Hitchens was a pseudo-intellectual with a silver tongue. He understood the psychology of cultural memes but was utterly clueless when it came to any physical reality. Hitchens was no different than any garden variety radio talk show host or stuffed shirt politician or a used car salesman.
@MrArtstacks I was a bit boozed up when I wrote that; still seething at something he said to a 911 truther. I still feel that way but, hey; he's dead; his legacy can do no more damage. BTW I sort of agree; Atlas Shrugged was waaaay too long LOL
@MrSmackdab When you say 9/11 truther.......don't you mean a 9/11 nut? Hitchens did more for the world then your conspiracy ridden ass will ever do. You should bow down to the man who is your superior.
@MrSmackdab "pseudo-intellectual?" I can't help but wonder if you have ANY clue how f*u*c*k*I*n*g ignorant that statement is! Keep posting and attacking Hitch. We wouldn't want the world to forget what a fool you really are, now would we!
Hitchens claims that we ought not "super-irrigate" humanity with selfishness, that it's quite selfish enough already. True enough. But Rand's concept of selfishness -- rational self-interest -- is 180 degrees apart from the altruists' concept of selfishness, which most people hold, and which includes the man willing to lie, cheat, murder, and steal to acheive his ends. Read the book Hitchens has "some respect" for: "The Virtue of Selfishness" and judge for yourself.
@ampman76 How dishonest. Atheism is living in self. Living in self is selfish. The Liberal lies are so telling. "Sexual relations is not sex. - Slick Willie"
@emaleroland Atheism is living in reality as it actually is and taking it for what it is. Rand (who was an ahtiest) holds that it is altruism that gives us the concept of "the selfish brute," and that actual selfishness is merely "concern with one's own interests."
Before I was led home, I hear a wicked chinese lady spoke about clawing her back. I did not know what it meant. I was led back home when the crazy doctor accelerated my heartbeat to a painful degree and he gave me a choice to go home immediately. I called my home phone number. The Neuronphone wrote the same buddhist flower design on her back, she shown me that after I was led to talk to my parents that Neuronphone forced me to do. It was not as simple as anyone would think, to borrow power frthn
Well, then I may disclose the fact about my father and mother sharing their part of punishment while I get my brain and eyes lasered. My mother got her back skin wrote a buddhist flower design that was written by a Malaysian government friend in the book she presented to her. The same design that was written by that hypocrite government personnel was written the same design on my mothers back. The same design on a skin. My father got the cholesterol pumped out of his right eyeball while readpape
'Cult' is an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an admission of defeat. In saying 'cult' you only expose your hatred of something that condemns your faulty ideas. You can never have the moral high ground by adhering to a system of brute force to achieve what you believe to be good. Good can only come from choice. Unless, of course, you believe in virtuous theft? That's what you statists believe in.
@Deadwind002 don't be a fanboy. just because a claim is presented in ad hominem form doesn't mean its wrong, otherwise then you could handwave away all cults everywhere. there is a distinct convalescence around rand and a willingness to suspend critical examination of her books because they use an appeal to flattery to obtain your argreement. youre made to think your unjust decisions are just because you made them freely; that youve earned your privileged lifestyle in a vacuum
@195ashes Nope, you're sort of missing the essential point; none of it has anything to do with charity. The point you're missing is that it should be the choice of every individual to choose for him or herself what he or she will do with the fruit of his labors -- whether to spend on one's self, a hundred charities, or stick all the money in the mattress -- It is ONLY the choice of the INDIVIDUAL who created whatever it is they created -- no one else's.
Rand's philosophy has been denigrated by describing it as "selfish" and "self-centered" in the generic sense. In the broader, more individual sense, it is a matter of recognizing your own self-worth as well as the worth ofThe Rand philosophy states that *your* thoughts, words, actions, behaviors, desires, are YOUR OWN and no one else has the right to simply TAKE the fruits of your labor and ability for themselves in order to choose who will profit from YOUR thoughts, ideas, abilities.
That is the difference between the individual -- who takes the fruits of his labors and abilities and creates things to the benefit of all -- AS LONG AS HE WISHES, IN THE MANNER HE WISHES -- and the collective -- that wants to control the who, how, when, and why of everyone's life and abilities.
In the former, the collectivist mentality (which has grown incredibly, unfortunately strong in the US) will take the fruits of the labor of the strong, the intelligent, the productive, and "give" it to those, in the language of the collectivist, "simply can't be as good."
We have seen this in progress for the last 3 years; it continues each time we hear that there are people who have "too much" and "must give" to those who do not "have enough."
@MCzwz One could argue that the purpose of government is for the weak to subjugate the strong. To impose a collective strength over those that carry too much authority in their individuality. It's not like we live in a Hobbesian society, the state of nature where man destroys the weak for petty gains.
"Some turds float to the top, some float to the bottom, but in the end they all get flushed." Think about it, your individualism is pointless.
@MKWestberg I would say that should be the purpose of government, and we should work towards a form of government in which that is the case, but I think government at the moment is very much controlled by the "strong". And the irony (although its not *really* that ironic at all, when you look at how the economy functions), is that the "strong" for whom the governments of the world currently rule are more than not likely to be Ayn Rand fans. She was nothing but an apologist.
@dalellll Agreed, all the did was right a book so rich dickheads could sleep better at night knowing that their million dollar caviar is waiting for them in the morning while other people starve. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe her book was a way to destroy the collective. The masses are weak when they are separated, but strong together. Maybe her take on individualism was to reinforce that idea, and keep the masses weak? That would be good a good essay. CONSPIRACY!
@MCzwz And therein lies the fundamental problem. Rand took the 'individual' as an axiom. The problem is, as an account of personhood, it's metaphysically flawed. We are not radically individuated: every fact about us implies the existence of others, and our being is constituted by these social facts. It is from these that the person emerges, almost as an epiphenomenon.
@Spoonface370 The thrust of Rand's case for individualism is man's mind. "There is no such thing as the collective brain" - on that verse alone could you argue against it? Social groups are simply collectives of individuals. We arrive armed only with our minds and should be free to use them. If our actions benefit others I have no problem with that, unless it was by force or intimidation. We may well come into being due to the act of others, but once we do our free will is our own.
@Avidcomp The 'collective mind' statement is a dreadful straw man fallacy. Qua persons, we are *essentially* social (and saying that "Social groups are simply collectives of individuals" begs the question). We arrive burdened with an immense amount of sociality - nationality, family, home and neighbours, class, wealth or poverty - we choose none of these. Incidentally, the idea of free will in the Randian sense has been massively eroded by cognitive research over the last few decades.
@Spoonface370 I'm hardly going to support the findings of cognitive research without asking you to at least provide me with the institutions and academic findings to digest them myself. Being born into any society does not mean I have to shoulder it's burden. If I were born into a Christian community should I accept original sin? If I am not permitted free will I am a slave. I cannot choose the community that allowed me to be, but I should be allowed to leave them.
@Avidcomp It's not a political point about your freedom, it's a metaphysical one about your being - not about what you're allowed to do, but about what you *are*. Whatever you choose to do, you will always be the person who was born into that community and chose to leave. These facts point to the existence of others, and along with innumerable other facts analagous to these, constitute you. Rand's individualism requires this not to be the case, and as such is technically absurd.
@Spoonface370: I'm afraid you're confusing community with forced participation. Hithchens believes an individual must be forced and coerced into doing things and Ayn Rand believes that free will and individual choices should not be forced or coerced. It is Hitchens, like all ignorant big government statists, who are cultists, not Ayn Rand.
Community is morally strong when individuals are free to fail and succeed, give, etc. There is no morality is forcing people to do things.
@Deadwind002 actually you are completely incorrect, morality is what guides society. Many cultures throughout our existence have advocated sociopathic tendencies and murder to create a hierarchy within their class system. If our country truly believed in free will and choice you wouldn't be going to jail when you brutally murdered your two year old child. Just because you've had a "correct" American upbringing does not mean your community has been morally strong due to free will.
@myothercariseva01 free will is a natural tendency. what we believe in is individual rights, which murder, understandably, would violate.
i think the misconception of free will is that it allows one to do anything without consequence. there's no natural barrier to hinder you from stealing, but you can, if that's your will. but to get caught is an acknowledgement of you violating someone else's individual rights. that's why we discourage it through law. at least... that's the idea.
@Deadwind002 You're missing the point. As I said in the last post, I'm not talking about the politics of community. I'm talking about the metaphysics of personhood - what a person *actually is*. Rand's politics depend on the claim that people are irreducibly individual. This is, for the reasons I've set out, not how people are. We don't exist prior to our attachments, contra Rand/Rawls/Locke. We're constituted by them. Rand's politics fail because dependent on a metaphysical error.
(Continued) - and the point is, once we see that Rand is wrong in her account of what people are, we have to draw our political conclusions from that. Rand's accounts of community, altruism, desirable economy and government and personal ethics all absolutely depend on the idea that people exist as entities prior to any of their attachments. As this is not the case, her other ideas fall by that error.
@Spoonface370 To call Rand's individualism technically absurd would require one to accept Spinoza's argument as fact. I certainly can't dispute his rational as false, but neither can I say through reason that it is absolute. So "absurd" seems to require proof that remains subjective for now. I do not have room to extrapolate examples here, but to say that my own mind has proved to be some what at odds with the product of those around me, so my question is, why?
@Avidcomp Not at all. Spinoza's pantheism is at the other end of the spectrum and there are many positions in between. I'm not arguing for a mystical pantheism. On the contrary, unlike Rand, I'm entirely naturalistic. The attachments which constitute you are natural facts (nationality, family, cultural values etc). Your facticity is inescapable, it *IS YOU*. Even if you repudiated family, nation and cultural values, they would still, through the repudiation, constitute you.
@Spoonface370 I have two problems with your analogy. 1) You are defining me and within the definition you present, there are others that would disagree with it, thus it would seem more apt for me to define myself. 2) On conclusion of my previous point, the things that you are speaking of, the natural facts, may well define just about every part of me...except my mind. I do not accept that for example genes have any influence over my thoughts. It is that that I refute.
@Avidcomp You aren't able to entirely define yourself. That's the point. You have no control over who your family are, where you were born, the cultural values you initially inherited, and these are you as much as your mind or any choices you make are. As to the genes point: I've been talking about social facts, not biological determinism, but I disagree with you here as well. Genes influence but do not entirely determine behaviour.
@Spoonface370 The salient point here is the thoughts that I have are my own. It is my thoughts that are mine and mine alone and this is how I can choose how to reason. I can allow myself to be influenced by external influences and appease others around me, or I can reason for my own sake. That is the choice of the individual. Only the individual can make that choice. To think for the benefit of others or for ones self. It is here that I agree with Rand.
@Avidcomp Again, no. You, as a person, can think, but as I've argued you do so from within a framework of facticity, including a vast cultural reference (not least that within your language). You as a person are not antecedent to that and cannot get outside it - there is no view from nowhere. The person who does the thinking is *constituted by* facticity. You are not an unencumbered self who can choose to be influenced by your facticity or not. It's inescapable.
@Spoonface370 I don't deny that I have ridden on the shoulders of all that have come before me, but what Rand is saying is I do not need to serve them. Aren't we over complicating this very simple point. Once I am me, whatever I am, I can choose not to serve others. I can decide to do something for my own benefit and should not and do not feel guilty for an act of selfishness through my own reasoning however I came to be.
@Avidcomp Again, my point is not about your choices or political status. It's not about 'riding on the shoulders of others'. It's about what being a person consists in. The kind of irreducibly free individual Rand bases her arguments on must be without any kind of *essential* social encumbrance. The problem is, this is not what persons are. You inescapably act from within these encumbrances - social facticity is what's real. The 'individual' is an epiphenomenon, a metaphysical myth.
@Spoonface370 I want you to address social encumbrance. I'm not clear on what you mean here. She talks about virtue in free exchange with others and free acts of altruism where the act of altruism is not a virtue in itself. Perhaps you could provide some reading material suggestions as we have come "full circle" now. I am enjoying this engaging discussion despite as yet reneging away from Rand's fundamentals.
@Avidcomp What I mean is that the social facts about you, which 'encumber' you (I don't mean this in a pejorative sense by the way), rather than being facts about a 'you' who exists antecedent to them, make up what you are. The person is not something separate to these social facts which has complete control over its facticity and can pick up and put down all its sociality as it pleases. You are made up of your social ties, roles and history.
@Avidcomp The result of this is that the 'individual' - taken to mean a rational being in complete control of all his circumstances and nature - doesn't exist. You are subject to social facts you cannot escape and which you didn't choose - even obligations you have at best limited control over. The problem for Rand is that her ethics are based on the idea that the individual exists and is sacrosanct. If we reject that idea, her philosophy of self and ethics don't make sense.
@Spoonface370 Let's not get into another loop. I say that because Rand doesn't claim that we are in complete control of all circumstances and nature. This is not how I see an individual even from my understanding of Rand's point of view..so I will press you for some recommended reading material as it's clear to me that you have been influenced by some academic work somewhere along your own journey. If you have no objections.
@Avidcomp Fair enough. Probably the biggest influences on me are Ryle's 'The Concept of Mind' and Wittgenstein's later work, particularly Philosophical Investigations, and ordinary language philosophy in general really. Hume as well, for his denial of personal identity. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (despite his viewing persons as rational). Michael Sandel. Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue'. John Gray, particularly his collection 'Heresies Against Progress and Other Illusions'.
@Spoonface370 Thanks. Neither of us believed that we were here to convert, nor should we. You have given me some more reading material and I thank you for that. I am just finishing Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, which you might find interesting.
I'll admit I have a limited understanding of objectivism but it seems to me it states that my own luxury and pleasure should take precedence over helping other people (I don't whether it's as extreme as saying that if I have money for a new T.V. that is a better use of my money than aid for the dying in Africa). Can anyone more educated on the subject explain whether this is correct or not?
well that was a let down, i was wondering what hitchens would say to besmirch objectivism.. apparently nothing here.. i hear he was a fierce defender of statism though, and ayn rand was a minarchist
After viewing this video clip, I'd say that Christopher Hitchens did not destroy the cult of Ayn Rand. He merely expressed disdain for Rand's advocacy of selfishness.
@WhyTheHorseface - well, he pretty much stated that her work was a waste of time. She was strenuously arguing for something that required no argument.
A writer with a liberal arts background that advocates selfishness as a virtue is hardly someone worth admiring on any level. Pretty sure their are better role models out there.
There's self-centered, then there's self reliant and self regulating. The former is what is destroying the world, the latter 2 are what we all ought to strive for. A self centered person who doesn't believe in gay rights believes gays should have no rights. A self-reliant person shows indifference because nothing those gays can do can cause them any harm.
A self centered person gives to charity so they may be perceived as generous, a self reliant person gives so that others may receive.
Well, I wouldn't want that job. The broad has been dead & buried since the 80's. Probably in a rather deplorable state by now. Of course, she wasn't much of a babe when alive.
I think that was a great take down of Objectivism. But people who didn't have much social success in high school keep tracking down Ayn Rand in college to tell them 'no you were special, those people who wouldn't let you sit at lunch with them, they're not. and when you get yours you hold on to that lunch room envy.'
icklepoo in 50 years none of us will be remembered, Hitchens will, when hopefully, organised religion is even smaller than it is now.. Oranised religion is dying out, yippee, enjoy your god fantasy for as long as you can or until you see the REAL light.. No god, no angels, only money wanted and your return abject misery...
@432ps1 Ad Hominem. It's really all Objectivist's have, since you Kant understand she failed the "is/ought" gap from Hume. Rand & Friedman were by all accounts sociopaths. No moral compass, screw everyone but me. I would've like to see them eat each other
@Bolgernow Negro please. Go beg for symapthy on another street corner. The big bad world don't owe you nuthin. Being a useful idiot kneeling at the altar of statism is no way to go through life, son.
@432ps1 oh, so you Kant debate the merits, only insult others. Typical. Objectivism fails the prisoner's dilemma, & the volunteer's dilemma. The world doesn't owe us anything. We as a society owe the concept of our Social Contract to each other, nothing more. I can see by no channel access you're a screw, a crank, a nut, insane. Good luck!
@Bolgernow America's "social safety net" long ago became nothing but a hammock and cheap recruitment tool used by the left to facilitate its marching Socialist/Statist agenda. An agenda which disempowers the individual through forced collectivism where all power is created by, and emanates from, the state. I want government out of my gas tank, toilet, bedroom and lightbulb sockets. Government creates NOTHING. It only DESTROYS. It can't even run a post office, and boobs like you want MORE! LOL!!
@432ps1 ash yes, now spam my videos with irrational hate. Classic. If I don't agree with you, you will punish me? You can't touch me clown. My blog has over 16 million hits as I type this, & I'm humbled and lucky to have it. I have appeared in film, TV, & radio nationally. Have performed in front of 1000's. What have you done with your life? I think we're looking at it. No more food for you troll, you're less than nothing
@Bolgernow LOL! Aren't you just full of yourself! Bottom line: I don't know you, I don't wanna know you, and I don't give a flying fuck about you or your opinions. You're a fucking nobody, a two-bit, uneducated bullshit busker and half assed-table waiting carny begging for attention. Go sell your pencils to someone else.
I would rather contend that Socialism is strictly anti-statist if we are obviously speaking of its fullest extent, that is to say, State control of production isn't workers' control of production and I think the USSR pretty well demonstrated this distinction as pretty clear.
Now, if you are really talking about individual rights in any way that is worth listening to, you wouldn't advocate against the lesser of two evils.
The government is so truly a creating force that you can dedicate the presence of your comment on this page to governmental research; as well as your cell phone and many other convenience of modern technology which were, basically, achieved through highly state subsidized corporations under Federeal military programs.
If you again note, when a right wing government enters, they often don't even cut spending; they change the location for your low income pockets to the higher end ones.
And, as a final note, if you bothered about freedom for two pennies, you wouldn't stand on the side of the most inhumane form of authoritarian institution you can find in America, that is: corporations.
It might have not occurred to you, but an organization wherein orders are taken from above and wherein only people bellow are accountable for their actions is a form of despotism and the very fact that you are forced to rent yourself to them makes you a salve for all practical purposes.
Freedom requires the democratic control of the workplaces by direct representation and participation of the workforce in the decision process. That's a real Libertarian position: it's fundamentally socialist.
Hitchens is a genius and free thinker, not indoctrinated like so many unable to think for them self. The bible says burn witches, which you 'believers' are happy to either agree with or blatantly ignore.. Always remember too, the religion YOU believe in, the 1 of 1,000's available is RIGHT..
@432ps1 No, she didn't. Charles Dickens did. Then Saint-Exupery, Tolkien (twice), Cao Xequin and Agatha Christie. None of her novels are even in the top 100. However, one of Dan Brown's is, which shows that sales and quality aren't necessarily connected; still, Rand was probably held back in part because her novels are so utterly dreadful.
@wupeide I wonder the same thing. Hitchens was just an upscale Geraldo Rivera but drunker, hucking his garbage to the gullible. He was a man who did not posess one single original thought and in the end, achieved and contributed- nothing.
Will anyone remember or read Hitchens in 50 years? I doubt it. Ayn Rand is still alive because her ideas continue to influence people. To be self-centered one must have a "self" to center on; Hitchens really never had it. Rand did.
Ayn Rand had many flaws, was not much of a writer and her life was hardly exemplary. Nevertheless she contributed more than a few useful ideas to the great conversation.
Hitchens by contrast was never anything more than a drunken old queer who managed to steal about 70 years worth of oxygen he had no business sucking on. Hitchens was a hack and his admirers consist mostly of hacks and poseurs themselves. Hitchens was a charlatan's charlatan in addition to being an appallingly bad writer.
@MrTexasArcane Hitchens was a modern day PT Barnum worshipped by an army of the willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. A hero to the stupid who did not posess one original thought. On top of that, he's boring. Just goes to show you: Anyone can come to America and succeed at almost anything.
@432ps1 "Rand was a sociopath worshipped by an army of the willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. A hero to the stupid who did not posess one original thought. On top of that, she's boring. Just goes to show you: Anyone can come to America and succeed at almost anything." I can use ad hominem too asshole
@432ps1 nor do I. Nor do I feel the need to spend money on some pseudo intellectual to give me boring screeds about how being a selfish douche bag is moral.
I can go to those socialists at the local library for free if I ever feel that masochistic.
Personally I dont' give a fuck about hitchen's. But since this is a video about Ayn Rand, your description seemed particularily accurate. IF you hadn't mentioned Hitchens I would have thought you were talking about rand.
hitchens disses ayn rand's novels. (once had a philosophy professor who did the same.) rand's novel Anthem from '38, i believe, inspired another russian author, whose much later very similar book played a significant part in his winning the nobel prize. come on, hitchens, you should know better than that! and rest in peace, my friend, all the same.
@vinnynumbnuts she was a crackpot, she said we should take teh oil from the arabs because it was OURS not theirs, she said a woman couldnt become president, she was generally nuts, luckily almost no one has a hoot who she is
@kingofmilwaukee6969 she was a crackpot, she said we should take teh oil from the arabs because it was OURS not theirs, she said a woman couldnt become president, she was generally nuts, luckily almost no one has a hoot who she is
@Ruffneckization Actually, she is one of the most influential writers of the 20th century and appears on lists of such over and over, even though her books were actually rather tedious in my eyes. But then again Lady Gaga is awful and she is amazingly popular. And she has been proven right about women becoming president, since in the 40+ years since she said that, she is batting 1.000. Either way, Hitchens' remarks were useless.
@kingofmilwaukee6969 What? He's saying that she's idiotic. So idiotic he doesn't understand what there is to talk about. In addition to the fact that her writing itself is transcendently awful.
I'm sorry - even Hitchens gives in to the cursory argument about not believing in or hating God because of the people who USE God to commit atrocities. There is no "moral necessity for atheism." There are good Christians and bad ones. There are good atheists and bad ones.
@ScreamingHeadAffairs what does that mean "good" or "bad" ones? very simplistic terms that do not make any sense that try to categorize two groups of people
@Ruffneckization Everything doesn't require SAT words. Use the context of the sentence to see the overall point I was trying to make. You are missing the forest for seeing the trees.
@ScreamingHeadAffairs no im calling you out on making an idiotic statement and classification...sat words (what the hell?). You're "larger" point was as simplistic and naive as the words you chose to put your classifications of groups in. Hitchens makes no such claim or argument. You're creating an artificial issue then proceeding to simplify it to create a "oh well it all washes" affect. Hitchens gives far more important reasons for not believing in the existence of god
@Ruffneckization A "reason for believing"? The entire problem with your argument is that it takes place in an absolutist universe. If you talk about a "reason for believing" in an absolutist universe, the entire argument becomes absurd before you begin. You either believe stuff exists or it doesn't. So discussing a "reason to believe" or "reason not to believe" is based on politics, not actuality. So you can't even have a discussion with me until you clear up your science. Idiot.
@ScreamingHeadAffairs actually no it doesn't, I dont clame to be absolutist about anything, especially in regards to the creation of the universe. the ONLY ones who are absolutist are the religious zealots who KNOW EXACTLY what will happen and what has happened,I do know based on my ability to reason there is no such thing as zeus or olympus and there was no such thing as a virgin birth or resurrection, when you make extraordinary claims YOU have to provide the evidence
@Ruffneckization Nope. You're now clutching at straw men, claiming the old, tired question that I must prove God. I CAN prove God, but not with the absolutist science you're talking about. You can't even talk to me until you move your thought process up to the relativistic universe of Einstein and the theories of dimensionality. You don't even get what I'm saying. I wasn't even talking about religious absolutism. Geez. You're so typical and I've been past this discussion for like 10yrs. Ctch up
I've always thought the same thing about ayn rand. I'm going to write a book that espouses masterbation and breathing. Oh hey maybe even one about not believing in fairy tales.
Crapped-out sodomite Christ' Hitchens died for his faith: the faith that radio waves, and the accompanying radiation-sickness, is organically therapeutic in regards to eradicating malignant (neoplastigenic) growth from mammalian tissue.
His view is founded off of his "morality," which is mere opinion and conjecture; a religion. He's provided no evidence for why anyone should even follow a moral code.
If I don't live or face consequences after I die, self-centeredness would be the only logical "moral;" my happiness is all that matters. If mankind's future is irrelevant to my happiness, so be it. If you feel I'm evil, justify it with evidence (and an absolute definition) of evil.
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva If you do not see anything wrong with feeling ambivalent towards human suffering then you have never been stabbed and left for dead, lived through a disastrous famine, or watched your family slaughtered by militia men. You are also probably pathologically ill. Despite being an anti-theist who believes that humans project meaning onto reality I believe that bad/evil is definable.
@SamySara2 Yes, but you cannot define it. You base your explanation of evil on your feelings, making your faith in it identical to that of a follower of any religion.
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva logically bad should be defined as the worst possible suffering for the greatest number of people. arguing against this would insinuiate that you're a psychopath. a good person is someone who wants to avoid this worst of fates for humanity. Now Brava, ignoring the cries of billions and being complacently apathetic about the future for your children and your childrens children is not the only logical moral decision. Not by a mile.
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Morality is a product of evolution. Social primates rely heavely on maintaining a social setting and this setting can only survive if an adequate level of solidarity and cooperation as well as empathy is innate within such primates, therefore morality is vital to our survival.
It's a better explanation than God told us what to do
@moroney1 Actually, it isn't an explanation at all; it is extremely vague speculation.
It is intelligence, fear, and selfishness that are vital to our survival, and the building blocks of civilized societies (and at the core of "morality").
Even atheists have vastly different views of morality. Look at Stalin's moral view and how many supported him.
"Morality" is at the core of countless wars, deaths, and atrocities. No one can define it beyond opinion and it just divides people.
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Atheists may have vastly different views on morality though, that doesnt mean they are right. Someone can disagree and say 2+2+=5 that doesnt mean they're correct. Killing an innocent is never right, we wouldnt have survived if we thought otherwise. So yeah Stalin might have disagreed with me, doesnt mean he had another morality, just a wrong or immoral stance
@moroney1 The fact is that you can't prove your claims. To say that something is correct or not entails providing evidence to support one matter over another. Terms like "innocent" are far too vague. One could make an almost impenetrable case that killing is correct and along the lines of survival of the fittest, which is the underlying premise of how mankind has survived to date. Morality is subjective; the only way everyone will follow a single moral code is under totalitarian rule.
Survival of the fittest is a cliched phrase never used by Darwin. I dont know whether youre playing devil's advocate or are just a contrarian, exactly what is it that you beleive?
Again just because there are many views on morality does not mean they are all correct. IF someone concluded that it was alright to kill an innocent that wouldnt mean they were correct to do so.
We wouldnt be here having this conversation if our species didnt have an innate solidarity
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Yes one could make the case that killing a man is correct, under certain contextual paramters. We all know that morals have a subjective gray area.
If your implying we should implement a totalitarian rule your an imbecile, or your religious, not that they are mutually exclusive.
Human kind has developed an innate morality, it's not absolute it can be ignored by some, but most people recognize killing someone isn't morally acceptable or benefital to our survival.
"I don't think there is any need to have essays advocating selfishness in human beings"
If you have understood anything about objectivism, you know Hitchens has not at this point. As he demonstrates, there is a lot to learn about selfishness, or the term mutates into some silly, colloquial smear word.
I'm not a philosopher, nor do I ever attempt to throw my hat in to any political ring. But Ayn Rand is just an awful person for the fact she can't write, at all.
@mrbittersnell you are wrong. [1] you are a philosopher. It like a human that says I am Not human: just saying it does not extricate humanity from the human; similarly with you just saying it does not exorcise "belief, philosophy" from you. The only question - said Ayn Rand - is whether you have correct or nonsense philosophy. [2] you call Rand awful but do not back it up and even state outright you don't know philosophy, so you are in error; [3] you say she can't write: but her books salesHUGE!
@britishbrainz (1) Calling me a philosopher would be like calling me a sociologist, I do not hold credentials in such a subject and nor do I care to (2) I am sorry I did not support my claim with any fallacies, but like I said I am not a philosopher and I missed that day of AP lit, Ayn Rand's Anthem is an awfully plagiarized version of We, plagiarism = bad (3) Many movies come out every year with awful scripts, we can't base sales on the accomplishments of an artist, that is almost paradoxical
@mrbittersnell Thanks for the reply. Let me be clear: Philosophy means "belief". It is Not a "choice" ! The choice you have is to identify correct philosophy - and - distinguish it from incorrect philosophy. I suggest Ayn Rand because I know her work and can rationally prove every other system to be wrong (try as I may: I can't find one fault in Rand).
Analogy: did you know EVERY man seeks their self interest ALWAYS ? The only question is whether its rational or irrational! The method is reason
@britishbrainz I guess you would be right if we were discussing 'philosophy' of a much more universal degree, but I am not. In the modern times of our lives 'philosopher' is almost an abstract occupation (I can revert back to the first pages of A Brave New World as an example, but there is a character cap) And about 'self interest' you are basically saying it is okay for a sociopath to kill their family because it fits their own self interest by believing Ayn Rand is right. I disagree.
@mrbittersnell Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. [1] The word and concept "philosophy" is one: there is no separation between what you call "universal degree" or what Huxley called a "Brave New World". [2] Self Interest. With greatest respect you have not understood this term, but that is not a problem. [a] Everyone seeks their self interest in all things at all times (like you and I, here!!). This includes Mother Teresa, Pope,Jesus (man), Hitler, your Mom. See Note 2 (continuation)..
@mrbittersnell Note 2 (continued from below): So the only question is whether your Mom, you, me,JFK, MARX/LENIN/STATIN, or Hitler: seeks RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL self interest. Your mom - if she loved you was RATIONAL. What is rational? This can be known through the METHOD of reason and logic. This is what Ayn Rand "nailed".
So if you help your neighbour or me: they/I doN't owe you ANYTHING. We are Not your slave, EVER. We owe you IF there is a contract. See note 3 for continuation..
@mrbittersnell Note 3(continued from note 2 below). If I am "BENEVOLENT" [free will, choice] then I have the OPTION but NEVER COMPULSION to help you back (if you helped me).
Once I landed in Heathrow,took bus to Victoria Station. Darn tired. A man came up to me with a trolley willing to help me with my bags to the rail. I accepted but found it weird because trolleys were FREE and this man is Not licensed (druggie). Upon getting to the train, he want MONEY for helping me. I was SHOCKED.He=wrong
@mrbittersnell Note 4 (final, continued from below). Summary: [1] you learn that helping another is OPTIONAL not COMPULSION, unless there is a legal contract in place (implied or actual). [2] Communism/Nazism/Statism: is where you are FORCED to support the State by over-loads who benefit (dictator,Monarch,Politburo etc.). SELFISHNESS is defined by the dictionary as "seeking your RATIONAL self interest" [N-E-V-E-R irrational]. [3] You don't OWE me EVER unless legal contract or tort relationship.
@mrbittersnell Note 2 [below is note 1]. You say Rand is "plagiarised". I have studied plagiarism in-depth. 1] Any commercial product that is plagiarised=>illegal. She was never sued. So you have asserted opinion not fact.
2] "E-v-e-r-y" idea on earth is based upon pre-existing ideas. When Newton was accused like you accuse Rand, he said "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Einstein said a genius is one that knows how to hide their sources!
he didn't really say much, i don't think he's destroyed anything here. He stated that he believe s that people are selfish as they are, but religion proves other wise and low self-esteem in people proves that as well. he makes a good point on greenspan, but greenspan isnt objectivism. The claim of the advocation of selfishness as being an act of supererogation is unfounded in his short speech segment.
@chakazulu87 You are wrong. But prove your comment. you insult people. You do not know how to use reason and logic. I suggest going to school and learning how to use the mind properly. Evidence is above, your own words.
damn hitchens will be missed...i loved to watch his debates, he was always the rude guy, making fun of others, but his arguments were sharp, and most of the times he was just right... id watch dawkins but hes not nearly as intresting as watching hitchens destroying his opponements
@megadrummer2 Megadrummer you insult people. You do not know how to use reason and logic. I suggest going to school and learning how to use the mind properly. Evidence is above, your own words.
activate like/dislike bar
juliannevillecorrea 1 day ago
Ampman. I agree :)
Scrampster 2 days ago
Hitchens was a pseudo-intellectual with a silver tongue. He understood the psychology of cultural memes but was utterly clueless when it came to any physical reality. Hitchens was no different than any garden variety radio talk show host or stuffed shirt politician or a used car salesman.
MrSmackdab 3 days ago
@MrSmackdab Really.............why?
MrArtstacks 2 days ago
@MrArtstacks I was a bit boozed up when I wrote that; still seething at something he said to a 911 truther. I still feel that way but, hey; he's dead; his legacy can do no more damage. BTW I sort of agree; Atlas Shrugged was waaaay too long LOL
MrSmackdab 1 day ago
@MrSmackdab When you say 9/11 truther.......don't you mean a 9/11 nut? Hitchens did more for the world then your conspiracy ridden ass will ever do. You should bow down to the man who is your superior.
Flipper79able 15 hours ago
@MrSmackdab "pseudo-intellectual?" I can't help but wonder if you have ANY clue how f*u*c*k*I*n*g ignorant that statement is! Keep posting and attacking Hitch. We wouldn't want the world to forget what a fool you really are, now would we!
xusmcguy 8 hours ago
Hitchens claims that we ought not "super-irrigate" humanity with selfishness, that it's quite selfish enough already. True enough. But Rand's concept of selfishness -- rational self-interest -- is 180 degrees apart from the altruists' concept of selfishness, which most people hold, and which includes the man willing to lie, cheat, murder, and steal to acheive his ends. Read the book Hitchens has "some respect" for: "The Virtue of Selfishness" and judge for yourself.
ampman76 3 days ago
@ampman76 How dishonest. Atheism is living in self. Living in self is selfish. The Liberal lies are so telling. "Sexual relations is not sex. - Slick Willie"
emaleroland 1 day ago
@emaleroland Atheism is living in reality as it actually is and taking it for what it is. Rand (who was an ahtiest) holds that it is altruism that gives us the concept of "the selfish brute," and that actual selfishness is merely "concern with one's own interests."
ampman76 13 hours ago
Jeez you two are seriously pompous and self-deluded aren't you.
MrShambolique 3 days ago
Before I was led home, I hear a wicked chinese lady spoke about clawing her back. I did not know what it meant. I was led back home when the crazy doctor accelerated my heartbeat to a painful degree and he gave me a choice to go home immediately. I called my home phone number. The Neuronphone wrote the same buddhist flower design on her back, she shown me that after I was led to talk to my parents that Neuronphone forced me to do. It was not as simple as anyone would think, to borrow power frthn
icemindreallife 4 days ago
Well, then I may disclose the fact about my father and mother sharing their part of punishment while I get my brain and eyes lasered. My mother got her back skin wrote a buddhist flower design that was written by a Malaysian government friend in the book she presented to her. The same design that was written by that hypocrite government personnel was written the same design on my mothers back. The same design on a skin. My father got the cholesterol pumped out of his right eyeball while readpape
icemindreallife 4 days ago
'Cult' is an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an admission of defeat. In saying 'cult' you only expose your hatred of something that condemns your faulty ideas. You can never have the moral high ground by adhering to a system of brute force to achieve what you believe to be good. Good can only come from choice. Unless, of course, you believe in virtuous theft? That's what you statists believe in.
Deadwind002 5 days ago
@Deadwind002 don't be a fanboy. just because a claim is presented in ad hominem form doesn't mean its wrong, otherwise then you could handwave away all cults everywhere. there is a distinct convalescence around rand and a willingness to suspend critical examination of her books because they use an appeal to flattery to obtain your argreement. youre made to think your unjust decisions are just because you made them freely; that youve earned your privileged lifestyle in a vacuum
LambChowder1 4 days ago
He didn't just destroy the cult of this sociopath, he eviscerated it.
darkillity 6 days ago
WE ARE DOLLARS AND WE SAY NO FOR ACTA
DOLLARSGROUPCOM 6 days ago
@195ashes Nope, you're sort of missing the essential point; none of it has anything to do with charity. The point you're missing is that it should be the choice of every individual to choose for him or herself what he or she will do with the fruit of his labors -- whether to spend on one's self, a hundred charities, or stick all the money in the mattress -- It is ONLY the choice of the INDIVIDUAL who created whatever it is they created -- no one else's.
MCzwz 1 week ago
Rand's philosophy has been denigrated by describing it as "selfish" and "self-centered" in the generic sense. In the broader, more individual sense, it is a matter of recognizing your own self-worth as well as the worth ofThe Rand philosophy states that *your* thoughts, words, actions, behaviors, desires, are YOUR OWN and no one else has the right to simply TAKE the fruits of your labor and ability for themselves in order to choose who will profit from YOUR thoughts, ideas, abilities.
MCzwz 1 week ago
That is the difference between the individual -- who takes the fruits of his labors and abilities and creates things to the benefit of all -- AS LONG AS HE WISHES, IN THE MANNER HE WISHES -- and the collective -- that wants to control the who, how, when, and why of everyone's life and abilities.
MCzwz 1 week ago
In the former, the collectivist mentality (which has grown incredibly, unfortunately strong in the US) will take the fruits of the labor of the strong, the intelligent, the productive, and "give" it to those, in the language of the collectivist, "simply can't be as good."
We have seen this in progress for the last 3 years; it continues each time we hear that there are people who have "too much" and "must give" to those who do not "have enough."
MCzwz 1 week ago
I heartily reject the collective, the most evil philosophy ever imposed on free man. anyone else as far as individuality goes.
MCzwz 1 week ago
@MCzwz One could argue that the purpose of government is for the weak to subjugate the strong. To impose a collective strength over those that carry too much authority in their individuality. It's not like we live in a Hobbesian society, the state of nature where man destroys the weak for petty gains.
"Some turds float to the top, some float to the bottom, but in the end they all get flushed." Think about it, your individualism is pointless.
MKWestberg 1 week ago
@MKWestberg I would say that should be the purpose of government, and we should work towards a form of government in which that is the case, but I think government at the moment is very much controlled by the "strong". And the irony (although its not *really* that ironic at all, when you look at how the economy functions), is that the "strong" for whom the governments of the world currently rule are more than not likely to be Ayn Rand fans. She was nothing but an apologist.
dalellll 1 week ago
@dalellll Agreed, all the did was right a book so rich dickheads could sleep better at night knowing that their million dollar caviar is waiting for them in the morning while other people starve. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe her book was a way to destroy the collective. The masses are weak when they are separated, but strong together. Maybe her take on individualism was to reinforce that idea, and keep the masses weak? That would be good a good essay. CONSPIRACY!
MKWestberg 6 days ago
@MCzwz And therein lies the fundamental problem. Rand took the 'individual' as an axiom. The problem is, as an account of personhood, it's metaphysically flawed. We are not radically individuated: every fact about us implies the existence of others, and our being is constituted by these social facts. It is from these that the person emerges, almost as an epiphenomenon.
Spoonface370 5 days ago
@Spoonface370 The thrust of Rand's case for individualism is man's mind. "There is no such thing as the collective brain" - on that verse alone could you argue against it? Social groups are simply collectives of individuals. We arrive armed only with our minds and should be free to use them. If our actions benefit others I have no problem with that, unless it was by force or intimidation. We may well come into being due to the act of others, but once we do our free will is our own.
Avidcomp 5 days ago
@Avidcomp The 'collective mind' statement is a dreadful straw man fallacy. Qua persons, we are *essentially* social (and saying that "Social groups are simply collectives of individuals" begs the question). We arrive burdened with an immense amount of sociality - nationality, family, home and neighbours, class, wealth or poverty - we choose none of these. Incidentally, the idea of free will in the Randian sense has been massively eroded by cognitive research over the last few decades.
Spoonface370 5 days ago
@Spoonface370 I'm hardly going to support the findings of cognitive research without asking you to at least provide me with the institutions and academic findings to digest them myself. Being born into any society does not mean I have to shoulder it's burden. If I were born into a Christian community should I accept original sin? If I am not permitted free will I am a slave. I cannot choose the community that allowed me to be, but I should be allowed to leave them.
Avidcomp 5 days ago
@Avidcomp It's not a political point about your freedom, it's a metaphysical one about your being - not about what you're allowed to do, but about what you *are*. Whatever you choose to do, you will always be the person who was born into that community and chose to leave. These facts point to the existence of others, and along with innumerable other facts analagous to these, constitute you. Rand's individualism requires this not to be the case, and as such is technically absurd.
Spoonface370 5 days ago
@Spoonface370: I'm afraid you're confusing community with forced participation. Hithchens believes an individual must be forced and coerced into doing things and Ayn Rand believes that free will and individual choices should not be forced or coerced. It is Hitchens, like all ignorant big government statists, who are cultists, not Ayn Rand.
Community is morally strong when individuals are free to fail and succeed, give, etc. There is no morality is forcing people to do things.
Deadwind002 5 days ago
@Deadwind002 actually you are completely incorrect, morality is what guides society. Many cultures throughout our existence have advocated sociopathic tendencies and murder to create a hierarchy within their class system. If our country truly believed in free will and choice you wouldn't be going to jail when you brutally murdered your two year old child. Just because you've had a "correct" American upbringing does not mean your community has been morally strong due to free will.
myothercariseva01 5 days ago
@myothercariseva01 free will is a natural tendency. what we believe in is individual rights, which murder, understandably, would violate.
i think the misconception of free will is that it allows one to do anything without consequence. there's no natural barrier to hinder you from stealing, but you can, if that's your will. but to get caught is an acknowledgement of you violating someone else's individual rights. that's why we discourage it through law. at least... that's the idea.
ThaigerDon 4 days ago
@Deadwind002 You're missing the point. As I said in the last post, I'm not talking about the politics of community. I'm talking about the metaphysics of personhood - what a person *actually is*. Rand's politics depend on the claim that people are irreducibly individual. This is, for the reasons I've set out, not how people are. We don't exist prior to our attachments, contra Rand/Rawls/Locke. We're constituted by them. Rand's politics fail because dependent on a metaphysical error.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
(Continued) - and the point is, once we see that Rand is wrong in her account of what people are, we have to draw our political conclusions from that. Rand's accounts of community, altruism, desirable economy and government and personal ethics all absolutely depend on the idea that people exist as entities prior to any of their attachments. As this is not the case, her other ideas fall by that error.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
@Spoonface370 To call Rand's individualism technically absurd would require one to accept Spinoza's argument as fact. I certainly can't dispute his rational as false, but neither can I say through reason that it is absolute. So "absurd" seems to require proof that remains subjective for now. I do not have room to extrapolate examples here, but to say that my own mind has proved to be some what at odds with the product of those around me, so my question is, why?
Avidcomp 5 days ago
@Avidcomp Not at all. Spinoza's pantheism is at the other end of the spectrum and there are many positions in between. I'm not arguing for a mystical pantheism. On the contrary, unlike Rand, I'm entirely naturalistic. The attachments which constitute you are natural facts (nationality, family, cultural values etc). Your facticity is inescapable, it *IS YOU*. Even if you repudiated family, nation and cultural values, they would still, through the repudiation, constitute you.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
@Spoonface370 I have two problems with your analogy. 1) You are defining me and within the definition you present, there are others that would disagree with it, thus it would seem more apt for me to define myself. 2) On conclusion of my previous point, the things that you are speaking of, the natural facts, may well define just about every part of me...except my mind. I do not accept that for example genes have any influence over my thoughts. It is that that I refute.
Avidcomp 4 days ago
@Avidcomp You aren't able to entirely define yourself. That's the point. You have no control over who your family are, where you were born, the cultural values you initially inherited, and these are you as much as your mind or any choices you make are. As to the genes point: I've been talking about social facts, not biological determinism, but I disagree with you here as well. Genes influence but do not entirely determine behaviour.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
@Spoonface370 The salient point here is the thoughts that I have are my own. It is my thoughts that are mine and mine alone and this is how I can choose how to reason. I can allow myself to be influenced by external influences and appease others around me, or I can reason for my own sake. That is the choice of the individual. Only the individual can make that choice. To think for the benefit of others or for ones self. It is here that I agree with Rand.
Avidcomp 4 days ago
@Avidcomp Again, no. You, as a person, can think, but as I've argued you do so from within a framework of facticity, including a vast cultural reference (not least that within your language). You as a person are not antecedent to that and cannot get outside it - there is no view from nowhere. The person who does the thinking is *constituted by* facticity. You are not an unencumbered self who can choose to be influenced by your facticity or not. It's inescapable.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
@Spoonface370 I don't deny that I have ridden on the shoulders of all that have come before me, but what Rand is saying is I do not need to serve them. Aren't we over complicating this very simple point. Once I am me, whatever I am, I can choose not to serve others. I can decide to do something for my own benefit and should not and do not feel guilty for an act of selfishness through my own reasoning however I came to be.
Avidcomp 4 days ago
@Avidcomp Again, my point is not about your choices or political status. It's not about 'riding on the shoulders of others'. It's about what being a person consists in. The kind of irreducibly free individual Rand bases her arguments on must be without any kind of *essential* social encumbrance. The problem is, this is not what persons are. You inescapably act from within these encumbrances - social facticity is what's real. The 'individual' is an epiphenomenon, a metaphysical myth.
Spoonface370 4 days ago
@Spoonface370 I want you to address social encumbrance. I'm not clear on what you mean here. She talks about virtue in free exchange with others and free acts of altruism where the act of altruism is not a virtue in itself. Perhaps you could provide some reading material suggestions as we have come "full circle" now. I am enjoying this engaging discussion despite as yet reneging away from Rand's fundamentals.
Avidcomp 4 days ago
@Avidcomp What I mean is that the social facts about you, which 'encumber' you (I don't mean this in a pejorative sense by the way), rather than being facts about a 'you' who exists antecedent to them, make up what you are. The person is not something separate to these social facts which has complete control over its facticity and can pick up and put down all its sociality as it pleases. You are made up of your social ties, roles and history.
Spoonface370 3 days ago
@Avidcomp The result of this is that the 'individual' - taken to mean a rational being in complete control of all his circumstances and nature - doesn't exist. You are subject to social facts you cannot escape and which you didn't choose - even obligations you have at best limited control over. The problem for Rand is that her ethics are based on the idea that the individual exists and is sacrosanct. If we reject that idea, her philosophy of self and ethics don't make sense.
Spoonface370 3 days ago
@Spoonface370 Let's not get into another loop. I say that because Rand doesn't claim that we are in complete control of all circumstances and nature. This is not how I see an individual even from my understanding of Rand's point of view..so I will press you for some recommended reading material as it's clear to me that you have been influenced by some academic work somewhere along your own journey. If you have no objections.
Avidcomp 3 days ago
@Avidcomp Fair enough. Probably the biggest influences on me are Ryle's 'The Concept of Mind' and Wittgenstein's later work, particularly Philosophical Investigations, and ordinary language philosophy in general really. Hume as well, for his denial of personal identity. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (despite his viewing persons as rational). Michael Sandel. Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue'. John Gray, particularly his collection 'Heresies Against Progress and Other Illusions'.
Spoonface370 3 days ago
@Spoonface370 Thanks. Neither of us believed that we were here to convert, nor should we. You have given me some more reading material and I thank you for that. I am just finishing Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, which you might find interesting.
Avidcomp 3 days ago
you ever notice that people love Hitchens until he's talking smack about something THEY like. lol
EJNewbury 1 week ago
I dislike Rand and objectivism, but this is by no means a destruction of the ideology of it.
fistfulofknowledge 1 week ago
Normally I respect him, however he displays his ignorance of the philosophy when he says it advocates people be 'self-centered' (at 2:28 )
I'll agree though her books are terrible and do her philosophy a disservice.
Narajah 1 week ago
I'll admit I have a limited understanding of objectivism but it seems to me it states that my own luxury and pleasure should take precedence over helping other people (I don't whether it's as extreme as saying that if I have money for a new T.V. that is a better use of my money than aid for the dying in Africa). Can anyone more educated on the subject explain whether this is correct or not?
195ashes 1 week ago
well that was a let down, i was wondering what hitchens would say to besmirch objectivism.. apparently nothing here.. i hear he was a fierce defender of statism though, and ayn rand was a minarchist
Intangion 1 week ago
After viewing this video clip, I'd say that Christopher Hitchens did not destroy the cult of Ayn Rand. He merely expressed disdain for Rand's advocacy of selfishness.
RFranklinCarter 1 week ago
@RFranklinCarter Selfishness and self-centered are two different things.
Narajah 1 week ago
@Narajah What do you think the distinction is between selfishness and self-centeredness?
RFranklinCarter 1 week ago
The poster destroyed any belief that he/she/it may have a grasp on reality...
barbarianopinion 1 week ago
A rather dubious title. It'll take more than 3 minutes to destroy objectivism.
Crust218 1 week ago
@Crust218 No, it really won't.
Spoonface370 1 week ago
wish youtube could filter videos that have ratings or comments disabled
lrohenaz 1 week ago
@lrohenaz I agree. I would have liked your comment but I can't . . .
mnjones92 1 week ago
@mnjones92 me too
MegaTarkers 1 week ago
thaat didn't destroy Ayn Rand, just stated he didn't believe people need to be told to be more selfish.
WhyTheHorseface 1 week ago
@WhyTheHorseface - well, he pretty much stated that her work was a waste of time. She was strenuously arguing for something that required no argument.
CyeOutsider 1 week ago
A writer with a liberal arts background that advocates selfishness as a virtue is hardly someone worth admiring on any level. Pretty sure their are better role models out there.
lion575 1 week ago
RIP Chrisopher
ladev91 1 week ago
There's self-centered, then there's self reliant and self regulating. The former is what is destroying the world, the latter 2 are what we all ought to strive for. A self centered person who doesn't believe in gay rights believes gays should have no rights. A self-reliant person shows indifference because nothing those gays can do can cause them any harm.
A self centered person gives to charity so they may be perceived as generous, a self reliant person gives so that others may receive.
kuni45 1 week ago
he didn't understand Ayn Rand at all.
monjiaitaly 1 week ago
Yea, fuck Ayn Rand
TTut21 2 weeks ago
@TTut21
Well, I wouldn't want that job. The broad has been dead & buried since the 80's. Probably in a rather deplorable state by now. Of course, she wasn't much of a babe when alive.
JubalCalif 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was expecting an argument, what a disappointmen
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago
I think that was a great take down of Objectivism. But people who didn't have much social success in high school keep tracking down Ayn Rand in college to tell them 'no you were special, those people who wouldn't let you sit at lunch with them, they're not. and when you get yours you hold on to that lunch room envy.'
Twistednerver 2 weeks ago
Sometimes you hear things that you will never forget for the rest of your life:
"The forms of fucking do not require my endorsement."
DetroitUrbanTV 2 weeks ago
rest in peace my friend.
vinnynumbnuts 2 weeks ago
icklepoo in 50 years none of us will be remembered, Hitchens will, when hopefully, organised religion is even smaller than it is now.. Oranised religion is dying out, yippee, enjoy your god fantasy for as long as you can or until you see the REAL light.. No god, no angels, only money wanted and your return abject misery...
nealeyh 2 weeks ago
Compared to Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, Hitchens was a mental midget.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 Ad Hominem. It's really all Objectivist's have, since you Kant understand she failed the "is/ought" gap from Hume. Rand & Friedman were by all accounts sociopaths. No moral compass, screw everyone but me. I would've like to see them eat each other
Bolgernow 2 weeks ago
@Bolgernow Negro please. Go beg for symapthy on another street corner. The big bad world don't owe you nuthin. Being a useful idiot kneeling at the altar of statism is no way to go through life, son.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 oh, so you Kant debate the merits, only insult others. Typical. Objectivism fails the prisoner's dilemma, & the volunteer's dilemma. The world doesn't owe us anything. We as a society owe the concept of our Social Contract to each other, nothing more. I can see by no channel access you're a screw, a crank, a nut, insane. Good luck!
Bolgernow 2 weeks ago
@Bolgernow Adios, Fidel.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@Bolgernow America's "social safety net" long ago became nothing but a hammock and cheap recruitment tool used by the left to facilitate its marching Socialist/Statist agenda. An agenda which disempowers the individual through forced collectivism where all power is created by, and emanates from, the state. I want government out of my gas tank, toilet, bedroom and lightbulb sockets. Government creates NOTHING. It only DESTROYS. It can't even run a post office, and boobs like you want MORE! LOL!!
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 obvious troll is obvious
Bolgernow 2 weeks ago
@Bolgernow As is your problem: Your ears are pressed firmly against the inner walls of your colon, Bolshevik bootlicker.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 ash yes, now spam my videos with irrational hate. Classic. If I don't agree with you, you will punish me? You can't touch me clown. My blog has over 16 million hits as I type this, & I'm humbled and lucky to have it. I have appeared in film, TV, & radio nationally. Have performed in front of 1000's. What have you done with your life? I think we're looking at it. No more food for you troll, you're less than nothing
Bolgernow 2 weeks ago
@Bolgernow LOL! Aren't you just full of yourself! Bottom line: I don't know you, I don't wanna know you, and I don't give a flying fuck about you or your opinions. You're a fucking nobody, a two-bit, uneducated bullshit busker and half assed-table waiting carny begging for attention. Go sell your pencils to someone else.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1
I would rather contend that Socialism is strictly anti-statist if we are obviously speaking of its fullest extent, that is to say, State control of production isn't workers' control of production and I think the USSR pretty well demonstrated this distinction as pretty clear.
Now, if you are really talking about individual rights in any way that is worth listening to, you wouldn't advocate against the lesser of two evils.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@432ps1
The government is so truly a creating force that you can dedicate the presence of your comment on this page to governmental research; as well as your cell phone and many other convenience of modern technology which were, basically, achieved through highly state subsidized corporations under Federeal military programs.
If you again note, when a right wing government enters, they often don't even cut spending; they change the location for your low income pockets to the higher end ones.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@432ps1
And, as a final note, if you bothered about freedom for two pennies, you wouldn't stand on the side of the most inhumane form of authoritarian institution you can find in America, that is: corporations.
It might have not occurred to you, but an organization wherein orders are taken from above and wherein only people bellow are accountable for their actions is a form of despotism and the very fact that you are forced to rent yourself to them makes you a salve for all practical purposes.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@432ps1
Freedom requires the democratic control of the workplaces by direct representation and participation of the workforce in the decision process. That's a real Libertarian position: it's fundamentally socialist.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
Hitchens is a genius and free thinker, not indoctrinated like so many unable to think for them self. The bible says burn witches, which you 'believers' are happy to either agree with or blatantly ignore.. Always remember too, the religion YOU believe in, the 1 of 1,000's available is RIGHT..
nealeyh 2 weeks ago
Rand wrote the largest selling novel in history. What did Hitchens do?
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 which largest selling novel in history was that then?
mrpottamus 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 No, she didn't. Charles Dickens did. Then Saint-Exupery, Tolkien (twice), Cao Xequin and Agatha Christie. None of her novels are even in the top 100. However, one of Dan Brown's is, which shows that sales and quality aren't necessarily connected; still, Rand was probably held back in part because her novels are so utterly dreadful.
Spoonface370 1 week ago
And the cult of Christopher Hitchens was destroyed by the Tobacco Industry. A rather befitting cause of death for such a "genius".
432ps1 2 weeks ago
Lame - very lame! This such idiocy! Why did people admire this man?
wupeide 2 weeks ago
@wupeide I wonder the same thing. Hitchens was just an upscale Geraldo Rivera but drunker, hucking his garbage to the gullible. He was a man who did not posess one single original thought and in the end, achieved and contributed- nothing.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
Its cool to be drunk and talk like an idiot? Say what? No insight in this clip whatsoever. Except for drunk idiots maybe. Dumb.
wijreel1 2 weeks ago
Popularity doesn't mean its good for you. Take McDonalds for an example.
efa0tz 2 weeks ago
Will anyone remember or read Hitchens in 50 years? I doubt it. Ayn Rand is still alive because her ideas continue to influence people. To be self-centered one must have a "self" to center on; Hitchens really never had it. Rand did.
ickiepoo 2 weeks ago
Ayn Rand had many flaws, was not much of a writer and her life was hardly exemplary. Nevertheless she contributed more than a few useful ideas to the great conversation.
Hitchens by contrast was never anything more than a drunken old queer who managed to steal about 70 years worth of oxygen he had no business sucking on. Hitchens was a hack and his admirers consist mostly of hacks and poseurs themselves. Hitchens was a charlatan's charlatan in addition to being an appallingly bad writer.
MrTexasArcane 2 weeks ago
@MrTexasArcane Hitchens was a modern day PT Barnum worshipped by an army of the willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. A hero to the stupid who did not posess one original thought. On top of that, he's boring. Just goes to show you: Anyone can come to America and succeed at almost anything.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@432ps1 "Rand was a sociopath worshipped by an army of the willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. A hero to the stupid who did not posess one original thought. On top of that, she's boring. Just goes to show you: Anyone can come to America and succeed at almost anything." I can use ad hominem too asshole
machine7elves 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 A PT barnum style con artist,worshipped by the willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. And incredibly boring to boot?
Yeah that sure sounds like Ayn Rand.
Oh wait...
But her book sells, You are right about that. despite being less thrilling then accounting class on valium. And for that miracle she deserves praise.
Like PT barnum, she figured out that phrase about fools and their money.
booley 2 weeks ago
@booley I don't think Gods exists either, but I don't need to pay $20 for a book by some drink sodden posh, fat twat like Hitchens to tell me that.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 nor do I. Nor do I feel the need to spend money on some pseudo intellectual to give me boring screeds about how being a selfish douche bag is moral.
I can go to those socialists at the local library for free if I ever feel that masochistic.
Personally I dont' give a fuck about hitchen's. But since this is a video about Ayn Rand, your description seemed particularily accurate. IF you hadn't mentioned Hitchens I would have thought you were talking about rand.
booley 2 weeks ago
@booley LOL! Well said. I find them both tedious, but Rand wasn't an angry, sanctimonious prick.
432ps1 2 weeks ago
@432ps1 Wait, you're a fan of Rand, and you criticise *Hitchens* for not having any original ideas?
Spoonface370 1 week ago
Is this nan drunk or is it a disorder?
RCWorks 2 weeks ago
hitchens disses ayn rand's novels. (once had a philosophy professor who did the same.) rand's novel Anthem from '38, i believe, inspired another russian author, whose much later very similar book played a significant part in his winning the nobel prize. come on, hitchens, you should know better than that! and rest in peace, my friend, all the same.
vinnynumbnuts 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vinnynumbnuts she was a crackpot, she said we should take teh oil from the arabs because it was OURS not theirs, she said a woman couldnt become president, she was generally nuts, luckily almost no one has a hoot who she is
Ruffneckization 2 weeks ago
Hitchens: "Litreture"
redshark618 2 weeks ago
I watched this twice and I do not see anything in it that really "destroys" anything. In fact, it actually helps make her case, I think.
kingofmilwaukee6969 2 weeks ago
@kingofmilwaukee6969 she was a crackpot, she said we should take teh oil from the arabs because it was OURS not theirs, she said a woman couldnt become president, she was generally nuts, luckily almost no one has a hoot who she is
Ruffneckization 2 weeks ago
@Ruffneckization Actually, she is one of the most influential writers of the 20th century and appears on lists of such over and over, even though her books were actually rather tedious in my eyes. But then again Lady Gaga is awful and she is amazingly popular. And she has been proven right about women becoming president, since in the 40+ years since she said that, she is batting 1.000. Either way, Hitchens' remarks were useless.
kingofmilwaukee6969 2 weeks ago
@kingofmilwaukee6969 What? He's saying that she's idiotic. So idiotic he doesn't understand what there is to talk about. In addition to the fact that her writing itself is transcendently awful.
greg55666 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry - even Hitchens gives in to the cursory argument about not believing in or hating God because of the people who USE God to commit atrocities. There is no "moral necessity for atheism." There are good Christians and bad ones. There are good atheists and bad ones.
ScreamingHeadAffairs 2 weeks ago
@ScreamingHeadAffairs what does that mean "good" or "bad" ones? very simplistic terms that do not make any sense that try to categorize two groups of people
Ruffneckization 2 weeks ago
@Ruffneckization Everything doesn't require SAT words. Use the context of the sentence to see the overall point I was trying to make. You are missing the forest for seeing the trees.
ScreamingHeadAffairs 2 weeks ago
@ScreamingHeadAffairs no im calling you out on making an idiotic statement and classification...sat words (what the hell?). You're "larger" point was as simplistic and naive as the words you chose to put your classifications of groups in. Hitchens makes no such claim or argument. You're creating an artificial issue then proceeding to simplify it to create a "oh well it all washes" affect. Hitchens gives far more important reasons for not believing in the existence of god
Ruffneckization 2 weeks ago
@Ruffneckization A "reason for believing"? The entire problem with your argument is that it takes place in an absolutist universe. If you talk about a "reason for believing" in an absolutist universe, the entire argument becomes absurd before you begin. You either believe stuff exists or it doesn't. So discussing a "reason to believe" or "reason not to believe" is based on politics, not actuality. So you can't even have a discussion with me until you clear up your science. Idiot.
ScreamingHeadAffairs 2 weeks ago
@ScreamingHeadAffairs actually no it doesn't, I dont clame to be absolutist about anything, especially in regards to the creation of the universe. the ONLY ones who are absolutist are the religious zealots who KNOW EXACTLY what will happen and what has happened,I do know based on my ability to reason there is no such thing as zeus or olympus and there was no such thing as a virgin birth or resurrection, when you make extraordinary claims YOU have to provide the evidence
Ruffneckization 2 weeks ago
@Ruffneckization Nope. You're now clutching at straw men, claiming the old, tired question that I must prove God. I CAN prove God, but not with the absolutist science you're talking about. You can't even talk to me until you move your thought process up to the relativistic universe of Einstein and the theories of dimensionality. You don't even get what I'm saying. I wasn't even talking about religious absolutism. Geez. You're so typical and I've been past this discussion for like 10yrs. Ctch up
ScreamingHeadAffairs 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kklindh 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScreamingHeadAffairs Go on then, prove god. Lets see if the collective mind of youtube can understand your explanation.
kklindh 2 weeks ago
@Ruffneckization Dyaus Pitar/Zeus is real He is a hyper scientist
go look in the Rig Veda
maidenkid84 2 weeks ago
How is this destroying Ayn Rand? He went more off topic than talking about Ayn Rand
312Hunter 3 weeks ago
I've always thought the same thing about ayn rand. I'm going to write a book that espouses masterbation and breathing. Oh hey maybe even one about not believing in fairy tales.
catbuffalo 3 weeks ago
@catbuffalo You're accepting an oversimplification; you don't have a grasp of Rand's philosophy. There's a bit more to it.
sybo59 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Crapped-out sodomite Christ' Hitchens died for his faith: the faith that radio waves, and the accompanying radiation-sickness, is organically therapeutic in regards to eradicating malignant (neoplastigenic) growth from mammalian tissue.
CelestialEmbodiment 3 weeks ago
Why is Hitchens' view more logical than Rand's?
His view is founded off of his "morality," which is mere opinion and conjecture; a religion. He's provided no evidence for why anyone should even follow a moral code.
If I don't live or face consequences after I die, self-centeredness would be the only logical "moral;" my happiness is all that matters. If mankind's future is irrelevant to my happiness, so be it. If you feel I'm evil, justify it with evidence (and an absolute definition) of evil.
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 3 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva If you do not see anything wrong with feeling ambivalent towards human suffering then you have never been stabbed and left for dead, lived through a disastrous famine, or watched your family slaughtered by militia men. You are also probably pathologically ill. Despite being an anti-theist who believes that humans project meaning onto reality I believe that bad/evil is definable.
SamySara2 3 weeks ago
@SamySara2 Yes, but you cannot define it. You base your explanation of evil on your feelings, making your faith in it identical to that of a follower of any religion.
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 3 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva logically bad should be defined as the worst possible suffering for the greatest number of people. arguing against this would insinuiate that you're a psychopath. a good person is someone who wants to avoid this worst of fates for humanity. Now Brava, ignoring the cries of billions and being complacently apathetic about the future for your children and your childrens children is not the only logical moral decision. Not by a mile.
SamySara2 3 weeks ago
@SamySara2 Your definition is mere opinion, once again. Ad hominem (i.e. shame tactics such as calling me "a psychopath") is not evidence.
Your logic puts you on par with a Christian.
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 3 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Morality is a product of evolution. Social primates rely heavely on maintaining a social setting and this setting can only survive if an adequate level of solidarity and cooperation as well as empathy is innate within such primates, therefore morality is vital to our survival.
It's a better explanation than God told us what to do
moroney1 3 weeks ago
@moroney1 Actually, it isn't an explanation at all; it is extremely vague speculation.
It is intelligence, fear, and selfishness that are vital to our survival, and the building blocks of civilized societies (and at the core of "morality").
Even atheists have vastly different views of morality. Look at Stalin's moral view and how many supported him.
"Morality" is at the core of countless wars, deaths, and atrocities. No one can define it beyond opinion and it just divides people.
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 2 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Atheists may have vastly different views on morality though, that doesnt mean they are right. Someone can disagree and say 2+2+=5 that doesnt mean they're correct. Killing an innocent is never right, we wouldnt have survived if we thought otherwise. So yeah Stalin might have disagreed with me, doesnt mean he had another morality, just a wrong or immoral stance
moroney1 2 weeks ago
@moroney1 I doubt humans, or hominids in general, survived because of some innate sense of morality.
DefenceSpeech 2 weeks ago
@DefenceSpeech Where do you think such an innate morality comes from them? God?
moroney1 2 weeks ago
@moroney1 The fact is that you can't prove your claims. To say that something is correct or not entails providing evidence to support one matter over another. Terms like "innocent" are far too vague. One could make an almost impenetrable case that killing is correct and along the lines of survival of the fittest, which is the underlying premise of how mankind has survived to date. Morality is subjective; the only way everyone will follow a single moral code is under totalitarian rule.
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 2 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva
Survival of the fittest is a cliched phrase never used by Darwin. I dont know whether youre playing devil's advocate or are just a contrarian, exactly what is it that you beleive?
Again just because there are many views on morality does not mean they are all correct. IF someone concluded that it was alright to kill an innocent that wouldnt mean they were correct to do so.
We wouldnt be here having this conversation if our species didnt have an innate solidarity
moroney1 2 weeks ago
@YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva Yes one could make the case that killing a man is correct, under certain contextual paramters. We all know that morals have a subjective gray area.
If your implying we should implement a totalitarian rule your an imbecile, or your religious, not that they are mutually exclusive.
Human kind has developed an innate morality, it's not absolute it can be ignored by some, but most people recognize killing someone isn't morally acceptable or benefital to our survival.
mrgejwaites 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 3 weeks ago
Ayn Rand is fascist
chakazulu87 3 weeks ago
Yawwwwn.
cindyandrob 3 weeks ago
"I don't think there is any need to have essays advocating selfishness in human beings"
If you have understood anything about objectivism, you know Hitchens has not at this point. As he demonstrates, there is a lot to learn about selfishness, or the term mutates into some silly, colloquial smear word.
scepticsteve 3 weeks ago
I'm not a philosopher, nor do I ever attempt to throw my hat in to any political ring. But Ayn Rand is just an awful person for the fact she can't write, at all.
mrbittersnell 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell you are wrong. [1] you are a philosopher. It like a human that says I am Not human: just saying it does not extricate humanity from the human; similarly with you just saying it does not exorcise "belief, philosophy" from you. The only question - said Ayn Rand - is whether you have correct or nonsense philosophy. [2] you call Rand awful but do not back it up and even state outright you don't know philosophy, so you are in error; [3] you say she can't write: but her books salesHUGE!
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@britishbrainz (1) Calling me a philosopher would be like calling me a sociologist, I do not hold credentials in such a subject and nor do I care to (2) I am sorry I did not support my claim with any fallacies, but like I said I am not a philosopher and I missed that day of AP lit, Ayn Rand's Anthem is an awfully plagiarized version of We, plagiarism = bad (3) Many movies come out every year with awful scripts, we can't base sales on the accomplishments of an artist, that is almost paradoxical
mrbittersnell 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell Thanks for the reply. Let me be clear: Philosophy means "belief". It is Not a "choice" ! The choice you have is to identify correct philosophy - and - distinguish it from incorrect philosophy. I suggest Ayn Rand because I know her work and can rationally prove every other system to be wrong (try as I may: I can't find one fault in Rand).
Analogy: did you know EVERY man seeks their self interest ALWAYS ? The only question is whether its rational or irrational! The method is reason
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@britishbrainz I guess you would be right if we were discussing 'philosophy' of a much more universal degree, but I am not. In the modern times of our lives 'philosopher' is almost an abstract occupation (I can revert back to the first pages of A Brave New World as an example, but there is a character cap) And about 'self interest' you are basically saying it is okay for a sociopath to kill their family because it fits their own self interest by believing Ayn Rand is right. I disagree.
mrbittersnell 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. [1] The word and concept "philosophy" is one: there is no separation between what you call "universal degree" or what Huxley called a "Brave New World". [2] Self Interest. With greatest respect you have not understood this term, but that is not a problem. [a] Everyone seeks their self interest in all things at all times (like you and I, here!!). This includes Mother Teresa, Pope,Jesus (man), Hitler, your Mom. See Note 2 (continuation)..
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell Note 2 (continued from below): So the only question is whether your Mom, you, me,JFK, MARX/LENIN/STATIN, or Hitler: seeks RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL self interest. Your mom - if she loved you was RATIONAL. What is rational? This can be known through the METHOD of reason and logic. This is what Ayn Rand "nailed".
So if you help your neighbour or me: they/I doN't owe you ANYTHING. We are Not your slave, EVER. We owe you IF there is a contract. See note 3 for continuation..
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell Note 3(continued from note 2 below). If I am "BENEVOLENT" [free will, choice] then I have the OPTION but NEVER COMPULSION to help you back (if you helped me).
Once I landed in Heathrow,took bus to Victoria Station. Darn tired. A man came up to me with a trolley willing to help me with my bags to the rail. I accepted but found it weird because trolleys were FREE and this man is Not licensed (druggie). Upon getting to the train, he want MONEY for helping me. I was SHOCKED.He=wrong
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@mrbittersnell Note 4 (final, continued from below). Summary: [1] you learn that helping another is OPTIONAL not COMPULSION, unless there is a legal contract in place (implied or actual). [2] Communism/Nazism/Statism: is where you are FORCED to support the State by over-loads who benefit (dictator,Monarch,Politburo etc.). SELFISHNESS is defined by the dictionary as "seeking your RATIONAL self interest" [N-E-V-E-R irrational]. [3] You don't OWE me EVER unless legal contract or tort relationship.
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrbittersnell Note 2 [below is note 1]. You say Rand is "plagiarised". I have studied plagiarism in-depth. 1] Any commercial product that is plagiarised=>illegal. She was never sued. So you have asserted opinion not fact.
2] "E-v-e-r-y" idea on earth is based upon pre-existing ideas. When Newton was accused like you accuse Rand, he said "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Einstein said a genius is one that knows how to hide their sources!
eg.Steve Jobs took idea from XEROX & calligraphy
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
he didn't really say much, i don't think he's destroyed anything here. He stated that he believe s that people are selfish as they are, but religion proves other wise and low self-esteem in people proves that as well. he makes a good point on greenspan, but greenspan isnt objectivism. The claim of the advocation of selfishness as being an act of supererogation is unfounded in his short speech segment.
CaffeineAndEric 3 weeks ago
Ayn Rand was a fascist zionist !!!!
chakazulu87 3 weeks ago
@chakazulu87 You are wrong. But prove your comment. you insult people. You do not know how to use reason and logic. I suggest going to school and learning how to use the mind properly. Evidence is above, your own words.
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@britishbrainz Blah blah blah...
megadrummer2 3 weeks ago
damn hitchens will be missed...i loved to watch his debates, he was always the rude guy, making fun of others, but his arguments were sharp, and most of the times he was just right... id watch dawkins but hes not nearly as intresting as watching hitchens destroying his opponements
RimshotKiller 3 weeks ago
This guy is a fricking jerkoff drunk, shut him up! Oh that's right he's done...
megadrummer2 3 weeks ago
@megadrummer2 don't worry, your time will come too
UnchainTheW0lv3s 3 weeks ago
@UnchainTheW0lv3s No shit sherlock.
megadrummer2 3 weeks ago
@megadrummer2 Megadrummer you insult people. You do not know how to use reason and logic. I suggest going to school and learning how to use the mind properly. Evidence is above, your own words.
britishbrainz 3 weeks ago
@britishbrainz Blah blah blah....
megadrummer2 3 weeks ago
@megadrummer2 'shut him up!' How old are you? Five?
Mindaslight 3 weeks ago