Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 21 of 560 (644253)
12-16-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
12-16-2011 10:41 AM


quote:
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who once worked as an intern for Hitchens, said: "Christopher Hitchens was everything a great essayist should be: infuriating, brilliant, highly provocative and yet intensely serious.
WTF? Nick Clegg was an intern for the Hitch? Awesome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 12-16-2011 10:41 AM GDR has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 111 of 560 (644755)
12-20-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
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 New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2011 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 123 of 560 (644792)
12-20-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Portillo
12-17-2011 9:52 PM


moved
moved reply to Message 56 in Moral high ground
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Portillo, posted 12-17-2011 9:52 PM Portillo has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 157 of 560 (645498)
12-27-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 1:07 AM


objectivity
Well thats easy. Since the unbeliever has no absolute standard of what moral is or is not and involves himself in a logical contradiction by claiming anything as immoral, as he follows a survival of the fittest standard, the believer can perform not only one thing the unbeliver cannot, but the only thing that matters, objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction
Then you simply have to provide an argument that supports the notion that having 'objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction' is a moral action. I don't believe Hitchens would have viewed a moral dictatorship as a good state of affairs, nor would he view believing in one is a moral action. Losing all fear of contradiction, means losing our protection against making contradictions (which we will do, being fallible) and is not to be admired either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:04 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(7)
Message 179 of 560 (645741)
12-29-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 1:04 AM


Re: objectivity
Actually I dont have to do this.
Yes you do, since the challenge is to name one moral action that could only be performed by a believer. You named having 'objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction' so you have to now show that it is a moral action or concede that it doesn't meet the requirements of the challenge.
My positions or beliefshave nothing to with the fact that his moral deductions are just matter in motion therefore irrelevant, except to him
Correction: Irrelevant except to him and to other people. Of course it should be said that they are irrelevant to Hitch now, too. But who cares about what is morally relevant to a rock? I only care what is morally relevant to beings that can suffer and be happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:04 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 1:31 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 181 of 560 (645815)
12-30-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 1:31 AM


The Hitchens Challenge
Your a funny guy Modulous. It doesnt matter what I believe or need to prove, if its just matter in motion. Neither he or I are right or wrong
Well of course it matters. You claimed to be answering his challenge (and that answering it was easy), I am challenging your answer by saying it does not qualify. So now you need to show that your answer qualifies. This is how debate works.
You and he may be right or wrong in moral terms, but the question needs to be asked: Right or Wrong according to whom? To you the answer is 'God' to Hitch and myself it would be 'right according to this group of people or that person'.
He is just baballing words that have no meaning and my objections are just as irrelevant, correct
Incorrect. You claim to be answering a challenge to provide a moral action that can only be taken by a believer. I challenged your answer. That is not irrelevant.
So the cow that has the pin slammed into his head, so you can enjoy him, should be considering your moral relevance
Cows can suffer, so yes the treatment of animals in their slaughter is a relevant moral question.
What do you think the cow or chicken would think of your ethics?
I don't think they think anything. That said, being domesticated, even if it is for slaughter, has proven an incredible bonus to their reproductive success.
If Hanibal the Canibal, even in his right mind, wanted to kill and eat you, would he be morally correct?
According to whom? To me? To him? To most people? Here is Hitchens' own words:
The point is Mod, is that it doesnt matter whether Mr H thinks he is as moral as anybody. he first needs to establish he has a platform to stand on to talk about morals. He does not by his own admissions of mindless matter
This is false, but not the central theme of this sub-topic. Morals are guidelines that dictate how we act towards one another. We still require guidelines even if we are matter in motion. Because we are not mindless matter. We are mindful matter. The only decent moral platform is one that takes other people's suffering and flourishing into consideration before taking an action. Doing something just because it would make a cosmic dictator happy, even if it means making other humans miserable - is not moral in Hitchens' book (or mine)
The main aspect I am responding to is your response to Hitchens' challenge. Which you seem keen to avoid dealing with, with all the distractions you are scattering around.
So again - what is your answer to the challenge: Name one moral act that could only be performed by a believer.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 1:31 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024