I don't give a shit
Do any of you?
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Who?
*google*
Oh, that guy. Eh. Fuck 'im.
Hitchens was a moral monster in his advocation of the Iraq War and his unwavering propaganda suggesting bombing the shit out of little brown religious people across the globe.
I ain't gonna party on his grave, but if an Iraqi wants to take a shit there, I wish him the best of luck.
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
I didn't say yay
I said I didn't care
but I thought some of you might.
It seems everyone everywhere else on the internet does.
Meh... I don't care.
Douchebag British atheist.
I only care about 1/3 of that. And for once, British is not one of those things I care about.
What I do care about is for people to stop giving a crap about what they believe. It's all bullshit anyway. No one knows shit, other than when you are dead, you die, and you most likely paid taxes and had to come to terms with the fact that you owe your existence to your dad bonking your mom, disgusting as that image invariably is.
Pity that he's dead. I think that death is the ultimate cruelty. We are given the gift of humanity, and part of humanity is knowing that we cease to exist at some point.
I hope he's wrong and he's chillin with hannukwanzjesus right now. Partially for the "haha, you were wrong", but mostly for the "no one deserves to die. We ought to be immortal in some way."
Frankly, I think it's perfectly valid to be happy that Hitchens died.
It's one thing to be an immoral shitstain. It's a completely different thing to have a global mass-media platform which you use to try to convince the rest of the world that it's good to be an immoral shitstain and that they should follow suit.
So yeah, if I were to come across his grave IRL I probably would dance on it, or at least spit on the headstone. Fuck that guy.
Heh, if God does exist, I bet he was rubbing his hands together and giving a little evil chuckle when he heard the news.
His fascist turn in the last decade did not impress me, but I liked most everything else about the man. I'm quite saddened by his death.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
Frankly, I think it's perfectly valid to be happy that Hitchens died.
It's one thing to be an immoral shitstain. It's a completely different thing to have a global mass-media platform which you use to try to convince the rest of the world that it's good to be an immoral shitstain and that they should follow suit.
So yeah, if I were to come across his grave IRL I probably would dance on it, or at least spit on the headstone. Fuck that guy.
Stay classy.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 16, 2011, 01:13:34 PM
Heh, if God does exist, I bet he was rubbing his hands together and giving a little evil chuckle when he heard the news.
"Heard" the news? You don't know much about this God fellow... do you?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
His fascist turn in the last decade did not impress me
The worst aspect of that is that, when you read his longer articles from the 1980s, you realise he knew exactly what kind of people the Bush administration were, because he'd been writing about their individual members and kooky philosophy for years beforehand.
I put it down to Hitchens' attitude towards Islam after the Salman Rushdie fatwa, which have more than just a tinge of racism to them. Neoconservatism, when applied to the Soviet Union (ie white people with whom he had a level of ideological affinity) was
wrong, whereas Neoconservatism for the Middle East was
just fine.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you
that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things
that nobody actually said yet??Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things that nobody actually said yet??
Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 16, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
I don't give a shit
Do any of you?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
Frankly, I think it's perfectly valid to be happy that Hitchens died.
It's one thing to be an immoral shitstain. It's a completely different thing to have a global mass-media platform which you use to try to convince the rest of the world that it's good to be an immoral shitstain and that they should follow suit.
So yeah, if I were to come across his grave IRL I probably would dance on it, or at least spit on the headstone. Fuck that guy.
Stay classy.
When "classy" and "real" find themselves at odds, which one do YOU choose? :lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things that nobody actually said yet??
Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 16, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
I don't give a shit
Do any of you?
Because not caring is the exact same thing as gleeful celebration.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things that nobody actually said yet??
Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 16, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
I don't give a shit
Do any of you?
Ah you're right I should have quoted Thurnez's post too, to make it obvious that he indeed did not say any the things Nigel tried to accuse him of. Thanks for catching that omission :)
I'm chalking it up to the Holiday blues/grumps, or something. Seems like some folks are just itching for fights wherever they can be found. A classic symptom.
We should all just put on some cozy sweaters, get a nice mug of a warmed beverage, and sing carols and warm up all of these frosty hearts.
Who's with me?
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 16, 2011, 03:23:38 PM
I'm chalking it up to the Holiday blues/grumps, or something. Seems like some folks are just itching for fights wherever they can be found. A classic symptom.
We should all just put on some cozy sweaters, get a nice mug of a warmed beverage, and sing carols and warm up all of these frosty hearts.
Who's with me?
You had me at warmed beverage.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 16, 2011, 03:23:38 PM
I'm chalking it up to the Holiday blues/grumps, or something. Seems like some folks are just itching for fights wherever they can be found. A classic symptom.
We should all just put on some cozy sweaters, get a nice mug of a warmed beverage, and sing carols and warm up all of these frosty hearts.
Who's with me?
Actually, I think we need P3nT's swearing forum back. That was some of the most heartwarming Internet interaction evar.
Hot Cocoa and Profanity?
Sign me the fuck up fucko! And pass the marshmallows.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 16, 2011, 03:40:10 PM
Hot Cocoa and Profanity?
Sign me the fuck up fucko! And pass the marshmallows.
Get your own damn marshmallows, it ain't hot chocolate unless you need a fork.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things that nobody actually said yet??
Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Don't worry about it. I kind of see were she was coming from.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 02:47:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
Frankly, I think it's perfectly valid to be happy that Hitchens died.
It's one thing to be an immoral shitstain. It's a completely different thing to have a global mass-media platform which you use to try to convince the rest of the world that it's good to be an immoral shitstain and that they should follow suit.
So yeah, if I were to come across his grave IRL I probably would dance on it, or at least spit on the headstone. Fuck that guy.
Stay classy.
When "classy" and "real" find themselves at odds, which one do YOU choose? :lulz:
The whole "someone died and I want to be the first to post about it" type of thread has a tabloidish quality to it. So yeah, that's real, in an "ook ook" kind of way.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:01:25 AM
Well why don't we just set up a party on his grave
that'd be classy.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:20:10 AM
He was pretty fucking unlikable.
But the whole "Yay for someone dying" thing. Seriously. Every fucking time.
Fucking hell are you that bored that you're now looking to dig up old arguments over things that nobody actually said yet??
Stirring up shit for nothing, over nothing, if you're trolling PD, go do that somewhere else. And this isn't even jumping on some retarded n00b, but you're wilfully misinterpreting Thurnez, a long-time poster that we all know never even comes close to the sort of assholish vulture-like behaviour you're accusing him of.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 16, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
I don't give a shit
Do any of you?
Ah you're right I should have quoted Thurnez's post too, to make it obvious that he indeed did not say any the things Nigel tried to accuse him of. Thanks for catching that omission :)
I didn't accuse him of anything, I just said that it happens every fucking time and it's pretty clear that this thread is about expressing distain for another freshly-dead guy. Someone posts one every time, and just, really?
And I didn't dig up any old arguments; this thread was just posted.
Given the number of deaths that he is in part responsible for, I am not sorry he's dead.
But I'm not planning a party, either.
One less fucking ape to deal with. Meh.
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
It's hard to drum up the effort to cheer a guy into his grave, when that guy was basically mainstream America.
Don't know if I'm saying that right.
I don't really wanna be like him, or spend time around people who are. I might vehemently suggest that Babs die in a fire, but I would not be happy if he literally did. I also wouldn't post "he's dead and I don't care", although I might post "he's dead and I have mixed feelings, because no one deserves to die a horrible lingering painful death but I also feel a sense of relief because I think he was doing a lot of harm with his life".
Basically all I'm saying is, it's kind of repulsive when people start these "A CELEBRITY DIED AND I'M FIRST!" threads unless they are expressing some kind of sincere and/or rational analysis. I'm not telling anyone what's OK to post, but especially given the last three fairly recent discussions about it, I nonetheless feel quite free to express my criticism.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
It's hard to drum up the effort to cheer a guy into his grave, when that guy was basically mainstream America.
Don't know if I'm saying that right.
That's pretty much how I feel about it.
I might come off as a monster sometimes but I don't actually want to see my enemies dead. I don't want to become what I despise them for being.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
How she even got a job at The Atlantic is something I struggle to understand. Well, her, Yglesias and Ezra Klein, all three of them are godawful human beings and all went to the same schools and got the same blogging/media jobs.
The only people at The Atlantic still worth a damn are James Fallows and some of the guest writers. Ta-Neshi Coates is painfully mainstream liberal and Andrew Sullivan is just painfully stupid. Jeffrey Goldberg is another Iraq War/Israel nut who has been proven to be repeatedly wrong about anything he ever writes and Marc Ambinder's only "talent" is transcribing what anonymous White House sources tell the wire agencies.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
It's hard to drum up the effort to cheer a guy into his grave, when that guy was basically mainstream America.
Don't know if I'm saying that right.
Au contraire. I would happily cheer mainstream America into its grave, and see nothing wrong with doing so one douchenozzle at a time.
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 06:17:48 PMno one deserves to die a horrible lingering painful death
I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on December 16, 2011, 06:20:40 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
I still don't understand why Hitchens deserves even the minimal amount of respect needed to not be gleeful that he's no longer spewing his racist wanna-be tough-guy crap. My only regret is that his condition wasn't contagious, since in a just world he would have taken Megan McArdle with him.
How she even got a job at The Atlantic is something I struggle to understand. Well, her, Yglesias and Ezra Klein, all three of them are godawful human beings and all went to the same schools and got the same blogging/media jobs.
The only people at The Atlantic still worth a damn are James Fallows and some of the guest writers. Ta-Neshi Coates is painfully mainstream liberal and Andrew Sullivan is just painfully stupid. Jeffrey Goldberg is another Iraq War/Israel nut who has been proven to be repeatedly wrong about anything he ever writes and Marc Ambinder's only "talent" is transcribing what anonymous White House sources tell the wire agencies.
Yeah, Fallows is the only reason I read that rag anymore. Well, that and the fact that they've somehow slipped me through the cracks of their system and keep sending it to me in spite of the fact that I haven't renewed my subscription in 4 years.
I really dug his series of articles on China.
His China stuff is always top notch, and seems to match what former Western journalists living in China tend to say about what is going on over there (there is a sizeable English-speaking Chinese blogosphere, especially in Hong Kong, and being freed from editorial concerns, barring the CCCP, they tend to be a bit more forthcoming than Official China Correspondents are).
Hm. I forgot he died of cancer. That always sucks. But I still don't mind if others say they don't give a shit.
Whn, if i catch you caroling outside my place i am going to have to hurt you. Christmas songs have a funny effect on me. They make me want to do violent things to whoever is responsible for me hearing them. Warm beverages are acceptable.
I heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.
In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.
Not only did he advocate bombing the middle east out of existence, but her personally went over there for no other reason than to go around talking shit to people in order to prove what a tough guy he was and how he was willing to walk the walk that his talk implied.
Needless to say, he mostly just ended up getting his ass kicked.
Just in case you all forgot:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
He wasn't an irredeemable asshole.
:lulz:
Did you even read that article?
Because it most certainly does not support your point.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 02:04:09 AM
Not only did he advocate bombing the middle east out of existence, but her personally went over there for no other reason than to go around talking shit to people in order to prove what a tough guy he was and how he was willing to walk the walk that his talk implied.
Needless to say, he mostly just ended up getting his ass kicked.
So, his advocating the bombing of the middle east, but:
QuoteAu contraire. I would happily cheer mainstream America into its grave, and see nothing wrong with doing so one douchenozzle at a time.
...is totally different somehow? Just asking, for clarification. Because it seems sort of the same from here.
first of all "advocate" =/= "cheer". That should be obvious.
Second of all, I would think "the death of mainstream America" would be interpreted by most people as a reference to a shift in cultural values rather than a literal killing off of a population group and even if you DO decide to interpret it that way (and frankly I'd be fine with either interpretation as long as it would just fucking HAPPEN already) it's still not equivalent to calling for an entire region of the world to be wiped off of the map for reasons that can only be described as a heady mix of religious intolerance and racism.
Third of all, nobody is publishing my more unsavory opinions in huge mainstream publications like Vanity Fair and The Atlantic.
(edited to remove pointless assholishness that I only put in originally because I'm tired and cranky)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 05:55:49 AM
Third of all, nobody is publishing my more unsavory opinions in huge mainstream publications like Vanity Fair and The Atlantic.
This is a real problem.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 05:55:49 AM
Third of all, nobody is publishing my more unsavory opinions in huge mainstream publications like Vanity Fair and The Atlantic.
Proof there is no justice in the world
:lulz:
His stuff on religion was powerful. His politics was shit. And he said women aren't funny (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701). WTF, man?
Hitchens arguments on atheism came down to "religious people are stupid". Which they are, but so is everyone else, and isn't really much of argument so much as the kind of masturbatory ego-stroking Hitchens was infamous for. Sure, he prettified it with some decent prose, but when you boil it down to its essentials...
Hitchens always had a too high opinion of his own intellectual abilities, which outside of literary criticism and biographical essays were modest at best. He was also convinced he was a wit in the mold of Voltaire, though I don't recall Voltaire referring to the Dixie Chicks as "fat sluts" in his writings (he could be hilariously vulgar and crude...but he never went for the cheap shot, he went over the top in disgusting you. Voltaire I mean, not Hitchens, whose famed ability at taking down his opponents was nothing more than what the British educational elite would expect from an undergrad).
And for someone who considered himself a wit, he was incredibly prudish about some things. Jokes about child rape were fine (so long as he told them), but God forbid someone make a joke about (male) circumcision where he could hear about it! Joke about a mentally ill man killing his wife in a psychotic breakdown, simply because he held a hostile political philosophy to Hitchens, but make fun of Bush's own sadistic snarlings and you were in for it.
Hitchens was just a high-rent version of Andrew Sullivan, John Debryshire and Niall Ferguson, someone of middling talent who nevertheless had a way with words and a British accent, two things that fly really well in the American press, even if they are considered jokes back home. In fact, comparing him to Ferguson may be somewhat unfair, as Ferguson, for his many faults, at least has some genuine academic achievements and is not, as far as I am aware, virtually guilty of plaigarism (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n23/john-barrell/the-positions-he-takes) (all his stupid and ill-thought out ideas are purely his own).
Quote from: Cain on December 17, 2011, 12:00:23 PM
Niall Ferguson,
:walken:
sorry I have to scream everytime I hear that name else I'll punch my computer screen.
It all happened after reading (listening to the audio book) of War of the World (or title something like that) which was 50% interesting and 50% "What the fuck? Your a historian man! Didn't you go to school for this stuff?!?!"
Quote from: Cain on December 17, 2011, 12:00:23 PM
Hitchens arguments on atheism came down to "religious people are stupid".
He think he was more nuanced than that. For instance, he also said, "religious people do stupid shit". Those are two very different things.
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
I never gave a shit about him and only understood him as sort of a Pepsi to Richard Dawkins Coca-Cola.
What exactly was his argument for the war in Iraq?
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of
a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
I like the writing style, though. :lol:
Hitchens was a disgusting human being. Dawkins is a disgusting human being. If either of them were standing in front of me, healthy and presenting their repugnant arguments, I would take pleasure in touching them on the face with a shitty stick.
But the thing about "I'm glad he's dead, I hope he rots in hell" is religious. It's like a dog rolling in shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
I like the writing style, though. :lol:
I enjoy that blog, generally speaking. It's fun.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:18:51 PM
Hitchens was a disgusting human being. Dawkins is a disgusting human being. If either of them were standing in front of me, healthy and presenting their repugnant arguments, I would take pleasure in touching them on the face with a shitty stick.
But the thing about "I'm glad he's dead, I hope he rots in hell" is religious. It's like a dog rolling in shit.
I don't know either one of them, so there's a limit to how much I care what happens to them.
But the writing style on that blog is fucking fantastic. Not talking about content, here, talking about sheer bombastic hate-shitting prose of the first order.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Yeah, but Christopher Hitchens never posted on the board while touching himself.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
I ignored those portions, just as I ignore any celebration of death on this forum. What interested me was the comprehensive timeline and illustration of his racist and sexist tendencies. I agree that the style and humor were not stylish or humorous; if you know of a critical analysis that doesn't come from a religious perspective I would like to read it. I was particularly interested because several scientists who I follow closely (PZ Myers, ND Tyson, etc) have stepped up after his death to praise his vision. If he was not the person that they present him as, this effects my opinion of these scientists and their ability to see through charisma to substance.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Yeah, but Christopher Hitchens never posted on the board while touching himself.
I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME ONE MAN WHO HAS NOT POSTED ON THIS BOARD WHILE TOUCHING HIMSELF, SIR!
I DEFY YOU!
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:27:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Yeah, but Christopher Hitchens never posted on the board while touching himself.
I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME ONE MAN WHO HAS NOT POSTED ON THIS BOARD WHILE TOUCHING HIMSELF, SIR!
I DEFY YOU!
You bring up an excellent point. I am in fact touching myself as we speak.
But I'm not a fat nasty manchild snuff freak that makes people ill. I am in fact sexy, though not as sexy as LMNO (but who is?), and therefore am not repulsive in the same manner.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:28:47 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:27:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Yeah, but Christopher Hitchens never posted on the board while touching himself.
I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME ONE MAN WHO HAS NOT POSTED ON THIS BOARD WHILE TOUCHING HIMSELF, SIR!
I DEFY YOU!
You bring up an excellent point. I am in fact touching myself as we speak.
But I'm not a fat nasty manchild snuff freak that makes people ill. I am in fact sexy, though not as sexy as LMNO (but who is?), and therefore am not repulsive in the same manner.
I've ruined so many keyboards. :cry:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:18:51 PM
Hitchens was a disgusting human being. Dawkins is a disgusting human being. If either of them were standing in front of me, healthy and presenting their repugnant arguments, I would take pleasure in touching them on the face with a shitty stick.
But the thing about "I'm glad he's dead, I hope he rots in hell" is religious. It's like a dog rolling in shit.
I don't know either one of them, so there's a limit to how much I care what happens to them.
But the writing style on that blog is fucking fantastic. Not talking about content, here, talking about sheer bombastic hate-shitting prose of the first order.
Oh, the blog is
delicious. Especially when you're looking for a dose of validating rhetoric.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
I ignored those portions, just as I ignore any celebration of death on this forum. What interested me was the comprehensive timeline and illustration of his racist and sexist tendencies. I agree that the style and humor were not stylish or humorous; if you know of a critical analysis that doesn't come from a religious perspective I would like to read it. I was particularly interested because several scientists who I follow closely (PZ Myers, ND Tyson, etc) have stepped up after his death to praise his vision. If he was not the person that they present him as, this effects my opinion of these scientists and their ability to see through charisma to substance.
"those portions" were pretty much the whole thing. Maybe you can quote the not-hate-rhetoric-filled portions for me, so I can see what I missed.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we
hate dies. Ook, ook.
I am going to pose one simple question: Am I wrong? Can you explain why?
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Is it telling? Can you answer the questions
asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
Also, once again, way to dodge the central question. Need me to repeat it for you, or can you read back and ignore it all on your own?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Or, perhaps you think that joking around will mahadgiqually derail my disgust, and I will drop my objection and turn into an amiable pussycat on command. Was that it? Some precious jovial peacemaking middle child action?
Oh, do you mean can I kindly respond do the series of questions that are specifically designed to talk down to me and insult my intelligence. Yeah, I'll get right on that. I'm so sorry that nobody is playing by the rules that you've made up.
I mean, my post has nothing to do with insulting the person or insulting the argument at all. You're bringing that one in because it's apparently some burden that you're bringing into the conversation and you aren't able to converse without throwing it around.
And this
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
sounds just plain delusional. Note here that I'm saying that's what the argument seems like, and not to indicate that you might be. The implication that a delusional person would say a delusional thing is not withstanding, as I'm sure it isn't in any of the many posts you've made to where you very specifically insult the argument just so that you can fall back on that safety net.
Did I even say there isn't one person who has it out for you? I didn't. I said you're finding people who have it out for you who DON'T. There might be one, there might even be (gasp) two, but it doesn't mean that everyone is, and it certainly doesn't mean that I am.
Please, stop assuming everyone you're talking to is a fucking moron.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook
It's very simple, really: They were sick of stupid people rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden, and stupid people feeling sorry that Hitchens died. Basically they fell for the "Reverse Stupidity" trap.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Is it telling? Can you answer the questions asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
Actually, Nigel, I have to say, your comments towards EoC weren't attacking the comment. Maybe that was your intention, but your phrased it in such a way that it's a personal attack. "Are you so stupid..." =/= "That was a stupid thing to say". And now you are being needlessly contentious about... er, everything.
To address your questions, no you are not wrong. And no, I cannot explain why. Personally, I am not celebrating any one's death. I mean, Hitchens was an asshat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a party over it. I mena, he was a human being, and honestly, no one should have to suffer through cancer.
However, I really think you are a reading more into some of the comments than is actually there.
Quote from: Doktor Zero on December 22, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Is it telling? Can you answer the questions asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
Actually, Nigel, I have to say, your comments towards EoC weren't attacking the comment. Maybe that was your intention, but your phrased it in such a way that it's a personal attack. "Are you so stupid..." =/= "That was a stupid thing to say". And now you are being needlessly contentious about... er, everything.
To address your questions, no you are not wrong. And no, I cannot explain why. Personally, I am not celebrating any one's death. I mean, Hitchens was an asshat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a party over it. I mena, he was a human being, and honestly, no one should have to suffer through cancer.
However, I really think you are a reading more into some of the comments than is actually there.
My initial commentary on the subject was pretty mild, if you go back to the first page. Perhaps more strongly stated than it needed to be given the gentle nature of the poster, but still, pretty mild.
And the slightly obscuring tactic of phrasing my assaults on the criticism EoC leveled at me as questions... yes. I was deliberately walking the borderline of personal insult by using the question gambit, because of the earlier thread in which I posted examples of attacking the person vs. attacking the idea, and that was awfully close to bordering on "sociological experiment", and for that I apologize because it clearly got his goat and that wasn't my intention. I was hoping for a response in kind, but I failed to make that clear.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 11:01:48 PM
Oh, do you mean can I kindly respond do the series of questions that are specifically designed to talk down to me and insult my intelligence. Yeah, I'll get right on that. I'm so sorry that nobody is playing by the rules that you've made up.
I mean, my post has nothing to do with insulting the person or insulting the argument at all. You're bringing that one in because it's apparently some burden that you're bringing into the conversation and you aren't able to converse without throwing it around.
And this
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
sounds just plain delusional. Note here that I'm saying that's what the argument seems like, and not to indicate that you might be. The implication that a delusional person would say a delusional thing is not withstanding, as I'm sure it isn't in any of the many posts you've made to where you very specifically insult the argument just so that you can fall back on that safety net.
Did I even say there isn't one person who has it out for you? I didn't. I said you're finding people who have it out for you who DON'T. There might be one, there might even be (gasp) two, but it doesn't mean that everyone is, and it certainly doesn't mean that I am.
Please, stop assuming everyone you're talking to is a fucking moron.
I'm sorry I pissed you off, that wasn't my intention.
Believe it or not, I'm not pissed. I do appreciate the sentiment though.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.
I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:
QuoteI heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.
In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.
Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.
Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 23, 2011, 01:58:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.
I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:
QuoteI heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.
In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.
Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.
Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.
If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 23, 2011, 01:58:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.
I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:
QuoteI heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.
In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.
Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.
Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.
If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.
Who was "way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia." addressing?
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on December 22, 2011, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook
It's very simple, really: They were sick of stupid people rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden, and stupid people feeling sorry that Hitchens died. Basically they fell for the "Reverse Stupidity" trap.
This. I am grateful that I am not alone in the sentiment.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 23, 2011, 02:33:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 23, 2011, 01:58:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.
Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.
I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:
QuoteI heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.
In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.
Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.
Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.
If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.
Who was "way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia." addressing?
Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.
No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.
Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:50:32 AM
Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.
:crankey:
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:50:32 AM
No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.
Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.
The only reason I ask is that only Roger, EoC and Kai responded between that post and the one where you quote it and say that the alleged PD intelligentsia missed the point and EoC and Roger didn't
really get involved with it, either posting tongue-in-cheek replies or comments more vaguely related to the post than Kai's comment which replied directly... so I also assumed you were referring to Kai.
Is the behaviour being criticised the tongue-in-cheek or less directly related responses?
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 23, 2011, 03:04:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:50:32 AM
Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.
:crankey:
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 02:50:32 AM
No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.
Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.
The only reason I ask is that only Roger, EoC and Kai responded between that post and the one where you quote it and say that the alleged PD intelligentsia missed the point and EoC and Roger didn't really get involved with it, either posting tongue-in-cheek replies or comments more vaguely related to the post than Kai's comment which replied directly... so I also assumed you were referring to Kai.
Is the behaviour being criticised the tongue-in-cheek or less directly related responses?
Since everything is literally spelled out in the thread, can you go back and quote the portions you would like to have clarified?
ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.
Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.
I did quote the parts I wanted clarified. The clarification failed to make it any clearer to me.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 03:37:20 AM
ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.
The criticism seemed to only apply to Kai but then you said it didn't.
Does it not apply to anyone, then?
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 03:37:20 AM
Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.
People even earlier in the thread ignored a point that you made after they were involved in the thread?
This is all making very little sense to me.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 23, 2011, 03:42:08 AM
I did quote the parts I wanted clarified. The clarification failed to make it any clearer to me.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 03:37:20 AM
ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.
The criticism seemed to only apply to Kai but then you said it didn't.
Does it not apply to anyone, then?
I'm sorry. I am pretty sure that the person/people I was referring to weren't Kai, but it is late, I am tired, and unwilling to go back through the thread right now, so I am going to stick with "if you think my criticism doesn't apply to you it probably doesn't". Maybe you should quote and define what you think I am accusing who of. Other than the general "celebrating a person's death", which I think I have a decent argument for.
Quote
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 03:37:20 AM
Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.
People even earlier in the thread ignored a point that you made after they were involved in the thread?
This is all making very little sense to me.
Clearly. I meant people who posted before Kai. Not sure what's confusing about that. I made my point (well, tried to and failed) in the second post.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Maybe you should quote and define what you think I am accusing who of.
No, I don't have a specific assumed target of that post, other than the one you've already dismissed.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Clearly. I meant people who posted before Kai.
Oh, okay.
Mostly I'm trying to pin down and understand what seems to be a new approach from you.
The phrasing of your comments to EoC do not appear, to me, to be an isolated thing. Do you find that this approach (the personal attack vs. attacking an idea sociological experiment or whatever) is bleeding over to other replies? If so, is this intentional?
This isn't going to be indisputable proof that you're being more confrontational than normal or anything like that, because I don't care to go digging for evidence (there are probably just a few posts that really gave me the impression) and I'm not really invested in making a point of that, so I'd appreciate it if this isn't responded to as an attack.
I'm just going ask if you're aware of approaching the board with a different attitude recently, and if so whether it's a defensiveness in response to the insults you felt levelled at you in the recent drama threads?
I'm just getting the feeling that you're in a bad mood and that's my primary suspect for a cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it so I can post in threads that are turning into arguments without accidentally falling onto one side or another of them.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Zero on December 22, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html) After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.
Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.
I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.
I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.
Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.
Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?
Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?
Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.
I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek. It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you. You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently. Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any. Other than, apparently, your own.
Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it. I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.
Is it telling? Can you answer the questions asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.
You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it? :lulz: I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.
Actually, Nigel, I have to say, your comments towards EoC weren't attacking the comment. Maybe that was your intention, but your phrased it in such a way that it's a personal attack. "Are you so stupid..." =/= "That was a stupid thing to say". And now you are being needlessly contentious about... er, everything.
To address your questions, no you are not wrong. And no, I cannot explain why. Personally, I am not celebrating any one's death. I mean, Hitchens was an asshat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a party over it. I mena, he was a human being, and honestly, no one should have to suffer through cancer.
However, I really think you are a reading more into some of the comments than is actually there.
My initial commentary on the subject was pretty mild, if you go back to the first page. Perhaps more strongly stated than it needed to be given the gentle nature of the poster, but still, pretty mild.
And the slightly obscuring tactic of phrasing my assaults on the criticism EoC leveled at me as questions... yes. I was deliberately walking the borderline of personal insult by using the question gambit, because of the earlier thread in which I posted examples of attacking the person vs. attacking the idea, and that was awfully close to bordering on "sociological experiment", and for that I apologize because it clearly got his goat and that wasn't my intention. I was hoping for a response in kind, but I failed to make that clear.
I agree that you were being mild at the beginning of the thread, and that's why I only specifically referrd to the one post, as it's the only post itt that I felt was pushing the boundaries in any way. I, personally, would try to avoid trying to blur the lines in that particular manner, given the current debate about personal attacks, but I really don't care one way or the other.
And as I said, I agree with you that celebrating a death is stupid, and yes I see the evident Hippocrates in decrying those who celebrated the deaths of the named malevolent human beings vs. the relative innocuous journalist, but I don't think anyone here is organizing a Christmas Day cook out in honor of Christopher Hitchens' death.
Just as a reminder, this thread didn't actually start out with a celebration of Hitchens' death. It was inevitable that a thread was going to be started given that he has been a frequen topic of discussion in this board and so the OP was simply stating some general apathy over the man's death. Not glee, not sorrow, just :meh:
I can find no fault in that.
I personally don't give a fuck about him. I also don't give a fuck about Kim Jong Il's death because I know that it doesn't actually result in any better fortunes for the North Koreans. If it did, then yeah, I'd be very supportive of people dancing on his dead head. That guy has lots of blood on his hands. There are people who walk this planet that are beyond insipid and just plain evil. If their deaths bring about peace or solace for those they oppressed, then strike up the mother-fucking band and start a parade. I'll lead it!
This about sums it up for me:
"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"
\
(http://parallax-view.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/toestill5aoctoberfilms-small1.jpg)
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 23, 2011, 04:16:19 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Maybe you should quote and define what you think I am accusing who of.
No, I don't have a specific assumed target of that post, other than the one you've already dismissed.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Clearly. I meant people who posted before Kai.
Oh, okay.
Mostly I'm trying to pin down and understand what seems to be a new approach from you.
The phrasing of your comments to EoC do not appear, to me, to be an isolated thing. Do you find that this approach (the personal attack vs. attacking an idea sociological experiment or whatever) is bleeding over to other replies? If so, is this intentional?
This isn't going to be indisputable proof that you're being more confrontational than normal or anything like that, because I don't care to go digging for evidence (there are probably just a few posts that really gave me the impression) and I'm not really invested in making a point of that, so I'd appreciate it if this isn't responded to as an attack.
I'm just going ask if you're aware of approaching the board with a different attitude recently, and if so whether it's a defensiveness in response to the insults you felt levelled at you in the recent drama threads?
I'm just getting the feeling that you're in a bad mood and that's my primary suspect for a cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it so I can post in threads that are turning into arguments without accidentally falling onto one side or another of them.
I thought I'd save this for the morning to see if I could make sense of it, but I still can't. It could just be me, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or get me to do.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 23, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Just as a reminder, this thread didn't actually start out with a celebration of Hitchens' death. It was inevitable that a thread was going to be started given that he has been a frequen topic of discussion in this board and so the OP was simply stating some general apathy over the man's death. Not glee, not sorrow, just :meh:
I can find no fault in that.
I personally don't give a fuck about him. I also don't give a fuck about Kim Jong Il's death because I know that it doesn't actually result in any better fortunes for the North Koreans. If it did, then yeah, I'd be very supportive of people dancing on his dead head. That guy has lots of blood on his hands. There are people who walk this planet that are beyond insipid and just plain evil. If their deaths bring about peace or solace for those they oppressed, then strike up the mother-fucking band and start a parade. I'll lead it!
Posting a thread about someone's death saying that you don't care is not really a statement of apathy. "Your grandpa died, and I couldn't give a single shit", for example, is not a neutral or apathetic statement. If you sent a letter to LMNO saying "I am not sorry your father died", it would not be a neutral statement. That is what I was responding to. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the motivation for starting a thread in which the opening statement is "Someone died and I don't really care" is apathy. :lol:
I did kinda wonder about that line, though. I understand it was intended as a "collective you [who are doing this]", but it felt like I could pick either I'm not "intellegentsia", or the statements did apply to me, which I know they don't cause I won't celebrate someone's death, but it felt like it implied I would.
Then, of course, I just let it pass because I knew it would just derail the discussion further, to bring it up. But I still didn't like reading it.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 23, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Just as a reminder, this thread didn't actually start out with a celebration of Hitchens' death. It was inevitable that a thread was going to be started given that he has been a frequen topic of discussion in this board and so the OP was simply stating some general apathy over the man's death. Not glee, not sorrow, just :meh:
I can find no fault in that.
I personally don't give a fuck about him. I also don't give a fuck about Kim Jong Il's death because I know that it doesn't actually result in any better fortunes for the North Koreans. If it did, then yeah, I'd be very supportive of people dancing on his dead head. That guy has lots of blood on his hands. There are people who walk this planet that are beyond insipid and just plain evil. If their deaths bring about peace or solace for those they oppressed, then strike up the mother-fucking band and start a parade. I'll lead it!
Posting a thread about someone's death saying that you don't care is not really a statement of apathy. "Your grandpa died, and I couldn't give a single shit", for example, is not a neutral or apathetic statement. If you sent a letter to LMNO saying "I am not sorry your father died", it would not be a neutral statement. That is what I was responding to. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the motivation for starting a thread in which the opening statement is "Someone died and I don't really care" is apathy. :lol:
Ok, I see your point. However, I think that the complaint (or at least, the one I would have made) should be more along the lines of, "Your original post was disingenuous; the very act of starting a thread about Hitchens shows that you certainly
do care about his death, in some way."
At the same time, because he was a public figure, I feel this allows a certain leeway with opinion.
To use your analogy, RWHN sending me a letter saying he wasn't sorry my dad died is a lot different than someone posting on a forum that they're not sorry that the Science Advisor to GWB died, becase of the fucked up science policy decisions the president made.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 23, 2011, 05:16:10 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2011, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 23, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Just as a reminder, this thread didn't actually start out with a celebration of Hitchens' death. It was inevitable that a thread was going to be started given that he has been a frequen topic of discussion in this board and so the OP was simply stating some general apathy over the man's death. Not glee, not sorrow, just :meh:
I can find no fault in that.
I personally don't give a fuck about him. I also don't give a fuck about Kim Jong Il's death because I know that it doesn't actually result in any better fortunes for the North Koreans. If it did, then yeah, I'd be very supportive of people dancing on his dead head. That guy has lots of blood on his hands. There are people who walk this planet that are beyond insipid and just plain evil. If their deaths bring about peace or solace for those they oppressed, then strike up the mother-fucking band and start a parade. I'll lead it!
Posting a thread about someone's death saying that you don't care is not really a statement of apathy. "Your grandpa died, and I couldn't give a single shit", for example, is not a neutral or apathetic statement. If you sent a letter to LMNO saying "I am not sorry your father died", it would not be a neutral statement. That is what I was responding to. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the motivation for starting a thread in which the opening statement is "Someone died and I don't really care" is apathy. :lol:
Ok, I see your point. However, I think that the complaint (or at least, the one I would have made) should be more along the lines of, "Your original post was disingenuous; the very act of starting a thread about Hitchens shows that you certainly do care about his death, in some way."
At the same time, because he was a public figure, I feel this allows a certain leeway with opinion.
To use your analogy, RWHN sending me a letter saying he wasn't sorry my dad died is a lot different than someone posting on a forum that they're not sorry that the Science Advisor to GWB died, becase of the fucked up science policy decisions the president made.
You're right, I could have put more effort into my criticism instead of being flippant about it.
Nonetheless, I don't think my sub-par phrasing totally negates the point I was trying to make.
You're also right; RWHN sending you a letter would be personal and meanspirited. My point was not that it would be the same as posting on a forum that a public figure died and you don't care, but that there could be no way to interpret it as neutral or an act of apathy.
Agreed. And now I will step back out of this thread.
Just for the record, despite people's impressions over the past few days, I wouldn't send a shitty letter like that. When I heard the news I felt just awful for you buddy. I still do.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 23, 2011, 09:02:27 PM
Just for the record, despite people's impressions over the past few days, I wouldn't send a shitty letter like that. When I heard the news I felt just awful for you buddy. I still do.
Of course you wouldn't. That would be monstrous. I certainly did not mean to imply that you would actually do anything like that, it was a blatantly ridiculous scenario used for illustrative purposes only.
Which is exactly how I took it to be.
No worries, RWHN. I gots no beef wit ya.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Wheres_the_beef_commercial.jpg)