to see what he actually wrote and said about her. Ah well, that would require honesty, integrity and fortitude on your behalf and I would think myself a fool to expect that from you.

the guy was a troll

Said the pot to the kettle in reference to it's color; black, as it were.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-20-2011 2:20 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3135
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 117 of 186 (644778)
12-20-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by rbp
12-20-2011 2:28 PM


And where was this great patron saint, herself, treated when she fell ill? That's right: the best hospitals money could buy.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by rbp, posted 12-20-2011 2:28 PM rbp has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12597
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 118 of 186 (644780)
12-20-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Artemis Entreri
12-20-2011 2:20 PM


I mean C'mon, MOTHER TERESA!?!.

Yeah, shocking. We know, of course, that all criticisms of her are invalid 'cos she was so wonderful. And we know she was so wonderful 'cos there are no valid criticisms of her.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-20-2011 2:20 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 119 of 186 (644781)
12-20-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Catholic Scientist
12-20-2011 10:08 AM


This piece from Gawker sums up Hitchens' political views quite well:

quote:
The outpouring of grief, goodwill, and teary encomia that has attended news of Christopher Hitchens' passing would—if he was anything like the persona he presented in print—have turned his stomach. He loathed sentiment, welcomed combat, and delighted in inflicting hard truths. In that spirit, it must not be forgotten in mourning him that he got the single most consequential decision in his life horrifically, petulantly wrong.

In its obituary, the New York Times quoted Hitchens' friend Ian Buruma, who told the New Yorker in 2006 that Hitchens was "always looking for the defining moment — as it were, our Spanish Civil War, where you put yourself on the right side, and stand up to the enemy." He shared that impulse with George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, and they found their moment in the stupid decision to invade Iraq. For Hitchens, it was the opening maneuver in a grand, imagined clash of western civilization against the Islamofascist hordes.

It was something else for 113,000 civilians who died in the chaos unleashed. The great tragedy of Hitchens' life was that, toward its end, he aligned himself so stridently with the very fools, cowards, and charlatans who most desperately invited exposure by his prodigious skills as butcher. How can someone who devoted so much of his life to as noble a cause as destroying the reputation of Henry Kissinger blithely stand shoulder to shoulder with Rumsfeld?

People make mistakes. What's horrible about Hitchens' ardor for the invasion of Iraq is that he clung to it long after it became clear that a grotesque error had been made. In September 2005, he defended the debacle in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard in terms that are simply breathtaking in their lack of concern for the victims of his Mesopotamian adventure. It was headlined "A War to Be Proud Of."

Torture and murder by feckless American troops at Abu Ghraib? "Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad," he wrote. How clever! Anyone objecting to the occupation of Iraq on the grounds that torturing and murdering people is wrong and illegal is now obligated to defend the "abattoir" that existed prior to our arrival.

Anyone complaining that the chief rationale for the invasion—the indisputable presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—turned out to have been a fantasy is being "childish," he wrote. "'You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire.' I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra." How tiresome you are with your boring insistence that wars be justified! Hitchens' answer to that whine is a trivial list of ominous fragments, conspiratorially arrayed: "Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad." If you don't recognize the immediate global danger that the presence in Iraq of a man who built a bomb that killed six people ten years ago presents, you are a child.

If you dispute the Bush Administration line that "terror" must be fought in Iraq lest it be fought on our soil, Hitchens alleged, you are guilty of dispensing "sob-sister tripe pumped out by the Cindy Sheehan circus and its surrogates." Sheehan's son had been dead scarcely a year at the time Hitchens wrote this.

But surely Christopher, you recognize that the war has been badly bungled even if all your hearts were in the right place, right? "We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves." For Christopher Hitchens to identify a subject about which no argument is required is a rare thing indeed. Abu Ghraib—why argue? The $9 billion in cash that simply disappeared—what's to argue? Two months after the Hitchens wrote those words, U.S. Marines massacred 24 men, women, and children in Haditha. No need to argue.

"If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated," he closed, "I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat." The rest of Hitchens' life turned out to be unjustly circumscribed. But his demilitarized federal and secular democracy is a mirage. More likely a future Iranian client state and Shi'ite stronghold awaits. Those words would not wear well on his headstone.

Hitchens' style—ironically, given his hatred for tyranny and love of free expression—brooked no dissent. There was little room for good-faith disagreement or loyal opposition. His enemies were not just wrong, they were stupid or mean or small-minded or liars or cheats or children or cowards. It was thrilling and gratifying to see that articulate viciousness deployed against the Clinton cartel, or Mother Teresa, or Henry Kissinger—against power and pretense. To see it deployed in favor of war, on behalf of a dullard and scion, against the hysterical mother of a dead son was nauseating.

In the months and years since Hitchens publicly proclaimed his pride in the invasion of Iraq for Murdoch's ideological crib-sheet, 78,708 Iraqi civilians and 2,548 U.S. troops have been killed. He did immense good in his life, and unforgivable harm.


In his earlier years he apparently spoke out against Vietnam. On Iraq, I disagreed with him, vehemently.

I respected the man for having the courage to actually undergo waterboarding and being willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. I applaud his harsh criticism of religion and Mother Theresa. I enjoyed "God is Not Great."

I prefer to remember him for those things, because if his legacy was his tireless support for the Iraqi debacle and his zealous fervor in opposing "Islamofascism" (an idiotic term that makes no sense, Al Qaeda et al are not in any way fascist), then he was an idiot and a monster who approved of the murder of over 70,000 Iraqi civilians and the deaths of over 2,000 American troops for, essentially, no reason at all.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-20-2011 10:08 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by 1.61803, posted 12-20-2011 4:50 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2245
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 120 of 186 (644784)
12-20-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rahvin
12-20-2011 4:27 PM


He sounds like he was a real tool. Atheist fan boys don't bother, I do not care in the least what his religious or non religious beliefs were.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rahvin, posted 12-20-2011 4:27 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014