On I Love You Christopher Hitchens, You Irritating Bastard
@vespavirgin a "wet" towel?
0
On I Love You Christopher Hitchens, You Irritating Bastard
@The Defeatery that is fair-- I am a dick. But, the larger crime here is not being able to recapitulate the actual arguments set forth by one's literary enemies. Otherwise, one is just engaging in dishonest strawman arguments; and if I have to choose between being a dick, or being a dishonest person-- I choose the former. The article's author chose less wisely--and frankly that is one rung lower on the ladder into hell in my opinion. The least anyone can do is give an honest account of their nemesis' actual arguments then try to skewer them. But few people can do this-- and I take exception to it. I can politely disagree with someone if they have radically different views from me-- as long as they do not engage in this kind of immoral tactic (see: lying). Being "nice" to dishonest folk aint on my to-do-list. I hope you can see the subtle difference. I think we are both right -- I am a dick-- and the author is lying. Win/Win. ;)
1
On I Love You Christopher Hitchens, You Irritating Bastard
@Scum -- The central conceit of The Moral Landscape is so clear and self-evident that only true rube would claim it the "worst book ive ever read". You are either too obtuse to understand basic moral syllogism or just one of those religious water-head types that is congenitally incapable of 21st century thinking. I cannot even imagine being a person like you. It would be one thing to disagree with it-- that is all part of the dialectic-- but to call Harris an "idiot" is just to show your ass. What a filthy little beast you are...
0
On I Love You Christopher Hitchens, You Irritating Bastard
Look, this article was fun to read for a while (I like shades of grey too-- and lionizing and lamenting the Hitch is my old job) but the obtuse and fall-down-drunk manner in which you describe the religious debate is just too much.
First of all, the trinity (Hich, Dawk, Harris) all admit that there are "good folk" among the faithful--this is not their goddamn point. The textual substrate for their religious philosophy (hint: the Bible, Q'ran, blah blah) is what is suspect. Next, the corollary behavior that we all know and love (suicide bombing, inquisitions, teaching nonsense to children, et.al.) is seen as a logical result of the obscene 'morality' of these stupid books (and empirical evidence is supplied). This is not saying there are no good people that are religious; it is saying the religious texts are stupid and evil and the people who believe in the them are more likely to do and say stupid and evil things as consequence. Duh.
I think you are just retarded on this matter and should go ruminate over something else. Jesus Xmas what a display of moral stupidity.
0
On I Love You Christopher Hitchens, You Irritating Bastard
@scrooge Hitchens says, "there is no evidence for god, and I'm glad for it". Get his actual position correct first--then critique it. This is the lest any of us can do if we even pretend to be honest.