IAP Political Forum

Christopher Hitchens, Trotskyite neocon war hawk and scourge of faith itself, recently gave an exhibit of his charm and elegance that is chronicled by Richard Lawrence Poe. This fascinating look at a monstrous ego run amok is courtesy of Taki's Top Drawer.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.takimag.com/site/print/660/

So there is a drunken, appallingly behaved man at loose in the world. Wow!

This is a matter that we should take seriously on a Religion and Philosphy forum?

I'm new here, so could you explain just what point you are actually arguing? What point of view you are proposing?

W*****

He doesn't struggle with alcohol, everybody else does.

Hitchens has written a best seller debunking religion. He is also a loud war booster. His actions are worth noting.

OswaldTheOsprey

And you too have your own public or private sins, as do we all.  You have chosen to use a classic ad hominem argument (I note none of what you say actually discusses the arguments Hitchens uses).  By your own lights, your own grubby or selfish or illegal or antisocial behaviours (delete as inapplicable) are 'worth noting'.  If Hitchens' opinions are to judged by his behaviour, then so too are yours.

A******

So when public figures make public asses of themselves at a public events we are to ignore it? My private sins (and yours and everyone elses) are just that: private.

OswaldTheOsprey

You can do as you wish.  I think the mans behaviour was ludicrous, appalling and stupid.  However, it has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.  And since this is a philosophy and religion board not a "let's gossip and spread what scandal we can about people we don't like" board, I suggest that your po-faced, privately sqirming-with-delight revelations could be better posted on the sort of board where readers think that this what "debating" is all about.

I think that since you have 'gone public' with your views of Hitchens' behaviour, then your private sins are now fair game.  We should be told!!  What hideous excesses might you indulge in (do you eat your nailclippings? have you unjustly accused your dog of Manicheanism? do you comb your hair over your baldspot?).  We now have a right to know, since it will affect how we judge anything you say!

By the way, do you know, for example, ANY 'nice' great artists?  FFS we have been idolising Michelangelo's work for years and he was involved in street fighting!  Whitewash the Sistine Chapel.

You seem not to understand the difference between public and private. If I were to get drunk and rudely insult people in public then I would have no grounds to cite Mr. Hitchens' behavior. Conversely, if Mr. Hitchens gets drunk in the privacy of his own home that is no ones affair. Several years ago, when Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction became public many ridiculed him. Was this right? Did it prove anything at all about his philosophy? Some of his detractors still ridicule him to this day. Both Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hitchens are outspoken public figures and it comes with the territory.

OswaldTheOsprey

Hitchens is a genius.  He should have pissed on that stupid ass godiot.

Gee, you are so classy! ::) ::) ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

Despite his personal vices I agree with him on religion, and hold the completely opposite opinion of his politics.

I pretty much loathe him all the way around, but that is only my opinion. He is, IMHO, part of the loud and crude windbag punditocracy that also includes, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Hannity, Franken, Coulter, Carville, Begala and others too numerous to mention.

OswaldTheOsprey

Luckily I do not have the pleasure of knowing ANY of the names you quote (people exist in other tele-cultures, you know).

I've had enough of this.  If you can't grasp the point that personal behaviour, public or private, is irrelevant to the truth of ones utterances, you are frankly on the wrong board.  Try looking up 'relevance' (and go beyond just a dictionary...).

And you get to vote!  Wow!

In this particular instance personal information could have relevance, the article suggest Mr. Hitchens does not use truth honestly. imho this is a serious charge against someone trying to prove things using facts. It casts doubt onto his conclusions, not by attacking the presumably good logic used to reach it, but by discrediting the foundations of data those arguments are based on.

"facts shmacts, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

Very good analysis.

OswaldTheOsprey

FWIW, Hitchens is not a neo-conservative.  He is arguably a trotskyite, and has never hidden his affection for marxist analysis.  That some of the left dislike him doesn't make him a conservative.

He is definitely backing the Iraq war or did. You are right about his views on economics. He also apparently is a crude boor.

OswaldTheOsprey

He can be gracious as well, though he appears to have a surplus of vices.

Yes, he does back US policy in Iraq, but he does so for reasons consistent with his leftist history.

He also was a veheminent critic of Bill Clinton from the left.

OswaldTheOsprey

Indeed... get used to it, Sadly, ad hom's are often accepted as valid lines of reasoning here... :( :-\

Mr. Hitchens was the one using the ad homs.

OswaldTheOsprey

An Argument ad Hom is an argument against the man no matter who does it first or second.  Bach was a boor, Mozart was a childish ass, many Pope's were womanizers, etc.

Of course, I could argue that a womanizing Pope is worse, since he is also a hypocrite. Hitchens is an ass, and frankly his arguments are poor. But I would prefer to talk about ideas rather than people.

I am well aware of what an ad hominem argument is. Hitchens accused the priest of being a child molester-ad hominen if there ever was one.

OswaldTheOsprey

Doesn't matter to poor barney.  As long as Hitchens is an atheist, he could also be a child molester and barney will still gravitate towards him.  It is a flaw in his character.

Personally I like Hitchens, I enjoy reading his work.  I don't agree with his stance on atheism, but unlike the somewhat nazi like tactics of barney and company, I am willing to allow atheists their faith based belief system just as I allow everyone their faith based belief system.

Hitchens doesn't fit in any one camp of thought or ideology.  Its one reason I enjoy reading and critique of his work.

Good going!   Not only do you change the subject and endorse the use of fallacious arguments (if you know what an ad hom argument is, why do you use one?), you come up with another fallacy - the tu quoque.

I reckon you are simply trolling on behalf of logic teachers everywhere!  Keep it, there's a shedload of bad arguments to come!

 :sleepy: Oh! Did someone say something?

OswaldTheOsprey

I like Hitchens, but he's hit and miss politically. He's a good example of how people can make good points in one area, yet be retarded in others (religion vs iraq). His work on religion is generally good and accurate. I loved the Missionary Position.

Only the village idiot would call someone like Hitchens retarded.  It reflects poorly on you that you believe any issue that you are not in favor of is somehow retarded.

Disagreement, coming to a different conclusion, that is something to respect.  Calling somone who is logical retarded?  Now that is retarded.  ::)

Retarded? Definitely not. Crude? Definitely.

OswaldTheOsprey

No, the village idiot would be the one to take every single sentence 100% literally, especially when the first part of the statement indicated just the opposite.  Hitchens position on Iraq is, in fact, stupid as shit. It's not logically supported, nor is it based on any evidence. It's based on his personal delusion and ideology. He's not literally retarded, though, which should be obvious, since I claimed he has well--thought, intelligent positions.  Do you have a learning disability, Balder? Really. I ask because autism is a disorder wherein children often cannot understand non-literal language.

You fit the classification. You take everything 100% literally.

If only.

In this case he is crude and retarded.

Technocrat