Muhammad demonstrated with his Sunnah the peaceful ways of dealing with his critics - he had them butchered. And we're not talking about powerful leaders of state, but poets, singers and other commoners.
We seem to quote these peaceful verses from Muhammad as though they were an antidote to the violence and rape he approved and partook in; THEY ARE NOT!
It's about time we consigned Muhammad to the list of other scum, such as Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, and it's about time the public knew it.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science.
@sputnikontheshore But in the context of the metaphor, "cull" means to select or choose. That is to select actual virtue, which is the living flower, instead of clerical virtue, represented by the imaginary flowers (which were plucked from the chain to reveal it as the cumbersome weight or hindrance that it is).
What I liked about this debate is that it was open, none of this 10 minute speech followed by 7 minute rebuttal rubbish. That rigid formula not only stiffles debate by not allowing a proper rebuttal strait after a point is made, but also gives undue weight to the weaker player by restricting the stronger to the same time scale.
@MaskedMarvyl thats good that the moderator was tame. they are there to direct the argument and sometimes to interrupt to get back on topic. they aren't one of the invited debaters after all.
@miyamoopen, that's true. We've all seen moderators that thrust themselves into the middle of the debate as if they're on some sort of panel. The worst was a debate at a religious college where the moderator ended the debate with... a prayer. Oh well. At least they invited Hitchens to speak without interrupting him.
@IsMyNameYourName Well I have done my readings, studied both the theology of Islam, and the secular writings surrounding the topic. So the conclusion of warrior-pedophile-murderer doesn't actually seem befitting in any way.
However, I have to side with Sashi here. Progress must come, however one must be careful to change the world in a sensible manner with minimal atrocities.
This is to say NOT to change, but to progress in change responsibly. It is difficult to gauge however because the Islamic faith is just so... radical, and dare I say fringes upon inhumane and backwards ideals.
As much I enjoyed the debate and I believe, like the host mentioned in the end, that it is important for the world at large, I'd like to share that it appears to me that Sashi was the one who contributed more. Change must be brought, but not by unbearable destruction - unless it cannot be avoided. And even Hitchens enjoys his drink - its worth it to preserve life for another day - if we can.
i think the moderator's thanks at the end, aimed only towards hitchens with a sharply executed nod towards tharoor as a way of rescuing her forgetfulness, tells of what an utter Juggernaut hitchens is and why he has yet to partake of a debate and come out of it without having seemingly crushed the opposing viewpoint.
The problem about an intelligent and tolerant debate about blasphemy laws, is that you actually have no-one for the other side. (The ones wanting the blasphemy law put in place)
Well done Hitchins, top stuff. I felt that by the last 9th recording, stuff you were drinking had got to you a bit. You were slightly slower of the mark, as it was even more relevant at this point to field the questions on muslim faith. Islam was spread by the sword, India is a proof of that, over 50 million were killed, according to FAITHFREEDOM. Yet Indian government lies about history, the facts are not taught. Muslims fascism is rife, yet it's only hindus who get criticised.
Hitchens shone, as usual, but Tharoor, unlike most of Hitchens' opponents, did not come off as a total idiot. I think Tharoor is wrong, of course, but he seems like a generally sensible guy.
This is no debate, rather a platform to take a swipe, rightfully too, at religions, blasphemy, George Galloway (wonder whether he has collected the 72 mother-in-laws as a trophy for his jihadist cause) etc etc. You can see from the discussion that Tharoor is a friend of freedom of speech as much as Hitchens is a champion.
Mr. Hitchens, you said there is no way to determine which version of Islam is right, do you know what do most Muslim scholars say? And which interpretation is better for Islam and for the world? I think to say that there is no way is to admit defeat... and I don't think I could give in like that to Islamic fundamentalists.
If I cannot question the legitimacy of a religion, why would it be okay for a religious sect to question another? The Sunni & Shiite are prime examples. Under UN law, those Muslim scholars would be in jail. How many Sunni vs Shiite lawsuits would there be? Baptist vs Catholic; Atheist vs Agnostic; Jehovah's Witness vs Mormon? If they had their way, we would not be able to have this discussion...
Indeed, I'm not saying that you have tried to curtail my rights friend, I'm saying that the UN wants to.
If one cannot say, "Your god is false", how can they say their god acknowledges their worship but not that of their fellow man. The statements would be equally illegal, or punishable.
I agree that he was a ineffective, but he deserved some acknowledgement at the end. It became a mini-roast for Hitchins by Bakewell. I'd like to see Hitchins debate with that insufferable fool, Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State. They were both on the "Hardball" programme recently and Blackwell was so rude and smug, I almost bled from the ears.
I agree that she should have made some mention of Shashi Tharoor. Regardless of whether he "won" or not, he is accomplished, he seems intelligent, he was respectful, and he is probably extremely busy and went to some effort to make the time for this discussion.
I don't understand why people are rating down comments saying that Shashi deserved acknowledgment at the end. He was very respectful and measured, didn't interrupt Chris and was not at any time insulting anyone's intelligence. I have seen Chris debate far worse opponents who make my skin crawl but were given proper thanks at the end for showing up and being subjected to such a forceful and personable opponent. I am a great Hitchens fan, but we need to give qualified opponents of his some credit.
Imagine the down-ratings you'd see if he actually put up a real fight against hitchens. Youtube ratings are often stupid and just reflect people's opinions rather than the quality of the content.
E.g. a comment saying "hitchens kicked his ass" should be rated down but one saying "tharoor made an interesting point when he said etc...." should be rated up, even though I agree with hitchens 100% of the time.
I'm not happy about one of Hitchens' points. I'm all for freedom of speech but, to my mind, if someone says that I'm "going to hell", for whatever reason, I think this should be regarded as slander. It is tantamount to spreading false or unproven accusations with the intent of damaging my standing in the community.
"It is tantamount to spreading false or unproven accusations with the intent of damaging my standing in the community."
If someone with a sincere belief in Hell says that to you and you are not of their particular religion, then it's not false TO THEM. And the U.S. Constitution prevents the courts from deliberating on religious issues.
Also, what "community" do you live in? The Amish communitiy? The Muslim Community? If not, your standing will not be affected one bit either way.
It makes no matter whether their belief in Hell is sincere or not. It is unproven. If they live in a democratic country, they are part of an extended democratic multicultural community which is predicated on the premise that different people have different social, economic and political INTERESTS. Their belief in Hell is to be regarded, yes, as an *interest* which may be used, and IS CERTAINLY USED, to unfairly damage the social, economic & political standing of people who do not share it.
Once again, what is your community? If I said to you if you don't believe in the same head of lettuce (or any other vegetable) that I believe in and thus are going to Hell, why do you care?
I certainly don't believe in the God of Islam, so if they say I'm therefore going to Hell, I say..."Thank you and have a nice day". Then I turn around and move along. It's NOT a big deal. In fact, it's not even a small deal. It simply means nothing to me.
I live in an extended democratic multicultural community, that is, a modern town. This means that I'm free to associate with anyone for social, business and political interactions. If, for instance, I own a shop, I should not expect to have suppliers deny me services, neighbours shun me and potential customers avoid me, all based on an openly circulated, deliberately harmful, unproven assertion about my future spiritual prospects.
..."I should not expect to have suppliers deny me services."
I don't see the logic of denying somebody a service because I believe they might be going to Hell. Perhaps you're more sensistive to such things than I am because of personal experience.
As a conservative Christian, however, I don't see the point of denying services to whomever, as long as I don't have to participate in something I consider immoral.
You might as well perform the service. Think of it like the "last meal" for a man on death row.
I mean, considering this person is going to be caste down into eternal fire and brimstone and suffer agonizing pain for as long as he can imagine with no mercy because he doesn't accept the idea that the alleged Jesus Christ died on the Cross for mankind's sins.
Just as you as his horrible doomed soul doesn't infect your pure one.
"...this person is going to be caste down into eternal fire and brimstone and suffer agonizing pain for as long as he can imagine with no mercy...I completely get that!"
If the assertion were that in the past I raped and killed a child in another country and if this is false, I could sue the originator for slander, couldn't I? So (in its social, economic and political effects) how is this different from declaring I'm going to Hell, and declaring it with the evident intent of causing those very same effects?
People can have the same few points refuted again and again and they will still try and make them. Why was this place so loaded with apologists? Stop blaming the victims!
It should be illegal for religious leaders to prohibit their blind followers from reading books that might impart truth to them. The freedom of thought is a basic human right. Yet, many are afraid to think their own government has taken part in 9/11-type attacks. Afraid to think? Their minds are controlled by the same religious leaders that had them elect Bush and others like him.
Monotheism turns large groups of people into thugs when all they want is peace.
What a shame hitchens did not have the opportunity to destroy that last questioners fantastic notion that Islam spread through peace and not brutal imperialism. Or that Mohamed, a brutal warlord himself, who fought many battles, and invaded many neighbors could be though of as a bringer of peace, or even a teacher of it. That man is the definition of a blind theist, willing to believe any bit of nonsense his religious leaders tell him.
A book in which the author/prophet devotes a whole chapter to cursing his own uncle and aunt for all eternity has always struck me as offensive. I would just stop short of banning the Qur'an however, for the sake of freedom of religion.
This debate was a good example of why they sometimes filter or otherwise pre-approve the questions from the audience. There were nearly no questions but instead a bunch of people giving their own opinions which was never called for. I think they talked longer during the question period than Hitchens and Tharoor.
When did he defeat tharoos argument(which btw seems to be the one that prevailed in the deliberation of the UN 'blasphemy of religion') .
He said alot of things that were tangentially related to the argument or were simply other issues that had no tangible relation to Tharoos main argument. It went something like this..
We are all equal, we are equal on our terms, thus, you cannot expect to treat a muslim as you do anyone else, they are different and we should treat him equal accordingly.
It's good if you own a company and don't give a shit about sustainability. If you're working class it's basically a system to get out of paying you more without having to move themselves.
he did answer it... the muslim was making the point that those that killed as just retaliation for being offended did not have any basis on islam. Christopher answered briefly that there appears to be no way of determining which is the proper one to believe in.
After all, how do you tell someone that believes in something that what he believes in is wrong in the context of faith?
no they did not. they disagreed on the core issue being presented.
I dont think hitchens ever grasped the concept the indian or tharoo was presenting. The subjective equal treatment of different cultures. Just as you cannot except women to pee on 'standing pee stalls' you cannot expect or attempt to change a culture to meet the unreachable goal of not being themselves. Make laws to make a country peaceful and to fit every citizens circumstances and reality as best you can.
Hitchens doesn't disagree with your last sentence. All he wants is to prevent physical violence in exchange for offensive speech.
Every human in the world should accept that philosphy. Those that cannot really give us no philosophical choice but to use force to stop it (where necessary). Note this is our violence in exchange for their violence, as opposed to their violence in exchange for our words.
I would like to have heard more from Tharoor. He has a quiet wisdom that we weren't able to hear expressed due to Hitchens' louder assertions. I think Tharoor is more sensitive and a better listener.
i dont think hitchens ever grasped the concept tharoor was presenting. As thus he never really directly target it. Tharoor i guess never heard anything that would weaken his stance. As you see throughout, he keeps asserting his position as the same as hitchens(BECAUSE hitchens never really understood or had a tangible idea of what Tharoo was presenting)
He came close to it on the 6 letter word, but did not elaborate enough.
I disagree. Hitchens understands it perfectly. His convictions however make Tharoors point obsolete. He simply says, as he did this interview, there is no "wiggle room".
didnt he say that in relation to the US stance on freedom of expression?
the argument being made however was in terms of equality.. not freedom of expression. Hitchens failed to target this essential issue of the argument made and kept on and on about freedom of expression.
Surely.. i believe he doesn't think equality should trump freedom of expression but i dont think he made arguments related to this.
I don't thing you'd need to cause gratuitous offence just to prove free speech should not be a crime. I'd respect his point on free speech but to exploit it that crudely (like shouting "nigger") would alienate and completely distract any audience, that's probably the difference between American and most other cultures.
I did go on to correct myself - I can just as easily imagine an Essex chav thinking the same thing. Bescides, you're the one who arguing it would be more respectable for Hitchens to illustrate his point by shouting "nigger."
If you don't want to be lumped in with a stereotype - don't be stereotypical.
I didn't say it would be respectable. I said it would make the point that it's not a crime. He doesn't have to say it like an expletive. It's just as acceptable to say "in what circumstances might I be able to say "nigger" without a negative connotation?" And then point out that by mentioning it in this way, he has used it innocuously. Where you got the idea that I wanted him to stand up and shout "NIGGER!" and give everyone the finger is beyond me.
That's entirely beside the point. The point is that words are not criminal. And I don't appreciate your condescending attitude that implies Americans are out to offend people by exercising their free speech.
Words arent criminal but if one can make the same point while being less upseting about it, surely that is a point better made.
"your condescending attitude that implies Americans are out to offend people by exercising their free speech" Well Entropy56 is a perfect example of one that is. Not all Americans are like that, but a large minority are. That is the problem with cultures dominated by sensationalist media bullshit. A strong message is perceived as better than the right but weaker one.
Good for entropy56. Kindly don't associate him with me by virtue of my citizenship. A generalization is a generalization. If you insist on an ad hominem approach, at least go the route of admonishing an individual and not a whole nation of people.
lol. Let's just agree to be abrasive twats together then. I completely take your point about choosing your words to get along in a general way, just not that words are a crime.
immigration should stop, we should stop pouring our resources into other peoples pockets and we should have a more descerning way of identifying those in geniune need of help from those that just want to pilfer everything they can get their grubby hands on.
immigrants should no longer be entitled to every benefit on offer but only which that they need, nor should they have the right to vote. our own people do not have the priviliges that are extended to immigrants, its all very unfair
Given that we loose 50 times more money to corporate tax evasion and everyone in the UK has lost £40k each to the banking scam, I can tell you are someone who gets their priorities from the likes of the News of the World.
A wonderful debate. Hitchens is talking, much more articulately than i could, about my real concerns about what is happening in the world.
Sadly what I find equally as troubling is that these debates have a low viewing number in comparison to other nonsense that can be found on youtube. With the laws about inciting racial hatred taking effect in the UK I wonder if I will end up in jail by speaking my mind on matters such as religion and immigration.
its not for us to deside which of the islams is the true one
is it the one of bombing yourself to haven or the one of the religion of peace.?.its for muslims to bebate on that
but i think that deep inside the moderet muslims know that there is islamic truth and justification to the crimes that goes on in the islamic and nonislamic world.that is why they r not outraged and protest but keep silance mostly.
I was disappointed that Hitchens didn't annunciate the distinction between the 6 letter word and opposing Islam. This is an insulting comparison. The reason we no longer use the 6 letter word is not because of a threat of violence, it is because we don't want to be associated with the past persecutors of racism and slavery. Hesitating to oppose an oppressive and backward religion for fear of violence by people who CHOOSE to be offended is something quite different.
i thought the argument was solely based on the distinction of the fighting words clause (interpreted within the first amendment) used to support the "anti-Islamic" claim? in regards to the 6 letter word, the reactive "silence" is due to the fact that no one wants to be perceived as an absolute fool. the other claim, as hitchens demonstrates, is absolutely motivated by fear. again, the distinction between those two was expository in regards to the main point--no one can criticize islam.
"i thought the argument was solely based on the distinction of the fighting words clause"
I'm not sure I understand you here.
"... "silence" is due to the fact that no one wants to be perceived as a... fool"
agreed, "fool" "racist" "ignorant" etc
"... motivated by fear"
Agreed, I just thought he could have gone further on this point.
I think you might be mistaking me for saying Hitchens was insulting, I meant, though Hitchens brought up the 6 letter word Tharoor made the comparison.
I don't really understand the 6 letter word analogy he made. To me it seems to be quite similar to the problem of criticizing islam. At least in that there is a very high probability of physical violence for using the word.
"At least in that there is a very high probability of physical violence for using the word."
Personally I don't omit the use of the six letter word for fear of violence, I omit it for fear of looking like an ignorant bigot.
There are also two important differences between a religion and a race, for one religion comes with dictates and injunctions where race does not and two religion is a choice where race is not.
Therefore criticism of either is not comparable in the slightest.
Well saying religion is a choice is a debatable point. After all, the chances of finding some hillbilly born in Devil's Asshole, Mississippi being a Hindu or Muslim would be rather slim. The brainwashing of religion comes long before one is able to make rational decisions.
Sure, and being an idiot, or a redneck or a bigot is also largely due to environmental factors, but it is perfectly fair to discriminate against some one because they are an idiot, a redneck or a bigot.
Mainly my point is that religions come with real scriptural injunctions whereas race does not.
Oh well, I was really only commenting where you said, " two religion is a choice where race is not." I don't know if I would go as far as to say it's fair to discriminate against idiots. There is a cure for ignorance, but stupid is forever. My point is that people generally don't make a decision to be a bigot, idiot or a particular cult member. 90-95% of our actions are motivated by subconscious means as adults. So saying there is a choice was perhaps the wrong word for you to use?
Good call. It may be unfair, but this is one prejudice I hold unapologetically.
Maybe "choice" was the wrong word, but I think we agree that racism is not the same as prejudice of the religious. I don't mind if you suggest a word, and if that suits better, I'll use that next time.
By the end Tharoor had no answers. Hitchens 'won' because his combabtive style is incredibly well researched but based IMO on an incredibly well-informed egalitarianism. Hitchens IMO demands the equality of us ALL in saying what we feel and for everyone else too regardless. Tharoor is an elitist in believing people incapable of accepting that kind of truth and that this must be restrained for theirs and our good. V wrong IMO.
Anyway, thx v much for the upload. A Hitchens fan from Scotland.
As an American law student, I am impressed with Hitchens's grasp of the distinctions we make in our common law tradition. Thanks to the Bill of Rights, this kind of argument doesn't even need to occur in America because any law that abridges free speech will be struck down as unconstitutional. This is a core American value that no court, no judge, no prudent lawyer would dare to dispute. Further, the so called censorship by public opinion does not occur in America either. Look up Bill Maher.
Name me one case of censorship that occurred in America as a result of the Danish cartoon controversy. If you are speaking of corporations and media outlets, it is well within the legal rights of businesses to not sell, show, or promote something---that is not censorship. I agree the actions of our state department were spineless, but consider their situation; they do not want to offend potential allies in the Middle East. Stick up for your principles in this case and millions of troops die.
yah , it's more then justifiable for corps. to cover their own butt by not ruffling any feathers and losing revenue.
but is it plausible that some news reporters wanted to do something about it, and were ordered not to.
of course that is well within any legal boundaries, but the effect is the same, One could organize things as to make sure that kind of order never came from the state, but it came from someone all the time to stop unwanted attention.
Not a conspiracy but in the desperate search of allies in the muddle east, we let them play good cop, bad cop with us: I dont care about sophisticate debates within the umma about if sharia should be imposed peaceful by work through insitutions (Saudis) or by violence and threat, as soon as this becomes a political aim, they r enemies!
HA. OK so let me get this straight. You would like to extirpate religion via American bombs and guns. Reign death down on the religious from planes flown by right thinking Americans....and that doesn't strike you as even a little bit ironic...strange....off (seriously fucking silly....)
I am an American atheist. I have no wish to covert people on pain of death - That is the approach of the mideaval church... Seriously. Listen to yourself.
You realize this makes you an exact mirror of your purported enemy. No you probably don't.
Shall we start with Karachi and then move straight on to Williamsburg Brooklyn, Northern and the rest of Ireland... on to Nepal, all of India - Rome... then where next?
Mind you I don't have any problem putting fundamentalists in Islam or in Texas back in their seats - having taken note of their position - happy to call them fools and ignore their claims to righteousness or rationality...
Or do you underestimate the strength of your position THAT much?
tactics are irrelevant, values are what matters. Hitler had to be killed, Germans killed Italians killed to destroy the armies of fascism, we face a new more insidious fascism that enslaves a billion and the fact that you can turn a blind eye makes you more reprehensible than those who perpetrate the crimes.
hmmm...so you would not have allied with Italian secularitsts/anti facsists (because Itally is FASCIST or German or French resistors and just bombed the fuck out of the place...interesting...but only in a way that a specimin with a bizarre morphology is interesting - which is to say VERY interesting but not germain...)
in Iraq we frequently target the people who fight insurgents.....
That comment is so stupid.... When you make a parallel you must do just that, make a parallel, not some preposterous observation that has no relation to my comment or to current events and actions.
@aweiss you said "Death to Islam, religion and tyranny" - That's how this started - with your idiocy, I merely extended it to it's full idiocy. The people who are fighting along side of people fighting those insurgents are both - most likely - religious.
You can use religious people to defeat religion in the same way you can use one totalitarian to help defeat the other. While I would like to see religion die, more specifically, I would like to see religion shrink and its influence over secular affairs dissipate. That battle is being fought in iraq and we must bring the fight to the whole Middle East
Now see, in part you and I agree...we would like secular realms to be secular and we would like to see the influence of organized religion diminish.
I don't think that battle is being fought in Iraq. US interests are fighting to keep access to oil. Reliogion is being used - as it always is by actual powers interested in dominating access to resources..and yes, a lot of people who are just cannon fodder are sucked in.
And yes, fundamnentalists of all stripes - would just as soon blow the whole damn place and bring the end of time - so they can play miniature golf in heaven with virgin for eternity....
In any case, it is totalitarian and tyrannical to say we will use force to separate people from their faith. And stupid too.
I would argue that a successful republican Iraq, forced into secularism and freedom by America can shine as an example to the region and possibly change things. Iran is the next piece in the puzzle and we could see a domino effect.
Ultimately, any humanitarian impulse we have must lead us into nation building in the Middle East, besides the ulterior motive of removing religion and religious power.
I would prefer that we focus our attentions to defeat theocracy at home...before trying to bomb people into accepting your way of seeing things...
Let's start with the fact that in seven states here Atheists are blocked from running, and the likelihood of an avowed atheist becoming president are nil.
But you have no more to try and force Texans for instance to give up religious thought through tyranny (by bombs) than you do for Iraqis who were quite secular before WE got there...
and the Provisional Occupation Authority forced religious labels onto ballots...
In other words.. we are NOT spreading secularism- we are actively reinforcing tribal divisions...because we have theocratic forces throughout the government HERE and throughout our military..
In those seven states the Constitution has yet to be incorporated on the state level, but any legal challenge of a candidate makes the process yield to them. You know those laws aren't followed. Some states have laws against interracial marriage, it doesn't mean anything.
No what I know is there are bible versus on the guns we are using in the wars of choice we are fighting and that its political suicide for a candidate to call themselves an atheist in this country if they want to get elected, but you don't advocate killing to convert Americans...
"Iraqis who were quite secular before WE got there..." - and ruled by a tyrannical fascist dictator, who tortured and massacred his own people and had total disregard for international law and human rights. Iraqis who were and are still secular as Iranian-imported Al-Qaeda terrorists came along to stir things up together with the bloody Baath Party fascists wanting to hold on to their ill-gotten power.
The bombs were against Saddam, not the Iraqi people.
Have you every seen the cartoons in any newspaper or TV? Funny that you can't even see the cartoons to even see what they are talking about.
Further, what is the reason why no major news outlet is displaying them? Religious sensitivity or because they don't want their reporters killed or outlets bombed?
Muhammad demonstrated with his Sunnah the peaceful ways of dealing with his critics - he had them butchered. And we're not talking about powerful leaders of state, but poets, singers and other commoners.
We seem to quote these peaceful verses from Muhammad as though they were an antidote to the violence and rape he approved and partook in; THEY ARE NOT!
It's about time we consigned Muhammad to the list of other scum, such as Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, and it's about time the public knew it.
BlackstoneGod 4 days ago
Superb debate!
harshm2u 1 week ago
Tharoor got OWNED by Hitchens. Hitchens was awesome.
rustomkanishka 1 month ago
Definitely not intellectual equals. One is a man of faith and one employs reason.
Rationalreason777 5 months ago
Two intellectual equals discussing eloquently = win.
panniize 6 months ago 2
@panniize
Faith, obedience to orders or ways of life without evidence, is not a virtue of intelligence. Nice try though; made me laugh ^_^
HumaneAnon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumaneAnon What the fuck are you on about
panniize 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Go the hitchslap!
dborg321 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science.
All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
nigelsenchez 7 months ago
did that drooling retard just say that islam spread around the world via peaceful means?
slovakmath 7 months ago
one person doesnt like free speech
MGsven 9 months ago
Criticism has plucked the flowers from the chain not so that man may wear chain
without consolation but to break the chain and cultivate the flower.
nigelsenchez 9 months ago
@nigelsenchez
cull the living flower.. very different meaning
sputnikontheshore 7 months ago
@sputnikontheshore But in the context of the metaphor, "cull" means to select or choose. That is to select actual virtue, which is the living flower, instead of clerical virtue, represented by the imaginary flowers (which were plucked from the chain to reveal it as the cumbersome weight or hindrance that it is).
alabamamanable 7 months ago
@alabamamanable mind forges manacles of oppression? as hitchens would say.
zencat999 7 months ago
@zencat999 Yeah, I think that's a appropriate description of what the chains represent.
alabamamanable 7 months ago
@nigelsenchez was that darwin?
zencat999 7 months ago
@zencat999 It was Karl Marx.
alabamamanable 7 months ago
...pffff
MrTonyInchpractice 9 months ago
What I liked about this debate is that it was open, none of this 10 minute speech followed by 7 minute rebuttal rubbish. That rigid formula not only stiffles debate by not allowing a proper rebuttal strait after a point is made, but also gives undue weight to the weaker player by restricting the stronger to the same time scale.
Experiment47 1 year ago 5
This was an unsatisfying debate. Hitchen's opponent seemed to take no strong stand for anything; and the moderator seemed pretty tame herself.
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
@MaskedMarvyl thats good that the moderator was tame. they are there to direct the argument and sometimes to interrupt to get back on topic. they aren't one of the invited debaters after all.
miyamoopen 1 year ago
@miyamoopen, that's true. We've all seen moderators that thrust themselves into the middle of the debate as if they're on some sort of panel. The worst was a debate at a religious college where the moderator ended the debate with... a prayer. Oh well. At least they invited Hitchens to speak without interrupting him.
JonDavidson 1 year ago
One if Hitchens better debates
frikkiladi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsMyNameYourName Well I have done my readings, studied both the theology of Islam, and the secular writings surrounding the topic. So the conclusion of warrior-pedophile-murderer doesn't actually seem befitting in any way.
ragingakujiki 1 year ago
Comment removed
ragingakujiki 1 year ago
the peaceful way of the warrior prophet? I think I need to reread about Muhammad life.
Berelore 1 year ago
first hitchens debate where the opponent made some points i actually consider valid
sketchydc 1 year ago
Sashi and Christopher have compelling arguments.
However, I have to side with Sashi here. Progress must come, however one must be careful to change the world in a sensible manner with minimal atrocities.
This is to say NOT to change, but to progress in change responsibly. It is difficult to gauge however because the Islamic faith is just so... radical, and dare I say fringes upon inhumane and backwards ideals.
mooogles 1 year ago
@mooogles, minimal atrocities are always a good thing......
JonDavidson 1 year ago
As much I enjoyed the debate and I believe, like the host mentioned in the end, that it is important for the world at large, I'd like to share that it appears to me that Sashi was the one who contributed more. Change must be brought, but not by unbearable destruction - unless it cannot be avoided. And even Hitchens enjoys his drink - its worth it to preserve life for another day - if we can.
sajanraghavan 1 year ago
i think the moderator's thanks at the end, aimed only towards hitchens with a sharply executed nod towards tharoor as a way of rescuing her forgetfulness, tells of what an utter Juggernaut hitchens is and why he has yet to partake of a debate and come out of it without having seemingly crushed the opposing viewpoint.
dreadpiratedan 1 year ago
Tharoor just sat there and smiled. Good diplomat!
discoveryii 2 years ago 3
The gentleman who said the Prophet Mohammad was peaceful just made me laugh so hard!
view587 2 years ago 73
@view587 And that's because....? Ya, read a book before you open your mouth. You'd save yourself some embarrassment at least.
ragingakujiki 1 year ago
This wasn't a debate. It was a discussion. Is it really that difficult to tell the difference?
AapKiNisha 2 years ago
Religion is blasphemy.
LuminousTruth 2 years ago
The problem about an intelligent and tolerant debate about blasphemy laws, is that you actually have no-one for the other side. (The ones wanting the blasphemy law put in place)
The two adjectives I used above forbid it.
Afterthoughtbtw 2 years ago
Yea, Tharoor is a good guy, unlike most of Hitchens' debaters.
MvNPTI 2 years ago 5
Well done Hitchins, top stuff. I felt that by the last 9th recording, stuff you were drinking had got to you a bit. You were slightly slower of the mark, as it was even more relevant at this point to field the questions on muslim faith. Islam was spread by the sword, India is a proof of that, over 50 million were killed, according to FAITHFREEDOM. Yet Indian government lies about history, the facts are not taught. Muslims fascism is rife, yet it's only hindus who get criticised.
markwessex 2 years ago
Hitchens nails it here: 2:34 to 2:51 Solid!
simplyarun 2 years ago
Hitchens shone, as usual, but Tharoor, unlike most of Hitchens' opponents, did not come off as a total idiot. I think Tharoor is wrong, of course, but he seems like a generally sensible guy.
And his love for Wodehouse only helps his case.
lordlacolith 2 years ago 60
multiculturalism will be the downfall of humanity
naybobdenod 2 years ago 5
it might lead 2 something better..
rinatep 2 years ago
You don't care about foreigners rights as much as yours? They're human just like you and me. Many much more educated as well.
Sure, the volume immigration is a problem but you should choose your words carefully to not sound like a flat out racist.
LegendLength 2 years ago
Scumbaggery. Fantastic. You mah nigga Hitch
Iambecome 2 years ago
Of course minorities seem to be exempted from any current hate crime laws. Only whites can be racist and commit hate crimes of course.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
This isn't true at all.
bigbowlowrong 2 years ago
Bullshit. There are loads of whites in US jails that got extended sentences for using the world nigger in an argument or fight.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
This is no debate, rather a platform to take a swipe, rightfully too, at religions, blasphemy, George Galloway (wonder whether he has collected the 72 mother-in-laws as a trophy for his jihadist cause) etc etc. You can see from the discussion that Tharoor is a friend of freedom of speech as much as Hitchens is a champion.
0zerosomu0 2 years ago 2
Mr. Hitchens, you said there is no way to determine which version of Islam is right, do you know what do most Muslim scholars say? And which interpretation is better for Islam and for the world? I think to say that there is no way is to admit defeat... and I don't think I could give in like that to Islamic fundamentalists.
amairaja 2 years ago
If I cannot question the legitimacy of a religion, why would it be okay for a religious sect to question another? The Sunni & Shiite are prime examples. Under UN law, those Muslim scholars would be in jail. How many Sunni vs Shiite lawsuits would there be? Baptist vs Catholic; Atheist vs Agnostic; Jehovah's Witness vs Mormon? If they had their way, we would not be able to have this discussion...
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
I did not say you cannot question... or am I missing something?
amairaja 2 years ago
Indeed, I'm not saying that you have tried to curtail my rights friend, I'm saying that the UN wants to.
If one cannot say, "Your god is false", how can they say their god acknowledges their worship but not that of their fellow man. The statements would be equally illegal, or punishable.
Would they not?
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
Shashi Tharoor seems to have become invisible to Bakewell in the last tens minutes of this. Hardly an impartial chair person.
GordonMorrice 2 years ago 3
Well he did just repeat himself constantly, and did not take a stand on legislation against free speech.
Iain0408 2 years ago
I agree that he was a ineffective, but he deserved some acknowledgement at the end. It became a mini-roast for Hitchins by Bakewell. I'd like to see Hitchins debate with that insufferable fool, Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State. They were both on the "Hardball" programme recently and Blackwell was so rude and smug, I almost bled from the ears.
GordonMorrice 2 years ago
I agree that she should have made some mention of Shashi Tharoor. Regardless of whether he "won" or not, he is accomplished, he seems intelligent, he was respectful, and he is probably extremely busy and went to some effort to make the time for this discussion.
rule914 2 years ago 3
I don't understand why people are rating down comments saying that Shashi deserved acknowledgment at the end. He was very respectful and measured, didn't interrupt Chris and was not at any time insulting anyone's intelligence. I have seen Chris debate far worse opponents who make my skin crawl but were given proper thanks at the end for showing up and being subjected to such a forceful and personable opponent. I am a great Hitchens fan, but we need to give qualified opponents of his some credit.
bigbowlowrong 2 years ago
Imagine the down-ratings you'd see if he actually put up a real fight against hitchens. Youtube ratings are often stupid and just reflect people's opinions rather than the quality of the content.
E.g. a comment saying "hitchens kicked his ass" should be rated down but one saying "tharoor made an interesting point when he said etc...." should be rated up, even though I agree with hitchens 100% of the time.
LegendLength 2 years ago 2
but hitchens did kick his ass, and tharoor did raise an interesting point.
senorspiegel 2 years ago
I'm not happy about one of Hitchens' points. I'm all for freedom of speech but, to my mind, if someone says that I'm "going to hell", for whatever reason, I think this should be regarded as slander. It is tantamount to spreading false or unproven accusations with the intent of damaging my standing in the community.
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
"It is tantamount to spreading false or unproven accusations with the intent of damaging my standing in the community."
If someone with a sincere belief in Hell says that to you and you are not of their particular religion, then it's not false TO THEM. And the U.S. Constitution prevents the courts from deliberating on religious issues.
Also, what "community" do you live in? The Amish communitiy? The Muslim Community? If not, your standing will not be affected one bit either way.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
Comment removed
pabzum 2 years ago
It makes no matter whether their belief in Hell is sincere or not. It is unproven. If they live in a democratic country, they are part of an extended democratic multicultural community which is predicated on the premise that different people have different social, economic and political INTERESTS. Their belief in Hell is to be regarded, yes, as an *interest* which may be used, and IS CERTAINLY USED, to unfairly damage the social, economic & political standing of people who do not share it.
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
Comment removed
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
Once again, what is your community? If I said to you if you don't believe in the same head of lettuce (or any other vegetable) that I believe in and thus are going to Hell, why do you care?
I certainly don't believe in the God of Islam, so if they say I'm therefore going to Hell, I say..."Thank you and have a nice day". Then I turn around and move along. It's NOT a big deal. In fact, it's not even a small deal. It simply means nothing to me.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
"Once again, what is your community?"
I live in an extended democratic multicultural community, that is, a modern town. This means that I'm free to associate with anyone for social, business and political interactions. If, for instance, I own a shop, I should not expect to have suppliers deny me services, neighbours shun me and potential customers avoid me, all based on an openly circulated, deliberately harmful, unproven assertion about my future spiritual prospects.
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
..."I should not expect to have suppliers deny me services."
I don't see the logic of denying somebody a service because I believe they might be going to Hell. Perhaps you're more sensistive to such things than I am because of personal experience.
As a conservative Christian, however, I don't see the point of denying services to whomever, as long as I don't have to participate in something I consider immoral.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
That's a fair comment, really.
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
You might as well perform the service. Think of it like the "last meal" for a man on death row.
I mean, considering this person is going to be caste down into eternal fire and brimstone and suffer agonizing pain for as long as he can imagine with no mercy because he doesn't accept the idea that the alleged Jesus Christ died on the Cross for mankind's sins.
Just as you as his horrible doomed soul doesn't infect your pure one.
I completely get that!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
"...this person is going to be caste down into eternal fire and brimstone and suffer agonizing pain for as long as he can imagine with no mercy...I completely get that!"
Ummm...no, you don't.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
If the assertion were that in the past I raped and killed a child in another country and if this is false, I could sue the originator for slander, couldn't I? So (in its social, economic and political effects) how is this different from declaring I'm going to Hell, and declaring it with the evident intent of causing those very same effects?
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch this:
watch?v=XbjIYvXpvLM&feature=re%20c-HM-fresh+div
DoctorPlausible 2 years ago
Why didn't she thank Tharoor?
bertinotti 2 years ago
She may be 70-odd but Ms Bakewell is still the 'thinking mans crumpet'. I'd tap it.
UniweriaZekt 2 years ago 2
People can have the same few points refuted again and again and they will still try and make them. Why was this place so loaded with apologists? Stop blaming the victims!
omgwtfwhoami 2 years ago
Hitchens is handsome, but I'd like to see him get fit and healthy.
ExoticGawdess 2 years ago
It should be illegal for religious leaders to prohibit their blind followers from reading books that might impart truth to them. The freedom of thought is a basic human right. Yet, many are afraid to think their own government has taken part in 9/11-type attacks. Afraid to think? Their minds are controlled by the same religious leaders that had them elect Bush and others like him.
Monotheism turns large groups of people into thugs when all they want is peace.
The legal lying is at fault.
ExoticGawdess 2 years ago
Try not to link your nutbag conspiracy theories into this magnificent work of thought by hitchens. Thanks.
LegendLength 2 years ago
What a shame hitchens did not have the opportunity to destroy that last questioners fantastic notion that Islam spread through peace and not brutal imperialism. Or that Mohamed, a brutal warlord himself, who fought many battles, and invaded many neighbors could be though of as a bringer of peace, or even a teacher of it. That man is the definition of a blind theist, willing to believe any bit of nonsense his religious leaders tell him.
DerTeufelHund 2 years ago
As usual, C.H. wins.
Aeschylus 2 years ago
A book in which the author/prophet devotes a whole chapter to cursing his own uncle and aunt for all eternity has always struck me as offensive. I would just stop short of banning the Qur'an however, for the sake of freedom of religion.
IpsaPaphum 2 years ago
This debate was a good example of why they sometimes filter or otherwise pre-approve the questions from the audience. There were nearly no questions but instead a bunch of people giving their own opinions which was never called for. I think they talked longer during the question period than Hitchens and Tharoor.
masamuneMK5 2 years ago
When did he defeat tharoos argument(which btw seems to be the one that prevailed in the deliberation of the UN 'blasphemy of religion') .
He said alot of things that were tangentially related to the argument or were simply other issues that had no tangible relation to Tharoos main argument. It went something like this..
We are all equal, we are equal on our terms, thus, you cannot expect to treat a muslim as you do anyone else, they are different and we should treat him equal accordingly.
leojboby 2 years ago
As much as I love Hitchens and his actual philosphy, he did avoid Tharoor on his main point.
LegendLength 2 years ago
This debate should teach ppl that being harmful when being offended can grant you the very thing you yearn for. Silencing the opposition.
leojboby 2 years ago 2
It's good if you own a company and don't give a shit about sustainability. If you're working class it's basically a system to get out of paying you more without having to move themselves.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
no shoutout for poor Tharoor at the end
directedchaos 2 years ago
yeah that was kinda sad.
Grak70 2 years ago
I really wanted to hear Hitchens Response to the Muslim at the end.
rmeddy1 3 years ago
he did answer it... the muslim was making the point that those that killed as just retaliation for being offended did not have any basis on islam. Christopher answered briefly that there appears to be no way of determining which is the proper one to believe in.
After all, how do you tell someone that believes in something that what he believes in is wrong in the context of faith?
leojboby 2 years ago
This really wasn't a "debate." I think they agreed on absolutely everything.
happyinnanaimo 3 years ago
no they did not. they disagreed on the core issue being presented.
I dont think hitchens ever grasped the concept the indian or tharoo was presenting. The subjective equal treatment of different cultures. Just as you cannot except women to pee on 'standing pee stalls' you cannot expect or attempt to change a culture to meet the unreachable goal of not being themselves. Make laws to make a country peaceful and to fit every citizens circumstances and reality as best you can.
leojboby 2 years ago
Hitchens doesn't disagree with your last sentence. All he wants is to prevent physical violence in exchange for offensive speech.
Every human in the world should accept that philosphy. Those that cannot really give us no philosophical choice but to use force to stop it (where necessary). Note this is our violence in exchange for their violence, as opposed to their violence in exchange for our words.
LegendLength 2 years ago
I would like to have heard more from Tharoor. He has a quiet wisdom that we weren't able to hear expressed due to Hitchens' louder assertions. I think Tharoor is more sensitive and a better listener.
happyinnanaimo 3 years ago
i dont think hitchens ever grasped the concept tharoor was presenting. As thus he never really directly target it. Tharoor i guess never heard anything that would weaken his stance. As you see throughout, he keeps asserting his position as the same as hitchens(BECAUSE hitchens never really understood or had a tangible idea of what Tharoo was presenting)
He came close to it on the 6 letter word, but did not elaborate enough.
leojboby 2 years ago 2
I disagree. Hitchens understands it perfectly. His convictions however make Tharoors point obsolete. He simply says, as he did this interview, there is no "wiggle room".
slantythecamel 2 years ago
didnt he say that in relation to the US stance on freedom of expression?
the argument being made however was in terms of equality.. not freedom of expression. Hitchens failed to target this essential issue of the argument made and kept on and on about freedom of expression.
Surely.. i believe he doesn't think equality should trump freedom of expression but i dont think he made arguments related to this.
leojboby 2 years ago
I'd have more respect for Hitchens if he stood up in that crowded room and shouted "nigger."
Entropy56 3 years ago
Why?
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
To prove that utterance of a string of syllables is not a crime by fiat. It is the same demonstration he made with saying "fire" earlier.
Grak70 2 years ago
I don't thing you'd need to cause gratuitous offence just to prove free speech should not be a crime. I'd respect his point on free speech but to exploit it that crudely (like shouting "nigger") would alienate and completely distract any audience, that's probably the difference between American and most other cultures.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
Actually it's not fair to say that would be a American thing ... its probably true of most colonial or brute cultures.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
Thanks for lumping me and every other reasonable person in this country with your stereotypical view of America and its inhabitants.
Grak70 2 years ago
I did go on to correct myself - I can just as easily imagine an Essex chav thinking the same thing. Bescides, you're the one who arguing it would be more respectable for Hitchens to illustrate his point by shouting "nigger."
If you don't want to be lumped in with a stereotype - don't be stereotypical.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
I didn't say it would be respectable. I said it would make the point that it's not a crime. He doesn't have to say it like an expletive. It's just as acceptable to say "in what circumstances might I be able to say "nigger" without a negative connotation?" And then point out that by mentioning it in this way, he has used it innocuously. Where you got the idea that I wanted him to stand up and shout "NIGGER!" and give everyone the finger is beyond me.
Grak70 2 years ago
That's entirely beside the point. The point is that words are not criminal. And I don't appreciate your condescending attitude that implies Americans are out to offend people by exercising their free speech.
Grak70 2 years ago
Words arent criminal but if one can make the same point while being less upseting about it, surely that is a point better made.
"your condescending attitude that implies Americans are out to offend people by exercising their free speech" Well Entropy56 is a perfect example of one that is. Not all Americans are like that, but a large minority are. That is the problem with cultures dominated by sensationalist media bullshit. A strong message is perceived as better than the right but weaker one.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
Good for entropy56. Kindly don't associate him with me by virtue of my citizenship. A generalization is a generalization. If you insist on an ad hominem approach, at least go the route of admonishing an individual and not a whole nation of people.
Grak70 2 years ago
hmm, well you where the one backing him up.
Then again, I'm being an abrasive twat also.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
lol. Let's just agree to be abrasive twats together then. I completely take your point about choosing your words to get along in a general way, just not that words are a crime.
Grak70 2 years ago
Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.
Words should ever be considered a crime.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
Ye, it could've helped his position instead of adressing it as 'the 6 letter word'(analagous to the pixelated danish cartoon).
leojboby 2 years ago
Thanks for uploading this
Mackaframmalamma 3 years ago 3
immigration should stop, we should stop pouring our resources into other peoples pockets and we should have a more descerning way of identifying those in geniune need of help from those that just want to pilfer everything they can get their grubby hands on.
immigrants should no longer be entitled to every benefit on offer but only which that they need, nor should they have the right to vote. our own people do not have the priviliges that are extended to immigrants, its all very unfair
freezatron 3 years ago
Given that we loose 50 times more money to corporate tax evasion and everyone in the UK has lost £40k each to the banking scam, I can tell you are someone who gets their priorities from the likes of the News of the World.
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
A wonderful debate. Hitchens is talking, much more articulately than i could, about my real concerns about what is happening in the world.
Sadly what I find equally as troubling is that these debates have a low viewing number in comparison to other nonsense that can be found on youtube. With the laws about inciting racial hatred taking effect in the UK I wonder if I will end up in jail by speaking my mind on matters such as religion and immigration.
badmofker 3 years ago 12
If the capitulations continue,you just might.
new8745fan 3 years ago
I don't think they even mentioned immigration as a problem did they? This was a cultural debate, not an economic one.
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
Thank you, Hitchens!
dolmadakia 3 years ago
loved hitchens last words
so rite
its not for us to deside which of the islams is the true one
is it the one of bombing yourself to haven or the one of the religion of peace.?.its for muslims to bebate on that
but i think that deep inside the moderet muslims know that there is islamic truth and justification to the crimes that goes on in the islamic and nonislamic world.that is why they r not outraged and protest but keep silance mostly.
rakshark 3 years ago
I was disappointed that Hitchens didn't annunciate the distinction between the 6 letter word and opposing Islam. This is an insulting comparison. The reason we no longer use the 6 letter word is not because of a threat of violence, it is because we don't want to be associated with the past persecutors of racism and slavery. Hesitating to oppose an oppressive and backward religion for fear of violence by people who CHOOSE to be offended is something quite different.
jamesstephenbrown 3 years ago
i thought the argument was solely based on the distinction of the fighting words clause (interpreted within the first amendment) used to support the "anti-Islamic" claim? in regards to the 6 letter word, the reactive "silence" is due to the fact that no one wants to be perceived as an absolute fool. the other claim, as hitchens demonstrates, is absolutely motivated by fear. again, the distinction between those two was expository in regards to the main point--no one can criticize islam.
studnothin 3 years ago
"i thought the argument was solely based on the distinction of the fighting words clause"
I'm not sure I understand you here.
"... "silence" is due to the fact that no one wants to be perceived as a... fool"
agreed, "fool" "racist" "ignorant" etc
"... motivated by fear"
Agreed, I just thought he could have gone further on this point.
I think you might be mistaking me for saying Hitchens was insulting, I meant, though Hitchens brought up the 6 letter word Tharoor made the comparison.
jamesstephenbrown 3 years ago
I don't really understand the 6 letter word analogy he made. To me it seems to be quite similar to the problem of criticizing islam. At least in that there is a very high probability of physical violence for using the word.
LegendLength 2 years ago
"At least in that there is a very high probability of physical violence for using the word."
Personally I don't omit the use of the six letter word for fear of violence, I omit it for fear of looking like an ignorant bigot.
There are also two important differences between a religion and a race, for one religion comes with dictates and injunctions where race does not and two religion is a choice where race is not.
Therefore criticism of either is not comparable in the slightest.
jamesstephenbrown 2 years ago 2
Well saying religion is a choice is a debatable point. After all, the chances of finding some hillbilly born in Devil's Asshole, Mississippi being a Hindu or Muslim would be rather slim. The brainwashing of religion comes long before one is able to make rational decisions.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
Sure, and being an idiot, or a redneck or a bigot is also largely due to environmental factors, but it is perfectly fair to discriminate against some one because they are an idiot, a redneck or a bigot.
Mainly my point is that religions come with real scriptural injunctions whereas race does not.
jamesstephenbrown 2 years ago
Oh well, I was really only commenting where you said, " two religion is a choice where race is not." I don't know if I would go as far as to say it's fair to discriminate against idiots. There is a cure for ignorance, but stupid is forever. My point is that people generally don't make a decision to be a bigot, idiot or a particular cult member. 90-95% of our actions are motivated by subconscious means as adults. So saying there is a choice was perhaps the wrong word for you to use?
kokobaboko 2 years ago
"stupid is forever"
Good call. It may be unfair, but this is one prejudice I hold unapologetically.
Maybe "choice" was the wrong word, but I think we agree that racism is not the same as prejudice of the religious. I don't mind if you suggest a word, and if that suits better, I'll use that next time.
Cheers.
jamesstephenbrown 2 years ago
I agree with the point you were making, I was just starting another topic that was neither here nor there.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
By the end Tharoor had no answers. Hitchens 'won' because his combabtive style is incredibly well researched but based IMO on an incredibly well-informed egalitarianism. Hitchens IMO demands the equality of us ALL in saying what we feel and for everyone else too regardless. Tharoor is an elitist in believing people incapable of accepting that kind of truth and that this must be restrained for theirs and our good. V wrong IMO.
Anyway, thx v much for the upload. A Hitchens fan from Scotland.
hertblue 3 years ago 4
great video. notice how Tharoor gets competely upstaged, outgunned, and outclassed by Hitchens. At the end the moderator only thanked Hitch!!! lol.
hexag1 3 years ago 5
As an American law student, I am impressed with Hitchens's grasp of the distinctions we make in our common law tradition. Thanks to the Bill of Rights, this kind of argument doesn't even need to occur in America because any law that abridges free speech will be struck down as unconstitutional. This is a core American value that no court, no judge, no prudent lawyer would dare to dispute. Further, the so called censorship by public opinion does not occur in America either. Look up Bill Maher.
Hurlman418 3 years ago 2
agree with most of what you say here, but in America, you didn't show support to the danish cartoonist or the jyllandsposten , because ?
so it occurs there as well.
dont climb too high on that horse :)
it's a good one, best imo we have, but not perfect.
beebobox 3 years ago 5
Name me one case of censorship that occurred in America as a result of the Danish cartoon controversy. If you are speaking of corporations and media outlets, it is well within the legal rights of businesses to not sell, show, or promote something---that is not censorship. I agree the actions of our state department were spineless, but consider their situation; they do not want to offend potential allies in the Middle East. Stick up for your principles in this case and millions of troops die.
Hurlman418 2 years ago
yah , it's more then justifiable for corps. to cover their own butt by not ruffling any feathers and losing revenue.
but is it plausible that some news reporters wanted to do something about it, and were ordered not to.
of course that is well within any legal boundaries, but the effect is the same, One could organize things as to make sure that kind of order never came from the state, but it came from someone all the time to stop unwanted attention.
omg it's a conspiracy ! :P
beebobox 2 years ago
Not a conspiracy but in the desperate search of allies in the muddle east, we let them play good cop, bad cop with us: I dont care about sophisticate debates within the umma about if sharia should be imposed peaceful by work through insitutions (Saudis) or by violence and threat, as soon as this becomes a political aim, they r enemies!
Brantinger 2 years ago
If we can't stick up for our values then our soldiers are not fighting for anything. Death to islam, religion and tyranny!
aweiss 2 years ago
@aweiss nothing at all tyrannical about that statement...(WTF?)
CityzenJane 2 years ago
huh?
aweiss 2 years ago
You don't see the irony of calling "Death to islam, religion and tyranny"...
CityzenJane 2 years ago
How exactly to you propose to achieve this goal?
CityzenJane 2 years ago
American military strength.
Islam and religion are essentially tyrannies, not sure how that is ironic.
aweiss 2 years ago
HA. OK so let me get this straight. You would like to extirpate religion via American bombs and guns. Reign death down on the religious from planes flown by right thinking Americans....and that doesn't strike you as even a little bit ironic...strange....off (seriously fucking silly....)
I am an American atheist. I have no wish to covert people on pain of death - That is the approach of the mideaval church... Seriously. Listen to yourself.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
You realize this makes you an exact mirror of your purported enemy. No you probably don't.
Shall we start with Karachi and then move straight on to Williamsburg Brooklyn, Northern and the rest of Ireland... on to Nepal, all of India - Rome... then where next?
CityzenJane 2 years ago
Mind you I don't have any problem putting fundamentalists in Islam or in Texas back in their seats - having taken note of their position - happy to call them fools and ignore their claims to righteousness or rationality...
Or do you underestimate the strength of your position THAT much?
CityzenJane 2 years ago
About 80% of the world holds some sort of religious belief by the way...
CityzenJane 2 years ago
tactics are irrelevant, values are what matters. Hitler had to be killed, Germans killed Italians killed to destroy the armies of fascism, we face a new more insidious fascism that enslaves a billion and the fact that you can turn a blind eye makes you more reprehensible than those who perpetrate the crimes.
aweiss 2 years ago
hmmm...so you would not have allied with Italian secularitsts/anti facsists (because Itally is FASCIST or German or French resistors and just bombed the fuck out of the place...interesting...but only in a way that a specimin with a bizarre morphology is interesting - which is to say VERY interesting but not germain...)
CityzenJane 2 years ago
in Iraq we frequently target the people who fight insurgents.....
That comment is so stupid.... When you make a parallel you must do just that, make a parallel, not some preposterous observation that has no relation to my comment or to current events and actions.
aweiss 2 years ago
@aweiss you said "Death to Islam, religion and tyranny" - That's how this started - with your idiocy, I merely extended it to it's full idiocy. The people who are fighting along side of people fighting those insurgents are both - most likely - religious.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
You can use religious people to defeat religion in the same way you can use one totalitarian to help defeat the other. While I would like to see religion die, more specifically, I would like to see religion shrink and its influence over secular affairs dissipate. That battle is being fought in iraq and we must bring the fight to the whole Middle East
aweiss 2 years ago
Now see, in part you and I agree...we would like secular realms to be secular and we would like to see the influence of organized religion diminish.
I don't think that battle is being fought in Iraq. US interests are fighting to keep access to oil. Reliogion is being used - as it always is by actual powers interested in dominating access to resources..and yes, a lot of people who are just cannon fodder are sucked in.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
And yes, fundamnentalists of all stripes - would just as soon blow the whole damn place and bring the end of time - so they can play miniature golf in heaven with virgin for eternity....
In any case, it is totalitarian and tyrannical to say we will use force to separate people from their faith. And stupid too.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
I would argue that a successful republican Iraq, forced into secularism and freedom by America can shine as an example to the region and possibly change things. Iran is the next piece in the puzzle and we could see a domino effect.
Ultimately, any humanitarian impulse we have must lead us into nation building in the Middle East, besides the ulterior motive of removing religion and religious power.
aweiss 2 years ago
I would prefer that we focus our attentions to defeat theocracy at home...before trying to bomb people into accepting your way of seeing things...
Let's start with the fact that in seven states here Atheists are blocked from running, and the likelihood of an avowed atheist becoming president are nil.
But you have no more to try and force Texans for instance to give up religious thought through tyranny (by bombs) than you do for Iraqis who were quite secular before WE got there...
CityzenJane 2 years ago
and the Provisional Occupation Authority forced religious labels onto ballots...
In other words.. we are NOT spreading secularism- we are actively reinforcing tribal divisions...because we have theocratic forces throughout the government HERE and throughout our military..
CityzenJane 2 years ago
Also by bombing the shit out of people - you tend to reinforce their reliance on and belief in - heaven/hell and life beyond death.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
In those seven states the Constitution has yet to be incorporated on the state level, but any legal challenge of a candidate makes the process yield to them. You know those laws aren't followed. Some states have laws against interracial marriage, it doesn't mean anything.
aweiss 2 years ago
No what I know is there are bible versus on the guns we are using in the wars of choice we are fighting and that its political suicide for a candidate to call themselves an atheist in this country if they want to get elected, but you don't advocate killing to convert Americans...
CityzenJane 2 years ago
@CityzenJane
"Iraqis who were quite secular before WE got there..." - and ruled by a tyrannical fascist dictator, who tortured and massacred his own people and had total disregard for international law and human rights. Iraqis who were and are still secular as Iranian-imported Al-Qaeda terrorists came along to stir things up together with the bloody Baath Party fascists wanting to hold on to their ill-gotten power.
The bombs were against Saddam, not the Iraqi people.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX Sadly - the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis cannot tell you how they feel about it - can they?
CityzenJane 1 year ago
@CityzenJane Well no, because Saddam killed them and used brutal violence to suppress any free speech.
It is only now that the Iraqis have a voice and it is only now that they have the right of self-determination.
8DX 1 year ago
Have you every seen the cartoons in any newspaper or TV? Funny that you can't even see the cartoons to even see what they are talking about.
Further, what is the reason why no major news outlet is displaying them? Religious sensitivity or because they don't want their reporters killed or outlets bombed?
Censorship via intimidation is still censor