What does Sup Forums think of Christopher Hitchens?
He seemed to have almost everything right long before his time when it came to society and politics. He's also very easy to listen to.
Were he still alive how long would it take for him to verbally dismantle the retardation of what has happened in the years since his death?
Also
>Christopher vs Peter: who was right?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
he was right on most things, and was a fantasic speaker
Christopher vs Peter for those who haven't seen it.
He was an idiot, and he was not even religious.
he's kinda pretentious
Peter is much better
If the many things you could call him, I don't think "idiot" is one of them. He talked through his points very well as was well versed in the history of what he talked about.
>Were he still alive how long would it take for him to verbally dismantle the retardation of what has happened in the years since his death
He was part of the retardation...
He should have realized that most people are dumb, and that dumb people need religion. So what he SHOULD have preached was that people should become Christian to counter Islam. But no... alas... he was too stupid to see it.
Hitch was the real God Emperor
Prefer his brother, he has a good sense of timing when talking
I think he was pretty much spot on about everything. Good speaker.
He was alright, but the topics he spoke about are really outdated. It's shit like muh religion and muh Iraq. Who cares nowadays?
If he isn't alive to comment on current events, there is no reason to remember him.
It's not like he was some sort of a philosopher and you could study his ideology forever. He is just a fag who was good at debating and commented on hot topics of the time.
I like Peter the most out of the two (I've seen several of his "speeches").
>inb4 "peter was better"
Peter is a cuck.
He was a Marxist whore.
really makes me think
You think the best way to counter peoples retarded religious zealotry is to encourage more religious zealotry? Wow amazing, its not like thats the most retarded solution anyone could have thought of.
In this present day everyone is a cuck... no matter what (depends on the people on the receiving end).
I wouldn't really call that stupidity. Maybe you could say he expected too much from his audience and instead of just saying what was needed to make people see his point he went into a lot of detail the majority of people would overlook.
I think he secretly believed David Irving but did not want to be silenced.
more or less this, he was wrong about Iraq, or that deposing Saddam was a humanitarian victory since ISIS came right after
he was right about gassing the pedos in the Church, but wrong to attempt to dismantle Christianity in the West completely
I have thought about this for a loooooong time... and yes that's is the ABSOLUTE best solution.
Realize this:
Most people are dumb.
Right?
Then realize this:
Religion (and superstition) is the best way to control dumb people
Right?
DUMB PEOPLE NEED TO BE CONTROLLED!
BY CHRISTIANITY AND NOT ISLAM
If you have a higher IQ you don't need to bother :) - we are talking about the survival of the western world here (so you need to think strategic (and realize dumb people are dumb))
crazy how similar they are (I don't mean their views)
Atheism is ultimately a traitorous ideology. He was more interested in destroying Christianity than stopping Islam.
What a based blue pill faggot. I didnt liked what he did during the Lufthansa scandal.
I hope he pays for all that food poisoning.
He's my favourite non-fiction writer. He was a great literary critic, had a wide knowledge of history, politics, and literature, had great insights into the connections between a society and the literature it produces, and was boldly prescient about modern radical Islam.
Yes, he was arrogant and sometimes crude. Yes, he was a habitual name-dropper. Yes, he was an unabashed iconoclast and loved to be contrarian if only for the challenge of the debate. But I love all of these things about him because he wasn't pretending.
Not to mention having lived a very interesting life as a perpetually smoking, intoxicated journalist/foreign correspondent. I truly envy the life he lived.
His thoughts on modern Islam are still extremely important because they're predictive of what happens in that kind of totalitarian, theocratic society. To say the wide subject matter of his writing and speaking is outdated seems patently ridiculous to me.
If he were still alive the world would be headed towards a direction of paradise. He was without a doubt the greatest intellectual in the last century. A man who was both an atheist and intensely anti-Islam, a increasingly rare combination these days. If we could bring one man back to life from all of history it would have to be him.
>Globalist Atheist neo-con
His brother is superior.
This is bait.
No.
He was insightful relative to other political commentators and journalists, which isn't saying much.
I think Peter is right now that he's taken the blackpill
Peter is the more British one. This means he has better politics and a worse face
Yea he was so anti-islam he spent all his time weakening and dividing Christians, which practically opened the gates for the barbarians to enter.
This.
Was entertaining and was had a lot of fairly well thought out views on social tendencies in particular.
I find guys like Hitchens, Peter and even Molyneaux to be in this category of thinker I call "Realistic Liberals"
At their hearts, they value compassion and progress for most people, but they aren't so desperate for easy change that they will ignore facts to paint the world as black and white.
They understood the facts of the world and confronted them head on, so as to know what was able to be changed and what was untenable.
he was absolutely based, if he was alive today he would 100% on our side
Christopher was obviously a good speaker, but other than that he didn't have much going for him. His arguments were filled with logical fallacies. He never really addressed the fact that morality is baseless without the presence of a divine power. Furthermore, it seems he relied sometimes upon his "style" and reputation to propel him forward, and especially in his later debates it's clear he's just going to be backed up by his fanboys anyway.
Apart from his public appearance, his personal life was also very flawed (at least when viewed from the outside). If I were a psychologist, I would say he was a severely depressed alcoholic with egomania.
>Peter is a cuck.
How so?
What's wrong with his personal life?
>becoming a christian to fight irrational religious thinking
Come on, bro. Contrary to /pol beliefs you actually can hold good values and be intellectually honest.
I disagree. He argued, like Sam Harris, that morality is intrinsic to being a human. As a matter of fact, we have well-defined mental illnesses that describe people who don't have moral instincts (psychopaths and sociopaths).
>He never really addressed the fact that morality is baseless without the presence of a divine power.
Actually, he destroyed that silly assertion
>morality is baseless without the presence of a divine power.
That's complete nonsense though...
I have "morality" and I don't believe in anything higher than myself. I still wouldn't kill innocent people etc...
>morality is instrinsic
What morality? Viking morality? Cannibal morality?
In that case your morality is only a temporary emotional state.
Hitchens was fuckin amazing.
/thread
A socialist and a neo-con.
An actual for real socialist.
AND
A genuine war monger neo-con.
What's not to like?
No, you can have certain morals that you will never breach... without you OBEYING "divine power". It's more sincere that way too. You have morals because YOU want to have them, and not because you are FORCED to have them.
It's better not to be a slave right...
>But no... alas... he was too stupid to see it.
Uh, he was also a Jew, so he wasn't ever going to be spreading the "good word" and trying to make Christian converts.
A Jew, but one of the better ones in recent history.
youtube.com
"I think you're about smart as you look"
Morality is what your instincts tell you is bad. When you hit someone or steal something, if you have some sort of feeling in your stomach telling you it was wrong, that is how you gauge your morality.
There is no universal morality that is clearly defined. It's only evident when we involuntary regret or enjoy certain actions. It is evolutionarily tied to what is best for the tribe/species/family, because what supports those social networks is what facilitates the survival and perpetuation of the species, which is the only intrinsic goal of biological creatures.
people who think that blabbering idiot peter is better than christopher are fucking idiots, christopher is literally so much more intelligent
For someone who was an athiest, he spends a huge amount of his autobiography talking about his jewish heritage.
Hitchens was a warmongering neocon cunt.
I took great delight in seeing him rot with the cancer he inflicted on himself with his drinking and smoking.
>because you want them
You want them only because of your culture. Your "great free morals" seem like a product of good digestion t b h
In other words, morality is notbuilt in.
I don't know about t_d embassy which this board has devolved into over last months, but as for myself Hitchens was a cancerous neocon fedora tipper who advocated for regime change in Libya and supported war in Iraq.
Godless heathen. Fine for anti-kebab rhetoric, but atheists get the rope. He is a founder of degenerate enabling atheist culture.
>most people are dumb
>most people
We get it, user. Everyone gets it, there is no God. The validity of religion is immaterial to the conversation. Most people can't handle the void that's created by the absence of religion, thus you get SJW's/post-modernists.
You're babbling. Morality is intrinsic to most humans. When it's not intrinsic, or goes unrecognized, those humans are classified as sociopaths or psychopaths.
The vast majority of humans recognize when they've done wrong. Their behaviour is governed by their bodies' reactions to such behaviour.
Morality doesn't come from a book with a list of things that are good and things that are bad. It's not enough to say, "Thou shalt not kill," because there are certain scenarios where pretty much everyone agrees it is acceptable to kill someone. So "thou shalt not kill" is not an acceptable moral statement. Our justice system reflects this recognition, that sometimes killing someone is justified and not criminal.
There are a lot of stupid laws, of course, but the western justice system is fairly nuanced when it comes to what is right and wrong (ignoring the bureaucracy of it all).
Americans are so fucking stupid. You can feed this rabble any bullshit as long as you appeal to emotions and manage to wrap up your drivel into semi-comic stand up performance. No wonder him and John Oliver made it so big in the US
my first post on Sup Forums
raaaaa
Hitchens is God-Emperor
>lives under a dictator
>calls anyone else a rabble
Lol
What nonsense. The average viking had a morality quite different than your own, as did your average cannibal.
He's overrated. I tried to read his autobiography once but it was too whiny.
Intellectual midget who can impress teenagers and people who never grew beyond their teenage years.
How does that dispel the notion of morality? And furthermore, how does that prove that a divine power is needed for morality?
>I'm a moral person
No you are not. No atheist is a "moral" person, neither is any atheist a "good" person.
Read his literary criticism:
Love, Poverty, and War and Arguably.
Again, you're making statements without even attempting to prove or validate them. Just statements. Baseless, irrelevant statements. I can do that too.
>White people are evil.
>Socialism is good.
>Religion is bad.
Did I just own you?
>What does Sup Forums think of Christopher Hitchens?
literally a GOD
he was never wrong about anything
NOT EVEN ONCE
OK maybe smoking and drinking but he was really brave and honest about Islam and i admire that.
Peter is the real contrarian believe it or not.
It disproves any notion of natural morality
If humans had no morals, we would have wiped ourselves out LONG before christianity
Even some animals have "morals" (yes, we are animals too)
No, it doesn't. It disproves the notion of universal morality, not the notion of natural morality.
>morality is baseless without the presence of a divine power
Hi Mohamed
And he loved the sound of his own voice
i did too