Most interesting segment. Allowing oneself to be censored is like negotiating with terrorists. You know that if you agree to their demands, they stop killing hostages. But then, you encourage them to do it again next time.
It isn't about "living in a planet full of Christopher 'Hitchenses'", it's about being intolerant about actions that are fundamentally unacceptable. Yes, that does mean a democratic society with some ground rules, that do to as far a degree ensure individual rights, freedom of expression,etc...but not one where "diplomacy" is considered concerning people who advocate violence and death threats because their sensitivities haven't been considered.
That Shashi character makes me heave with his toothless apologetics. He wants us to "take into consideration" who we're causing offense to etc. (i.e. kowtowing to irrational reaction) but stops short of saying we should enforce it by law. How then is this going to happen? Everyone will spontaneously decide never to speak a word that might carry some shadow of offensiveness, just because he puts the idea forward? How naive can a person be?
@WSWarthog You must to realize we have two humanists here. Both of them come to this way of thinking through different experience. I have deep respect for Mr. Tharoor though as usual i must support Mr. Hitchens position here.
To frame this discussion as a contest is inevitably limiting in what people can absorb from this. It's merely two men with different takes on the subject, not necessarily oppositional views. It's not such a pathetically black and white dialectic that the use of the term 'vs' implies.
Shashi makes the same statement throughout the entire discussion, that people should be wary that their actions will hurt them. It's the dumbest thing I think I've seen, it's like blaming the woman for being raped and robbed because her skirt was too high. It's not the victim who is at fault, it is the fault of the person breaking the law, the overreaction.
@Jrezky There are different things to be fault of. Rape is the rapers fault but the risk is the womans fault. She will have to aswer to herself about taking the risk. Same prinsible aplies if you leave a wallet full of money unguarded to a busy street. No one has the right to take that money, but you still wouldnt do it.
@Darvinisti What if the 'risk' is just walking down the street? If she is going about her daily business? If you want to make this argumment you must define define 'risk'. This uselss argument precudes the notion of a civilised and free society and turns every man into a potential rapist. Our laws here in England recognise this and we uphold in principle and pracitce a woman's right to do as she pleases without molestation, just like a man. Rape is always the perpetrators fault. Grow a pair.
@eleuthromania No the risk was getting raped or having you money stolen. The risk behaviour can be just walking down a street. The size of the risk depends on what street you are walking under what circumstances. Every able person (not just men) is a potential raper just as well as they are potential robbers. Thats just a fact of life. Just because I can rape doesnt mean I have done morally anything wrong.
You dont even understand the meanings of the words risk or potential.
@Darvinisti I understand those terms perfectly, being a native speaker and English teacher to boot. Forget trying to grow a pair. After you go back over your last comment and correct the punctuation and syntactical errors please go and get yourself sterilised. Your 'fact of life' is not a fact but a belief and a wretched excuse for the personal immorality you project on all of us.
@Darvinisti The fact you think there is inane rape within us all shows what a sick, backward scumbag you are so you're obviously a muslim. Here's a risk for you; Talk your shit to my face. Now piss off back to your cave. Britain is losing patience with your kind, EVERYONE HATES YOU!
@semasiologistics I've seen much worse. There was a moderator for "How The World Works" and "The Young Turks" discussion and she refused to honor that either side was actually trying to make an insightful argument. She characterized and strawmaned both sides seemingly every chance she got. It was absurd.
@semasiologistics I don't know if she is the worst I have seen. But she is very anxious to get her word in, and she is not supposed to be leading the conversation, only moderating. So yes, quite annoying.
The case of spinoza was horrid. He was persecuted by his own people for creating a deeply religious and monotheistic theological philosophy. But it was not the God of the old testament, it was an impersonal God: because it is arrogant of humans of describing god in any personal way. God is something greater, and the universe is a part of God. That means that we are parts of God too. The jews called him an atheist for that. Spinoza was the greatest mind of his time and place, and he had to pay.
pretty dull audience. or uninterested/unintelligent
andreiandrei1 1 week ago
Most interesting segment. Allowing oneself to be censored is like negotiating with terrorists. You know that if you agree to their demands, they stop killing hostages. But then, you encourage them to do it again next time.
halneufmille 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the little dance Hitchens is doing with his hands at 4:23?
BritishArrow 3 months ago
Comment removed
BritishArrow 3 months ago
Shashi is the worst kind of vermin for calling for the abolition of free speech in my country.
Graham6762 5 months ago 4
It isn't about "living in a planet full of Christopher 'Hitchenses'", it's about being intolerant about actions that are fundamentally unacceptable. Yes, that does mean a democratic society with some ground rules, that do to as far a degree ensure individual rights, freedom of expression,etc...but not one where "diplomacy" is considered concerning people who advocate violence and death threats because their sensitivities haven't been considered.
LupineL00pine 1 year ago
There is a God. And his name is Hitchens.
russellrummage 1 year ago 2
That has got to have been one of the most compelling "fucking" I've ever heard.
TheTubeTimeMaster1 1 year ago
That Shashi character makes me heave with his toothless apologetics. He wants us to "take into consideration" who we're causing offense to etc. (i.e. kowtowing to irrational reaction) but stops short of saying we should enforce it by law. How then is this going to happen? Everyone will spontaneously decide never to speak a word that might carry some shadow of offensiveness, just because he puts the idea forward? How naive can a person be?
WSWarthog 1 year ago 16
@WSWarthog You must to realize we have two humanists here. Both of them come to this way of thinking through different experience. I have deep respect for Mr. Tharoor though as usual i must support Mr. Hitchens position here.
bigtimebuttsex 1 year ago
Least of all he understands the meaning of the word responsibility
Darvinisti 1 year ago
how much more could Tharoor agree with hitch. what a joke.
stephenexmachina 1 year ago
To frame this discussion as a contest is inevitably limiting in what people can absorb from this. It's merely two men with different takes on the subject, not necessarily oppositional views. It's not such a pathetically black and white dialectic that the use of the term 'vs' implies.
Vindrion 1 year ago
Shashi is a thorough broken record. Same appeasement theme, a one trick pony.
He's average intelligence, at best.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago 13
Shashi makes the same statement throughout the entire discussion, that people should be wary that their actions will hurt them. It's the dumbest thing I think I've seen, it's like blaming the woman for being raped and robbed because her skirt was too high. It's not the victim who is at fault, it is the fault of the person breaking the law, the overreaction.
Jrezky 1 year ago 2
@Jrezky There are different things to be fault of. Rape is the rapers fault but the risk is the womans fault. She will have to aswer to herself about taking the risk. Same prinsible aplies if you leave a wallet full of money unguarded to a busy street. No one has the right to take that money, but you still wouldnt do it.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti I don't think that's a fair comparison.
Jrezky 1 year ago
@Jrezky your thoughts are useless.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti Awwww, does somebody need a hug?
Jrezky 1 year ago
@Darvinisti What if the 'risk' is just walking down the street? If she is going about her daily business? If you want to make this argumment you must define define 'risk'. This uselss argument precudes the notion of a civilised and free society and turns every man into a potential rapist. Our laws here in England recognise this and we uphold in principle and pracitce a woman's right to do as she pleases without molestation, just like a man. Rape is always the perpetrators fault. Grow a pair.
eleuthromania 1 year ago 3
@eleuthromania No the risk was getting raped or having you money stolen. The risk behaviour can be just walking down a street. The size of the risk depends on what street you are walking under what circumstances. Every able person (not just men) is a potential raper just as well as they are potential robbers. Thats just a fact of life. Just because I can rape doesnt mean I have done morally anything wrong.
You dont even understand the meanings of the words risk or potential.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti I understand those terms perfectly, being a native speaker and English teacher to boot. Forget trying to grow a pair. After you go back over your last comment and correct the punctuation and syntactical errors please go and get yourself sterilised. Your 'fact of life' is not a fact but a belief and a wretched excuse for the personal immorality you project on all of us.
eleuthromania 1 year ago
@Darvinisti The fact you think there is inane rape within us all shows what a sick, backward scumbag you are so you're obviously a muslim. Here's a risk for you; Talk your shit to my face. Now piss off back to your cave. Britain is losing patience with your kind, EVERYONE HATES YOU!
russellrummage 1 year ago
@russellrummage And how old were you? :D
Darvinisti 1 year ago
I am thoroughly convinced that this is the worst moderator of all time.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
@semasiologistics I've seen much worse. There was a moderator for "How The World Works" and "The Young Turks" discussion and she refused to honor that either side was actually trying to make an insightful argument. She characterized and strawmaned both sides seemingly every chance she got. It was absurd.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 1 year ago
@semasiologistics I don't know if she is the worst I have seen. But she is very anxious to get her word in, and she is not supposed to be leading the conversation, only moderating. So yes, quite annoying.
capoman1 1 year ago
The case of spinoza was horrid. He was persecuted by his own people for creating a deeply religious and monotheistic theological philosophy. But it was not the God of the old testament, it was an impersonal God: because it is arrogant of humans of describing god in any personal way. God is something greater, and the universe is a part of God. That means that we are parts of God too. The jews called him an atheist for that. Spinoza was the greatest mind of his time and place, and he had to pay.
prophetchannel 1 year ago