Tharoor is arguing an impossible point. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Hitchens states it correctly, who will be the judge of freedom of speech? The local sports club, religions, private committees, prime ministers, presidents, dictators... WHO? No one is up to that task and never will be. I with Hitchens, I won't have it either!
6:45 to 7:45 is utterly disgusting. Tharoor keeps saying "I'm not saying people should censor their own works to appease the mobs, but... well, maybe they should have perhaps censored their own works slightly, possibly, to avoid causing all of that trouble."
Tharoor: "We should take into account the fact that our words have consequences."
Bakewell: "What does 'take into account' mean?"
Tharoor: "Well, maybe the short story could have had a different title
shashi tharoor a typical dhimmi, an apologist for muslim extremists who protest cartoons of their lunatic cult creator, and at the same time defending a mischief maker average over hyped average painter like hussain
Every time I refer to Hitchens when discussing religion I get accused of idolizing him as a "profet" in religious terms. They say there is no difference between me listening to hichens and christians listening to a priest. But I beg to differ. Thats nothing but a poor desperate attempt to draw me down to their blind religious level.
He really is a voice of reason. Guys like him are in very short suply, and I was so saddened when I learned he has terminal canser. But does that stop him? NO!
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
Dang, some of you people are so wet for Hitchens. I admire Hitchens's skill, but to deny Tharoor's capacity for careful thought and well worded ideas is foolish blindness at best and exclusive cultism at worst. Such blind admiration is detestable not only by me, but most likely by the subject admired in this example as well!
Tharoor keeps talking circles of bullshit, while Hitchens carefully and precisely destroys his arguments. One I have noticed in this debate and the one Hitchens had with Alister McGrath is how elegantly simple Hitchens arguments come across, while his opponents speak so many intelligent sounding words that say nothing at all and comes across as nothing but elegant bullshit.
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world.
@sushirollsound I suppose if you define a "real man" as someone who can survive in the wild, fix a car, and win a fight as opposed to someone who is brave enough to spend his life defending the freedom of himself and others at the risk of himself and those he loves, then yes...Hitchens is not a real man. I daresay that your contempt for Hitchens has more to do with your own intellectual cowardice than your desire to speak and express yourself freely without having to answer to any authority.
@sushirollsound Can YOU save the planet single-handedly? If so, why haven't you done this, Mr. Man?
Hitchens would most likely survive in any environ he chose because he's got the intellectual capacity to learn and adapt.....something that cannot generally be said of your average hunter, mechanic of brawler.
You're harping and whinging about the educated and erudite when it is their integrity and strength of conviction that has wrought ALL the positive change on this planet.
@sushirollsound Can YOU save the planet single-handedly? If so, why haven't you done this, Mr. Man?
Hitchens would most likely survive in any environ he chose because he's got the intellectual capacity to learn and adapt.....something that cannot generally be said of your average hunter, mechanic or brawler.
You're harping and whinging about the educated and erudite when it is their integrity and strength of conviction that has wrought ALL the positive change on this planet.
@ciaochowbella I don't consider the last couple thousand years of "Progress" to be positive, and I don't consider the modern atheist intellectuals like hitchens and dawkins to be advocating something that is at all positive. As comfy as some of us are in this technological prison it is a world that further isolating us from the uncompromising reality of the universe and our relation to it. Technology is merely a man made god, and Hitchens and Dawkins are it's messengers.
@sushirollsound So you pefer a world where people are stoned for minor offenses and no one understands germ theory and most children die before age 5?
You do realize, don't you, that you CAN divorce yourself from the "technological prison" and live in the woods like a wild man if you choose. The fact that you sit in front of your computer and make wild, fantastical accusations and ill-conceived condemnations instead of actually DOING what you profess marks you as a weasly little malcontent.
and no I can't save the world single handedly obviously. Hitchens lives in world of speculation, not action. On an expedition to the Arctic, like so many, "Civilized people" before him, I find it very likely that he would freeze in the brutality of the conditions unlike the areas native people. In the event of a nuclear fallout, he would be in a city, and thus, the first to go.
@sushirollsound Why don't YOU go on an Arctic expedition then? You seem to think that men ONLY define themselves by surviving in extremely hostile, wild conditions yet you sit comfortably in front of your piece of technological advancement and complain about how someone smarter than you would die sooner in a scenario in which we'd all likely die.
Instead of being such an whiner and twee little twat, go boldly forth and join an Antarctic expedition. BE A MANLY MAN!
@ciaochowbella I'd love to hear you bitch and wine naked chained to an iceberg in negative 40 degree 20 knot gusts covered in fish guts and a cock in your mouth wriggling and screaming for your hungry cunt. How's that for manly you fat fucking pervert cock tripping bitch ego fuck. please suck on my wrath you piss bucket pseudo intellectual colorless college cum gargling whore. was that manly enough?
@sushirollsound Misogyny isn't manly, boy. In fact, it's the opposite. It's weak, shrill, pathetic and fearful of the feminine. Your blatant hatred and violent reaction to me as a woman speaks VOLUMES about your own shortcomings and does not actually address nor denigrate me at all.
See, what children like you fail to realize is that I cannot be demeaned or defamed by the likes of you. I would have to ALLOW that and I would never allow something as inferior as you to do that.
Fuck youtube, fuck atheism, fuck the ruling class, fuck all you mindless fucks that are too brainwashed to detect anything divine or eternally true about this planet and this universe.
@sushirollsound Excellent reply from one who can only bitch and moan about things he doesn't understand or is excluded from.
BTW, was that supposed to be a rebuttal or a cry for help?
Also, I hate to disabuse you of your dearly held prejudices, but atheists do experience the trancendent and numinous but don't feel the need to attribute that to an invisible sky daddy. To think that the universe needs a creator or a designer is the posit of the brainwashed.
Did you hear some members of the audience actually start to applaud when she mentioned that this offensive play had been shut down by threats? Hooboy...
@sanoreddy "whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech)." Because belief in imaginary 'gods' is insulting and harmful to the well-meaning rational people of this world who actually want to improve things as opposed to waiting for judgement day. Religion allows people to shake off responsibility and have a very perverted view of the life, the planet and 'morality'.
Do you think if there is no concept of religion in the world then you think humans going to stop fighting? :))
people need reason to fight/blame/racial-discrimination/supress/patriotic views/war-heros/immigration-laws/unfair-trade/arms-race bla bla bla
once you stat seeing a person just as a human-being without any steriotype(religion/race/nationaliy/costumes/language/poor-rich etc) I am sure all problems will be solved automatically. in other words promote being good(human)
@sanoreddy In an ideal world where everyone was RATIONAL, maybe. The fact is many people get their motivation to do harm based on religion. All those things you listed off can be excused by some religious worldview. There is no good reason to tolerate the intolerable.
@sanoreddy "whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech)."
The freespeech argument only had to be emphasized in reaction to the immoral behaviour of the 'insulted' believers. They are immediately insulted due to their brainwashing and merely emotional attachments to their religion. Theologians have an 'intellectual' attachment to their 'faith' and usually orbit much closer to 'agnosticism' (as true faith is agnostic and religion is gnostic).
I admire people's thoughts about having a world without a religion & living with common-sense. but we can do it in better ways like constructive discussions/debates/famous people interviews/movies etc. good change never seeks offenssive path(depicting idols in a insulting way). if you depict Buddha or Jesus as a gay, I defnately feel sorry for people's immature actions in the name of freedom of speech.
@sanoreddy I doubt their existence therefore depicting them anyway I choose is appropriate. If you have silly beliefs, expect them to be laughed at, regardless of subject matter. Feel free to reciprocate in kind.
@sanoreddy The "I am offended by that" is not a valid argument. And in the context of religion, the secular world is offended by it every day and cannot expect to converse about it's merit or lackthereof without having to constantly face the whine.. One's religious 'devotion' is rooted in emotion, afterall, so offense cannot be avoided, especially by those who've never questioned their own belief systems before.
@sanoreddy If it's a sound and informed world view then there's nothing to be offended by...and it can withstand questioning/examination and ridicule. We mock political/social/racial/cultural beliefs that have no merit and we very well should.
Humility and humbleness should not trump thorough examination of any held belief..especially if the belief itself/doesn't promote practicing those very virtues.
There's a distinction between the belief and the believer, we are not our beliefs.
Notice how the woman is in quivering awe of Hitchens' masculine, rational, singular voice. His intellect is a turgid rapier rising to ravish her mind's ready sheath that too long has been starved for knowledge by the likes of apologist effeminates like Tharoor. Hitchens to her is the epitome of man, and Tharoor the flaccid opposite. Her mind is getting wet for more and look how she leans forward in unconscious attraction to the lettered musk emanating from Hitchens' Rabelaisian glands.
hitchens is the epitome of a troll, he is a hero of mine but in the real world he is an impotent, fat angry ugly old man and would leave the old biddy dissapointed.
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world.
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world. t
@biliev1 what a load of crap. she is only interested in interrupting hitch so she can hear herself talk. your ten cent interpretation only applies to your own obvious hitch-worship and has nothing to do with the above video.
@biliev1 I think ur in quivering awe of the hitchs rational blaise (which is clearly full of holes and as rigourous, but brittle, as any other religious dogma)s and are ready to get ravished by anyone,whose olfactory bulb hasnt bin punctured from years of exposure to putrid gases.Tharoors just being apathetic, as is evident! For a mind, that doesnt get dynamics required of the socially intelligent/average and words are just comfort food to feed ones own ravenous narcissism,wise words=lost cause.
You completely miss the point. Western interference in arab countries and the isreal palestine situation dont change the fact that calling for violence because you perceive offense is wrong.
"calling for violence because you perceive offense is wrong".
Really? I havent missed the point, allow me to elaborate on the point: Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland dont just call for violence, they commit acts of savage barbarity, as did the Catholic Croations and the Orthadox Serbians against Muslims in Yugoslavia.
The Israel-Palestinian situation affects EVERYTHING, given time it may lead to Armageddon.
Read some history books, Christians were fanatics before Islam existed.
I am disappointed with Tharoor! following his line of agruement people could lash out violently every time their so called feelings are hurt! who is to define hurt? Does that mean you can kill someone because they tore your favorite teddy? and then say, if you hadn't torn by teddy you wouldn't have died? Sad argument by Tharoor!
Well done Hitchins, for telling the TRUTH, and having the Balls to do it. Maybe you could lend some of your courage to Tharoor the PC appologist for muslims. They could burn his house down and he would most probably find an excuse. I understand now why he didn't win the UN post, he is a light weight, without the moral courage, to call a spade a spade.
Though a right wing party was in power at the time of Mother's death, they gave her a state funeral, but stayed away from it themselves. The state where she worked, West Bengal, has mainly Marxists and the centrist Congress. While the Indian leftists had nothing but praise for her work, she would often disagree publicly with them on various issues. i want this pseudo-leftist to back up his views with concrete proof.
The deal is, all religion is a scam and so they allow opposing cults and charlatans a wide latitude. Because if they didn't the whole scam would unravel and they would be out of a job and they would lose control of the ignorant masses.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
People like you fight for gay rights, and yet seem so insecure of your own sexuality, going about making gay jokes. Don't deny it, I saw your comments about Perez hilton and how 'gorgeous' you thought he was, on the Miss California video. You sick faggot.
That's right, you bending over for your daddy as well isn't love either. I understand you have a lot of anger about how you were sodomized by all the men in your life and how you got that special tingle and felt guilty. It will be alright when you come out of the closet, maybe you can get a sex change and dress up like that evil cunt Mother Teresa.
@stamporomano You got your facts pretty wrong, that's for sure....the right wing party you're referring to came to power in 1998, while Mother Teresa passed away in '97.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mother Teresa has tended to the sick and poor all over the world. She doesn't pick and choose which countries to go to on the basis of internal politics, and this explains why she has visited both right-wing repressive nations like Haiti and left-wing repressive nations like Albania. Hitchens can't stomach this and indicts Mother Teresa for servicing dictatorships. Now if his logic is to be followed here, then most Peace Corps workers and Red Cross personnel are guilty of courting despots.
But Mother Teresa didn't just visit those places, did she?
Sure, one must go these places in order to help. But the difference between Mother Teresa and the Red Cross is that Red Cross workers don't publicly praise the regimes in the countries where they work.
Mother Teresa, meanwhile, made official photo-op visits to these places, and PRAISED THEIR LEADERSHIP, thus lending them enormous credibility from a "saint" while they murdered their own people.
Proof and links please. Just Hitchens' articles? Not adequate. For instance, he claims Mother Teresa was close to some of the reactionary political parties in India. A classic case of a pile of unsubstantiated nonsense bound together and presented as fact, in the hope that people with no clue will believe all he says.
There you go...visits to dictatorships. You just validated my point about the Red Cross. All you have as unbiased and verified info, is the fact that she visited these places to do charity. I see propaganda as taking basic facts, like , for instance, the fact that she happened to visit a place, then putting your own spin on it, knowing that the average Joe in America has no idea of how reviled Mother Teresa and the Church are by reactionary political groups, whether in India or anywhere else.
The church of course is intertwined with dictatorships. It keeps the people ignorant and strapped with too many mouths to feed so they are easily enslaved.
She also took money from dumb asses like you that was donated with the hopes it would ease people's suffering and heal them. Instead this evil cunt let them lie and the hard floors and die. Meanwhile the church held the money so the could wear Prada and rape little boys.
Tharoor is far too diplomatic to debate Hitchens. Though these two are equally matched in wits, reasoning, intelligence, and articulation (a notion doubtlessly concluded by anyone who has prior knowledge of the two participants), Hitchens always seems like he's "winning" because of his more aggressive and seemingly passionate tactics. Pathos, I suppose. But Tharoor definitely should not be disregarded as a weak debater; both have valid points.
There are thousands of books that criticise Islam, and these authors do not get death threats. I believe there is a way to critique. Critiquing to offend is different from critiquing to correct with due respect.
I am of the opinion that if I speak ill of Hitchens using, say, four letter words youtube will censor my line. And I'd say youtube is right in doing so.
My feeling is that Hitchens view is too extreme. If everyone goes ballistic the world will be an unpleasant place to live.
I am not sure if all people in the West are used to it... but do you think it's a civilised way to use four letter word... to your parents, professors etc? Isn't there a civilised way of talking? I think there is.
Well, no, I wasn't referring to the use of the f-word. Indeed, there is something like a proper etiquette.
What I was saying is that critiquing to offend is not a bad thing per se, sometimes it is just necessary (when we're talking about taboos, for instance).
And then again, when we're talking about religion, there is simply no gentile way of telling someone "I believe your life is based on a lie". So we shouldn't try too hard either; radical honesty can be the first step to debate.
Hitchens view is too extreme, so you should kill him?
Even if you were to curse his name, Youtube would not send people to kill you. Nothing should be exempt, no speech is so bad that it should not be allowed. A word does not kill.
@BR, I think critiquing to offend has lesser convincing power than critiquing to correct. In cases where the latter option is available, I wonder why one should choose the former.
I think there is a gentle way to reason things out even in religion. Suppose you give reasons why you think it's a lie and things like that... It's no just religion all ideologies need to be critique rationally, but with due respect for each other.
Criticising people, even if only to correct them, can easily cause offense just the same. That's pretty much what Hitchens is saying. Even if you don't mean to be offensive, people who are determined to be offended will be.
And so, given this inevitability of offending people by advocating gay rights or the truth of evolution or whatever, it appears to be entirely pointless to censor oneself on the basis that someone will be offended.
Fair enough that some will be offended anyway. But I would bet that most educated/ rational people would not have predeterrmined mindset to be offended whatever it is. I have never met any educated atheist who is determined to be offended whatever case it is nor have I met any Muslims of such sort.
I think most people are intelligent enough to be able to read the attitude of the speaker. So that if the speaker means to offend they get it right, though sometimes they may misread.
I agree with you amairaja that "critiquing to correct" is a far better option. However, when you're up against religious fanatics, there is no such thing as "critiquing to correct". I think that many people, including Christopher Hitchens, have found that trying to take these fanatics through, step-by-step, is impossible, and in order to get there message across, they HAVE to offend.
No, it's important to be rude to fanatic people. If everyone avoids being rude to them, they go through life thinking there's something "criminal" with people being impolite to them.
Youtube sure won't do that. But I have not seen atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jains etc send people to kill... To my knowledge it's only Muslims who do that. So instead of taking religion in general, if one specifies it as Islam that would make the discussion more meaningful...
By what right can one person censor another or punish them for expressing their own ideas? As Hitchens says, who's given the power to dictate what free individuals may say? Who's going to be given the privilage of deciding what is and is not acceptable?
The only way to protect the right of all individuals to freedom of expression is to deny anyone the ability to arbitrarily dictate what others can say.
You can't just acquiesce to a movement that wants to limit freedom of expression, even if it's in so-called 'free' countries. The movement for cencorship has to be resisted because it does pose a real threat to freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, some countries in Europe are much better off than others. Compare, for instance, Austria and the UK.
And which of the both is better off?? UK which is banning Wilders and Savage from entry because a muslim member of the house of lords threatens to summon thousands to the streets or Austria where they imprison these crazy holocaust-deniers?
I'd still have to say that the better country is the UK though, despite its faults. Why? Because in the UK you can still express doubt over the accepted view of the Holocaust without being sent to jail.
Fox News offends me in the extreme - that does not permit me to set fire to their studios or threaten their employees... that is the bottom line--- you may not use violence no matter how much you are offended.
Showing the play to the sikhs is an attempt at trying to find out if something in it is offensive to the community in question. I still fail to understand why people who do not completely understand what they were doing (since they felt the need to be verified before hand) bother. Aren't these half baked attempts guilty of social irresponsibility? They should play (or write or draw) about things they know and understand, should'nt they?
Tharoor does seem to have a slight insight that stupid brainwashed people are almost as detached from their actions as the mentally retarded. It's not got much weight behind it, but it does appear to be a valid point.
Hitch is so right. After 9/11 it is like we went back in time 300 years where mob rule and emotion reign supreme once more. I too thought we had left that behind. As he says, "get used to it or DON'T get used to it"
Problem is people are so lazy and pre-occupied with their own lives these days that they would easily let a police state come in and take away their freedoms without a fight. (if it hasn't completely happened already)
Every day I look at religion, it seems to me to be the one thing holding back any sort of progress that we as the human race are trying to make. How civilised a species can we really be when this type of backward thinking not only permeates through society, but is actively looking to subvert it? Religion is all about fear. Fear of a creator god, and fear of those who uphold the dogma and rules of that particular god, bearing in mind that there is zero evidence for the existence of any god.
i think tharoor agrees that the actions of Musliums are ridiculous but disagree that we should ignore it and continue to offend them because its freedom of speech....according to hitchens
In other words, Hitchens and tharoor agrees on their opinion on the end but differ on the means.
What should be done is that we should take into account both sides of arguments and come to our own personal conclusion after a deep and critical though of both sides.
and tharoor is not 'agreeing' to hitchens. All he is doing is being diplomatic to avoid 'explosions'.
A debate IS a competition. Sometimes audience votes are even taken at the beginning and the end.
Tharoor seems incapable of forming any coherent position to take against Hitchens. Instead, he just kind of crumbles into reluctant agreement. How couldn't he? Hitchens is a brutally logical and creative debater - one of the best in the world.
I don't know if Tharoor has a position to take against Hitchens. I think they agree on pretty well everything. Tharoor is "passionate for freedom of speech", BUT he thinks that you do have to take into account that freedom of speech has consequences that the speaker must bear in mind. This is not an unreasonable statement. Every half intelligent person would and should do this. I;m sure Hitchens would agree with this.
Happyinnanaimo, you (and Tharoor) have a point. But it's people, not their ideas, that merit initial respect.
The problem is that when it comes to religious matters, "respect" can be a code word for coerced timidity. Nobody in a free society should have to shrink from criticizing religion out of fear. Some religious communities are demanding respect of their ideas with the implicit threat of violence (or, sometimes, litigation), and that runs totally against the premise of free democracy.
this isn't really a debate (they, of course, call it one) because you can't tell on what are they actually disagreeing - there are no fundamental differences of opinion between them.
so yes, this is formally a debate, but in practice, it's just a discussion - no winners, no losers (i doubt it's even important).
hitchens isn't winning, because he can't win - his arguments are more appealing, though.
it depends upon the audience. fox news have a very different audience to abc or cnn. so you cannot categorially imply that hitchens is 'winning' or 'right'.
you are a fan of hitchens and thats why you cannot tell the difference between sarcasm and logical arguments.
It is the duty of all citizens to "take into account" what may offend the religious community and then wholeheartedly go out and do it all the more until they get off their high horse and chill out.
Why is it always the non-violent people who need to show self restraint?
TomVodkaCollins 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from IReupload
This has been flagged as spam show
Tharoor is arguing an impossible point. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Hitchens states it correctly, who will be the judge of freedom of speech? The local sports club, religions, private committees, prime ministers, presidents, dictators... WHO? No one is up to that task and never will be. I with Hitchens, I won't have it either!
Sconezeta 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sconezeta 1 month ago
6:45 to 7:45 is utterly disgusting. Tharoor keeps saying "I'm not saying people should censor their own works to appease the mobs, but... well, maybe they should have perhaps censored their own works slightly, possibly, to avoid causing all of that trouble."
Tharoor: "We should take into account the fact that our words have consequences."
Bakewell: "What does 'take into account' mean?"
Tharoor: "Well, maybe the short story could have had a different title
VidkunQL 1 month ago
shashi tharoor a typical dhimmi, an apologist for muslim extremists who protest cartoons of their lunatic cult creator, and at the same time defending a mischief maker average over hyped average painter like hussain
pakpakpakakk 1 month ago
dickhead tharoor....hypocrite...
srprasad 2 months ago
love u hitchens
CyprusHot 3 months ago
World will miss Hitchens.
Graham6762 3 months ago
Every time I refer to Hitchens when discussing religion I get accused of idolizing him as a "profet" in religious terms. They say there is no difference between me listening to hichens and christians listening to a priest. But I beg to differ. Thats nothing but a poor desperate attempt to draw me down to their blind religious level.
He really is a voice of reason. Guys like him are in very short suply, and I was so saddened when I learned he has terminal canser. But does that stop him? NO!
ragnarlava 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
i hate that woman's fucking voice and im from the uk
Nightwisher87 7 months ago
I love Hitch!!!
m5rule 7 months ago
what play are they talking about does anyone have info about this, I cant find anything on google
slovakmath 7 months ago
@slovakmath Behzti
vimalpatel87 6 months ago
@vimalpatel87 thanks
slovakmath 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
Salimlahore 9 months ago
okay I'm done. you mindless fucks. you worship these people.
sushirollsound 9 months ago
fuck illumanati, fuck globalization, fuck the us, fuck capitalism, fuck christianity in the name of christ.
sushirollsound 9 months ago
Dang, some of you people are so wet for Hitchens. I admire Hitchens's skill, but to deny Tharoor's capacity for careful thought and well worded ideas is foolish blindness at best and exclusive cultism at worst. Such blind admiration is detestable not only by me, but most likely by the subject admired in this example as well!
InsulatedSynapse 9 months ago 2
@InsulatedSynapse brilliantly put sir.
panniize 5 months ago
Tharoor keeps talking circles of bullshit, while Hitchens carefully and precisely destroys his arguments. One I have noticed in this debate and the one Hitchens had with Alister McGrath is how elegantly simple Hitchens arguments come across, while his opponents speak so many intelligent sounding words that say nothing at all and comes across as nothing but elegant bullshit.
Cykarus 11 months ago
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world.
sushirollsound 11 months ago
@sushirollsound I suppose if you define a "real man" as someone who can survive in the wild, fix a car, and win a fight as opposed to someone who is brave enough to spend his life defending the freedom of himself and others at the risk of himself and those he loves, then yes...Hitchens is not a real man. I daresay that your contempt for Hitchens has more to do with your own intellectual cowardice than your desire to speak and express yourself freely without having to answer to any authority.
iamnothowardhues 10 months ago
@iamnothowardhues
sushirollsound 9 months ago
@sushirollsound Can YOU save the planet single-handedly? If so, why haven't you done this, Mr. Man?
Hitchens would most likely survive in any environ he chose because he's got the intellectual capacity to learn and adapt.....something that cannot generally be said of your average hunter, mechanic of brawler.
You're harping and whinging about the educated and erudite when it is their integrity and strength of conviction that has wrought ALL the positive change on this planet.
ciaochowbella 10 months ago
@sushirollsound Can YOU save the planet single-handedly? If so, why haven't you done this, Mr. Man?
Hitchens would most likely survive in any environ he chose because he's got the intellectual capacity to learn and adapt.....something that cannot generally be said of your average hunter, mechanic or brawler.
You're harping and whinging about the educated and erudite when it is their integrity and strength of conviction that has wrought ALL the positive change on this planet.
ciaochowbella 10 months ago
@ciaochowbella I don't consider the last couple thousand years of "Progress" to be positive, and I don't consider the modern atheist intellectuals like hitchens and dawkins to be advocating something that is at all positive. As comfy as some of us are in this technological prison it is a world that further isolating us from the uncompromising reality of the universe and our relation to it. Technology is merely a man made god, and Hitchens and Dawkins are it's messengers.
sushirollsound 9 months ago
@sushirollsound So you pefer a world where people are stoned for minor offenses and no one understands germ theory and most children die before age 5?
You do realize, don't you, that you CAN divorce yourself from the "technological prison" and live in the woods like a wild man if you choose. The fact that you sit in front of your computer and make wild, fantastical accusations and ill-conceived condemnations instead of actually DOING what you profess marks you as a weasly little malcontent.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
and no I can't save the world single handedly obviously. Hitchens lives in world of speculation, not action. On an expedition to the Arctic, like so many, "Civilized people" before him, I find it very likely that he would freeze in the brutality of the conditions unlike the areas native people. In the event of a nuclear fallout, he would be in a city, and thus, the first to go.
sushirollsound 9 months ago
@sushirollsound Why don't YOU go on an Arctic expedition then? You seem to think that men ONLY define themselves by surviving in extremely hostile, wild conditions yet you sit comfortably in front of your piece of technological advancement and complain about how someone smarter than you would die sooner in a scenario in which we'd all likely die.
Instead of being such an whiner and twee little twat, go boldly forth and join an Antarctic expedition. BE A MANLY MAN!
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
@ciaochowbella I'd love to hear you bitch and wine naked chained to an iceberg in negative 40 degree 20 knot gusts covered in fish guts and a cock in your mouth wriggling and screaming for your hungry cunt. How's that for manly you fat fucking pervert cock tripping bitch ego fuck. please suck on my wrath you piss bucket pseudo intellectual colorless college cum gargling whore. was that manly enough?
sushirollsound 9 months ago
@sushirollsound Misogyny isn't manly, boy. In fact, it's the opposite. It's weak, shrill, pathetic and fearful of the feminine. Your blatant hatred and violent reaction to me as a woman speaks VOLUMES about your own shortcomings and does not actually address nor denigrate me at all.
See, what children like you fail to realize is that I cannot be demeaned or defamed by the likes of you. I would have to ALLOW that and I would never allow something as inferior as you to do that.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago 2
@sushirollsound Your rant is one hell of an advertisement for religion
noamorwell 1 month ago
Fuck youtube, fuck atheism, fuck the ruling class, fuck all you mindless fucks that are too brainwashed to detect anything divine or eternally true about this planet and this universe.
sushirollsound 9 months ago
@sushirollsound Excellent reply from one who can only bitch and moan about things he doesn't understand or is excluded from.
BTW, was that supposed to be a rebuttal or a cry for help?
Also, I hate to disabuse you of your dearly held prejudices, but atheists do experience the trancendent and numinous but don't feel the need to attribute that to an invisible sky daddy. To think that the universe needs a creator or a designer is the posit of the brainwashed.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
how can anyone be an Atheist because Hitchens is God!
RikiTikiTavi91 1 year ago 10
Did you hear some members of the audience actually start to applaud when she mentioned that this offensive play had been shut down by threats? Hooboy...
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
Tharoor, I am disappoint..
indiangoku 1 year ago
As a Philadelphian I have to say we were very happy to have him. He was mentioned several times in school during history and science classes.
hop208 1 year ago
Lame audience. No one got the Unitarian joke.
Nishap739 1 year ago
Chris Hitches Vs a lame fluffy Peacock dancing!
it was a monologue and rightly.
sushanalone 1 year ago
"they fucking, flat-out, lied to him!"
GodDebate 1 year ago
Depict Jesus, Buddha, Rama, mahaveer, Guru nanak along with prophet Mohammd in insulting characters?
and lets see how people react?
whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech).
sanoreddy 1 year ago
@sanoreddy "whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech)." Because belief in imaginary 'gods' is insulting and harmful to the well-meaning rational people of this world who actually want to improve things as opposed to waiting for judgement day. Religion allows people to shake off responsibility and have a very perverted view of the life, the planet and 'morality'.
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@MindfulFuture
Do you think if there is no concept of religion in the world then you think humans going to stop fighting? :))
people need reason to fight/blame/racial-discrimination/supress/patriotic views/war-heros/immigration-laws/unfair-trade/arms-race bla bla bla
once you stat seeing a person just as a human-being without any steriotype(religion/race/nationaliy/costumes/language/poor-rich etc) I am sure all problems will be solved automatically. in other words promote being good(human)
sanoreddy 1 year ago
@sanoreddy In an ideal world where everyone was RATIONAL, maybe. The fact is many people get their motivation to do harm based on religion. All those things you listed off can be excused by some religious worldview. There is no good reason to tolerate the intolerable.
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@sanoreddy "whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech)."
The freespeech argument only had to be emphasized in reaction to the immoral behaviour of the 'insulted' believers. They are immediately insulted due to their brainwashing and merely emotional attachments to their religion. Theologians have an 'intellectual' attachment to their 'faith' and usually orbit much closer to 'agnosticism' (as true faith is agnostic and religion is gnostic).
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@MindfulFuture
I admire people's thoughts about having a world without a religion & living with common-sense. but we can do it in better ways like constructive discussions/debates/famous people interviews/movies etc. good change never seeks offenssive path(depicting idols in a insulting way). if you depict Buddha or Jesus as a gay, I defnately feel sorry for people's immature actions in the name of freedom of speech.
sanoreddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sanoreddy I doubt their existence therefore depicting them anyway I choose is appropriate. If you have silly beliefs, expect them to be laughed at, regardless of subject matter. Feel free to reciprocate in kind.
"I am offended by that."
"Well so fucking what?"
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@sanoreddy The "I am offended by that" is not a valid argument. And in the context of religion, the secular world is offended by it every day and cannot expect to converse about it's merit or lackthereof without having to constantly face the whine.. One's religious 'devotion' is rooted in emotion, afterall, so offense cannot be avoided, especially by those who've never questioned their own belief systems before.
MindfulFuture 1 year ago 3
@sanoreddy If it's a sound and informed world view then there's nothing to be offended by...and it can withstand questioning/examination and ridicule. We mock political/social/racial/cultural beliefs that have no merit and we very well should.
Humility and humbleness should not trump thorough examination of any held belief..especially if the belief itself/doesn't promote practicing those very virtues.
There's a distinction between the belief and the believer, we are not our beliefs.
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
Depict Jesus, Buddha, Rama, mahaveer, Guru nanak along with prophet Mohammd in insulting characters?
and lets see how people react?
whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech).
sanoreddy 1 year ago
Notice how the woman is in quivering awe of Hitchens' masculine, rational, singular voice. His intellect is a turgid rapier rising to ravish her mind's ready sheath that too long has been starved for knowledge by the likes of apologist effeminates like Tharoor. Hitchens to her is the epitome of man, and Tharoor the flaccid opposite. Her mind is getting wet for more and look how she leans forward in unconscious attraction to the lettered musk emanating from Hitchens' Rabelaisian glands.
biliev1 2 years ago 136
I must point out that your comment says quite a lot more about you, and what you've got on your mind, than it does about the female moderator.
UnderTheTunk 2 years ago
@UnderTheTunk
I was thinking the exact same thing, haha.
Somebody's got a mancrush.
twholland1 2 years ago
@UnderTheTunk
I think that was half the point.
wightboy12345 1 year ago
lol
westwaytv 1 year ago
@biliev1 Dude... seems like he's having pretty much the same effect on you... ;)
anuragsingh84 1 year ago
@biliev1 please wipe your cum before you leave
hitchens is the epitome of a troll, he is a hero of mine but in the real world he is an impotent, fat angry ugly old man and would leave the old biddy dissapointed.
sorry to break your fantasy lol
GBJ83 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biliev1
Depict Jesus, Buddha, Rama, mahaveer, Guru nanak along with prophet Mohammd in insulting characters?
and lets see how people react?
whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech).
sanoreddy 1 year ago
@biliev1 Sounds erotic. lol
lmihay 1 year ago
@biliev1 best youtube comment ive ever read this was so epic i wish i could thumbs up more than once
griz88 1 year ago
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world.
sushirollsound 11 months ago
Hitchens is a real man? Do you seriously believe that if Hitchens was left to his own devices he could survive in the wild? Fix a car? Win a fight? Quit smoking? Oh, how about this one...save the planet? The fact is if left to our own devices few of us would. Something that such intellectual elitists can't seem to understand, blind to the vast classes and sects that hold him up in his state of "Indulgence", which is also something to say for the rest of the white, western European world. t
sushirollsound 11 months ago
@biliev1 "look how she leans forward in unconscious attraction to the lettered musk emanating from Hitchens' Rabelaisian glands."
That was worthy of Hitchens himself!
ciaochowbella 10 months ago
@biliev1
Well said, good sir.
kissmygrittsyall 8 months ago
@biliev1 Holy shit, well done sir
iowntwocats 5 months ago
@biliev1 Rubbish.
panniize 5 months ago
@biliev1 this is probably the best comment on all of youtube XD
Aaronthegreatest 2 months ago
@biliev1 what a load of crap. she is only interested in interrupting hitch so she can hear herself talk. your ten cent interpretation only applies to your own obvious hitch-worship and has nothing to do with the above video.
theID2 2 months ago
@biliev1 I don't think you meant to use "turgid". It means inflated, overblown, or pompous; bombastic: turgid language.
khasab 1 month ago
@biliev1 I think ur in quivering awe of the hitchs rational blaise (which is clearly full of holes and as rigourous, but brittle, as any other religious dogma)s and are ready to get ravished by anyone,whose olfactory bulb hasnt bin punctured from years of exposure to putrid gases.Tharoors just being apathetic, as is evident! For a mind, that doesnt get dynamics required of the socially intelligent/average and words are just comfort food to feed ones own ravenous narcissism,wise words=lost cause.
tannumyjaan 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is without doubt a great scholar but he over-simplifies the problem. Islam and muslims dont live in a vacuum.
The West needs to stop interfering in Arabian politics.
Israel needs to give the Palestinians a fair deal.
Islam needs to moderate it's reactions to infidels.
All a lot easier to write than acheive, still, good luck with that.
P.s. It would be a lot easier if everyone followed my example and worshipped the god Pan. The one and only truly holy, divine and sacred deity!
Kralhonj 2 years ago
@Kralhonj
You completely miss the point. Western interference in arab countries and the isreal palestine situation dont change the fact that calling for violence because you perceive offense is wrong.
CJkofoed 2 years ago 2
"calling for violence because you perceive offense is wrong".
Really? I havent missed the point, allow me to elaborate on the point: Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland dont just call for violence, they commit acts of savage barbarity, as did the Catholic Croations and the Orthadox Serbians against Muslims in Yugoslavia.
The Israel-Palestinian situation affects EVERYTHING, given time it may lead to Armageddon.
Read some history books, Christians were fanatics before Islam existed.
Kralhonj 2 years ago
@Kralhonj I find that people who invoke the over-simplification argument do so in order to split hairs to accomodate their point of view.
Either something is, or it is not.
JasonEA 2 years ago
I have a markedly better and far easier solution to attain:
Make the practice of religion a crime, world-wide.
rusH1023 2 years ago
I am disappointed with Tharoor! following his line of agruement people could lash out violently every time their so called feelings are hurt! who is to define hurt? Does that mean you can kill someone because they tore your favorite teddy? and then say, if you hadn't torn by teddy you wouldn't have died? Sad argument by Tharoor!
view587 2 years ago
Agreed. By his reasoning my rape victim shouldn't have enraged me by refusing to have consentual sex with me. Disgraceful.
eyholmess 2 years ago
Hitchens is to the point... I don't like Shashi's typical European/Indian style pseudo-Secularism...
EsotericDesi 2 years ago 5
@EsotericDesi I am an admirer of Sashi tharoor and yet, I have to agree with you! Let's call a spade a spade!
view587 2 years ago
hitchens from 3:42 to 4:06. incredible.
tharoor's reaction tells it all.
game. set. match. hitchens.
chris28379 2 years ago 4
Was it really Hitchens vs Tharoor?
I saw it as: Hitchens, some Indian head of State and a crazy lady.
berlinbrown03 2 years ago
Wha? What's wrong with Joan Bakewell?
F33bs 2 years ago
Well done Hitchins, for telling the TRUTH, and having the Balls to do it. Maybe you could lend some of your courage to Tharoor the PC appologist for muslims. They could burn his house down and he would most probably find an excuse. I understand now why he didn't win the UN post, he is a light weight, without the moral courage, to call a spade a spade.
markwessex 2 years ago 2
Tharoor says-
1 - Lot of damage caused in Denmark by muslims, because of cartoons. Tharoor blames artist/papers to protect muslims sentiments.
2 - offices of papers damaged in india, ST blames artist/papers.
3 - Rushdie should have been sensitive, blames artist.
4 - Hussain - protects muslim artist, sod hindu public sentiments.
4 - Sikh play - Protects the artists, blames the Sikhs!
He is totally inconsistent. Either paid of by muslim mafia in pak/dubai, or shit scared! Understandable?
markwessex 2 years ago
is English your first language??
MrMorriz1 2 years ago
Today's Thomas Paine. Cheers to Chris!!!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago 56
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwolfcoach
Depict Jesus, Buddha, Rama, mahaveer, Guru nanak along with prophet Mohammd in insulting characters?
and lets see how people react?
whats the reason behind depecting such idols in negative way?( in the name of freedom of speech).
sanoreddy 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach It's Christopher.
kkanishev 8 months ago
@kkanishev Oops, is he your relative? Or am I taking liberties w/ formalities??
dwolfcoach 8 months ago
Way to go Chris!
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's really a shame to see that the greatest evidence against free speech can be found on the comments on video's regarding free speech.
violetninja 2 years ago
Though a right wing party was in power at the time of Mother's death, they gave her a state funeral, but stayed away from it themselves. The state where she worked, West Bengal, has mainly Marxists and the centrist Congress. While the Indian leftists had nothing but praise for her work, she would often disagree publicly with them on various issues. i want this pseudo-leftist to back up his views with concrete proof.
stamporomano 2 years ago
The deal is, all religion is a scam and so they allow opposing cults and charlatans a wide latitude. Because if they didn't the whole scam would unravel and they would be out of a job and they would lose control of the ignorant masses.
kokobaboko 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nothing you say is of any consequence, you worthless homosexual. Why interrupt a perfectly civil discussion.
stamporomano 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stop projecting, just because you secretly enjoyed the priests invading you from behind doesn't mean everybody does.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People like you fight for gay rights, and yet seem so insecure of your own sexuality, going about making gay jokes. Don't deny it, I saw your comments about Perez hilton and how 'gorgeous' you thought he was, on the Miss California video. You sick faggot.
stamporomano 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's right, you bending over for your daddy as well isn't love either. I understand you have a lot of anger about how you were sodomized by all the men in your life and how you got that special tingle and felt guilty. It will be alright when you come out of the closet, maybe you can get a sex change and dress up like that evil cunt Mother Teresa.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
@stamporomano You got your facts pretty wrong, that's for sure....the right wing party you're referring to came to power in 1998, while Mother Teresa passed away in '97.
noamorwell 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone who hates Mother Teresa can kiss my Catholic ass. Fuck you Hitchens.
stamporomano 2 years ago
Do you find it upsetting that Mother Teresa supported the dictatorships of Guatemala, El Salvador and Haiti?
Or was she really flawless?
CHF2 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mother Teresa has tended to the sick and poor all over the world. She doesn't pick and choose which countries to go to on the basis of internal politics, and this explains why she has visited both right-wing repressive nations like Haiti and left-wing repressive nations like Albania. Hitchens can't stomach this and indicts Mother Teresa for servicing dictatorships. Now if his logic is to be followed here, then most Peace Corps workers and Red Cross personnel are guilty of courting despots.
stamporomano 2 years ago
But Mother Teresa didn't just visit those places, did she?
Sure, one must go these places in order to help. But the difference between Mother Teresa and the Red Cross is that Red Cross workers don't publicly praise the regimes in the countries where they work.
Mother Teresa, meanwhile, made official photo-op visits to these places, and PRAISED THEIR LEADERSHIP, thus lending them enormous credibility from a "saint" while they murdered their own people.
Disgraceful.
CHF2 2 years ago
Proof and links please. Just Hitchens' articles? Not adequate. For instance, he claims Mother Teresa was close to some of the reactionary political parties in India. A classic case of a pile of unsubstantiated nonsense bound together and presented as fact, in the hope that people with no clue will believe all he says.
stamporomano 2 years ago
So Mother Teresa did NOT have good things to say about the Haitian regime?
She didn't visit Guatemala and not condemn the killing fields?
Good to know.
CHF2 2 years ago
Comment removed
stamporomano 2 years ago
How do you define "propaganda?"
If people recalling her visits to dictatorships is "propaganda" then I'm not sure exactly what kind of evidence are you looking for.
You want me to waste my time looking up 1980 newspapers to prove to you what is already well known?
CHF2 2 years ago
There you go...visits to dictatorships. You just validated my point about the Red Cross. All you have as unbiased and verified info, is the fact that she visited these places to do charity. I see propaganda as taking basic facts, like , for instance, the fact that she happened to visit a place, then putting your own spin on it, knowing that the average Joe in America has no idea of how reviled Mother Teresa and the Church are by reactionary political groups, whether in India or anywhere else.
stamporomano 2 years ago
The church of course is intertwined with dictatorships. It keeps the people ignorant and strapped with too many mouths to feed so they are easily enslaved.
kokobaboko 2 years ago 2
She also took money from dumb asses like you that was donated with the hopes it would ease people's suffering and heal them. Instead this evil cunt let them lie and the hard floors and die. Meanwhile the church held the money so the could wear Prada and rape little boys.
kokobaboko 2 years ago 3
How about, fuck you you ignorant fuck.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
Tharoor is far too diplomatic to debate Hitchens. Though these two are equally matched in wits, reasoning, intelligence, and articulation (a notion doubtlessly concluded by anyone who has prior knowledge of the two participants), Hitchens always seems like he's "winning" because of his more aggressive and seemingly passionate tactics. Pathos, I suppose. But Tharoor definitely should not be disregarded as a weak debater; both have valid points.
ManmohanKnowsAll 2 years ago 4
There are thousands of books that criticise Islam, and these authors do not get death threats. I believe there is a way to critique. Critiquing to offend is different from critiquing to correct with due respect.
I am of the opinion that if I speak ill of Hitchens using, say, four letter words youtube will censor my line. And I'd say youtube is right in doing so.
My feeling is that Hitchens view is too extreme. If everyone goes ballistic the world will be an unpleasant place to live.
amairaja 2 years ago
I'd say that people will get used to it quite quickly. That's what has happened in the West, and that's what should happen in the rest of the world.
BRtankbuster 2 years ago
I am not sure if all people in the West are used to it... but do you think it's a civilised way to use four letter word... to your parents, professors etc? Isn't there a civilised way of talking? I think there is.
amairaja 2 years ago
Well, no, I wasn't referring to the use of the f-word. Indeed, there is something like a proper etiquette.
What I was saying is that critiquing to offend is not a bad thing per se, sometimes it is just necessary (when we're talking about taboos, for instance).
And then again, when we're talking about religion, there is simply no gentile way of telling someone "I believe your life is based on a lie". So we shouldn't try too hard either; radical honesty can be the first step to debate.
BRtankbuster 2 years ago
Comment removed
myviewonly 2 years ago
Hitchens view is too extreme, so you should kill him?
Even if you were to curse his name, Youtube would not send people to kill you. Nothing should be exempt, no speech is so bad that it should not be allowed. A word does not kill.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
@BR, I think critiquing to offend has lesser convincing power than critiquing to correct. In cases where the latter option is available, I wonder why one should choose the former.
I think there is a gentle way to reason things out even in religion. Suppose you give reasons why you think it's a lie and things like that... It's no just religion all ideologies need to be critique rationally, but with due respect for each other.
Strongly agreed that radical honesty is primary.
amairaja 2 years ago
Criticising people, even if only to correct them, can easily cause offense just the same. That's pretty much what Hitchens is saying. Even if you don't mean to be offensive, people who are determined to be offended will be.
And so, given this inevitability of offending people by advocating gay rights or the truth of evolution or whatever, it appears to be entirely pointless to censor oneself on the basis that someone will be offended.
Zdrazy 2 years ago
Fair enough that some will be offended anyway. But I would bet that most educated/ rational people would not have predeterrmined mindset to be offended whatever it is. I have never met any educated atheist who is determined to be offended whatever case it is nor have I met any Muslims of such sort.
I think most people are intelligent enough to be able to read the attitude of the speaker. So that if the speaker means to offend they get it right, though sometimes they may misread.
amairaja 2 years ago
I agree with you amairaja that "critiquing to correct" is a far better option. However, when you're up against religious fanatics, there is no such thing as "critiquing to correct". I think that many people, including Christopher Hitchens, have found that trying to take these fanatics through, step-by-step, is impossible, and in order to get there message across, they HAVE to offend.
It may not be ideal, but that's the reality.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 2 years ago
No, it's important to be rude to fanatic people. If everyone avoids being rude to them, they go through life thinking there's something "criminal" with people being impolite to them.
rddaos 2 years ago
@ Taurus,
Youtube sure won't do that. But I have not seen atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jains etc send people to kill... To my knowledge it's only Muslims who do that. So instead of taking religion in general, if one specifies it as Islam that would make the discussion more meaningful...
amairaja 2 years ago
By what right can one person censor another or punish them for expressing their own ideas? As Hitchens says, who's given the power to dictate what free individuals may say? Who's going to be given the privilage of deciding what is and is not acceptable?
The only way to protect the right of all individuals to freedom of expression is to deny anyone the ability to arbitrarily dictate what others can say.
Zdrazy 2 years ago 3
I can't think of a single country in europe that passes that test.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
Yeah, exactly. That's entirely the point.
You can't just acquiesce to a movement that wants to limit freedom of expression, even if it's in so-called 'free' countries. The movement for cencorship has to be resisted because it does pose a real threat to freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, some countries in Europe are much better off than others. Compare, for instance, Austria and the UK.
Zdrazy 2 years ago
And which of the both is better off?? UK which is banning Wilders and Savage from entry because a muslim member of the house of lords threatens to summon thousands to the streets or Austria where they imprison these crazy holocaust-deniers?
Brantinger 2 years ago
Haha. Good point.
I'd still have to say that the better country is the UK though, despite its faults. Why? Because in the UK you can still express doubt over the accepted view of the Holocaust without being sent to jail.
Zdrazy 2 years ago
savage does not respect freedom of speech. he refuses to allow others to speak, then cries when he's not allowed to speak.
rddaos 2 years ago
Fox News offends me in the extreme - that does not permit me to set fire to their studios or threaten their employees... that is the bottom line--- you may not use violence no matter how much you are offended.
sarahnewt 2 years ago 3
Showing the play to the sikhs is an attempt at trying to find out if something in it is offensive to the community in question. I still fail to understand why people who do not completely understand what they were doing (since they felt the need to be verified before hand) bother. Aren't these half baked attempts guilty of social irresponsibility? They should play (or write or draw) about things they know and understand, should'nt they?
myviewonly 2 years ago
Could you elaborate on this? I don't really get what you're trying to say.
moiphx2 2 years ago
Oops! Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
According to the wikipedia article on him, he is a Hindu.
Still, I find him to be an apologist for intolerance.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
Tharoor does seem to have a slight insight that stupid brainwashed people are almost as detached from their actions as the mentally retarded. It's not got much weight behind it, but it does appear to be a valid point.
BayerLexan 2 years ago 3
7:45 he says they should have known to be afraid of what would happen if they angered Muslims. Blame the victim.
omgwtfwhoami 2 years ago 7
well said .
hmt444 2 years ago 2
hitchens puts things so eloquently and argues them so well.
aweiss 2 years ago 8
Hitch is so right. After 9/11 it is like we went back in time 300 years where mob rule and emotion reign supreme once more. I too thought we had left that behind. As he says, "get used to it or DON'T get used to it"
Jabo007Celt 2 years ago 3
Problem is people are so lazy and pre-occupied with their own lives these days that they would easily let a police state come in and take away their freedoms without a fight. (if it hasn't completely happened already)
Jabo007Celt 2 years ago
sadly that seems true.
aweiss 2 years ago
translate "self restraint" as self censorship!!!!!!!!
luappmek23 2 years ago 6
Every day I look at religion, it seems to me to be the one thing holding back any sort of progress that we as the human race are trying to make. How civilised a species can we really be when this type of backward thinking not only permeates through society, but is actively looking to subvert it? Religion is all about fear. Fear of a creator god, and fear of those who uphold the dogma and rules of that particular god, bearing in mind that there is zero evidence for the existence of any god.
JimShadyUK 2 years ago 5
Spot on Christopher.
Why conceed anything to a people who rape children and splash acid on their faces for refusing lie down and be raped?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago 3
agreed but, genetic fallacy
have to point it out on both sides, but I accept your point.
EternallySisyphus 2 years ago
i think tharoor agrees that the actions of Musliums are ridiculous but disagree that we should ignore it and continue to offend them because its freedom of speech....according to hitchens
In other words, Hitchens and tharoor agrees on their opinion on the end but differ on the means.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
I think Tharoor really does agree with Hitchens but he has to uphold the opposing argument which is done with a weak heart.
owenline 2 years ago 4
Tharoor's a lovely guy. But he loses. Hitchens rocks!
grundgemonster 2 years ago 3
Tharoor is a very weak opponent. His constant conciliations make me wonder what he's even trying to argue. Hitchens is dominating this handily.
paxson001 3 years ago
i wouldnt say he is weak, i think they really just agree with each other.
yamaha893 3 years ago 3
A Debate is not a competition.
To say that 'Hitchen's is winning' is your view.
For others, it might be Tharoor.
What should be done is that we should take into account both sides of arguments and come to our own personal conclusion after a deep and critical though of both sides.
and tharoor is not 'agreeing' to hitchens. All he is doing is being diplomatic to avoid 'explosions'.
ETworldjone 2 years ago 2
A debate IS a competition. Sometimes audience votes are even taken at the beginning and the end.
Tharoor seems incapable of forming any coherent position to take against Hitchens. Instead, he just kind of crumbles into reluctant agreement. How couldn't he? Hitchens is a brutally logical and creative debater - one of the best in the world.
paxson001 2 years ago 3
I don't know if Tharoor has a position to take against Hitchens. I think they agree on pretty well everything. Tharoor is "passionate for freedom of speech", BUT he thinks that you do have to take into account that freedom of speech has consequences that the speaker must bear in mind. This is not an unreasonable statement. Every half intelligent person would and should do this. I;m sure Hitchens would agree with this.
happyinnanaimo 2 years ago 8
Happyinnanaimo, you (and Tharoor) have a point. But it's people, not their ideas, that merit initial respect.
The problem is that when it comes to religious matters, "respect" can be a code word for coerced timidity. Nobody in a free society should have to shrink from criticizing religion out of fear. Some religious communities are demanding respect of their ideas with the implicit threat of violence (or, sometimes, litigation), and that runs totally against the premise of free democracy.
paxson001 2 years ago 4
this isn't really a debate (they, of course, call it one) because you can't tell on what are they actually disagreeing - there are no fundamental differences of opinion between them.
so yes, this is formally a debate, but in practice, it's just a discussion - no winners, no losers (i doubt it's even important).
hitchens isn't winning, because he can't win - his arguments are more appealing, though.
franzpolak 2 years ago
it depends upon the audience. fox news have a very different audience to abc or cnn. so you cannot categorially imply that hitchens is 'winning' or 'right'.
you are a fan of hitchens and thats why you cannot tell the difference between sarcasm and logical arguments.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
yeah we need to think "depp" about if violence and threats is ok or not . im still thinking deeply.
farerse 2 years ago
It is the duty of all citizens to "take into account" what may offend the religious community and then wholeheartedly go out and do it all the more until they get off their high horse and chill out.
Entropy56 3 years ago
Tharoor agrees with Hitchens enough to make us dubious whether there is an actual opposition here.
snowtrot 3 years ago
Who are you speaking for? All of us?
ashleylovesdaddy 3 years ago
In which public venue is smoking allowed? It reminds me of the old broadcasts from the early 1980s, where hosts were smoking on set.
qtronman 3 years ago
I'm appalled also Christopher. Keep up the good fight!
ChuckyHammer 3 years ago