Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Christopher Hitchens dies
45 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418
I've never agreed with everything Hitchens said/wrote, but love or hate him, it's surely pretty hard to deny his formidable intellect and remarkable eloquence made him one of the most interesting commentators around. And 'interesting' is doubtless how he would have liked to be remembered.
RIP Hitch.
[Apologies - I realise I have an annoying habit of posting questions that aren't really questions. Sorry...]
I've never agreed with everything Hitchens said/wrote, but love or hate him, it's surely pretty hard to deny his formidable intellect and remarkable eloquence made him one of the most interesting commentators around. And 'interesting' is doubtless how he would have liked to be remembered.
RIP Hitch.
[Apologies - I realise I have an annoying habit of posting questions that aren't really questions. Sorry...]
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kromovaracun, here's a little obituary
http://www.guardian.c...pher-hitchens-atheism
"his ability in discussions to adopt a counter-intuitive position and argue it with vigour even when it became obvious he believed the opposite."
As I've already suggested, he was just a professional arguer. Any barrister does this, though with less chance of getting a Vanity Fair contract and his name in lights.
http://www.guardian.c...pher-hitchens-atheism
"his ability in discussions to adopt a counter-intuitive position and argue it with vigour even when it became obvious he believed the opposite."
As I've already suggested, he was just a professional arguer. Any barrister does this, though with less chance of getting a Vanity Fair contract and his name in lights.
Jno - “... He was a great contrarian, he stood up for what he believed [in]... As did Pol Pot and many lesser lights...”
Why have you deliberately compared Hitchens (a man who did no physical harm to anyone) with Pol Pot who had at least two million (and maybe even as many as five million) people murdered?
I find your above statement quite perverse. Not liking Hitchens because of his beliefs is one thing. Comparing him to a mass murdering butcher is quite another.
Why don't you just call him Christopher Hilter and have done with it?
Why have you deliberately compared Hitchens (a man who did no physical harm to anyone) with Pol Pot who had at least two million (and maybe even as many as five million) people murdered?
I find your above statement quite perverse. Not liking Hitchens because of his beliefs is one thing. Comparing him to a mass murdering butcher is quite another.
Why don't you just call him Christopher Hilter and have done with it?
@birdie - I don't think that's quite the point jno's trying to make. All she's pointing out is that simply 'standing up for what you believe in' isn't necessarily the shining halo it's made out to be, because many people have done so with disastrous consequences. Which is fairly true.
With regards to how it applies to Hitch, I think calling him a 'professional arguer' implies a degree of inconsistency that he didn't have (and would imply insincerity as well). The way he justified his support for the Iraq war, for instance, was very consistent with his other political views and writings; if you consider his particular form/interpretation of Marxism, then his support for the West and for globalization is pretty consistent. Admittedly, I'm just going on his public writings here - he may well have delighted in playing devil's advocate just to annoy people in private (the author of your article actually met him after all and I never have). But I think if he were doing that as a professional writer, his writings would be a lot more inconsistent and betray more insincerity than they actually do.
Mind you, that's not to say he didn't like annoying people or making them angry. He certainly enjoyed that.
With regards to how it applies to Hitch, I think calling him a 'professional arguer' implies a degree of inconsistency that he didn't have (and would imply insincerity as well). The way he justified his support for the Iraq war, for instance, was very consistent with his other political views and writings; if you consider his particular form/interpretation of Marxism, then his support for the West and for globalization is pretty consistent. Admittedly, I'm just going on his public writings here - he may well have delighted in playing devil's advocate just to annoy people in private (the author of your article actually met him after all and I never have). But I think if he were doing that as a professional writer, his writings would be a lot more inconsistent and betray more insincerity than they actually do.
Mind you, that's not to say he didn't like annoying people or making them angry. He certainly enjoyed that.
Kromovaracun is correct. Oratory is not a wonderful thing in itself; nor is burning sincerity. Hitler, since you mention it, had both qualities in spades, and people thought they made him a great man. Remember, Hitler *didn't* kill millions of people. His eloquence led others to do it for him.
It's what you do with such qualities that counts. We know what Hitler did with them. What did Hitchens do with them? I've already argued, with supporting quotes from someone who knew him, that actually he wasn't always sincere at all - he just used the oratory for showboating. (I never met him either but have no reason to disbelieve the obituarist.) But I don't find that admirable either.
It's what you do with such qualities that counts. We know what Hitler did with them. What did Hitchens do with them? I've already argued, with supporting quotes from someone who knew him, that actually he wasn't always sincere at all - he just used the oratory for showboating. (I never met him either but have no reason to disbelieve the obituarist.) But I don't find that admirable either.
"I've already argued, with supporting quotes from someone who knew him, that actually he wasn't always sincere at all - he just used the oratory for showboating. "
And I have also argued, using examples, that this isn't evident in his public writings because they are more consistent than they would be if he were just arguing for the sake of arguing, though conceding that he may well have done it in person and certainly enjoyed argument.
And I have also argued, using examples, that this isn't evident in his public writings because they are more consistent than they would be if he were just arguing for the sake of arguing, though conceding that he may well have done it in person and certainly enjoyed argument.
@Jno - “... Remember, Hitler *didn't* kill millions of people. His eloquence led others to do it for him....”
Don't be so naïve. Hitler specifically *ordered* people to be killed as did Pol Pot. Just because Hitler didn't actually kill anyone with his own bare hands doesn't make him any less culpable. So too Pol Pot.
You specifically and quite deliberately compared Hitchens to a mass murderer. You could have compared him with any number of other peaceful people who are or have been great orators but because you clearly dislike the man, you chose to be nasty.
@Kromovaracun - “... All [Jno's] pointing out is that simply 'standing up for what you believe in' isn't necessarily the shining halo it's made out to be...
I disagree with your interpretation of what was intended by her statement. It was deliberately unpleasant.
Don't be so naïve. Hitler specifically *ordered* people to be killed as did Pol Pot. Just because Hitler didn't actually kill anyone with his own bare hands doesn't make him any less culpable. So too Pol Pot.
You specifically and quite deliberately compared Hitchens to a mass murderer. You could have compared him with any number of other peaceful people who are or have been great orators but because you clearly dislike the man, you chose to be nasty.
@Kromovaracun - “... All [Jno's] pointing out is that simply 'standing up for what you believe in' isn't necessarily the shining halo it's made out to be...
I disagree with your interpretation of what was intended by her statement. It was deliberately unpleasant.
it was not deliberately unpleasant; it was intended, as Kromovaracun understood, to point out that eloquence does not automatically make you good. To prove this, it was necessary to give an example where it did not; which I did.
Kromovaracun, as I said, I can't say from personal experience whether Hitchens was sincere in what he said and wrote. Here's another memoir from someone who knew him; like the other I linked to, it is ambivalent about him. (I find it intriguing that these come from friends rather than from obituarists striving to be impartial.)
http://www.guardian.c...r-hitchens-remembered
I have also seen obituaries arguing that he was consistent in everything all his life. I can only say that to be a supporter George W Bush and Karl Marx, and an opponent of Clinton and Saddam, doesn't seem an obvious marker of consistency.
I do acknowledge your fair point that if you have eloquence you might as well use it.
Kromovaracun, as I said, I can't say from personal experience whether Hitchens was sincere in what he said and wrote. Here's another memoir from someone who knew him; like the other I linked to, it is ambivalent about him. (I find it intriguing that these come from friends rather than from obituarists striving to be impartial.)
http://www.guardian.c...r-hitchens-remembered
I have also seen obituaries arguing that he was consistent in everything all his life. I can only say that to be a supporter George W Bush and Karl Marx, and an opponent of Clinton and Saddam, doesn't seem an obvious marker of consistency.
I do acknowledge your fair point that if you have eloquence you might as well use it.
Jno - “It was not deliberately unpleasant; it was intended, as Kromovaracun understood, to point out that eloquence does not automatically make you good. To prove this, it was necessary to give an example where it did not; which I did...”
I completely disagree. This a blatant attempt to justify your earlier statement by post-hoc reasoning. You are now suggesting that Pol Pot was an excellent and eloquent public speaker. Where is your evidence for this?
The very simple fact is that because Hitchens' opinions dramatically conflict with your own, you chose to compare him to one of the most unpleasant, murderous tyrants in recent recorded human history. You did this, not to prove that having a large vocabulary and the ability to use it effectively in a public forum doesn't necessarily make you a nice person, you did it to demonstrate your obvious loathing for someone you hold in contempt.
The fact that you don't seem to see a problem in this vile comparison speaks volumes about you.
I completely disagree. This a blatant attempt to justify your earlier statement by post-hoc reasoning. You are now suggesting that Pol Pot was an excellent and eloquent public speaker. Where is your evidence for this?
The very simple fact is that because Hitchens' opinions dramatically conflict with your own, you chose to compare him to one of the most unpleasant, murderous tyrants in recent recorded human history. You did this, not to prove that having a large vocabulary and the ability to use it effectively in a public forum doesn't necessarily make you a nice person, you did it to demonstrate your obvious loathing for someone you hold in contempt.
The fact that you don't seem to see a problem in this vile comparison speaks volumes about you.
there's no great shortage of evidence that Pol Pot was a good public speaker; you can Google it yourself, but to save yourself some trouble you could look at the third paragraph here:
http://www.massviolence.org/Saloth-Sar-Pol-Pot
or here:
http://www.lotsofessa...iewpaper/1702080.html
or the eighth paragraph here:
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/trial_es.htm
And could you stop the personal attacks on me, please? Kromovaracun, whose thread this is, has been courteous and thoughtful throughout, as he always is. You should do the same.
http://www.massviolence.org/Saloth-Sar-Pol-Pot
or here:
http://www.lotsofessa...iewpaper/1702080.html
or the eighth paragraph here:
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/trial_es.htm
And could you stop the personal attacks on me, please? Kromovaracun, whose thread this is, has been courteous and thoughtful throughout, as he always is. You should do the same.
Jno -
I am calling into question the reason why you compared the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, the author and public debater, with Pol Pot, the mass murderer. If you are offended by my robust defence of his memory then I make no apology for that. As I stated earlier, I believe that your original comparison was deliberately nasty due to the fact that his opinions and beliefs conflict with your own beliefs and opinions. In short, you took a cheap shot and hoped that nobody would notice.
I enjoyed your attempt to take the moral high ground by claiming that I should be '… courteous and thoughtful throughout, as [Kromovaracun] always is...”. You seem to have quickly forgotten that it was you that made the outrageously insulting statement in the first place. That you have not felt the compunction to apologise for comparing the recently dead Hitchens with a totalitarian murdering despot has not been lost on me, nor I suspect, others.
I am calling into question the reason why you compared the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, the author and public debater, with Pol Pot, the mass murderer. If you are offended by my robust defence of his memory then I make no apology for that. As I stated earlier, I believe that your original comparison was deliberately nasty due to the fact that his opinions and beliefs conflict with your own beliefs and opinions. In short, you took a cheap shot and hoped that nobody would notice.
I enjoyed your attempt to take the moral high ground by claiming that I should be '… courteous and thoughtful throughout, as [Kromovaracun] always is...”. You seem to have quickly forgotten that it was you that made the outrageously insulting statement in the first place. That you have not felt the compunction to apologise for comparing the recently dead Hitchens with a totalitarian murdering despot has not been lost on me, nor I suspect, others.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Should There Be Age Limits In Politics?
News13 mins ago
Politics19 mins ago
Film, Media & TV19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.