Most backwards area! Lol, that part of the world (Lebenon, Syria) was the most advanced in world at that time, with its Phoenician and Assyrian cultures. That 'backwards' part of the world was were man first started to use writing and started forming governments. Apparantly Hitchens doesn'tknow much about history
@shnoepie1 no, it wasn't THE most advanced in the area. the silk road hadn't been thoroughly been established yet and the chinese and indians were far more advanced. this particular group of people weren't advanced, most of them being in the sheep and farming trades and illiterate
@cruelbusiness1984 you don't know what youre talking about. Greater Syria (also Iraq, Israel and Lebanon) is where 3000 BC man first started to settle, build cities, start writing, make laws, form governements, etc. First the Sumerians, then different invading Semitic groups. For over 4000 years it was the mostr advanced society in the world. Around 1000 BC, when the bible was written, the powerful Assyrian state ruled supreme and the Phoenicians created advanced citystates along the coasts.
@shnoepie1 obviously that would be true if - like many alienated people tend to think - we completely ignore the existence of the Chinese civilization. They were way ahead of all the rest.
@otavioandradas At that time they werent at all ahead. The Chinese didnt blossom untill two centuries before Christ. My point is that at the time the bible was written the Middle East was the single most advanced civilization on the planet. What Hitchens says here is stupid and ignorant.
@shnoepie1 Do you not have ancient history books or wikipedia in your country? What section of the bible are you referring? There is a significant time period between the Torah and the gospels, even a precursory glance at a history text book would tell you that during that period of time, the 'single most advanced civilization' (which I will assume means - the area or nation producing the most advances in technology and philosophy) moved place several times.
hitchens dominates when he brings in the seriousness again. viewer MarvelsofaLifetime was right about the comedy show thing, but damn, when decides to lay it all down, he slams it!! great moment in the speech right there.
hitchens dominates when he puts in the seriousness again. that comment about a comedy show was right, but damn, what a job when he decides to puts it down!! slams it!! great moment in the speech right there.
Hitchens oversimplifies in first half of this video. Theme "God intervenes only in last 3000 years of 100000 year span". If universum was created with us in mind the most important part would be us not time itself. Most of humans ever lived are living now or in very recent history.
Israelites could read and write. Coming from Egypt they had knowhow of various things from that country. Chinese could write also. They developed writing system from shamanistic ritual of burned tortoise shells.
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
What an entertaining bastard Hitchens is.... :-)))) Where's the Italian equivalent of this man?! I wish there was one Hitch for every country in the world.
@pele6922 "And let's tell them to settle in the only place int the Middle East where there's no oil..." I hate the practice of quoting YouTube videos verbatim in the comments section but I just broke down into a fit of laughter when I heard that. I can barely breath now.
@MarvelsofaLifetime I had a philosophy professor that believed the philosophers of our day are comedians. He wrote letters to George Carlin in the hope that he could get some of his work published in a philosophy text book.
@MarvelsofaLifetime but that's the essence that draws people together and start thinking for themselves, by laughing at things which some claim are serious and sacred.
They didn't have ability to write and document what happened over 3000 years BC.
And to add -
That's why you can't draw the conclusion "heaven watches with indifference"
-Hitchens refuted
I do want to add that I find Hitchens a far more intelligent man than Dawkins. Hitchens makes me laugh because he's funny, Dawkins makes me laugh... well for the wrong reasons.
MW &JP; I am learning so much from your arguments and appreciate the knowledge you are able to express so thoroughly as well as passionately. Must we get so viscious? I respect you both.
@MsSlopjar I think you mean me and Tcrowaf, he was the idiot I was setting straight here. If you look up "View All Comments" and go to the beginning you'll find my initial counter-argument about what Hitchens said that got that ass-whooping faggot going (but he couldn't argue for shit, only waste my time and patience)
"pretentious ad hominem"? It WAS your character I was attacking not your augument. If you want me to be pretentious, try this: read something of Sun Tzu.
I called you on your bigotry and you in no way denied it, Qui tacet consentit. Comprehend what you read, don't be destracted by such an obvious trap as Jackson and throw a temper tantrum, form and maintain a coherent argument and then you may sound less like a whining adelescent.
I don't need to deny or prove anything as your attitude is what it is and by being the ignoramus that you are you beat up yourself. I think the pointless style you apply and the laughable tone init stands in it's own merit - you fail. There is no reason for me to "form an argument."
After days of amazement (and amusement) at your posts, I happened upon unrelated posts of yours on other videos. I see that the discourse here isn't an isolated incident. You seem to stumble into circular arguments and vile language quite regularly.
It's with people who deserve it. They are the ones who can't stop pushing buttons and rise the irritation.
Look at this idiot for example - if you really saw all the posts, you KNOW I had arguments and presented them - it's HIS fault for avoiding it, not mine. It's these cyber twats who simply can't address anything related to the subject. Take YOU - your comment is only a personal comment directed at me. Why? I don't need to hear you have been watching my comments. Kind of useless information.
rootytuners, I had a question to you that you STILL have not addressed. Yet you keep showing up.
You said something about Occam's Razor and how it doesn't apply to my reasoning with Hitchens fallacious thinking. You still don't care to elaborate that?
"Sorry I need to know your opinion, because I simply don't know how to attack the argument WITHOUT attacking the arguer at the same time, since I'm a small little shit who really don't know what to do, as you've said."
Silence.... there is obviously a hidden agenda of ad hominems wrapped with fallacious assumptions with homo Tim. As for why he shit his pants and refuse - to DISCUSS - the ARGUMENTS. Who would've known...
You're wrong in the assertion that, just because early man had a tougher life than present man, means that they suffered more. Hardship is a huge part of suffering yeah. But I'm suffering right now, spiritually or emotionally, it's very exhausting having to deal with a cyber fucktard who REFUSE to START a discussion because he got himself a fix idea. Grow up, stop acting like a child. I'M more mature than that.
Here are the counter arguments to homo Timmy's initiate argument that I addressed, and that he has been escaping for a couple of hours (without my permission, though I take the bait cuz it's fun pastime) aswell as escaping everything else.
1/2
God creates the world, a material reality, that operates under a system of metaphysical laws such as TIME, and as mankind develops her society throughout time, she eventually reach present time. God is not responsible of what man does with her TIME.
To say "God creates the world in present time" is fucking absurd. The world has it's own laws of time, metaphysics, energy, which cannot be violated once God has sustained the material universe. Mankind and her doings are subdue to that universe.
As for "causing" suffering, it is according theism a plan to bring humanity into a unity with himself and it can only be done in a dimension like this. Like Craig said, the water that sustains you can also drown you etc.
"unneccessary" in terms of effiency you can't determine how suffering is "necessary" in relation to something unexplained. "salvation" remains to be explained. Do that before you repeat the same worthless word-play again. Try to present a reasoning based on inference, if you can (which I siverely doubt). Quit assume I'm a mind reader.
Yes, that's all we need to hear. Fucking jackass and his presumptions answers his own questions and tries to invoke strawmen to manipulate the arguer to go down a certain road. THAT is not how a "debate" works.
It's hilarious that homo Tim can, presumably with a straight face, talk about civil reasonable discourse after have been avoiding my arguments on this board for 5 or 6 days already. This faggot has no life, regardless of what fantasies he tries to build up, I will just tear it down.
And it's an argument that has been pretty much refuted already. Plus I had questions to be answered, not avoided.
But if you DO insist on me killing your fallacious baloney, let's have it. As soon as I receive one ad hominem more from you, it's over cyber shit.
The presumptions that remains to get elaborated, and are required to do so if your so called argument are going to consitute a consistent reasoning, are (cont)
"unneccessary" in terms of effiency you can't determine how suffering is "necessary" in relation to something unexplained. "salvation" remains to be explained. Do that before you repeat the same worthless word-play again. Try to present a reasoning based on inference, if you can (which I siverely doubt). Quit assume I'm a mind reader.
God creates the world, a material reality, that operates under a system of metaphysical laws such as TIME, and as mankind develops her society throughout time, she eventually reach present time. God is not responsible of what man does with her TIME. God did not invent the computer, man did. God did not hand the ability to build moon rockets to man, man had to construct moon rockets all by her own. Using the free will and intelligence provided from God.
To say "God creates the world in present time" is fucking absurd. The world has it's own laws of time, metaphysics, energy, which cannot be violated once God has sustained the material universe. Mankind and her doings are subdue to that universe.
As for "causing" suffering, it is according theism a plan to bring humanity into a unity with himself and it can only be done in a dimension like this. Like Craig said, the water that sustains you can also drown you etc.
No, not necessarily. Maybe statistically speaking they had less comfortable lives and were therefore more vulnerable. However they developed skills to endure their environment, which makes your strawman bullshit diffused.
First of all, (and I should probably let this slide because you're just going to get off topic) my argument cannot be a strawman by definition. A strawman is when I misrepresent YOUR position and refute that. Anywho, you say "Maybe statistically speaking they had less comfortable lives.... However they developed skills to endure..." What if I were to argue that holocaust victims did not suffer more than non-victims as they developed psychological mechanisms as tools to survive the (cont)
You don't even address anything of what I posted. Instead you run off into something different, aside shit. I don't think I can conduct a convo with someone who runs off talking about what he feels like instead of following up what has been presented as the relevant part of the counter argument.
I'd also like to point out, the only reason we're discussing something topical is because YOU suddenly found the good taste to post an actual argument.... after 5-6 days.
First of all, I already posted this argument (albeit an early form) TWICE. Second of all, the questions I posed go exactly to YOUR counter-argument. I bring up the holocaust example because I think it mirrors your objection. If you say I can't conclude that early man suffered more, I ask did holocaust victims suffer more than the "average" man?
I suppose it's pointless to complain about your ways since you are mentally dysfunctional. You don't understand how your behavior is ludicrous. And I'd prefer to use PM but I suspect this ain't going for long.
However, WHAT IF you would argue they developed magic resistance to a very real phenomenon? What if, what if... it would be an absurd argument, that's IF homo Tim, I'm obviously coming from a scientific aswell as naturalistic point of view that man adapts herself to her circomnstances.
(part 2) horrific ordeal. How would this be different from your argument? Would you assess your life as better or worse if the vast majority of the people you knew died violently?
I'll be happy to get to definitions. I just want to focus on one thing at a time. I PROMISE that once we get past this point I will answer the two challenges you made. Now, your holocaust rebuttal seems odd. Many soldiers in the Vietnam War adapted to their brutal surroundings. According to you they could not have adapted because they only experienced ONE Vietnam War. How is this an inaccurate analogy? In the holocaust the victims were subjected to MANY horrors. Just because we (cont)
It's actually a difficult task to face incoherent claims with coherent arguments. Like I said, I can't possibly discuss rationally if a v-net-cyber fag like yourself resorts to random balonely every single. You can never answer the two challenges, you just avoid it. You can print it ANYTIME. Right now. With "focusing on one thing at a time" you mean "my mindset is so immature I can only extend my thinking process to this speed - turtle speed"
Do you concede that early man suffered more than present day man? If you simply say yes, the next post will answer those questions. If no, then please answer the post I just made.
See dear retard, to ask me if people who suffered violent deaths in holocausts suffered more than me (I'm not dead and I haven't suffered violently in a holocaust), is a pointless question that kills every attempt at taking this convo seriously.
I also refer to your question as a strawman question, and I don't need anymore protests against that. You have a manipulative way of forcing me to answer a question with a specific answer. This isn't about me "agreeing" with your random baloney.
Ah, I now see you have a different definition of strawman. Your definition is "Anything that makes my position weaker." By your definition, I agree my question is a strawman. Listen, answer the question, EXPLAIN WHY the question doesn't apply, or just go away.
I did, you suffer from amnesia and dyslexic complex. It went "You have a manipulative way of forcing me to answer a question with a specific answer."
That's my definition of a strawman, not "making position weaker" which you, honestly, really fail to do. But I understand you deep down, even if you don't show it in the writings here at youtube, know you're a lunatic fraud and a coward who mirror your own fallacies at others.
Forcing you to answer a question with a specific answer is not strawman. Google the term, learn it's definition. If we are engaged in rational discourse, and I ask you a question that it is invalid, you must EXPLAIN why it is invalid. All you have done is just filibuster and CLAIM it is invalid. EXPLAIN why the questions I ask are counterproductive to the argument, or just fade away if this conversation is beyond your grasp.
You have yet to address my counter arguments. Don't forget them "Henry".. and don't try to excuse your own responsibilty.
BTW, I KNOW you can't talk about actual thoughts. Things have to be inconsistent and rhethorical if you are going to open your mouth. You can't address my arguments because you don't know how to. It's very simple and it's solved. Care to bullshit more about your strawman protests?
Explain yourself about the suffering or just quit bring me excuses. I know you can't argue.
If you concede this argument, we can move on to the next topic. It seems you want to argue many points at once, so you can avoid being caught when you are wrong. I know this tactic. Almost all of my ex-girlfriends argue in this manner as well. As I said before, if you concede that early man suffered more, I will immediately address both points you raised. Or, if you have a counter-argument to my last on topic post, please post that. This is conversation 101 stuff.
Really? Girls don't date cyber homos with amnesia and Aspergers syndrome, I'm afraid I'm going to have to break your fantasy bubble here. It sucks for a wanker like you to be caught with being in denial but I feel compelled to do it. And you can't fool me with anything.
I won't put up with bully manners, manipulative conditions or anything like that. My arguments were sound and logic and until you refute them (perhaps acknowledge their existance to begin with) I stand as correct.
LOL isn't my argument. It is my reaction to your last post. Again you bring up homo, aspergers... These are the things you do to avoid defending your flawed argument. Again, if you concede the point I'll address the two points you want me to. If you don't want to concede, tell me WHY you don't concede. Or, you can just avoid the central issue like so many of the women I've dated.
"These are the things you do to avoid defending your flawed argument."
If I'm going to contínue the job of breaking your wishfulthinking dream bubble, that you've created in this grandiousity complex you got, then I'll say -
IF MY ARGUMENT NEVER BECOMES ATTACKED OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT JUST IGNORED, THEN I DON'T NEED TO DEFEND IT
ANSWER TO MY ARGUMENTS BECAUSE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT DEFENDING THEM
I WON'T "concede" because I don't approve of your manners regarding strawman questions.
I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm focusing on one point at a time. I know you want to move on because you've failed to defend this point, but that's not how reasonable discourse works. If you want to move one, resolve this issue.
Yes you hate having to post something topical, but that's all I really take into account. Sadly you've sunk so low I don't know why you deserve to be replied. I can clearly see a pattern here = Arrogant ad hominems and off-topic excuses running nonstop for about 80% of the time.... then post something related to the topic and have Moon going again... and then repeat the cycle. Always remember to forget - golden rule of homo Tim. Splendid, briliant trolling fag
If there was a higher ratio of suffering to early man, early man suffered more. You've just answered your own goddamn question. You don't need me to "agreeing" with you.
Nice you show your dishonest agenda here. Are you desperate? I MUST say early man suffered more, otherwise you can't argue anymore. Some kind of plan eh?
I won't agree. Early man suffered about just as much as present man. They were less secure and protected though.
Your question is answered - MOVE ALONG TO ARGUMENTS
I didn't say that early man suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they suffered more HARDSHIPS therefore they suffered more. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. Is ALL suffering relative. Do ALL people suffer the same? Or is there a standard? How would we measure it?
Your whimsical baloney is not interesting and doesn't refute my arguments.
Bad going, cyber ass-whoop. LMAO
There are still stone age people who encounters hardships. Natives in africa for ex.
Asking yourself confused questions aren't gonna improve the convo either. And to continuely derail from the relevant part of the argumentation, aswell as fueling it out of thin air, is kind of wrong.
You're done now I pressume? You've completely forgotten what Hitchens said and how I debunked it.
I agree that there are still people who encounter[s] hardship[s]. Are you saying that people today encounter the same amount of hardships as we did 50,000 years ago? If so, how are "hardships" different from suffering?
Answer this yourself. You're so lonely you seem to manage your own questions fine, being well trained talking to yourself.
Until you feel ready to attack my argumentation instead of me, your own confusion, or attacking a strawman, I'll respond. If not, I think I've written enough truth for a life time. It's just beyond ridicolous at this point.
If you admit that early man suffered more, we can move on. If you have a counter-argument to why more hardships do not constitute more suffering, please present it. Or... you can just pout and pretend that that I don't know how "debate" works.
Sorry you blew your chance. I can't devote my entire life to your fantasy bubble. You'll have to do in on your own, plus your extremely boring at this point.
"I PROMISE that once we get past this point I will answer the two challenges you made."
Well, your question has been answered - NO - so we've gotten past this point. You fail in conducting a dialoug with someone else than yourself, and THAT, isn't my fault.
We haven't gotten past the point about hardships relation to suffering. I WILL NOT LET YOU SLITHER OUT OF THIS. I already have a response to your other points waiting. As soon as you stop avoiding the topic I'll move on.
And as I said, I won't put up with your manipulative strawmen, OR your own confusion which isn't for me to blame. It's not my fault either you happen to be confused about hardships and suffering. Fucking derailed shit.
Slither out of this? Aw that's a tragic to hear, you have nobody else to talk to. IF you post your supposed response to my points, then post it now, and I'll be here giving you the attention you so desperately crave.
All you have to do is concede or contest. You haven't offered a counter-argument or a concession. If you post the word "agree," I can address your two point immediately. Either argue, or stop posting. All you are doing is whining.
Not at all, you have the voice inside your own head. Being confused about a simple logic thing. You hear the answer but deny it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I say I disagree.
Your strawman bullshit boils down to say, violent deaths means suffering. No shit homo Tim, But I disagree that those deaths had a "higher ratio" than today. We live a more comfortable life.
As I've now explained it for.... fourth time, fifth time.... get topical - if you dare
You are less likely to die at the hands of another human being than any other time in our history. You can make the same claim 100 years ago, and 100 years before, and 100 years before... The reason for these gains... Human knowledge. If there is a God, he is the reason for the initial disparity
So now you've jumped to something completely different? You're a real man of your word, sustaining the same fucking issue.... UNTIL IT FALLS APART
And well God made free will, fucktard. Simple.
Your argumentive skills really do suck. Your best weapon is to throw out propositions and maintain them by asking pointless dummy question. You CAN'T BOUNCE ARGUMENTS. To imagine the smug homo here trying to attack solid points with solid points is like imagine a jackass trying to go through a wall.
This is why I try to keep you on topic. You ask a question, I answer. Where have I bounced? You've offered no argument to my syllogism but to call my argument a "strawman," conveniently you've been predictably silent as to WHY my argument is a strawman.
But how about you address my arguments? Do you remember, I've asked you to show me a counter argument since the dawn of time. You presented one premise... after 6 days of comment area bullshit (which I'm sure fed your pathetic life)... and that premise was refuted. You haven't even BEGIN talking about it. You don't get I don't like that? I mean seriously, in the name of humanity, even though you are a mentally challenged wanker?
How do I compute the statement? Only a psychopath can agree with the statement. I assume you are not a psychopath. Let's posit someone kills your mother violently. If that event makes you suffer, then you agree with me. If not, well then I have nothing to say to you.
Except that you can begin addressing the arguments and get over yourself. I looked at some other video you had. Same amount of jaw-dropping baloney. Your attempt at attacking huge philosophical issues, relies purely on a specific WORD, which has no actual meaning. It would be nice to see wannabe-academics make SOUND arguments, as in COHERENT and LOGICAL, instead of arguments that SOUNDS good, as in rhethorical language, but collapses as a house of cards.
Again, I understand when you are losing a specific argument it is a great tactic to bring up other points. I'm happy to discuss the topic of YOUR CHOICE when we settle this point about suffering. Either you agree with me, present a counter-argument, or just concede. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. You haven't posted an actual argument in hours. If you want to move on, just tell me you concede the point.
It was YOUR CHOICE to bring an argument for me to refute. You said 4-5 hours ago.
"If you want an argument, here you go."
Fine, I got it and attacked it and debunked it. So far, you have AVOIDED my attack of that argument by start talking about confusion in regards to suffering. Moot, you fail. I don't believe you got anything to say in response, because you don't know HOW to. I'm not moving one step from here. I'm a rock, you can't move me. A.c.c.e.p.t. r.e.a.l.i.t.y.
I'm sorry, I've been wrong this whole time. I thought "debunked" meant a well thought out argument explaining your position. It turns out that when you say "debunked," it means I win because I say I win so there!
I would LOVE to discuss the next points, but you can't IGNORE the current conversation. You haven't offered a counter-argument, you still claim I'm wrong, and you want to move on. This is not the way argumentation works. I'm sorry you never learned this.
"You haven't offered a counter-argument, you still claim I'm wrong, and you want to move on."
Your amnesia is not a way out. And I even repasted my arguments one more time so you could face them. Yet you prefer to just sit there and write a little here and there and be confused, trying to push me into some sort of corner... instead of just facing the discussion. You're IN DENIAL, see.
Hey, faggot Tim. You haven't showed up to refute the arguments. I'm going to take it as a sign you don't know fuck all about this topic and can't defend your point of view? Gee, how could I ever know.
Here's, by the way, a blatant contradiction where you kick your own ass:
Quote A
"I didn't say they suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they experienced more HARDSHIPS, therefore they suffered more."
So, replace the word "suffering" with "hardship". Gee that's really well-thought and profound. Not logical fallacy at all.... really.
They suffered "hardships", therefore more suffering = They suffered "suffering", therefore more suffering.
Proof I have been talking to a complete IDIOT. Rhethorical word-play and rambling is NOT solid argument. This baloney got the same value as his videos - a fucking waste of time, from start to end. Considering the avoidances aswell.
Whats with the "Hey, faggot"? Anyone using this term as a derogatory epithet and at the same time has Michael Jackson, a peodophile, as his idol is either on or needs medication.
Is that so, little jeffparr123. Well take a look into the comments of this board - that faggot has been spewing derogatory remarks at me for a fucking week, avoiding all argumentation, and now YOU come along and thinks your little comment will affect me. lol
Why is it that you lowlifes feel the NEED to post that shit, trying to get cocky for no reason. You're a nobody. Jackson was declared innocent, perhaps you should read into it aswell as getting to know he was a SINGER. See ya Hitchens-sucker
By the term you used you have clearly shown yourself up as an ignorant biggot.
Also you can admire the oratory skills even of a criminal like Adolf Hitler, you don't need to idolize the man. This, like your judgment, indicates a certain level of immatureity.
Yawn... By the tone of your pretentious ad hominem language I just don't think I'm the one who needs the white coats here. You call the most successfull artist of all time a "peodophile" and call me ignorant biggot. And where the hell did the Hitler comment came from? Your closet-nazi mind...? Buddy, don't reply thanks alot.
Godwin's law is the stupiest argumentive fallacy I've ever heard of. And jeffparr didn't even try to begin discuss anything but insults... just like Tcrowaf, another mentally dysfunctional piece of confused shit
Don't care. I'm not the one who avoids the argument, everyone else is. You can look at this entire comment area and find out, that is the truth. EVERY - SINGLE - COMMENT anyone has replied to me on this board has been off topic and personal attacks.
I'd like to count how many times you've BEGGED me to agree on your self-proclaimed "central issue". You continue to beg, ask, manipulatively force me. You're NOT taking the easy way. You're NOT entitled to force me into an opinion or position I simply don't have. Strawmen are NOT approved or accepted, especially not moot ones.
Are you gonna ask everyone who doesn't approve of your interpretation of suffering what their opinion is, before you attack the argument instead of the arguer? Man, what the fuck is wrong with you. I haven't heard of any academic debater who takes on apologist, who asks them "what is your opinion on this and that. I need to know before I can face the debate."
1 Since you log off within 45 minutes, after been logged off in a day or two, JUST to keep replying to me and convince me you're not a loser, goes to show you're a loser.
2 Your right hand wanking about doesn't count as a girlfriend, much less "ex"
3 Picking up the REAL central issue again is not really obfuscating it.
4 Posting that shit, alone, shows you can't conduct the argumention cuz you need to compensate for your lack of self-esteem. And ya, you blow faggot.
The central issue is not "me agreeing that someone who suffered a violent death - suffered more - than myself who is alive and has not been suffering these deaths."
The central issue is NOT trying to fool me into thinking a coward like you, who tries to build a fantasy world in cyber space and fail miserably, dates any wimen aswell as showing to someone how their arguments are "flawed" without actually doing so. In your dreams. Get yourself a personality, you can't even push my buttons anymore.
If there's something you should pardon yourself with, it's this (quoting Tcrowaf)
"I find it a bit odd that two of your great loves, Michael Jackson and Christianity, are infamous for the molestation of little boys. You also CONSTANTLY bring up homosexuality even when it does not relate to the subject. You also have a tendency to use terms that promote imagery of homosexual sex. Paging doctor Freud..."
This is not a good argument either. We call this ad hominem.
Kralj
Kneleist 5 days ago
what were we without him? bit of an ignorant apologist, in my case.
MrTonyInchpractice 1 week ago
he made intellectual bitch slapping an art form...
xela1970 2 weeks ago
God...Hitchens is fantastic...
OtakuViking 2 weeks ago
Any believer who hears the Hitch's word should follow him as the true and one leader, where are we without him!
purgruv 2 weeks ago
9:54-10:00 Just destroyed the arrogant proposition of Church hidden in front of people for so long...
celpabedn 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones in Sidney
8:10-8:40 Most important words in the world of an young self actualizing person!
celpabedn 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones in Sidney
Farewell to a great mind and a great American!
hammertime419 2 months ago
@hammertime419 he was english
ZPGFX 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones in Sidney
@ZPGFX And he evolved.
KosmoAntoninus 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones in Sidney 2
@ZPGFX You mean that's not an American accent?!!!! My world has been shattered! He was an American citizen.
hammertime419 2 months ago
@hammertime419 Why has your world been shattered?
ZPGFX 2 months ago
@ZPGFX British he was born, but American he became. Specifically to gain the right to vote after 9/11.
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hitchenschannel
We are the result of 3.7billion years of trial and error. We are the 0.01%.
DownThereForDancing 2 months ago
This ought to be the speech of the century.
otavioandradas 4 months ago
Theists are cal o
motion1d 4 months ago
did u have to repeat that hing in the beginning of every video]
chrlskrkl 6 months ago
His german is a bit rusty :D
AxeHomeless 6 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones Oct 2009
I've been in this room. So has Hitch. I'M BLOODY SHIVERING.
SigDrums 7 months ago
god killed himself to save us from himself?
48mmwatch 8 months ago
Up until about 3:10 is hilarious.
damandatwin 9 months ago
Most backwards area! Lol, that part of the world (Lebenon, Syria) was the most advanced in world at that time, with its Phoenician and Assyrian cultures. That 'backwards' part of the world was were man first started to use writing and started forming governments. Apparantly Hitchens doesn'tknow much about history
shnoepie1 10 months ago
@shnoepie1 no, it wasn't THE most advanced in the area. the silk road hadn't been thoroughly been established yet and the chinese and indians were far more advanced. this particular group of people weren't advanced, most of them being in the sheep and farming trades and illiterate
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984 you don't know what youre talking about. Greater Syria (also Iraq, Israel and Lebanon) is where 3000 BC man first started to settle, build cities, start writing, make laws, form governements, etc. First the Sumerians, then different invading Semitic groups. For over 4000 years it was the mostr advanced society in the world. Around 1000 BC, when the bible was written, the powerful Assyrian state ruled supreme and the Phoenicians created advanced citystates along the coasts.
shnoepie1 9 months ago
@shnoepie1 obviously that would be true if - like many alienated people tend to think - we completely ignore the existence of the Chinese civilization. They were way ahead of all the rest.
otavioandradas 4 months ago
@otavioandradas At that time they werent at all ahead. The Chinese didnt blossom untill two centuries before Christ. My point is that at the time the bible was written the Middle East was the single most advanced civilization on the planet. What Hitchens says here is stupid and ignorant.
shnoepie1 3 months ago
@shnoepie1 Do you not have ancient history books or wikipedia in your country? What section of the bible are you referring? There is a significant time period between the Torah and the gospels, even a precursory glance at a history text book would tell you that during that period of time, the 'single most advanced civilization' (which I will assume means - the area or nation producing the most advances in technology and philosophy) moved place several times.
jlp1981 1 month ago
@cruelbusiness1984 The silk road wasn't fully established untill 300 or 200 BC.
shnoepie1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hitchens dominates when he brings in the seriousness again. viewer MarvelsofaLifetime was right about the comedy show thing, but damn, when decides to lay it all down, he slams it!! great moment in the speech right there.
unspecifiedagent 11 months ago
hitchens dominates when he puts in the seriousness again. that comment about a comedy show was right, but damn, what a job when he decides to puts it down!! slams it!! great moment in the speech right there.
unspecifiedagent 11 months ago
I wonder if god understands that it itself is dead... lol
Hornadayfan 1 year ago 2
One of the best and most beautiful Hitch-Slaps on religious revelation.!!!
Torchmark 1 year ago
Hitchens oversimplifies in first half of this video. Theme "God intervenes only in last 3000 years of 100000 year span". If universum was created with us in mind the most important part would be us not time itself. Most of humans ever lived are living now or in very recent history.
Israelites could read and write. Coming from Egypt they had knowhow of various things from that country. Chinese could write also. They developed writing system from shamanistic ritual of burned tortoise shells.
kantanna 1 year ago
@kantanna sounds like u need 2 do some research. most of them couldn't. versus more of the general population of chinese could
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
Hitchens found his best audience :-)
bersa888 1 year ago
Devastating argument and great atmosphere in the hall by the sound of it. Hitch at his best and witty with it
AndyfromWrexham 1 year ago
Don't put an intro before every frickin' part, it's annoying.
mrkukkmrkukk 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
EEE HE DID THE FOLDED ARMS~
That is so goddamn cute when he does that. >:3
FlandreScarletTepes 1 year ago 3
I wonder if he's ever spoke to Neale Donald Walsch or is aware of his writing.
Gonzoidzz 1 year ago
What an entertaining bastard Hitchens is.... :-)))) Where's the Italian equivalent of this man?! I wish there was one Hitch for every country in the world.
bersa888 1 year ago 3
@bersa888 We're gonna need them, b/c we're in danger of losing him. :(
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago
ENTP
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
is it just me or does the announcer in the beginning sound like ray comfort lol
evilresidence4 1 year ago
He claims to know more then a primate can possibly know and he is showing to know much less then most primates probably should - lol
Mafiaaffe 1 year ago
@Mafiaaffe
I don't know what to make of your comment
manbearhines 1 year ago
@manbearhines watch the video
Mafiaaffe 1 year ago
"We won't appear to the Chinese who can already read...." LOL
pele6922 1 year ago 7
@pele6922 "And let's tell them to settle in the only place int the Middle East where there's no oil..." I hate the practice of quoting YouTube videos verbatim in the comments section but I just broke down into a fit of laughter when I heard that. I can barely breath now.
SpellboundSolution 1 year ago
This reminds me much more of a comedy show than it does a debate. Well I suppose its about time religion gets its well deserved ridicule.
MarvelsofaLifetime 1 year ago 52
@MarvelsofaLifetime I had a philosophy professor that believed the philosophers of our day are comedians. He wrote letters to George Carlin in the hope that he could get some of his work published in a philosophy text book.
smegmasaurus 1 year ago
@MarvelsofaLifetime but that's the essence that draws people together and start thinking for themselves, by laughing at things which some claim are serious and sacred.
Torchmark 1 year ago
Chris, Sam, and Dick are the start. Now we need some more to become college professors.
amphilli 1 year ago
thank you!
renaudldw 1 year ago
I wrote:
They didn't have ability to write and document what happened over 3000 years BC.
And to add -
That's why you can't draw the conclusion "heaven watches with indifference"
-Hitchens refuted
I do want to add that I find Hitchens a far more intelligent man than Dawkins. Hitchens makes me laugh because he's funny, Dawkins makes me laugh... well for the wrong reasons.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 year ago
When Hitchens speaks women drop twice the amount of eggs that they are supposed.
Vidar1979 1 year ago 66
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vidar1979 "When Hitchens speaks women drop twice the amount of eggs that they are supposed."
Well, I only just found Hitchens about a week ago, maybe ten days, and I got my period this morning, so you could be right, man. X^D
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hitchenschannel
MW &JP; I am learning so much from your arguments and appreciate the knowledge you are able to express so thoroughly as well as passionately. Must we get so viscious? I respect you both.
MsSlopjar 1 year ago
@MsSlopjar I think you mean me and Tcrowaf, he was the idiot I was setting straight here. If you look up "View All Comments" and go to the beginning you'll find my initial counter-argument about what Hitchens said that got that ass-whooping faggot going (but he couldn't argue for shit, only waste my time and patience)
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 year ago
"pretentious ad hominem"? It WAS your character I was attacking not your augument. If you want me to be pretentious, try this: read something of Sun Tzu.
I called you on your bigotry and you in no way denied it, Qui tacet consentit. Comprehend what you read, don't be destracted by such an obvious trap as Jackson and throw a temper tantrum, form and maintain a coherent argument and then you may sound less like a whining adelescent.
jeffparr123 2 years ago
I don't need to deny or prove anything as your attitude is what it is and by being the ignoramus that you are you beat up yourself. I think the pointless style you apply and the laughable tone init stands in it's own merit - you fail. There is no reason for me to "form an argument."
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
@ MoonwalkerWorshiper
I've been fascinated by your attitude.
After days of amazement (and amusement) at your posts, I happened upon unrelated posts of yours on other videos. I see that the discourse here isn't an isolated incident. You seem to stumble into circular arguments and vile language quite regularly.
rootytuners 2 years ago
It's with people who deserve it. They are the ones who can't stop pushing buttons and rise the irritation.
Look at this idiot for example - if you really saw all the posts, you KNOW I had arguments and presented them - it's HIS fault for avoiding it, not mine. It's these cyber twats who simply can't address anything related to the subject. Take YOU - your comment is only a personal comment directed at me. Why? I don't need to hear you have been watching my comments. Kind of useless information.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
rootytuners, I had a question to you that you STILL have not addressed. Yet you keep showing up.
You said something about Occam's Razor and how it doesn't apply to my reasoning with Hitchens fallacious thinking. You still don't care to elaborate that?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Cyber fag Tim
"Sorry I need to know your opinion, because I simply don't know how to attack the argument WITHOUT attacking the arguer at the same time, since I'm a small little shit who really don't know what to do, as you've said."
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Silence.... there is obviously a hidden agenda of ad hominems wrapped with fallacious assumptions with homo Tim. As for why he shit his pants and refuse - to DISCUSS - the ARGUMENTS. Who would've known...
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Then tell me what is suffering? If I have a poor idea of what it is please explain where I have gone wrong.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I haven't said you had a poor idea of what it is either.
What kind of WORLD do you live in?! You make up stuff, not in association with reality, to somehow feed your fantasy bubble.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
And PLEASE can you ANSWER a simple QUESTION!
Listen up dear mr queer, carefully -
You're wrong in the assertion that, just because early man had a tougher life than present man, means that they suffered more. Hardship is a huge part of suffering yeah. But I'm suffering right now, spiritually or emotionally, it's very exhausting having to deal with a cyber fucktard who REFUSE to START a discussion because he got himself a fix idea. Grow up, stop acting like a child. I'M more mature than that.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Just to make time pass by while I'm waiting for more bullshit, here's another example of you answering your own questions.
Going on and on about "how am I wrong about suffering, what is it"
"Suffering is human hardship."
So, you've answered your own question. Again. Just like the time before that. And the time before that. But I don't see the SHADOW of a rebuttal.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Here are the counter arguments to homo Timmy's initiate argument that I addressed, and that he has been escaping for a couple of hours (without my permission, though I take the bait cuz it's fun pastime) aswell as escaping everything else.
1/2
God creates the world, a material reality, that operates under a system of metaphysical laws such as TIME, and as mankind develops her society throughout time, she eventually reach present time. God is not responsible of what man does with her TIME.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2/2
To say "God creates the world in present time" is fucking absurd. The world has it's own laws of time, metaphysics, energy, which cannot be violated once God has sustained the material universe. Mankind and her doings are subdue to that universe.
As for "causing" suffering, it is according theism a plan to bring humanity into a unity with himself and it can only be done in a dimension like this. Like Craig said, the water that sustains you can also drown you etc.
There's 1 more thing -
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"unneccessary" in terms of effiency you can't determine how suffering is "necessary" in relation to something unexplained. "salvation" remains to be explained. Do that before you repeat the same worthless word-play again. Try to present a reasoning based on inference, if you can (which I siverely doubt). Quit assume I'm a mind reader.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Again, like so may of my ex-girlfriends I would bring up other issues to obfuscate the issue at hand.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I said they suffered more...."
Yes, that's all we need to hear. Fucking jackass and his presumptions answers his own questions and tries to invoke strawmen to manipulate the arguer to go down a certain road. THAT is not how a "debate" works.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
"That's not how reasonable discourse works"
It's hilarious that homo Tim can, presumably with a straight face, talk about civil reasonable discourse after have been avoiding my arguments on this board for 5 or 6 days already. This faggot has no life, regardless of what fantasies he tries to build up, I will just tear it down.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
If you want an argument, here you go.
P1: To intentionally cause unnecessary suffering is to commit an evil act
P2: It is possible for a human being to be saved in the present time
P3: Early man suffered more than men in the present time
P4: God, being omnipotent, was capable of creating the world as it is in the present time
P5: Early man suffered unnecessarily (From P2, P3, P4)
P6: God committed an evil act (From P5, P2)
P7: God is not omni-benevolent (From P6)
C: God does not exist
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
And it's an argument that has been pretty much refuted already. Plus I had questions to be answered, not avoided.
But if you DO insist on me killing your fallacious baloney, let's have it. As soon as I receive one ad hominem more from you, it's over cyber shit.
The presumptions that remains to get elaborated, and are required to do so if your so called argument are going to consitute a consistent reasoning, are (cont)
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
(cont)
"unneccessary" in terms of effiency you can't determine how suffering is "necessary" in relation to something unexplained. "salvation" remains to be explained. Do that before you repeat the same worthless word-play again. Try to present a reasoning based on inference, if you can (which I siverely doubt). Quit assume I'm a mind reader.
(cont)
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
(cont) 1/2
God creates the world, a material reality, that operates under a system of metaphysical laws such as TIME, and as mankind develops her society throughout time, she eventually reach present time. God is not responsible of what man does with her TIME. God did not invent the computer, man did. God did not hand the ability to build moon rockets to man, man had to construct moon rockets all by her own. Using the free will and intelligence provided from God.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
2/2
To say "God creates the world in present time" is fucking absurd. The world has it's own laws of time, metaphysics, energy, which cannot be violated once God has sustained the material universe. Mankind and her doings are subdue to that universe.
As for "causing" suffering, it is according theism a plan to bring humanity into a unity with himself and it can only be done in a dimension like this. Like Craig said, the water that sustains you can also drown you etc.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Ok, let's get one point at a time to stay focused. First of all, do you agree or disagree that early man suffered more than we do in present day?
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
No, not necessarily. Maybe statistically speaking they had less comfortable lives and were therefore more vulnerable. However they developed skills to endure their environment, which makes your strawman bullshit diffused.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
First of all, (and I should probably let this slide because you're just going to get off topic) my argument cannot be a strawman by definition. A strawman is when I misrepresent YOUR position and refute that. Anywho, you say "Maybe statistically speaking they had less comfortable lives.... However they developed skills to endure..." What if I were to argue that holocaust victims did not suffer more than non-victims as they developed psychological mechanisms as tools to survive the (cont)
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
You don't even address anything of what I posted. Instead you run off into something different, aside shit. I don't think I can conduct a convo with someone who runs off talking about what he feels like instead of following up what has been presented as the relevant part of the counter argument.
I'd also like to point out, the only reason we're discussing something topical is because YOU suddenly found the good taste to post an actual argument.... after 5-6 days.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
First of all, I already posted this argument (albeit an early form) TWICE. Second of all, the questions I posed go exactly to YOUR counter-argument. I bring up the holocaust example because I think it mirrors your objection. If you say I can't conclude that early man suffered more, I ask did holocaust victims suffer more than the "average" man?
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I suppose it's pointless to complain about your ways since you are mentally dysfunctional. You don't understand how your behavior is ludicrous. And I'd prefer to use PM but I suspect this ain't going for long.
However, WHAT IF you would argue they developed magic resistance to a very real phenomenon? What if, what if... it would be an absurd argument, that's IF homo Tim, I'm obviously coming from a scientific aswell as naturalistic point of view that man adapts herself to her circomnstances.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
(part 2) horrific ordeal. How would this be different from your argument? Would you assess your life as better or worse if the vast majority of the people you knew died violently?
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
According to simple logic, a holocaust victim can't adapt to holocausts since those only occur... shall we say max 1 time in a person's life?
Random balonely and it's philosophical nonsense can't work as a solid point against solid ones. Unsound thinking doesn't debunk sound thinking.
Next, I'd like you to address my requirements:
Explain how suffering can be "unneccesary".
Explain "salvation".
Or simply give up cuz a cyber fag like yourself are hardly going to succeed.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I'll be happy to get to definitions. I just want to focus on one thing at a time. I PROMISE that once we get past this point I will answer the two challenges you made. Now, your holocaust rebuttal seems odd. Many soldiers in the Vietnam War adapted to their brutal surroundings. According to you they could not have adapted because they only experienced ONE Vietnam War. How is this an inaccurate analogy? In the holocaust the victims were subjected to MANY horrors. Just because we (cont)
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
*sigh* can't believe what I'm reading.
It's actually a difficult task to face incoherent claims with coherent arguments. Like I said, I can't possibly discuss rationally if a v-net-cyber fag like yourself resorts to random balonely every single. You can never answer the two challenges, you just avoid it. You can print it ANYTIME. Right now. With "focusing on one thing at a time" you mean "my mindset is so immature I can only extend my thinking process to this speed - turtle speed"
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Do you concede that early man suffered more than present day man? If you simply say yes, the next post will answer those questions. If no, then please answer the post I just made.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
See dear retard, to ask me if people who suffered violent deaths in holocausts suffered more than me (I'm not dead and I haven't suffered violently in a holocaust), is a pointless question that kills every attempt at taking this convo seriously.
I also refer to your question as a strawman question, and I don't need anymore protests against that. You have a manipulative way of forcing me to answer a question with a specific answer. This isn't about me "agreeing" with your random baloney.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Ah, I now see you have a different definition of strawman. Your definition is "Anything that makes my position weaker." By your definition, I agree my question is a strawman. Listen, answer the question, EXPLAIN WHY the question doesn't apply, or just go away.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I did, you suffer from amnesia and dyslexic complex. It went "You have a manipulative way of forcing me to answer a question with a specific answer."
That's my definition of a strawman, not "making position weaker" which you, honestly, really fail to do. But I understand you deep down, even if you don't show it in the writings here at youtube, know you're a lunatic fraud and a coward who mirror your own fallacies at others.
You had your last chance, you've blew it.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Forcing you to answer a question with a specific answer is not strawman. Google the term, learn it's definition. If we are engaged in rational discourse, and I ask you a question that it is invalid, you must EXPLAIN why it is invalid. All you have done is just filibuster and CLAIM it is invalid. EXPLAIN why the questions I ask are counterproductive to the argument, or just fade away if this conversation is beyond your grasp.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
You have yet to address my counter arguments. Don't forget them "Henry".. and don't try to excuse your own responsibilty.
BTW, I KNOW you can't talk about actual thoughts. Things have to be inconsistent and rhethorical if you are going to open your mouth. You can't address my arguments because you don't know how to. It's very simple and it's solved. Care to bullshit more about your strawman protests?
Explain yourself about the suffering or just quit bring me excuses. I know you can't argue.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
If you concede this argument, we can move on to the next topic. It seems you want to argue many points at once, so you can avoid being caught when you are wrong. I know this tactic. Almost all of my ex-girlfriends argue in this manner as well. As I said before, if you concede that early man suffered more, I will immediately address both points you raised. Or, if you have a counter-argument to my last on topic post, please post that. This is conversation 101 stuff.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Really? Girls don't date cyber homos with amnesia and Aspergers syndrome, I'm afraid I'm going to have to break your fantasy bubble here. It sucks for a wanker like you to be caught with being in denial but I feel compelled to do it. And you can't fool me with anything.
I won't put up with bully manners, manipulative conditions or anything like that. My arguments were sound and logic and until you refute them (perhaps acknowledge their existance to begin with) I stand as correct.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
If by correct, the last point you made was "people couldn't adapt to the holocaust because they only experienced one holocaust." LOL
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Yes, and "LOL" is not a good argument homo Tim
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
LOL isn't my argument. It is my reaction to your last post. Again you bring up homo, aspergers... These are the things you do to avoid defending your flawed argument. Again, if you concede the point I'll address the two points you want me to. If you don't want to concede, tell me WHY you don't concede. Or, you can just avoid the central issue like so many of the women I've dated.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
"These are the things you do to avoid defending your flawed argument."
If I'm going to contínue the job of breaking your wishfulthinking dream bubble, that you've created in this grandiousity complex you got, then I'll say -
IF MY ARGUMENT NEVER BECOMES ATTACKED OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT JUST IGNORED, THEN I DON'T NEED TO DEFEND IT
ANSWER TO MY ARGUMENTS BECAUSE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT DEFENDING THEM
I WON'T "concede" because I don't approve of your manners regarding strawman questions.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm focusing on one point at a time. I know you want to move on because you've failed to defend this point, but that's not how reasonable discourse works. If you want to move one, resolve this issue.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
My answer is STILL no.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
No, the argument is the PREVALENCE of violent death and rampant disease constitutes suffering. Here is a quick syllogism to sum up suffering:
P1: Violent death and and rampant disease promote suffering
P2: There was a higher ratio of violent death and rampant disease in early man
C: Early man suffered more
I hate having to do these, but they are all you respond to
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
(wOmen type error)
Yes you hate having to post something topical, but that's all I really take into account. Sadly you've sunk so low I don't know why you deserve to be replied. I can clearly see a pattern here = Arrogant ad hominems and off-topic excuses running nonstop for about 80% of the time.... then post something related to the topic and have Moon going again... and then repeat the cycle. Always remember to forget - golden rule of homo Tim. Splendid, briliant trolling fag
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
P1: Violent death and rampant disease promote promote suffering
P2: There was a higher ratio of violent death and rampant disease in early man
C: Early man suffered more
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
If there was a higher ratio of suffering to early man, early man suffered more. You've just answered your own goddamn question. You don't need me to "agreeing" with you.
Nice you show your dishonest agenda here. Are you desperate? I MUST say early man suffered more, otherwise you can't argue anymore. Some kind of plan eh?
I won't agree. Early man suffered about just as much as present man. They were less secure and protected though.
Your question is answered - MOVE ALONG TO ARGUMENTS
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
No, I didn't say they suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they experienced more HARDSHIPS, therefore they suffered more.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I didn't say that early man suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they suffered more HARDSHIPS therefore they suffered more. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. Is ALL suffering relative. Do ALL people suffer the same? Or is there a standard? How would we measure it?
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Your whimsical baloney is not interesting and doesn't refute my arguments.
Bad going, cyber ass-whoop. LMAO
There are still stone age people who encounters hardships. Natives in africa for ex.
Asking yourself confused questions aren't gonna improve the convo either. And to continuely derail from the relevant part of the argumentation, aswell as fueling it out of thin air, is kind of wrong.
You're done now I pressume? You've completely forgotten what Hitchens said and how I debunked it.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I agree that there are still people who encounter[s] hardship[s]. Are you saying that people today encounter the same amount of hardships as we did 50,000 years ago? If so, how are "hardships" different from suffering?
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Answer this yourself. You're so lonely you seem to manage your own questions fine, being well trained talking to yourself.
Until you feel ready to attack my argumentation instead of me, your own confusion, or attacking a strawman, I'll respond. If not, I think I've written enough truth for a life time. It's just beyond ridicolous at this point.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
If you admit that early man suffered more, we can move on. If you have a counter-argument to why more hardships do not constitute more suffering, please present it. Or... you can just pout and pretend that that I don't know how "debate" works.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Sorry you blew your chance. I can't devote my entire life to your fantasy bubble. You'll have to do in on your own, plus your extremely boring at this point.
"I PROMISE that once we get past this point I will answer the two challenges you made."
Well, your question has been answered - NO - so we've gotten past this point. You fail in conducting a dialoug with someone else than yourself, and THAT, isn't my fault.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
We haven't gotten past the point about hardships relation to suffering. I WILL NOT LET YOU SLITHER OUT OF THIS. I already have a response to your other points waiting. As soon as you stop avoiding the topic I'll move on.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
And as I said, I won't put up with your manipulative strawmen, OR your own confusion which isn't for me to blame. It's not my fault either you happen to be confused about hardships and suffering. Fucking derailed shit.
Slither out of this? Aw that's a tragic to hear, you have nobody else to talk to. IF you post your supposed response to my points, then post it now, and I'll be here giving you the attention you so desperately crave.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
All you have to do is concede or contest. You haven't offered a counter-argument or a concession. If you post the word "agree," I can address your two point immediately. Either argue, or stop posting. All you are doing is whining.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
But I post the word DISAGREE.
And you continue to fuel derailed confusion. Failure.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
You post the word DISAGREE because you can't post an ARGUMENT WHY you disagree. ARTICULATE or DISSIPATE.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
A)
You've posted lots of whimsical baloney that I disagree with completey.
B)
That doesn't prevent you from posting it anyway and consider it an "argument".
C)
So there's no point in needing or requiring an "agreement" from me at THIS particular issue. THIS issue, is a STRAWMAN.
"I say early man suffered more than present man because they did. I'm answering my own questions and I ask you to AGREE with me."
Failure.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
P1: Violent death and and rampant disease promote suffering
P2: There was a higher ratio of violent death and rampant disease in early man
C: Early man suffered more
Where have I gone wrong? I keep getting abject silence.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Not at all, you have the voice inside your own head. Being confused about a simple logic thing. You hear the answer but deny it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I say I disagree.
Your strawman bullshit boils down to say, violent deaths means suffering. No shit homo Tim, But I disagree that those deaths had a "higher ratio" than today. We live a more comfortable life.
As I've now explained it for.... fourth time, fifth time.... get topical - if you dare
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Ok... If less violent deaths DO NOT equal less suffering. And a more comfortable life does not equal less suffering. WTF IS SUFFERING????
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Pain.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
You are less likely to die at the hands of another human being than any other time in our history. You can make the same claim 100 years ago, and 100 years before, and 100 years before... The reason for these gains... Human knowledge. If there is a God, he is the reason for the initial disparity
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
So now you've jumped to something completely different? You're a real man of your word, sustaining the same fucking issue.... UNTIL IT FALLS APART
And well God made free will, fucktard. Simple.
Your argumentive skills really do suck. Your best weapon is to throw out propositions and maintain them by asking pointless dummy question. You CAN'T BOUNCE ARGUMENTS. To imagine the smug homo here trying to attack solid points with solid points is like imagine a jackass trying to go through a wall.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
This is why I try to keep you on topic. You ask a question, I answer. Where have I bounced? You've offered no argument to my syllogism but to call my argument a "strawman," conveniently you've been predictably silent as to WHY my argument is a strawman.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Ok so you're starting to whine.
But how about you address my arguments? Do you remember, I've asked you to show me a counter argument since the dawn of time. You presented one premise... after 6 days of comment area bullshit (which I'm sure fed your pathetic life)... and that premise was refuted. You haven't even BEGIN talking about it. You don't get I don't like that? I mean seriously, in the name of humanity, even though you are a mentally challenged wanker?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
But hang on... what about the dyslexic complex of yours. I can't neglect my job here.
If I say "no shit" in response to violent deaths equals suffering, then HOW do you compute "violent deaths DO NOT equal less suffering"
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
How do I compute the statement? Only a psychopath can agree with the statement. I assume you are not a psychopath. Let's posit someone kills your mother violently. If that event makes you suffer, then you agree with me. If not, well then I have nothing to say to you.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Except that you can begin addressing the arguments and get over yourself. I looked at some other video you had. Same amount of jaw-dropping baloney. Your attempt at attacking huge philosophical issues, relies purely on a specific WORD, which has no actual meaning. It would be nice to see wannabe-academics make SOUND arguments, as in COHERENT and LOGICAL, instead of arguments that SOUNDS good, as in rhethorical language, but collapses as a house of cards.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Again, I understand when you are losing a specific argument it is a great tactic to bring up other points. I'm happy to discuss the topic of YOUR CHOICE when we settle this point about suffering. Either you agree with me, present a counter-argument, or just concede. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. You haven't posted an actual argument in hours. If you want to move on, just tell me you concede the point.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
It was YOUR CHOICE to bring an argument for me to refute. You said 4-5 hours ago.
"If you want an argument, here you go."
Fine, I got it and attacked it and debunked it. So far, you have AVOIDED my attack of that argument by start talking about confusion in regards to suffering. Moot, you fail. I don't believe you got anything to say in response, because you don't know HOW to. I'm not moving one step from here. I'm a rock, you can't move me. A.c.c.e.p.t. r.e.a.l.i.t.y.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I've been wrong this whole time. I thought "debunked" meant a well thought out argument explaining your position. It turns out that when you say "debunked," it means I win because I say I win so there!
I would LOVE to discuss the next points, but you can't IGNORE the current conversation. You haven't offered a counter-argument, you still claim I'm wrong, and you want to move on. This is not the way argumentation works. I'm sorry you never learned this.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
"You haven't offered a counter-argument, you still claim I'm wrong, and you want to move on."
Your amnesia is not a way out. And I even repasted my arguments one more time so you could face them. Yet you prefer to just sit there and write a little here and there and be confused, trying to push me into some sort of corner... instead of just facing the discussion. You're IN DENIAL, see.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I've heard you "post" I'm wrong, let's hear you back it up with an actual reasoned argument
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Nope, I said I disagreed. It's still tedious having to cure your amnesia.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
It's also fun, cuz initially you asked me "WTF is suffering" and then you wrote something yet derailed... and now you're back to square one.
What are you trying to accomplish? Can't blame for asking that.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Suffering is human hardship. It would seem that you don't care for those that suffer
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I also put a question to you:
"What are you trying to accomplish?"
Oughta be good to see you answer.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, faggot Tim. You haven't showed up to refute the arguments. I'm going to take it as a sign you don't know fuck all about this topic and can't defend your point of view? Gee, how could I ever know.
Here's, by the way, a blatant contradiction where you kick your own ass:
Quote A
"I didn't say they suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they experienced more HARDSHIPS, therefore they suffered more."
Quote NB
"Suffering is human hardship."
Conclusion: You talk in circles.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
*quote B I meant
So, replace the word "suffering" with "hardship". Gee that's really well-thought and profound. Not logical fallacy at all.... really.
They suffered "hardships", therefore more suffering = They suffered "suffering", therefore more suffering.
Proof I have been talking to a complete IDIOT. Rhethorical word-play and rambling is NOT solid argument. This baloney got the same value as his videos - a fucking waste of time, from start to end. Considering the avoidances aswell.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
MoonwalkerWorshiper
Whats with the "Hey, faggot"? Anyone using this term as a derogatory epithet and at the same time has Michael Jackson, a peodophile, as his idol is either on or needs medication.
jeffparr123 2 years ago
Is that so, little jeffparr123. Well take a look into the comments of this board - that faggot has been spewing derogatory remarks at me for a fucking week, avoiding all argumentation, and now YOU come along and thinks your little comment will affect me. lol
Why is it that you lowlifes feel the NEED to post that shit, trying to get cocky for no reason. You're a nobody. Jackson was declared innocent, perhaps you should read into it aswell as getting to know he was a SINGER. See ya Hitchens-sucker
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
By the term you used you have clearly shown yourself up as an ignorant biggot.
Also you can admire the oratory skills even of a criminal like Adolf Hitler, you don't need to idolize the man. This, like your judgment, indicates a certain level of immatureity.
jeffparr123 2 years ago
It's spelled "immaturity".
Yawn... By the tone of your pretentious ad hominem language I just don't think I'm the one who needs the white coats here. You call the most successfull artist of all time a "peodophile" and call me ignorant biggot. And where the hell did the Hitler comment came from? Your closet-nazi mind...? Buddy, don't reply thanks alot.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Haha you got to love Godwin's law. The Nazi's always end up being dragged into it.
TheSilverDragon 1 year ago
@TheSilverDragon
Godwin's law is the stupiest argumentive fallacy I've ever heard of. And jeffparr didn't even try to begin discuss anything but insults... just like Tcrowaf, another mentally dysfunctional piece of confused shit
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 year ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Every time you fight on the internet, you lessen the species.
TheAwesomeClub 1 year ago
@TheAwesomeClub
Don't care. I'm not the one who avoids the argument, everyone else is. You can look at this entire comment area and find out, that is the truth. EVERY - SINGLE - COMMENT anyone has replied to me on this board has been off topic and personal attacks.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 year ago
@jeffparr123 Why would you equate gays with pedophiles?
darkmiles22 1 year ago
I'd like to count how many times you've BEGGED me to agree on your self-proclaimed "central issue". You continue to beg, ask, manipulatively force me. You're NOT taking the easy way. You're NOT entitled to force me into an opinion or position I simply don't have. Strawmen are NOT approved or accepted, especially not moot ones.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
I'm not trying to force you in to an opinion you don't have. Your opinion on suffering is paramount to this discussion.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
"Your opinion on suffering is paramount to this discussion."
You've ever thought about explaining why?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
"You'e ever thought about explaining [your opinion on suffering is important to our discussion on whether suffering is necessary] why?"
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
You misquoted me you fag. LOL
Yawn...
Are you gonna ask everyone who doesn't approve of your interpretation of suffering what their opinion is, before you attack the argument instead of the arguer? Man, what the fuck is wrong with you. I haven't heard of any academic debater who takes on apologist, who asks them "what is your opinion on this and that. I need to know before I can face the debate."
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
To complete my job
1 Since you log off within 45 minutes, after been logged off in a day or two, JUST to keep replying to me and convince me you're not a loser, goes to show you're a loser.
2 Your right hand wanking about doesn't count as a girlfriend, much less "ex"
3 Picking up the REAL central issue again is not really obfuscating it.
4 Posting that shit, alone, shows you can't conduct the argumention cuz you need to compensate for your lack of self-esteem. And ya, you blow faggot.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
*log IN within 45 minutes
*tragedy, not tragic
type errors
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
The central issue is not "me agreeing that someone who suffered a violent death - suffered more - than myself who is alive and has not been suffering these deaths."
The central issue is NOT trying to fool me into thinking a coward like you, who tries to build a fantasy world in cyber space and fail miserably, dates any wimen aswell as showing to someone how their arguments are "flawed" without actually doing so. In your dreams. Get yourself a personality, you can't even push my buttons anymore.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Pardon me, I meant "If by correct, you mean..."
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
If there's something you should pardon yourself with, it's this (quoting Tcrowaf)
"I find it a bit odd that two of your great loves, Michael Jackson and Christianity, are infamous for the molestation of little boys. You also CONSTANTLY bring up homosexuality even when it does not relate to the subject. You also have a tendency to use terms that promote imagery of homosexual sex. Paging doctor Freud..."
This is not a good argument either. We call this ad hominem.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
Are you really going to play the victim card now? I think that boat sailed after you called me homo for the 100th time.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago