Lie? I don't see any lie. I see a retard at the end of the video who can not understand what Christopher is saying. Every debate I watch with this legend make appreciate more and more, his wonderful way of speaking. It's equivalent to watching living poetry. He tears idiots apart with beautiful finesse.
@owensphil Gosh owen I didnt realise you were this pathetic. Even without the end of the video it's clear that the 'lie' was a mistake he clarifies. You cutting the video at that point is yet another example of you accepting and rejecting info/people/science/whatever on the basis of your faith. Like the Darwin racist thing- but in this case you know there's no upside- you're trying to con people into your way of thinking- cant you see how wrong that is? I feel sad for you buddy, you're losing it
@owensphil Well it seemed pretty obvious to me that Hitchens had meant to say 'Rabbinical High Court', but mistakenly said 'High Court'. Are we talking about the same thing? Is a really by any standard, a 'lie' he's told? It looks to be the same sort of petty nonsense that seems to follow you around. Maybe you didnt cut the video, the point remains, your videos are extremely unbalanced and often look to exploit lack of context. I know you know this, I doubt you'd announce it though.
> Well it seemed pretty obvious to me that Hitchens had meant to say 'Rabbinical High Court', but mistakenly said 'High Court'
No, at 3.50 he states "and the Rabinical court ALSO. Now if you look up the word "also" , it should give you some indication that the word refers to more than one.
@owensphil Still, if it's not true, it seems likely that this was a mistake, rather than a totally uneccesary and malicious lie, wouldnt you say?And again this is petty stuff you attach yourself to, even if this was a prepared lie he told, it's an aside to the heart of the debate. If your beliefs are well founded and your position is a secure one,wouldnt you want to argue your corner on its merits, rather than undermining it by producing lop sided propaganda to debase the opposition?
>wouldnt you want to argue your corner on its merits, rather than undermining it by producing lop sided propaganda to debase the opposition?
He pretty much says the same thing each time. No need to comment on every video I've uploaded on him. Besides, his debators do a fine job of debunking his bogus assertions.
@owensphil If that's what you think wht possible reason could you have to upload this video and add the tabloid title? Ok, so he was lying, he meant to say 'high court', he actually intentionally said 'high and rabbinical court'. What difference is made and how does it affect the debate? It sounds like you're conceding it's petty shit you're throwing around. Yes, Im regretfully addressing it, but I still think I'd rather be me(addressing the petty man), than you..
Back again? This topic must really interest you? Because if it so petty why do you keep commenting on it? Aren´t there any other videos that interest you?
Anyways, the point of the video is to point out that Hitchens is willing to lie to push his agenda. If this were an isolated case, then it might be looked at ok in this instance his ego got the best of him. I have another video of him doing the exact same thing and then denying what he said.
@owensphil 'willing to lie to push his agenda'. Ok, I asked you to expound to me what difference this lie made- you chose not to. Im guessing this is because you're fully aware(like most posters here) that this was probably a mistake, and if it wasnt the effect is nil- and the benefits to Hitchens 'agenda' are nil or negligible. Strange that this is what you charge him with, it's almost the identical allegation I levelled at you after reading your imbecilic Nazi- atheist propaganda.
@owensphil Yes, you said, he lied, so you shouldnt trust him(basically). But I was asking, assuming it was intentional, HOW DID this further his agenda? Didnt you feel like responding to the rest?
Getting people to believe you is foremost for any persuasive speaker. He can´t have people doubting the accuracy of his statements if he is out to win converts
@owensphil That's probably the most lucid thing you've ever said to me owen. You're absolutely right. But on this occasion, it's trivial. If the judgement he's citing to support the point is a complete fabrication, then he would be guilty of that crime.
You're obviously not an idiot owen, dont close your mind to anything, it stops you from growing
Christopher Hitchens the legend of his own mind who never meant a wrong he would not attempt to lie himself from out under, but he still always gets crushed.
My goodness for goodness sake for their real life Atheist Satan Clause, lie to lie again.
The best part is that the uploader has a guy on his page cheering him on and equating evolution with Easter bunnies and unicorns ... because bunnies laying eggs is laughable but a guy coming back to life on that very same occasion is worth writing literature about ... yeesh
This video is bias, selectively edited and manipulative. To the uploader, you obviously know that what he says after is valid and the only way you can make it look like a lie is to edit the video. So you know Hitchens isn't lying, but have made a YouTube video to make it seem like it is a lie to try and fool other people. You've got to ask yourself, who's the liar here?
You would need to go beyond the mere claim and SHOW how the video was edited to make it look as though Hitchens had lied. The entire debate can be found on youtube.
@owensphil Exactly! Anyone watching this who wants to know the truth can just watch the debate. Then you will see who has been dishonest and misleading. Shame on you Owens. Typical hypocrite.
> Then you will see who has been dishonest and misleading
Anything dishonest or misleading you care to point to or are you limited to only making the charge to give the appearance that you´ve actually said something here ?
I recorded the video just how I found it.It should be somewhere else here on Youtube. By all means find it and make your case. There´s no need for you to pretend that Hitchens actually said something that made is obviousl lie not a lie.
If you recorded the video as you found it then the person who edited it is manipulative.
If you have uploaded this without finding out what was said afterwards then you are dishonest and obviously have no interest in what was being said, only in calling Hitchens a lier whether it's fair or not. I have seen what was said afterwards, so have many other people who have explained in their comments. Its up to you to find it and then take this down when you realise you've got it wrong.
> If you recorded the video as you found it then the person who edited it is manipulative.
No, that person recorded the debate and broke it up into several parts. That part ended where this video ends. I just finished re watching the video myself. I chanllenge you to state VERBATIM, ANYTHING that Hitchens said to clarify what he was supposedly trying to say. I GUARANTEE you only end up making yourself to be the dishonest fool that you are.
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room.
Sarting from I gave
:I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now
He just misspoke. Everyone there knows it. Boteach even says "ok, maybe it was the rabbinical court." Either way, Christopher's point still stands--you can check for yourself; he cited it very carefully. Are you seriously going to condemn Christopher for not grovelling for an apology? It's an easy mistake, and makes no difference in the point he was making.
He made it perfectly clear just after this video ended, and gave the rabbi a wager to go along with it!.. Hitch knew he was being filmed and recorded. Owensphil wont put the video link up because he knows what really happened and that makes this video null and void, He has cut the video short to mislead. Its a lame tactic easily seen through, Watch the debate in full and see what really happened, 100 books baby!!
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room. I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now.
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room.
I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now.
C'mon show the rest of it that followed on from " I GAVE YOU..." Why did you cut that out??? Show the rest of it..... Nice try. And i bet the rabbi didnt take the books to hand out either. Show the rest of it Owensphil !!!
Viewers have to watch the entire 1hr 10 min debate just to find out how he responded to with respect to what he is being challenged here? Is it that you have no idea as to how he responded on this issue?
A slightly unclear wording of what he intended to say which was then quickly rectified to be made crystal-clear in his meaning is in no way, shape or form a lie of any kind, and to try to misrepresent it as being such is in and of itself inherently dishonest. How pathetic.
¨A slightly unclear wording of what he intended to say which was then quickly rectified to be made crystal-clear in his meaning¨
Rectified by whom? Not Hitchens. This lie in and of itself is no big deal. But if he´s going to be that arrogant and critical himself, he could at least admit when he´s wrong.
@owensphil What he said at first was "in the high court." Then when challenged on it, he clarified "The high rabinical court." In this context, he wasn't simply changing what he said to suit the argument; it's clear that's what he meant from the beginning, and probably made the assumption that people were following him on that. Perhaps many in the audience in fact were, but apparently, Hitchens' opponent was not, so he cleared it up. This is not a lie, it's simply a misunderstanding.
I commend owenspil on his choice to allow dissenting comments here. Most theists will not. However, I feel compelled to point out that even if Hitchens, of whom, I'm no great fan, or self proclaimed defender, had, in fact, intended any deceit with his comment, then it was certainly no great deceit. Though I must confess, he could have saved a great deal more face if he had simply confessed to the apparent slip of the tongue upon its occurrence. Still, come on, a lie? For what possible purpose?
¨You have one positive rating out of 12, what's that say about your title?¨
It says nothing about the title. It shows that Hitchen´s followers are more likely to flock to any video made on him and defend him no matter what. We could have witness Hitchen grab a knife and plunge it into his opponent´s chest. Yet you´d like find posters claiming that the knife slipped out of his hand.
@owensphil Wrong! I listen to both sides before making my decision as to who's right! I'm not always correct as I'm human but I try. You seem VERY anti Hitchens to have gone to the length that you did to make this video.
@owensphil Admitedly i take Hitchen's side more often than i should, but to use an example such is that is to show your own arrogance and irrational thinking.
The book mentioned by Hitchens quotes Rabbi Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical District Court of Jerusalem who wrote that "according to the ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath... in order to save the life of a dangerously ill gentile patient."
So where is the lie? Is the "lie" that Hitchens said "High Court" when he should have said "Rabbincal Court" only?
"So where is the lie? Is the "lie" that Hitchens said "High Court" when he should have said "Rabbincal Court" only?"
It's not that he simply made a mistake. After saying it was the high court, when challenged he stated that it was the high court and the Rabbincal court. A minute later he's claiming that he said, Rabbinical court and not the high court. Then states it was the high rabbinical court. The rabbi later points out that there is no high rabbinical court.
Exactly. So in your view the "lie" is his getting the name of the court wrong when pressed.
Because the rabbi can't refute the underlying point (that such a ruling WAS made by high ranking judicial authority in Israel and that it cites Talmud for authority) the best he can do is demonstrate his superior command of the names of the courts within the Israeli justice system?
That's the "lie?" Come on. This game of "gotcha" isn't even worthy of politicians.
"No, my point is Hitchens denying what he said. That's the lie. Focus on the denial"
Sure. Don't focus on context. Don't focus on the fact that neither Boteach (or you) have any rebuttal to the underlying claim - that the rabbinical authority DID issue the decree mentioned by Hitchens. Instead let's focus on the fact that Hitchens identified the court incorrectly and instead of fessing up he said "also". That's some lie! The game of "gotcha" you're playing here is laughable.
A proper response on the part of Boteach (or yourself) would show that the rabbinical court ruling is an anamoly (it is), to point to contradictory rulings (they exist) or to argue that the prohibition against helping gentiles on the sabbath isn't followed (it isn't). And so on these grounds, it's poor evidence that religion is "evil."
But to instead quibble about the name of the court & to pretend the ruling does not exist, is a display of disingenousness. And not by Hitchens.
You're missing the point again, bud. You cannot hope to be offended by some silly syntactical mistake while not being offended by the atrocity of a law that condemns saving the life of a non-believer. Whatever day it is.
The mistake of calling the rabbinical court the high/high-rabbinical court. The same mistake you've claimed is a lie, which it isn't, because it wasn't intentional. You don't seem to be able (or willing) to grasp the real points of what Hitchens is saying. It's absolutely pointless for me to say anything more.
But one last thing: you have a Serious lack of humility in saying "Focus on the denial" in a response to any Hitchens video. That's really comedic.
"The same mistake you've claimed is a lie, which it isn't, because it wasn't intentional."
So it was a mistake, so it wasn't intentional. Can't you grasp the fact that I'm talking about his denial, stating that he didn't mispeak? This is why I told you to focus un the denial and not on the fact that he made a mistake. Rather how he handles his mistake.
Everyone, watch this argument. This owensphil guy is trying to assert that Hitchens' "denial" of his syntactical misspeaking is very important.
This is another case of some religious person claiming to be offended by an atheists' rudeness. This is absolutely ridiculous. I've tried to show owensphil that Hitchens' error is really unimportant when weighed against the SUBSTANCE of the statement, yet he can't get past the DELIVERY. Something's wrong here. You all see it.
"This is another case of some religious person claiming to be offended by an atheists' rudeness."
You'll have to point out were I indicated rudeness or being offended. Unless of course you, like Hitchens simply like to make things up.
"Hitchens' error is really unimportant"
The facts are ALWAYS important especially as in this case we're talking about a secular or non secular court. The SUBSTANCE as the Rabbi points out that what Hitchens is pointing out is by no means common
So, in retrospect, you've gone from saying that he's a messiah in the eyes of his followers and a liar to defending the facts!? What I gather from your grammatically challenged final paragraph is that you think the real substance is how uncommon the condemning of non-believers is, rather than the fact that it's happened at all. Really.
The title of your stupid clip is a flat out lie, and the use of caps seems to indicate that you're offended. Hitchens did not lie. You said it.
"the use of caps seems to indicate that you're offended."
Hmmm.....Or it could just be away to make the title more visible. Hitchens lied. He claims he didn't say something he said just a minute earlier. Pay attention. Play the video over, pause it, hit play again ... It takes some people longer. That's O.K I even used captions for the visual learners.
Please, don't try to defend your tasteless use of caps. It's amazing watching you try to escape. It's almost as amazing as how you find these little excuses to call a great man a liar. Why don't you try to find legitimate falsities in Hitchens' work instead of some trifle misspeaking or eye-rolling?
And get that condescending tone out of your posts. The only thing people learn from watching your videos is how desperate you are to find or create dirt on Hitchens.
My use of caps doesn't need defense. You thought you knew but you didn't. Most of my videos on Hitchens don't deal with Htichen's lies but rather his concepts so you're O for two now. Give it up.
You're right about the caps, it doesn't matter. I thought I knew but didn't? I don't know what that means. Since we're not arguing about big things like the existence of god or something, I'll have to leave it here. I'm not giving up so much as resigning. There's no point for me to go on; you refuse to acknowledge the important arguments I make and focus on their presentation instead, sort of like how you deal with atheists.
Christopher Hitchens is a great liberator. Nuff said.
@owensphil, Not entirely unlike how you are handling his mistake, right? I don't mean his slip of the tongue in this regard, but his handling of that slip is also a mistake on his part. Are you not equally guilty, if not more so, for your unforgiving appraisal? What the Hell happened to Christian charity?
Perhaps you are Jewish, I have no way of knowing here, as yet. If you are Jewish, then by Jewish law, why is Hitchens still alive after making such a grievous error? If Christian... WWJD?
I like how you cut the video before Hitchens' response. Also, it's fairly subjective to determine whether a court is secular or not, so I wouldn't exactly call it a lie, it's just an opinion of Hitchens' that a lot of people would disagree with.
@owensphil No, I can't tell you why because I haven't seen this debate and you cut the video before Hitchens' response to the criticism, if he did indeed respond.
Now, I wouldn't say Hitchens is incapable of lying, I even commented on your other video that he did actually try to deny saying "no" to the question "are you ever uncertain of your atheism?".
@owensphil Also, why do you make these videos? So Hitchens makes mistakes like everyone else, why do you feel the need dwell on them? He's not infallible nor his words the absolute truth...He isn't GOD.
You might say "Well, he's a public figure and held to a higher standard" etc etc, but I would argue that if out of all of Hitchens' debates and interviews you've only found 1, maybe 2, instances of him saying something untrue then that surely says something...
"I would argue that if out of all of Hitchens' debates and interviews you've only found 1, maybe 2, instances of him saying something untrue then that surely says something..."
No, in fact I just happened to stumble accross this second lie. I think that many of the people who he debates with do a good job disecting his nonsense. There really would be no need for me to repost their points.
it sad but true hitchens was a fool !
914light 1 month ago
@914light And you are an ignorant troll, be quiet.
rrdab1 3 weeks ago
@rrdab1 ..ahhh your little idol hitchens was a fool and a liar ...to bad the truth hurts your feelings :(
914light 3 weeks ago
Well done Christopher, RIP
Kenmorfdublin 1 month ago
Way to post a video that ends before the guy makes his rebuttal. Real classy.
jimmyx36 2 months ago
great video !!
914light 2 months ago
link will not work search :- israel-shahak-the-laws-against-non-jews-in-2-minutes
ahhninjadragon 2 months ago
if it was a lie is whats in this link a lie to, or proof hitchens was telling the truth
ahhninjadragon 2 months ago
Lie? I don't see any lie. I see a retard at the end of the video who can not understand what Christopher is saying. Every debate I watch with this legend make appreciate more and more, his wonderful way of speaking. It's equivalent to watching living poetry. He tears idiots apart with beautiful finesse.
ZombieVampirez 3 months ago 2
@ZombieVampirez
Even with captions you don't see it. Funny you should be calling someone else retard.
owensphil 3 months ago 2
@owensphil Gosh owen I didnt realise you were this pathetic. Even without the end of the video it's clear that the 'lie' was a mistake he clarifies. You cutting the video at that point is yet another example of you accepting and rejecting info/people/science/whatever on the basis of your faith. Like the Darwin racist thing- but in this case you know there's no upside- you're trying to con people into your way of thinking- cant you see how wrong that is? I feel sad for you buddy, you're losing it
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
> You cutting the video at that point
If I'm not mistaken, I re recorded the video just as I found it I believe here on Youtube.
Exactly what did Hitchen say to clarify was was obviously a lie. Please clarify
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Well it seemed pretty obvious to me that Hitchens had meant to say 'Rabbinical High Court', but mistakenly said 'High Court'. Are we talking about the same thing? Is a really by any standard, a 'lie' he's told? It looks to be the same sort of petty nonsense that seems to follow you around. Maybe you didnt cut the video, the point remains, your videos are extremely unbalanced and often look to exploit lack of context. I know you know this, I doubt you'd announce it though.
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
> Well it seemed pretty obvious to me that Hitchens had meant to say 'Rabbinical High Court', but mistakenly said 'High Court'
No, at 3.50 he states "and the Rabinical court ALSO. Now if you look up the word "also" , it should give you some indication that the word refers to more than one.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Still, if it's not true, it seems likely that this was a mistake, rather than a totally uneccesary and malicious lie, wouldnt you say?And again this is petty stuff you attach yourself to, even if this was a prepared lie he told, it's an aside to the heart of the debate. If your beliefs are well founded and your position is a secure one,wouldnt you want to argue your corner on its merits, rather than undermining it by producing lop sided propaganda to debase the opposition?
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
> it seems likely that this was a mistake,
No, because he was given the opportunity to clarify with words like "I meant to say" or I mispoke... No, he tries to justify his lie as we see here.
> And again this is petty stuff
Yet you feel the need to keep addressing it.
owensphil 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
>wouldnt you want to argue your corner on its merits, rather than undermining it by producing lop sided propaganda to debase the opposition?
He pretty much says the same thing each time. No need to comment on every video I've uploaded on him. Besides, his debators do a fine job of debunking his bogus assertions.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil If that's what you think wht possible reason could you have to upload this video and add the tabloid title? Ok, so he was lying, he meant to say 'high court', he actually intentionally said 'high and rabbinical court'. What difference is made and how does it affect the debate? It sounds like you're conceding it's petty shit you're throwing around. Yes, Im regretfully addressing it, but I still think I'd rather be me(addressing the petty man), than you..
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
Back again? This topic must really interest you? Because if it so petty why do you keep commenting on it? Aren´t there any other videos that interest you?
Anyways, the point of the video is to point out that Hitchens is willing to lie to push his agenda. If this were an isolated case, then it might be looked at ok in this instance his ego got the best of him. I have another video of him doing the exact same thing and then denying what he said.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil 'willing to lie to push his agenda'. Ok, I asked you to expound to me what difference this lie made- you chose not to. Im guessing this is because you're fully aware(like most posters here) that this was probably a mistake, and if it wasnt the effect is nil- and the benefits to Hitchens 'agenda' are nil or negligible. Strange that this is what you charge him with, it's almost the identical allegation I levelled at you after reading your imbecilic Nazi- atheist propaganda.
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
> 'willing to lie to push his agenda'. Ok, I asked you to expound to me what difference this lie made-
I just did. Aparently it went right over your head
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Yes, you said, he lied, so you shouldnt trust him(basically). But I was asking, assuming it was intentional, HOW DID this further his agenda? Didnt you feel like responding to the rest?
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
@JeffStDeuce
Getting people to believe you is foremost for any persuasive speaker. He can´t have people doubting the accuracy of his statements if he is out to win converts
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil That's probably the most lucid thing you've ever said to me owen. You're absolutely right. But on this occasion, it's trivial. If the judgement he's citing to support the point is a complete fabrication, then he would be guilty of that crime.
You're obviously not an idiot owen, dont close your mind to anything, it stops you from growing
JeffStDeuce 1 month ago
Even in this edited piece of anti-Hitchens-ite propaganda HE STILL WINS
sirtophamhatt 4 months ago
owensphil is the only one caught in a lie here. I am not impressed Phil.
MrBrational 4 months ago
Christopher Hitchens the legend of his own mind who never meant a wrong he would not attempt to lie himself from out under, but he still always gets crushed.
My goodness for goodness sake for their real life Atheist Satan Clause, lie to lie again.
mamaschristmasbunny 5 months ago
God i hate people that don't know how to post a video with a decent volume
Wittgensteinism 5 months ago 3
@Wittgensteinism
Check your computer or look for knob or botton that says "volume"
owensphil 5 months ago
@Wittgensteinism I doesn't take much for you to hate people, you should try to love people instead...
FruKaos 3 months ago
The best part is that the uploader has a guy on his page cheering him on and equating evolution with Easter bunnies and unicorns ... because bunnies laying eggs is laughable but a guy coming back to life on that very same occasion is worth writing literature about ... yeesh
00sparkleandshiiine 6 months ago
caught in a lie? its a misunderstanding, if you can't understand that your a moron.
finalfantasy8VIII 6 months ago
The only lie is the one in this videos heading!
maflones 6 months ago
This video is bias, selectively edited and manipulative. To the uploader, you obviously know that what he says after is valid and the only way you can make it look like a lie is to edit the video. So you know Hitchens isn't lying, but have made a YouTube video to make it seem like it is a lie to try and fool other people. You've got to ask yourself, who's the liar here?
SamCoreJ 6 months ago 33
@SamCoreJ
You would need to go beyond the mere claim and SHOW how the video was edited to make it look as though Hitchens had lied. The entire debate can be found on youtube.
owensphil 6 months ago
@owensphil Exactly! Anyone watching this who wants to know the truth can just watch the debate. Then you will see who has been dishonest and misleading. Shame on you Owens. Typical hypocrite.
heathenatheist 5 months ago
@heathenatheist
> Then you will see who has been dishonest and misleading
Anything dishonest or misleading you care to point to or are you limited to only making the charge to give the appearance that you´ve actually said something here ?
owensphil 5 months ago
@SamCoreJ
> selectively edited and manipulative
I recorded the video just how I found it.It should be somewhere else here on Youtube. By all means find it and make your case. There´s no need for you to pretend that Hitchens actually said something that made is obviousl lie not a lie.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
If you recorded the video as you found it then the person who edited it is manipulative.
If you have uploaded this without finding out what was said afterwards then you are dishonest and obviously have no interest in what was being said, only in calling Hitchens a lier whether it's fair or not. I have seen what was said afterwards, so have many other people who have explained in their comments. Its up to you to find it and then take this down when you realise you've got it wrong.
SamCoreJ 1 month ago
@SamCoreJ
> If you recorded the video as you found it then the person who edited it is manipulative.
No, that person recorded the debate and broke it up into several parts. That part ended where this video ends. I just finished re watching the video myself. I chanllenge you to state VERBATIM, ANYTHING that Hitchens said to clarify what he was supposedly trying to say. I GUARANTEE you only end up making yourself to be the dishonest fool that you are.
owensphil 1 month ago
@SamCoreJ
The link to the debate in full is in the description box.
owensphil 1 month ago
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room.
Sarting from I gave
:I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now
owensphil 1 month ago
@SamCoreJ ... Hitchens.
AcAwSk8Vids 4 weeks ago
You truly are scraping the bottom of the barrel to call Hitch out, aren't you bud?
kissmygrittsyall 7 months ago 3
it was a mistake but he could atleast admit it.
r0baa 7 months ago
He just misspoke. Everyone there knows it. Boteach even says "ok, maybe it was the rabbinical court." Either way, Christopher's point still stands--you can check for yourself; he cited it very carefully. Are you seriously going to condemn Christopher for not grovelling for an apology? It's an easy mistake, and makes no difference in the point he was making.
ConcernedCitizen158 7 months ago
Hitchen's is so arrogant he cannot admit mistake.
mjacobson73 8 months ago
Hitch the bitch
EarthBeautifull 8 months ago
The lie was an honest mistake.
yak6ex 8 months ago
He made it perfectly clear just after this video ended, and gave the rabbi a wager to go along with it!.. Hitch knew he was being filmed and recorded. Owensphil wont put the video link up because he knows what really happened and that makes this video null and void, He has cut the video short to mislead. Its a lame tactic easily seen through, Watch the debate in full and see what really happened, 100 books baby!!
Wrahns 9 months ago 24
Starting from "I gave"
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room. I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now.
owensphil 1 month ago
@Wrahns
>He has cut the video short to mislead.
More like you trying to mislead here I'd say. Here are the remaining remarks of Hitchens. Please show how they make his lie not a lie.
owensphil 1 month ago
Dont do the "......." Put it ALLLLLLLL in.
Wrahns 1 month ago
@Wrahns
Hitchens: I gave you… I gave… I´ve given This is… now wait a minute… a second ago you mentioned the term character assassination be careful that your character doesn´t commit suicide in front of everyone in this room.
I gave careful chapter, name, author and book citations knowing that I´m televised, willing to stand up for what I said. Don´t you try and misquote me in front of everybody. You may succeed in making yourself seem even dumber than you do now.
owensphil 1 month ago
C'mon show the rest of it that followed on from " I GAVE YOU..." Why did you cut that out??? Show the rest of it..... Nice try. And i bet the rabbi didnt take the books to hand out either. Show the rest of it Owensphil !!!
Wrahns 9 months ago
i missed the lie
moh490234890238490 9 months ago
@moh490234890238490
Read the captions, especially the one in red. It´s spelled out for you.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil i read it and he just misspoke.
moh490234890238490 9 months ago
@moh490234890238490
Then he should have acknowledge that he misspoke.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil Its just pathetic that you would wast 3:41 of someone's life with this.
moh490234890238490 9 months ago
@moh490234890238490
¨Its just pathetic that you would wast 3:41 of someone's life with this.¨
You obviously have a lot of time on your hands. I wonder if you´ll post back. (LOL)
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil yes i will :P
moh490234890238490 9 months ago
Hitchens got schooled on that one plain and simple.
creeman007 10 months ago
@creeman007 Not even close, the video is cut short to make the Rabbi look like he won, watch the rest of the debate and see how it really turned out.
Wrahns 9 months ago
@Wrahns
Feel free to post Hitchen's response. I'm calling your bluff
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil The debate was "Full Version: Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God"
(Easily searched for on Youtube) Viewers should goto the 1hr 10mintues mark and make up their own mind, how this exchange turned out.
Hopefully thats good enough for you Owensphil, maybe you would be so kind as to link the full debate??
Wrahns 9 months ago
@Wrahns
Viewers have to watch the entire 1hr 10 min debate just to find out how he responded to with respect to what he is being challenged here? Is it that you have no idea as to how he responded on this issue?
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil Nope they just have to go to the time i stated and watch his response. Scared to link the Debate it seems??....
Wrahns 9 months ago
@Wrahns
Obviously my video is an excerpt of that same video so chances are I've already seen the video ya think?
Watch for his response in an 1hr. 10 min video? You don't have any idea what Hitchens responded if anything do you?
owensphil 9 months ago
thanks for all the hitchens videos.. love watching him!
5H4V3D89 10 months ago
A slightly unclear wording of what he intended to say which was then quickly rectified to be made crystal-clear in his meaning is in no way, shape or form a lie of any kind, and to try to misrepresent it as being such is in and of itself inherently dishonest. How pathetic.
jordanromaker 11 months ago 2
@jordanromaker
¨A slightly unclear wording of what he intended to say which was then quickly rectified to be made crystal-clear in his meaning¨
Rectified by whom? Not Hitchens. This lie in and of itself is no big deal. But if he´s going to be that arrogant and critical himself, he could at least admit when he´s wrong.
owensphil 11 months ago
@owensphil What he said at first was "in the high court." Then when challenged on it, he clarified "The high rabinical court." In this context, he wasn't simply changing what he said to suit the argument; it's clear that's what he meant from the beginning, and probably made the assumption that people were following him on that. Perhaps many in the audience in fact were, but apparently, Hitchens' opponent was not, so he cleared it up. This is not a lie, it's simply a misunderstanding.
jordanromaker 11 months ago 5
I commend owenspil on his choice to allow dissenting comments here. Most theists will not. However, I feel compelled to point out that even if Hitchens, of whom, I'm no great fan, or self proclaimed defender, had, in fact, intended any deceit with his comment, then it was certainly no great deceit. Though I must confess, he could have saved a great deal more face if he had simply confessed to the apparent slip of the tongue upon its occurrence. Still, come on, a lie? For what possible purpose?
frankleeseaux 11 months ago 2
You have one positive rating out of 12, what's that say about your title? IT'S INACCURATE and a shitty title!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell
¨You have one positive rating out of 12, what's that say about your title?¨
It says nothing about the title. It shows that Hitchen´s followers are more likely to flock to any video made on him and defend him no matter what. We could have witness Hitchen grab a knife and plunge it into his opponent´s chest. Yet you´d like find posters claiming that the knife slipped out of his hand.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil Wrong! I listen to both sides before making my decision as to who's right! I'm not always correct as I'm human but I try. You seem VERY anti Hitchens to have gone to the length that you did to make this video.
mythicalhell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil Religitards are hilarious. Only a fool could watch this video and think that Christopher Hitchens was caught in a lie. Silly sheep.
godnotfound 9 months ago
@owensphil Admitedly i take Hitchen's side more often than i should, but to use an example such is that is to show your own arrogance and irrational thinking.
Kyoshiro1902 9 months ago
So how did the court(s) rule?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
So where is the lie?
The book mentioned by Hitchens quotes Rabbi Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical District Court of Jerusalem who wrote that "according to the ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath... in order to save the life of a dangerously ill gentile patient."
So where is the lie? Is the "lie" that Hitchens said "High Court" when he should have said "Rabbincal Court" only?
Is that really it?
hazydavey 1 year ago
@hazydavey
"So where is the lie? Is the "lie" that Hitchens said "High Court" when he should have said "Rabbincal Court" only?"
It's not that he simply made a mistake. After saying it was the high court, when challenged he stated that it was the high court and the Rabbincal court. A minute later he's claiming that he said, Rabbinical court and not the high court. Then states it was the high rabbinical court. The rabbi later points out that there is no high rabbinical court.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Exactly. So in your view the "lie" is his getting the name of the court wrong when pressed.
Because the rabbi can't refute the underlying point (that such a ruling WAS made by high ranking judicial authority in Israel and that it cites Talmud for authority) the best he can do is demonstrate his superior command of the names of the courts within the Israeli justice system?
That's the "lie?" Come on. This game of "gotcha" isn't even worthy of politicians.
hazydavey 1 year ago
@hazydavey
"So in your view the "lie" is his getting the name of the court wrong when pressed."
No, my point is Hitchens denying what he said. That's the lie. Focus on the denial
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
"No, my point is Hitchens denying what he said. That's the lie. Focus on the denial"
Sure. Don't focus on context. Don't focus on the fact that neither Boteach (or you) have any rebuttal to the underlying claim - that the rabbinical authority DID issue the decree mentioned by Hitchens. Instead let's focus on the fact that Hitchens identified the court incorrectly and instead of fessing up he said "also". That's some lie! The game of "gotcha" you're playing here is laughable.
hazydavey 1 year ago
@hazydavey
"Sure. Don't focus on context. "
Or don't focus on the exception that Hitchen is focusing on.
"instead of fessing up"
which is typical of his character. He wants to come off as never being wrong, as not being able to take it when his errors are pointed out,
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
A proper response on the part of Boteach (or yourself) would show that the rabbinical court ruling is an anamoly (it is), to point to contradictory rulings (they exist) or to argue that the prohibition against helping gentiles on the sabbath isn't followed (it isn't). And so on these grounds, it's poor evidence that religion is "evil."
But to instead quibble about the name of the court & to pretend the ruling does not exist, is a display of disingenousness. And not by Hitchens.
hazydavey 1 year ago
@owensphil
You're missing the point again, bud. You cannot hope to be offended by some silly syntactical mistake while not being offended by the atrocity of a law that condemns saving the life of a non-believer. Whatever day it is.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
"You cannot hope to be offended by some silly syntactical mistake"
Which was?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
The mistake of calling the rabbinical court the high/high-rabbinical court. The same mistake you've claimed is a lie, which it isn't, because it wasn't intentional. You don't seem to be able (or willing) to grasp the real points of what Hitchens is saying. It's absolutely pointless for me to say anything more.
But one last thing: you have a Serious lack of humility in saying "Focus on the denial" in a response to any Hitchens video. That's really comedic.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
"The same mistake you've claimed is a lie, which it isn't, because it wasn't intentional."
So it was a mistake, so it wasn't intentional. Can't you grasp the fact that I'm talking about his denial, stating that he didn't mispeak? This is why I told you to focus un the denial and not on the fact that he made a mistake. Rather how he handles his mistake.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Everyone, watch this argument. This owensphil guy is trying to assert that Hitchens' "denial" of his syntactical misspeaking is very important.
This is another case of some religious person claiming to be offended by an atheists' rudeness. This is absolutely ridiculous. I've tried to show owensphil that Hitchens' error is really unimportant when weighed against the SUBSTANCE of the statement, yet he can't get past the DELIVERY. Something's wrong here. You all see it.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
"This is another case of some religious person claiming to be offended by an atheists' rudeness."
You'll have to point out were I indicated rudeness or being offended. Unless of course you, like Hitchens simply like to make things up.
"Hitchens' error is really unimportant"
The facts are ALWAYS important especially as in this case we're talking about a secular or non secular court. The SUBSTANCE as the Rabbi points out that what Hitchens is pointing out is by no means common
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
So, in retrospect, you've gone from saying that he's a messiah in the eyes of his followers and a liar to defending the facts!? What I gather from your grammatically challenged final paragraph is that you think the real substance is how uncommon the condemning of non-believers is, rather than the fact that it's happened at all. Really.
The title of your stupid clip is a flat out lie, and the use of caps seems to indicate that you're offended. Hitchens did not lie. You said it.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
"the use of caps seems to indicate that you're offended."
Hmmm.....Or it could just be away to make the title more visible. Hitchens lied. He claims he didn't say something he said just a minute earlier. Pay attention. Play the video over, pause it, hit play again ... It takes some people longer. That's O.K I even used captions for the visual learners.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Please, don't try to defend your tasteless use of caps. It's amazing watching you try to escape. It's almost as amazing as how you find these little excuses to call a great man a liar. Why don't you try to find legitimate falsities in Hitchens' work instead of some trifle misspeaking or eye-rolling?
And get that condescending tone out of your posts. The only thing people learn from watching your videos is how desperate you are to find or create dirt on Hitchens.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
My use of caps doesn't need defense. You thought you knew but you didn't. Most of my videos on Hitchens don't deal with Htichen's lies but rather his concepts so you're O for two now. Give it up.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
You're right about the caps, it doesn't matter. I thought I knew but didn't? I don't know what that means. Since we're not arguing about big things like the existence of god or something, I'll have to leave it here. I'm not giving up so much as resigning. There's no point for me to go on; you refuse to acknowledge the important arguments I make and focus on their presentation instead, sort of like how you deal with atheists.
Christopher Hitchens is a great liberator. Nuff said.
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@owensphil, Not entirely unlike how you are handling his mistake, right? I don't mean his slip of the tongue in this regard, but his handling of that slip is also a mistake on his part. Are you not equally guilty, if not more so, for your unforgiving appraisal? What the Hell happened to Christian charity?
Perhaps you are Jewish, I have no way of knowing here, as yet. If you are Jewish, then by Jewish law, why is Hitchens still alive after making such a grievous error? If Christian... WWJD?
frankleeseaux 11 months ago
hitchens is a liar, no question
janjanjan0 1 year ago
25 years ago???
LiberalsUtopian 1 year ago
I like how you cut the video before Hitchens' response. Also, it's fairly subjective to determine whether a court is secular or not, so I wouldn't exactly call it a lie, it's just an opinion of Hitchens' that a lot of people would disagree with.
TheIlian19 1 year ago
@TheIlian19
"it's fairly subjective to determine whether a court is secular or not,"
Then maybe YOU would have responded differently. Can you tell me why Hitchens makes the distinction in HIS response?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil No, I can't tell you why because I haven't seen this debate and you cut the video before Hitchens' response to the criticism, if he did indeed respond.
Now, I wouldn't say Hitchens is incapable of lying, I even commented on your other video that he did actually try to deny saying "no" to the question "are you ever uncertain of your atheism?".
TheIlian19 1 year ago
@TheIlian19
"and you cut the video before Hitchens' response to the criticism, if he did indeed respond."
Hitchens only response was to insult the Rabbi. You can find the entire debate elswhere on Youtube
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil Also, why do you make these videos? So Hitchens makes mistakes like everyone else, why do you feel the need dwell on them? He's not infallible nor his words the absolute truth...He isn't GOD.
You might say "Well, he's a public figure and held to a higher standard" etc etc, but I would argue that if out of all of Hitchens' debates and interviews you've only found 1, maybe 2, instances of him saying something untrue then that surely says something...
TheIlian19 1 year ago
@TheIlian19
"I would argue that if out of all of Hitchens' debates and interviews you've only found 1, maybe 2, instances of him saying something untrue then that surely says something..."
No, in fact I just happened to stumble accross this second lie. I think that many of the people who he debates with do a good job disecting his nonsense. There really would be no need for me to repost their points.
owensphil 1 year ago
@TheIlian19
"why do you make these videos? So Hitchens makes mistakes like everyone else, why do you feel the need dwell on them?"
Not everyone is as arrogant as Hitchens. His intelligence and his gifted way with words makes him sort of a messiah with many of his followers.
owensphil 1 year ago