JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

Wocky, I was and remain a big Hitchens fan and adherent. I know much of his thoughts on Islam, so tell me, besides the odd select quote, and before I respond further, how much of his work have you read?

I ask because it's transparently obvious that you have cherry picked quotes driven by the opinions of others rather than Hitch himself. You will of course gloss over this as if it's immaterial, but you'll neglect to tell everyone that the materiality threshhold is "convenience to Wocky's point".

 

AnakinAnarchist:Wait, what nation has been "crushed" for trying to resist a one world government? What are you talking about?

Ender Sigh: Earlier in this thread, an account of a particular speech he made was given. That was the summary as offered to us. Unless you want to make the case that the speech's content was misrepresented, then we have to take it a face value. In doing so, the themes he was reported to have used have to stand on their own. The fact that he on other occasions said things that weren't racist have nothing to do with the fact that he seems to have said a great many racist things that time.

For instance, Barry Goldwater at times supported the NAACP. This is a good thing, and suggests a certain progressiveness on racial issues. However, that doesn't make it any less functionally racist that he subsequently ran an entire Presidential campaign whose primary appeal (and sole support in the electoral college) came from the fact that his platform was ardently pro-segregationist. The one doesn't have much to do with the other at all.

I'm glad that Hitchens was more reasonable at other times. But the question is whether he was racist in this particular speech. Are you going to share your thoughts, or no?

 

Sorry, are you suggesting a movement that wants gender equality, equal pay and conditions for equal work (i.e. women not being expected to sacrifice career progression for maternity leave, etc) is trying to make a one world government?

And is it a real library, or like a church one where every book is "left behind vol 23"?

 

Well we know that was feminists, Iello.

Wocky: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/07/godfearing_people.html

 

Ender Sai: I'm certainly willing to review your article. But we aren't talking about hurting Muslims feelings. Again, we are discussing a speech given by Christopher Hitchens wherein he suggested that people of that faith had to be killed, because it was impossible to find any accommodation with them. Are you or are you not going to offer any commentary on this incident?

 

If you put up the quote, Wocky, I'm sure he'd be willing to debate it.

And please, don't cherry-pick, as you tried to do with me when you brought up that quote about American history. I'm beginning to realize that you deliberately withheld the rest of the quote so that you could say, in regards to my response interpreting the quote you provided, that he went on to prove *your* point. And then you tried to cite P.Z. Myers' secondhand account of a speech at which you knew there was no written record.

Bill would be ashamed of you, desecrating his sweaters.

 

liked for this

 

Here is a repost of the relevant discussion, Ender.

It is separately attested to here. I've seen no one contest the report of what he said. Are you aware of some source that was there that disagrees he said these things, Goodwood? If so, now would be the time to share. Otherwise, you are just retreating into denial about one of your heroes.

 

How is reasonable/rational thought possible with a major religion theist? And I'm honestly not trying to be an ass.

 

yeah i too would like to see an actual quote. honestly carpet-bomb the middle east because muslims are incorrigible is more a sam harris thing than a hitchens thing

 

I don't know that there is one, Rogue. But it's not like this is a recent charge. It was made immediately after the event, in 2007. From what I can find online, it created quite the controversy at the time. There was ample opportunity either then or in the ensuing years to contest the account, were it actually inaccurate. If no one has, that speaks pretty loudly on its own.

 

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, or somesuch. Just like how you can't prove a negative.

 

Yes, but I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to disprove a positive claim. I already offered my evidence for why I think the event happened. Give me some reason to disbelieve the account besides your personal dislike of the witness. You're telling me that a widely attended national event, you can't find one person who disagrees with the account I just quoted?

 

The default position is to not believe in something unless there is evidence for it. So a lack of evidence is a very real and very good reason to assert that such a thing likely doesn't exist.

I don't believe in werewolves. There is no evidence that werewolves exist. Therefore, not believing in them is the rational stance. If evidence shows up, I will gladly change my position. It's called having an open mind.

And no, a fictional book depicting werewolves does not qualify as evidence. You can't use Twilight to prove the existence of werewolves or sparkly vampires, and you can't use the Bible to prove the existence of one particular god.

 

Yes timmo, I agree entirely. I have evidence Hitchens made a racist speech. I posted that evidence. Goodwood has no evidence he didn't. By your logic--by all logic--his position is indefensible.

 

Curiously, this article seems to take a different message from the same conference: http://badgerherald.com/news/2007/10/15/hitchens-rails-on-re/#.UzO9hfmSzNk

HMMMM THE PLOT DOES THICKEN.

Also, the blogger BlackSaintheart quoted used the word Moslem. That should have been a red flag to you, that the author was in fact ****ing stupid and uncultured.

 

What was that supposed to demonstrate? It tracks quite well with the original report.

Those two sound like they are saying the same thing. Even Hitchens's quote itself (from your article) which makes direct reference to making them "run scared" and then to fighting "all the way" seems pretty unavoidably to be and endorsement of the use of force. How isn't he doing this?

 

YOu do understand the difference between Islamists and Muslims, don't you Wocky?

 

...hey, does this all mean we're now discussing a Two Source Hypothesis?

 

No, Don Woxote sometimes like to tilt at windmills he knows nothing about. It is not the first time he's done this, nor will it be the last.

 

I';m listening to the original speech now. So accurate how he compares North Korea to Heaven and Christianity. And as he sagely notes, "At least you can ****ing die and get out of North Korea".

 

I've seen that speech, it is indeed a sad, yet hilarious truth.

BTW Wocky, please don't insult my intelligence. When someone intends to discredit the account of a person, the reasonable course is to provide evidence as to why that person is untrustworthy. I have already done this; if you would like, I can dig up more. Personally, I don't blame Hitchens for lashing out at those who ask inane questions, because it's the same way I feel when having to listen to Ray Comfort trying to prove the existence of a magical sky fairy by way of the banana, or when some creatard starts throwing out arguments from ignorance and claiming them as "the atheists' nightmare."

 

My vocabulary is now richer, thank you.

 

It's the opposite of Evoludiot.