• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Christopher Hitchens: A winner, or a ********?

Gurdur said:
A self-serving wanker who makes his money by shooting his mouth off.

Nothing he has written, nothing at all, is in any way great literature; in 20 years' time he will be completely forgotten.
Click to expand...

I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.

I thoroughly enjoyed his recent book, God is not Great, which I read cover to cover.

I guess "great literature" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I never cared for Hitchens. He was probably the worst speaker at the TAMs I have been to (though, TAM4 was not as bad as the others).
And, I don't think he even debates very well, at all! He actually made Al Sharpton look good, during their debates.

And I don't think his "god is not Great" book is as sharp with the arguments as Dawkins' "God Delusion", or any of the other such books I've read.

And, on top of that, I tend to disagree with him on stuff more often than most other of the top atheists.
 
plumjam said:
sure, but "cleverness" doesn't have a lot, or even very much, to do with the truth.
Click to expand...
I kinda doubt he got his work simply because he was clever but I think your point is a non-starter. It's rather pointless for us to argue whether or not Hitchens employment has anything to do with the truth as it would be to argue the same for any other person. At best you are simply making a personal attack colored by your own bias. Kind of like your asserting by fiat that Galloway completely destroyed Hitchens. It's obvious nonsense, to me, but how do I prove that? I can no more prove it than you can.


Your post, like most of the posts here are only opinions. And remember the truism about opinions, they're like rectums. Everyone's got one and they all stink.
 
Puppycow said:
I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.
Click to expand...
:) I missed that one.

Dawkins Reviews Hitchens

...Grayling emailed me to discuss tactics. After proposing a couple of lines for himself and me, he concluded, “. . . and Hitch will spray AK47 ammo at the enemy in characteristic style”.

Grayling’s engaging caricature misses Hitchens’s ability to temper his pugnacity with old-fashioned courtesy. And “spray” suggests a scattershot fusillade, which underestimates the deadly accuracy of his marksmanship. If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy. A string of reverends and “theologians” ruefully discovered this during Hitchens’s barnstorming book tour around the United States.
Click to expand...
But then as Dinesh D'souza notes, "Dawkins is only a biologist", what does he know? It's a good question.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I worry intellectuals like Hitchens may succeed in painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense, and I fear this is his folly.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I wouldn't worry about any painting Saddam removal in an aesthetic sense; it was plainly about as un-aesthetic as a hanging could be, particularly with all the cursing Iraqis around him. Perhaps you meant tarnishing atheism with the will to war; all one needs to do, I would think, is to point to GW's absurd pandering to faith to demonstrate the falsity of that.

The man has a political viewpoint differing from yours and mine; so be it. No one's perfect. :)
 
Christopher Hitchens is an extraordinary polemicist, but there is no doubt that his refusal to make an admission of error has caused a deterioration in his prose. His arguments have oscillated, his reasoning has collapsed into turgid vitriol and even his quips feel blunt. An example of his strange retreat from rational political commentary came in his claim that “the death toll [in Fallujah] was not nearly high enough", while his coverage of the Elections has only extended to criticising the style of Michelle Obama's prose.

That said, he remains one of the greatest writers and orators in the media. Letters To A Young Contrarian, Unacknowledged Legislation and The Trial Of Henry Kissinger are books that I, personally, value very much, and I hope that he, without sounding as patronising as I know I will, 'recovers'.

If not convinced please search youtube for his debate with George Galloway on the topic. George completely destroyed him.
Click to expand...

Mr Galloway was excellent proof that even a five year-old would have known to oppose the war in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
The Galloway v Hitchens debate certainly makes interesting viewing. I don't feel either side "destroyed" the other. As I was opposed to the war from before the start , but am convinced George is a crook (albeit a damn entertaining one), I came into it with complex bias. I felt Galloway emerged with more points than Hitchens, but it's hard to keep personal bias out of this sort of judgement.
I must admit, like many Scots, I found the "Mr.Galloway goes to Washington" business one of the funniest moments in politics I ever saw. He's a rogue, but you have to admire his style.
 
Hitchens arguments tend to be made up of Iraq's tendency to harbour Islamists. Why this logic isn't applied to the 15 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, a country dripping in state-funded Wahhabism, is perplexing.

Saddam may have harboured terrorists, but Saudi Arabia promotes terrorism and creates it. More to the point, the latter was not/is not on its last legs and crippled by sanctions. Instead, it gets audiences with the US president.
 
I've always been in two minds about Hitchens. While I've always enjoyed his erudition and his entertaining use of language I find him too much of an idealogue. He seems unable to see nuance in any argument and totally unwilling to admit fault in his public pronouncements. It seems that he has simply exchanged one set of rigid beliefs (SWP Marxism) for his current set.

Possibly his most infuriating trait though is his habit of interrupting debates by mumbling under his breath when his opponent is speaking. He did it against both Galloway and his brother. I was particularly irked by it in the latter because he had a far superior argument than Peter anyway and it was totally unnecessary. It is both rude and disruptive of the debate and is quite frankly the behaviour of a teenager not a highly intelligent adult.

I find him far better suited to being a TV talking head than as either a debater or an intellectual. That said he is something of a guilty pleasure of mine when he goes off on one of his harangues.
 
Last edited:
No man is perfect, and I doubt I'll agree with any atheist on all issues (or any person, period).

Nonetheless, some of his opinions do seem to be a bit... out there.
 
Sunni Man said:
Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.
Click to expand...


Funnily enough, that's what his brother says about him too.

He's not quite that bad, but sometimes he certainly does try to live up to his reputation.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.
Click to expand...

I read the Bible and the Koran too. And Le Pen and Thatcher. And Mein Kampf. Surely you are not suggesting that I should not read Hitchens before forming an opinion. Surely you are not suggesting that just because someone reads a work, therefore they agree with that work, either.

I thoroughly enjoyed his recent book, God is not Great, which I read cover to cover.

I guess "great literature" is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Because you liked it, it's therefore great literature? Taking subjectivism way too far into relativism.
 
Travis said:
Was that aimed at me or are you just venting?
Click to expand...

I do apologise, it wasn't aimed at anybody.

I've spent five years arguing with both pro-war commentators and Respect campaigners, so I've become a little too zealous. Just thank God that this is an internet debate. Had we been arguing in the street you'd all be drenched in invective-induced spittle.

Apologies again.
 
Last edited:
But it was a funny putdown of Galloway. Condemnation through extremely faint praise!
 
Gurdur said:
Because you liked it, it's therefore great literature? Taking subjectivism way too far into relativism.
Click to expand...
How would you define great literature?
 
Last edited:
Gurdur said:
But it was a funny putdown of Galloway. Condemnation through extremely faint praise!
Click to expand...

Heh, thanks.

The more I gape at Galloway's china-cheerleading, Castro-kissing and coming-out-as-a creationist, the more I become convinced that he's a COINTELPRO agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom