My new favorite person: Christopher Hitchens - Page 6

kidcolin · #51 05-17-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow Dids I missed this at first. Did you just compare Hitchens to Michael [censored] Moore? Are you out of your mind? Have read anything written by Hitchens? Michael Moore is a money hungry propaganda whore who rejects intellectual discussion and reasoned argument. Hitchens is the anti-Michael Moore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens on Moore/Fahrenheit 911: link

tpir · #52 05-17-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it's sick how much the media is showering admiration on Fallwell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ratings get money. Viewers get ratings. Viewers are rubes. Rubes love religion. Religion gets money.

Any reasonable TV producer is shaking their head while they pop in the tape for the Falwell piece.

Boris · #53 05-17-2007, 06:07 PM

seth - I'll bet dollars to donuts you vote Democrat. Michael Moore isn't even capable of using "sophistical pedagogy" so I don't see the comparison. Maybe you could be more specific about which of Hitchens' opinions are really well thought out and well articulated and seem like good ideas, but in reality are really bad or not true?

Dilznoofus · #54 05-17-2007, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow Dids I missed this at first. Did you just compare Hitchens to Michael [censored] Moore? Are you out of your mind? Have read anything written by Hitchens? Michael Moore is a money hungry propaganda whore who rejects intellectual discussion and reasoned argument. Hitchens is the anti-Michael Moore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a reasonable comparison. Hitchens style is more urbane than Moore, but if you are seriously claiming he isn't a publicity whore or that he doesn't engage in sophistical pedagogy to browbeat antagonists, you aren't paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem I see with Hitchens is that he wants to interrupt whoever he is debating.

Let the other fool finish his thought before you verbally spar with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are watching the people he's talking to at the time, right? They set him up against people who are often used to shouting over the top of people and interrupting them aggressively to get their way. That he holds his own against bullying and bullsh*t and won't back down, and gives back at least as good as what he gets, by far usually much better reasoned and informed, and without apology, is one of the best things about the guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. In my experience watching him he's quite civil toward opponents who are not constantly trying to bully him or interrupt.

bernie · #55 05-17-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think it's sick how much the media is showering admiration on Fallwell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ratings get money. Viewers get ratings. Viewers are rubes. Rubes love religion. Religion gets money.

Any reasonable TV producer is shaking their head while they pop in the tape for the Falwell piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree.

I just think it's funny when these same newscasters wonder why their integrity is questioned after this type of crap.

b

sethypooh21 · #56 05-17-2007, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
seth - I'll bet dollars to donuts you vote Democrat. Michael Moore isn't even capable of using "sophistical pedagogy" so I don't see the comparison. Maybe you could be more specific about which of Hitchens' opinions are really well thought out and well articulated and seem like good ideas, but in reality are really bad or not true?

[/ QUOTE ]Indeed sir, I do. What's your point?

Like I said, Hithcens style is more urbane than Moore's Unfrozen Caveman Agitator shtick, but Hitchens has never been noted for his slavish devotion to factiness either.

His most frequent 'error' (he might see it as a feature, not a bug) is what a litigator might call "assuming facts not in evidence." His arguments make logical sense, but are really useful only if you accept an underlying premise which he slips in with great rhetorical skill. He tends to, almost in an aside, make grandiose factual claims, which, if true, are pretty damning, but are far from established.

gisb0rne · #57 05-17-2007, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem I see with Hitchens is that he wants to interrupt whoever he is debating.

Let the other fool finish his thought before you verbally spar with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because he's not verbally sparring. He's ranting.

maryfield48 · #58 05-17-2007, 06:47 PM

Maybe it's just me, but didn't Dids compare Moore to Falwell rather than to Hitchens?

Dilznoofus · #59 05-17-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but didn't Dids compare Moore to Falwell rather than to Hitchens?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought maybe that's what he was saying, too. That even most people on the right were wary of Falwell, the way many liberals steer clear of Moore.

cbloom · #60 05-17-2007, 07:57 PM

Yeah, Dids is pretty right on. Hitchens is smart, and his book on Kissinger was good, and he's generally entertaining, HOWEVER, to me he just seems like the smart guy who wants to say whatever challenges popular belief at the time. He likes to play devil's advocate and take a contrary position and doesn't really have a coherent morality or world-view of his own.

For example, he's basically a supporter of the Iraq war, which IMHO is his position only to be contrarian and not fit in with liberals, and his logic is very weak and generally contradicts the viewpoints that he himself took re: Kissinger.