PDA

View Full Version : Christopher Hitchens


doc_marten_abortion
06-04-2007, 06:25 PM
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is Hitchens' latest polemic that finally delves into his Atheism. I've read Dawkins and Sagan, Nietche and Russell; for some reason I find myself more attracted to this kind of writing -- Journalism. Sure, it may all be subjective -- religion is, by nature, opinion and not fact based (an indefensible hypothesis is a poor one) -- but it doesn't necessarily point the finger at the people who practice rather the practice of the people. He makes his greatest attacks at the gods of Christianity, Islam, Judaism; the many gods of Hinduism and Buddhism; and everything in between with biting wit and derisive skepticism. If any of you have an inclination toward the naturalistic, humanistic, hell, even the nihilistic view on life, check it out. Those of you who have some faith, take a look. Sometimes a peek at the other side is all you need to help bolster your own beliefs.

For me, I'll stick with "theory," and the world so helped by Darwin.

alexb
06-04-2007, 06:49 PM
Hitchens is difficult for me. On the one hand, he writes well and is vociferously pro-West and pro-secularism. On the other hand, his political beliefs can be infuriating and I find his personality abrasive. I'd like to read the book, but I don't know if I want to give him $30, see?

doc_marten_abortion
06-04-2007, 06:57 PM
Absolutely. Just learn to steal or convince me that it's a good idea to send it to you.

I've only just discovered Hitchens, so I can't say I'm aware of his politics.

shivam
06-04-2007, 07:06 PM
the thing i dont like about these guys is that they misrepresent religion so badly. Or at least, non-abrahamic religions.

alexb
06-04-2007, 07:13 PM
How so? Not having read any of the recent books on atheism, I'm not familiar with their arguments.

sraymonds
06-04-2007, 07:22 PM
I thought this was a thread about the former lead singer of INXS, but no, I just remembered the first name was Michael. Alas.

Red Hedgehog
06-04-2007, 07:33 PM
Christopher Hitchens has always been a weird character. Back when he was writing for The Nation, I never really enjoyed his columns the way I did those of others. Then 9/11 happened and he burnt his bridges with that crowd by being all "We need to bomb the hell of the Muslims." And so, his brash, annoying, and abrasive style was now being put toward views I didn't agree with and I stopped paying attention to him altogether.

I've read some excerpts from his latest book and... it seems alright, but nothing I'd be willing to pay money for. It seems like relatively interesting reading, but not anything I'd leave with more than I came with.

For those who want to see some excerpts from the book, Slate was running them so I'm sure you can google for them.

VsRobot
06-04-2007, 11:31 PM
I say we live in a great country, where atheists can admit their non-belief and not be put to death for it.

shivam
06-04-2007, 11:33 PM
i agree. there's nothing wrong with atheism. religion should always be a personal decision.

that said, militant atheists bug me as much as fundies.

Mightyblue
06-04-2007, 11:59 PM
i agree. there's nothing wrong with atheism. religion should always be a personal decision.

that said, militant atheists bug me as much as fundies.This is because they are exactly the same beast. Only with different stripes.

I'm an agnostic myself, and I enjoy having debates about religion and related topics like evolution. Communication is the key to understanding after all, and it's sad that more people aren't that willing to listen to viewpoints that differ from their own.

mr_bungle700
06-05-2007, 12:18 AM
i agree. there's nothing wrong with atheism. religion should always be a personal decision.

that said, militant atheists bug me as much as fundies.

I feel the same way. Whether someone is a militant atheist or a fundamentalist, either way they've completely abandoned all attempts to understand themselves, other people or the world and universe around them. They're more concerned with pushing their own agendas than finding truth or peace, and that's a very dangerous position to be in.

alexb
06-05-2007, 01:33 AM
I have to disagree here. They are not the same. A militant atheist may think you are a fool for not believing as he does. A fundamentalist believes you are a fool and that you are eternally damned to hell. This polite equivocation is part of the problem. I'm tipping my hand a little here, but as far as I'm concerned modern scientific fact trumps the mistranslated folk ways of desert nomads from 5000 years ago. I agree that we need to be sensitive to live in a modern, pluralistic society, but this notion that all ideas are intrinsically equal is a pernicious thing. This is probably something Hitchens addresses in the book.

shivam
06-05-2007, 01:40 AM
I'm a hindu. I also read sanskrit at an academic level. ergo, the mistranslated words of desert nomads has no bearing on the fact that i can read my own theological background in the language it was written in. While the ancient vedas are standard pagan trope with sky gods and all, the upanishads, as expounded by sages like Yajnavalka and his contemporaries, are pretty awesomely psychological and philosophical stuffs, and entirely relevant to our modern age. The core of vedantic hinduism isnt the gods at all, after all, but rather the evolution of man.

and this is where my problem lies with american atheists--all religion is ultimately christianity, and all arguements against religion are arguments against hebrew and aramaic speaking nomads from the near east.

alexb
06-05-2007, 01:42 AM
What can I say? You write what you know. And to be honest, the book is not about Hindus. It's about the West, its social and academic growth, and the religious impediments to that growth. I'll readily admit I'm no theologian. I'm honestly very ignorant of Hindu beliefs. If it's not about the gods, what is about? If they're not necessary, why have them?

Falselogic
08-30-2011, 04:06 PM
and this is where my problem lies with american atheists--all religion is ultimately christianity, and all arguements against religion are arguments against hebrew and aramaic speaking nomads from the near east.

That is because that is what the "western" world has to deal with right now. If Hitchen was more acquinted with the Indian subcontinent I'm sure he'd have plenty to say about the people there who go around looking at men's junk in order to determine whether or not to kill them.

I get the feeling that the fight against religion is mostly about a fight against fundamentalism... Hitchen's doesn't care if/what you believe as long as it remains in the private sphere.

BEAT
08-30-2011, 04:10 PM
False, Dude.

Thread is 4 years old now.

shivam
08-30-2011, 04:12 PM
Why the fuck would you cast raise dead on an ancient topic just to add that?

Sarcasmorator
08-30-2011, 04:13 PM
Yeah, seriously. Why are you digging up all these old threads?

Falselogic
08-30-2011, 04:13 PM
Yeah, seriously. Why are you digging up all these old threads?

Cause I like them and wanted to talk about them again. Why start a new thread to do that? Why does it bother you all so much?

Sarcasmorator
08-30-2011, 04:23 PM
IMO it's preferable to start a new thread about a subject rather than dig one up that's four years dead. Old threads fall off and stop being updated when their time is done, I say. Start a fresh conversation!

Dizzy
08-30-2011, 04:25 PM
Ah, there indeed was a time when Christopher Hitchens was relevant and people sometimes paid attention to what he wrote.

Falselogic
08-30-2011, 04:26 PM
Ah, there indeed was a time when Christopher Hitchens was relevant and people sometimes paid attention to what he wrote.

Now when ever he is brought up it seems in relation to his near terminal cancer.

onimaruxlr
08-30-2011, 04:35 PM
Thread necromancy is general internet faux pas, especially if it's done exclusively for the purpose of throwing your two cents in as opposed to something more pertinent to the topic, like if Christopher Hitchens got in a cage fight with Richard Dawkins and now has a sick-ass scar going up his chest or something.

Also, this seems more fit for the various religion associated threads in the pit of flames.

BEAT
08-30-2011, 10:39 PM
Guys I have created a new word
THREADCROMANCY
This thread is now dedicated to talking about my awesome new word.

KCar
08-30-2011, 10:44 PM
I wonder what jjb is up to these days, anyway?

Wait - it's obvious that jjb the dark threadcromancer is the one pulling the strings behind falselogic's apparent faux pas. Mark my words, this is not the last shambling thread we've seen in the near future. By the time the moon is full, I suspect we'll be knee deep in zombie threads.

Lock your doors, and tell your children you love them. It's going to be a bumpy ride. Also Christopher Hitchens has nothing to offer a real discussion, and offers the kinds of binary arguments that I find so offensive about fundamentalism itself.

Zarathustra
08-30-2011, 11:32 PM
Hitchens for President!

Red Hedgehog
08-30-2011, 11:42 PM
It's so weird to me to see people cite responding in an old thread as a faux pas as the first two large internet forums I was a part of had hyper-vigilant mods who, every time someone started a new thread with a topic that had already been discussed before, would refer the OP to that thread and close the new one.

So mostly I'm kind of bewildered that everyone reacted so negatively to falselogic wanting to add to a discussion that had been had awhile ago. He certainly didn't say anything any worse than what had already been said in the thread.

AJR
08-31-2011, 01:04 AM
Is it really adding to the discussion though? It came and went, people forgot about it, and now someone popped in and replied to a specific post. I could understand if he bumped it to restart the discussion or to look at things from a new perspective, but to bring up posts people made years ago seems really weird.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 01:09 AM
Not to mention it's the wrong place for it. If you want to talk about religion there are about half a dozen threads in General and The Pit Of Flames. And if you wanted to talk about the book we have a big ass "What Are You Reading?" Thread.

Oh and Hitchens is an asshole. Just because you want to be George Orwell does not make you George Orwell.

JDS
08-31-2011, 01:42 AM
Whether you agree or disagree with him, it's really sad to watch him die like this.

Meditative_Zebra
08-31-2011, 02:40 AM
Guys I have created a new word
THREADCROMANCY

Ain't nothin' wrong with bringing back a thread just so long as you have something worth saying.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, it's really sad to watch him die like this.

He looks terrible. I'm sad to see him in such a way but at the same time it seems he was sorely tempting fate with his prodigious consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 08:25 AM
Also I like savoring the irony that the last best chance of saving him is Francis S. Collins.

If he does actually whip up a miracle cure I will be laughing for days.

JDS
08-31-2011, 08:48 AM
I don't see the irony potential in Hitchens being saved by science, but chortle away I guess.

Adrenaline
08-31-2011, 08:50 AM
Posting in an existing thread rather than starting a new one is preferrable, as long as the most recent post isn't past a certain age.

Four years is well past that age.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 09:08 AM
I don't see the irony potential in Hitchens being saved by science, but chortle away I guess.

You don't know enough about Collins.

blinkpen
08-31-2011, 10:22 AM
If Collins were to save the man it would be because of his incredible scientific prowess and have absolutely nothing to do with his religious views whatsoever.

So yeah, no irony.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 10:29 AM
Noooo... one of theisms most famous modern critics being saved by one of theisms most famous modern day apologists would be inherently ironic. Regardless of what aspect of the man its attributed to.

ringworm
08-31-2011, 10:41 AM
I don't find that particularly ironic. I think if Collins saved him using the power of prayer, that'd be ironic. Men of science and medicine who have been religious have been treating and curing atheists for as long as there have been doctors and atheists.

KCar
08-31-2011, 10:42 AM
Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 10:45 AM
Not to mention it's the wrong place for it. If you want to talk about religion there are about half a dozen threads in General and The Pit Of Flames. And if you wanted to talk about the book we have a big ass "What Are You Reading?" Thread.

yeah, cause the people in that thread are going to appreciate a conversation on what an asshole you think Hitchens is...

And we're not talking about Religion specifically we're talking about Hitchens take on it and if what he says/advocates is productive to the end result he wants.

Also his rabid jingoism

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 10:46 AM
I don't find that particularly ironic. I think if Collins saved him using the power of prayer, that'd be ironic. Men of science and medicine who have been religious have been treating and curing atheists for as long as there have been doctors and atheists.

True but said doctors and patients are not usually world famous for their positions on the matter.

It is lulz worthy.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 10:50 AM
yeah, cause the people in that thread are going to appreciate a conversation on what an asshole you think Hitchens is

Yes but then again I didn't revive the thread. And The Stuff I've Been Reading thread would still have worked fine.

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 10:56 AM
Yes but then again I didn't revive the thread. And The Stuff I've Been Reading thread would still have worked fine.

I REGRET NOTHING!

THE THREADCROMANCY CONTINUES!

BEAT
08-31-2011, 12:40 PM
Damn that's a good word.

Just.

Damn good word! You know?!

Serephine
08-31-2011, 01:01 PM
I REGRET NOTHING!

THE THREADCROMANCY CONTINUES!

BUT THE GREAT THREAD SHORTAGE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

upupdowndown
08-31-2011, 01:04 PM
BUT THE GREAT THREAD SHORTAGE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

THREADCROMANCY is a *response* to the Great Thread Shortage. It's the Reduce-Reuse-Recycle approach to threads!

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 01:09 PM
Damn that's a good word.

Just.

Damn good word! You know?!

Oh, yeah! hat tip to BEAT

blinkpen
08-31-2011, 01:40 PM
True but said doctors and patients are not usually world famous for their positions on the matter.

He is world famous because he is a brilliant geneticist and has extraordinary scientific accomplishments under his belt, entirely in spite of his overly rambunctious religious views. If he were just some shlub doctor who had all the same apologist talking points he would be a nobody.

If Collins' research were to save Hitchens' live it would have absolutely nothing to do with his religious views and wouldn't contradict or make ironic any of Hitchens' arguements against the practice of religion whatsoever. Reveling in it would just be pointless spite.

Francis Collins is most certainly not the first and is highly unlikely to be the last person in history to have noble and profound accomplishments in the intellectual field despite continuing to hold to unfounded superstitious beliefs not based on any evidence or reason. It was true of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and more. Just because they were/are brilliant people or accomplish something incredible doesn't mean that their every belief and viewpoint is permanently vindicated and can be thrown scornfully in the face of their critics. It's a completely false dichotomy.

shivam
08-31-2011, 01:47 PM
Ultimately, Hitchens is an angry and strident douchebag about most things, not just religion. I'm not at all fond of his strong neoconservatism and support for the iraq war, for instance, or his earlier writings on radicalism.

Frankly, he's a guy i wouldn't have liked anyway, had his religious concerns never come up.

blinkpen
08-31-2011, 01:56 PM
The "first-gen" vocal atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have all more or less fallen out of favor with me. Dawkins' recent rant against a woman merely calling for some awareness of gender politics among skeptics has not endeared him, Hitchens is so afraid of muslims that he'll condone wars against them on a purely idealogical basis, and Harris just seems too loopy and far-reaching about his talking points and goes off base to things that don't really matter a lot.

I've since found myself more attracted to atheists and skeptics who are more even-headed about it all and don't fall prey to belligerence and egotistical outbursts like Stephen Novella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella) and Eugenie Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott). I feel like a whole lot more people need to know who Eugenie Scott is and why she's so delightful.

Red Hedgehog
08-31-2011, 02:09 PM
Posting in an existing thread rather than starting a new one is preferrable, as long as the most recent post isn't past a certain age.

Four years is well past that age.

Pray tell, how long is the cut-off date? One month, six months, a year? If a man wants to talk Hitchens, I say he posts in a thread called "Christopher Hitchens"

Threads for everyone!

Wolfgang
08-31-2011, 02:12 PM
Threads for everyone!

Miniature American flags for others!

Dizzy
08-31-2011, 02:20 PM
Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

A little tooooo ironic...

Yeah, I really do think.

BEAT
08-31-2011, 02:47 PM
Miniature American flags for others!Man, I love those little things!

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 02:50 PM
Frankly, he's a guy i wouldn't have liked anyway, had his religious concerns never come up.

My admiration for the man comes from his ability to write. He is a wonderful essayist and even when I disagree with the man I can enjoy his ability to craft a sentence/paragraph

I've since found myself more attracted to atheists and skeptics who are more even-headed about it all and don't fall prey to belligerence and egotistical outbursts like Stephen Novella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella) and Eugenie Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott). I feel like a whole lot more people need to know who Eugenie Scott is and why she's so delightful.

I really like Steven Novella. His podcast is especially good, as is one of his blog's "Science Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/)"

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 03:10 PM
He is world famous because he is a brilliant geneticist and has extraordinary scientific accomplishments under his belt, entirely in spite of his overly rambunctious religious views. If he were just some shlub doctor who had all the same apologist talking points he would be a nobody.

If Collins' research were to save Hitchens' live it would have absolutely nothing to do with his religious views and wouldn't contradict or make ironic any of Hitchens' arguements against the practice of religion whatsoever. Reveling in it would just be pointless spite.

Francis Collins is most certainly not the first and is highly unlikely to be the last person in history to have noble and profound accomplishments in the intellectual field despite continuing to hold to unfounded superstitious beliefs not based on any evidence or reason. It was true of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and more. Just because they were/are brilliant people or accomplish something incredible doesn't mean that their every belief and viewpoint is permanently vindicated and can be thrown scornfully in the face of their critics. It's a completely false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy because Collin's philosphy and scientific approach come as a direct outgrowth of his theistic world view (As he demonstrates quite nicely in his book). Not as some bizarre mutant rational offshoot that manages to survive despite his beliefs.

But seriously what is this doing in the entertainment board? I try and keep out of these discussions here on TT, but this shit seeks me out.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU)

http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h476/evildeadjunkie21/godfather.jpg

blinkpen
08-31-2011, 03:31 PM
Collins himself is just a man who's afraid of death after seeing so much of it and embraces a religious viewpoint to cope with it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it most certainly is seperate from his scientific mindset and doesn't actually inform his accomplishments. Suggesting that his scientific accomplishments are because of his religious beliefs are like suggesting my penchant for pornographic comics are because of my irrational love of Godzilla movies. They are seperate things that do not inform one another, and in the cases where they do, they create eyeball-ruining monstrosities.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 03:39 PM
And it's your inability to understand how faith underpins the entirety of ones viewpoint to life that leads you to such flippant insubstantial dismays of it. They do inform one another.

You don't respect religious faith. That's fine. We know this. But that doesn't mean the sole reason for embracing it is ignorance and fear as you are so fond of stating.

In other words, you claiming if Collins is only religious because he fears death is like me saying that Hitchens is only an atheist because he's so blinded by his bloated ego and unearned sense intellectual superiority that he doesn't allow himself to see that there might be things bigger than himself in the universe.

I don't argue this because it's reductive, disrespectful and gets us nowhere (I dislike Hitchens because of his cultivated "bad boy" contrarian for the sake of it persona and bizarre politics. Not because of his atheism). The fact that you among others are unable to do likewise is the reason I tend to stay out of these conversations.

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 03:42 PM
I don't argue this because it's reductive, disrespectful and gets us nowhere. The fact that you among others are unable to do likewise is the reason I tend to stay out of these conversations.

Yet here you are...

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 03:44 PM
Yes. After someone practiced Threadcromancy and put it right in the center of the media thread. As opposed to the general discussion area or the pit of flames where it belongs.

ringworm
08-31-2011, 03:45 PM
Man, this entire line of discussion wouldn't have even happened if you hadn't decided to declare it ironic whenever a person of faith helps an atheist.

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 03:48 PM
Yes. After someone practiced Threadcromancy and put it right in the center of the media thread. As opposed to the general discussion area or the pit of flames where it belongs.

No one made you click on the thread and no one made you click reply! If you don't want to read the thread don't read it.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 03:49 PM
Man, this entire line of discussion wouldn't have even happened if you hadn't decided to declare it ironic whenever a person of faith helps an atheist.

A pithy observation! On Talking Time? You don't say?

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 03:50 PM
No one made you click on the thread and no one made you click reply! If you don't want to read the thread don't read it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/horo_horo04/violin.jpg

taosterman
08-31-2011, 03:53 PM
This is definitely the most benevolent threadcromancy I've seen. As long as it revives interesting discussions I don't really give a shit.

blinkpen
08-31-2011, 03:57 PM
And it's your inability to understand how faith underpins the entirety of ones viewpoint to life that leads you to such flippant insubstantial dismays of it. They do inform one another.

You don't respect religious faith. That's fine. We know this. But that doesn't mean the sole reason for embracing it is ignorance and fear as you are so fond of stating.

In other words, you claiming if Collins is only religious because he fears death is like me saying that Hitchens is only an atheist because he's so blinded by his bloated ego and unearned sense intellectual superiority that he doesn't allow himself to see that there might be things bigger than himself in the universe.

I don't argue this because it's reductive, disrespectful and gets us nowhere (I dislike Hitchens because of his cultivated "bad boy" contrarian for the sake of it persona and bizarre politics. Not because of his atheism). The fact that you among others are unable to do likewise is the reason I tend to stay out of these conversations.

I'm not trying to insult Collins or show him disrespect. I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But they are wholly seperate and distinct from his religious convictions, and if they actually informed his scientific deeds we would see a very different man. Someone more akin to Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort, who try to force science into their faith-based worldview and make a mockery of it in the process. Scientific thinking and religious beliefs mix like oil and water, the former being grounded wholly and only in what is observable measureable and demonstrable, the latter grounded in being very specifically none of those things. Collins voices his convictions about God and spirituality but cannot put forth one iota of the actual hard evidence for these beliefs that is verily demanded of his scientific findings. It is a huge red flag that he has cordoned off part of his mind to accomodate a superstitious belief that comforts him. Many of us do it, most of us, nearly all of us. I am guilty of it, so are you. It's not an insult to him or anyone else, it's just the fact of the matter.

Occams Razor can pin it down quite quickly. Is it more likely that:

1. Francis Collins is on to some deep profound truth about the universe that has somehow eluded the vast, vast majority of the scientific community worldwide, filled with men and women just as brilliant if not moreso than him. He's right and Steven Hawking is wrong on theological matters despite the fact that his position is the one that posits things for which there is no evidence at all.

Or

2. He's a man who's seen a lot of death and knows it will happen to him one day and clings to a hope that there might be something more beyond it. That he simply holds onto an unfounded belief because he wants to. Something that's been going on in human psychology since day one, that we know to have occured with people great and small, brilliant and ignorant, countless times throughout history.

I'm not insulting him by putting my money on 2, just hedging my bets on the more likely of scenarios.

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 04:00 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/horo_horo04/violin.jpg

I'm not the one losing my shit over the discussion so I don't know why you're playing the violin for me. I find this all entertaining and educational.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm not the one losing my shit over the discussion so I don't know why you're playing the violin for me. I find this all entertaining.

Man if your definition of "losing my shit" is posting funny videos of Al Pacino, then you have a very strange definition of losing one's shit.

Falselogic
08-31-2011, 04:05 PM
Man if your definition of "losing my shit" is posting funny videos of Al Pacino, then you have a very strange definition of losing one's shit.

I was only going on this, and the general tone of all your posts,:

But seriously what is this doing in the entertainment board? I try and keep out of these discussions here on TT, but this shit seeks me out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU)


The fact that you among others are unable to do likewise is the reason I tend to stay out of these conversations.

Yes. After someone practiced Threadcromancy and put it right in the center of the media thread. As opposed to the general discussion area or the pit of flames where it belongs.

Nodal
08-31-2011, 04:12 PM
Evil Dead's anger is just even funnier because he denies it exists.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 04:20 PM
I'm not trying to insult Collins or show him disrespect. I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But they are wholly seperate and distinct from his religious convictions,

This is really our point of contention and I think this is where we just have to agree to disagree. Collins says "I believe the world works a certain way." and it's through this prism that he understands his scientific research. He's not trying to force science into any mold because he doesn't have to. No more than someone who wears spectacles has to think "BE CLEAR" at everything.

You argue that if Collins mixed faith in with his science (which I say he does) he'd be markedly different. I think this would be doubly so if he was a materialist.

The Oil And Water thing is the other point of contention. Just because we've been mired in The Conflict Thesis for the past century doesn't mean we have to be. Draper and White are not holy writ. And by the way that's not just me claiming such, that's Stephen Jay Gould. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html) The fact is there's plenty of scientific discovery (Take Kepler's Laws for one.) that simply wouldn't of happened with the influence of religious thought.

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 04:21 PM
I was only going on this, and the general tone of all your posts,:

Yeah I don't see any anger in any of those posts.

So jog on.

(PROTIP there might be some annoyance in this one. So feel free to quote. )

JDS
08-31-2011, 06:21 PM
Hitchens' appraisal of the King James Bible he wrote for Vanity Fair is a must-read.

Kayin
08-31-2011, 06:34 PM
Evil Dead's anger is just even funnier because he denies it exists.

He's as strident as those atheists!

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 06:46 PM
He's as strident as those atheists!

OK this is seriously cracking me up. How long have we been on the same board? You guys have to have some idea when my tongue is somewhat in cheek.

Occasional embellishment aside what I basically said was:

Blinkpen: Your view of the faith of Collins and other Christian Scientists is unfairly reductive.

Falselogic: "Threadcromancy Joke" Which makes me approximately the dozenth person to make a threadcromancy joke. In this thread alone.

Jeez you guys are right. We're lucky there weren't any duels.

Kayin
08-31-2011, 06:52 PM
Blinkpen: You're view of faith in regards to Collins and other Christian Scientists is unfairly reductive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb4mU59-7jE).

Evil Dead Junkie
08-31-2011, 06:54 PM
:confused:

My Itunes was playing Willie Nelson when that popped up. Somehow it was perfect.

Alex Scott
08-31-2011, 07:03 PM
My religion teaches that threadcromancy is a grave sin indeed.

Nodal
08-31-2011, 07:12 PM
Were going to need to call in a threadorcist.

Matchstick
08-31-2011, 08:06 PM
Pray tell, how long is the cut-off date? One month, six months, a year? If a man wants to talk Hitchens, I say he posts in a thread called "Christopher Hitchens"

Threads for everyone!

Spot on.

Sir Sly Ry
09-01-2011, 07:01 AM
The "first-gen" vocal atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have all more or less fallen out of favor with me.
What about the fourth horseman, Daniel Dennett? I never actually read any of this stuff, though I have at least one book by the other three.

Sprite
09-01-2011, 07:25 AM
I've since found myself more attracted to atheists and skeptics who are more even-headed about it all and don't fall prey to belligerence and egotistical outbursts like Stephen Novella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella) and Eugenie Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott). I feel like a whole lot more people need to know who Eugenie Scott is and why she's so delightful.
The problem is that even-handed doesn't make good copy. There are plenty of brilliant people, with or without faith, who are capable of rational discussion and *gasp* respect for the positions of those who disagree with them, but you have to seek those people out or be well-versed in their field. Otherwise Polkinghorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne) would get a lot more press than Dobson.

blinkpen
09-01-2011, 11:13 AM
The problem is that even-handed doesn't make good copy. There are plenty of brilliant people, with or without faith, who are capable of rational discussion and *gasp* respect for the positions of those who disagree with them, but you have to seek those people out or be well-versed in their field. Otherwise Polkinghorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne) would get a lot more press than Dobson.

Well yeah, those louder, more attention-grabbing voices are what got me interested in such topics to begin with for sure. No matter how I feel about Dawkins now he will have at least some measure of remembrance and notability in my life for getting me thinking about such things in the first place. Sometimes that's how it's gotta start. But I at least have grown past him and moved on to others by delving deeper into the topics and the community. Dawkins is brilliant when it comes to talking about biology and evolution, but I've discovered he's not actually all that good at making arguements and cases for his philosophical ideals, not compared to some of the others I've seen. I wouldn't not recomend The God Delusion to a budding atheist looking for some info and courage, but if they want to stand their ground against some of the more hardcore apologetic arguements they'll have to be armed with deeper material.

Stephen Novella does get pretty good copy now and then, but usually it's because of shrill Big Pharma Conspiracy nuts or Anti-Vaccers calling him a nazi pinko baby eating devil monster for pointing out smart, reasonable things about medicine.

What about the fourth horseman, Daniel Dennett? I never actually read any of this stuff, though I have at least one book by the other three.

I'm in the same boat. I'm not particularly familiar with the guy, so I can't really comment on him. He seems to keep a lower profile than the others in any case.

Falselogic
09-01-2011, 11:32 AM
I'm in the same boat. I'm not particularly familiar with the guy, so I can't really comment on him. He seems to keep a lower profile than the others in any case.

I've got his book Breaking the Spell but have yet to read it.

Back on the topic though has anyone else read Hitchen's tribute to the King James version of the Bible, the role it played in nation building of England, and how it cemented large parts of the English language and western (Anglo-American) culture.

If not you really should (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105)

As always, for me, Hitchens is a joy to read. As Shivam, and I. mentioned below the man is positively intolerant of Muslims and is an unrepentant jingoist but he writes "purty"

shivam
09-01-2011, 01:21 PM
yeah, i may not like the guy, but i read every new article he writes for slate and whomever. he is very good at what he does.

Kayin
09-01-2011, 01:38 PM
Dan Dennett is lovely. Just listen to his talks. He's probably my favorite of the four.

As for Hitchens, I gotta say I enjoy him. I like anyone where, when they state an opinion, I can tell that they've thought about it an awful lot even if I don't agree with them. Hitchens has never struck me as a guy who has said or believed things because it was politically expected of him, and he's so very well read. I even like his debates -- he's the least informative of the horsemen, but is just so entertaining. Generally I want my atheism to be educational, but sometimes it's fun to just watch a dude wreck faces.

Also I gotta say, I never found Dawkin's particularly nasty or strident. The whole Rebecca Watson thing is the first time I can think of where he said something where I was like "Wow wow wow, chill out, Richard!", and it was unrelated to atheism (though I was still very disappointed in him!).

I'm a big fan of PZ Myers. He's argumentative but even more scientific in his talks than Dawkins. He also looks like a teddy bear. A Big, mean teddy bear. I'll also vouch for Eugene Scott, who isn't particularly argumentative at all.

I'm generally pretty pleased with the diversity in the atheism (or more important to me, the skeptics) movement. I agree with people when they say their needs to be different voices, speaking at varying levels of intensity and thats what seems to be going on right now.

Sir Sly Ry
09-01-2011, 06:15 PM
but if they want to stand their ground against some of the more hardcore apologetic arguements they'll have to be armed with deeper material.
I recommend this. (http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314922218&sr=8-1) It's not inflammatory or anything. It does occasionally single out the Christian God, but considering it's written by an American that is to be expected. The first chapter of the book is spent just defining what atheism is and what it isn't, and also defines things like agnosticism. I've read the book a couple of times. While I may not gel with 100% of what it says, I feel like I learned a lot from it, and not just about atheism, but it also tackles universal skepticism and other things.

Anyway, yeah I don't think Dawkins is so great at doing atheist talks but I love the guy for getting me on my feet and also helping me appreciate science. I've come to appreciate science so much over the past few years, and now I'm back at college, majoring in biology. Hail science, Hail Dawkins (except for his recent insulting comments).

Seth Marati
09-01-2011, 06:25 PM
THREADCROMANCY

Magically animating human remains made of thread or yarn.


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj14/beat85/Festivus%20Photos/Festivus6.jpg


CLOSE ENOUGH

Kayin
09-01-2011, 06:50 PM
Anyway, yeah I don't think Dawkins is so great at doing atheist talks but I love the guy for getting me on my feet and also helping me appreciate science.


Well it's hard to give a talk about atheism. It's just a lack of belief. Most talks of any interest are going to be about related issues. Skepticism, science, morality, whatever. Sometimes it's like Eugenie Scott, where it's more a talk about the opposition. Someone like Hitchens or Pre Medschool Harris needed to borrow from all these disciplines to do an 'atheism' talk.

For this reason I'm always a big fan of the science approach. I mean heck, I watch science videos on youtube all the time already!

Falselogic
10-11-2011, 09:54 AM
Christopher Hitchens was awarded the Richard Dawkins Freethinker of the Year Award this year in Houston, Texas (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/hitchens-makes-rare-appearance-in-texas/).

Hitchens was there and accepted the award and was then takking questions from the crowd. A small girl made her way to the microphone and asked Mr. Hitchens what books she should read. Mr. Hitchens asked her to come see him after the questioning period and then talked to her privately for awhile about what to read.

It doesn't look like a bad list and is certainly a great story (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/mason-crumpacker-and-the-hitchens-reading-list/).

Ethan
10-11-2011, 02:27 PM
I recently read a piece by Hitchens about losing the ability to speak, that was included in Dave Pell's Delivereads service for the Kindle. Reading his writing is like watching a perfect 10 Olympic high dive. Such economy of motion. I can understand having problems with him as a thinker, but not as a craftsman.

JDS
10-11-2011, 03:49 PM
I was off the Hitch wagon in the last year or so, but I've read three of his books in the past week. A shame he'll probably die without making that final leap and taking Trotsky to account, but no one's perfect.

Dizzy
10-11-2011, 03:50 PM
But it is such a shame that someone with such talent can be so wrong-headed. Oh well!

Hmm. I wonder if I would sacrifice my sense of social justice to write well...

JDS
10-11-2011, 03:51 PM
Dizzy, what positions do you take issue with?

Dizzy
10-11-2011, 03:53 PM
His views on foreign policy and Islam.

I also think he wrote essays about how women and The Daily Show were not funny. That's like denying the Earth has a sun.

JDS
10-11-2011, 04:08 PM
I agree w/ him about Islamism/foreign policy and am beginning to come around to him on the Daily Show. t(@_@ t) I don't see how he sacrificed his sense of social justice, though.

Klatrymadon
10-11-2011, 04:12 PM
His views on foreign policy and Islam.

Indeed. He's a classic case of a young revolutionary growing up into a conservative old fart, and he uses his left-wing past as a way of selling deeply reactionary views and support for western imperialism to a liberal audience. Richard Seymour's The Liberal Defence of Murder is essential reading if you're interested in this stuff; he talks about the so-called 'Four Horsemen' quite a bit, and traces liberal and Left support for imperialism right back to people like John Stuart Mill.

Dizzy
10-11-2011, 04:14 PM
Wow. You and me must read the same blog (http://leninology.blogspot.com/). Now I know I'm not the only one who is doomed.

JDS
10-11-2011, 04:16 PM
support for western imperialism to a liberal audience

lol if you think internationalist solidarity stops at communism

Klatrymadon
10-11-2011, 04:17 PM
Haha, yeah, I do like Seymour's blog. I really wish it didn't take a Marxist academic to point this sort of thing out to people, though, or to expose arguments about Burqas and veils as red herrings, etc.

Ed: certainly not, JDS, but that's an odd inference and a non-sequitur. Are you reading something exclusive/sectarian into "liberal audience", or something? I'm a bit lost, here. ;)

Falselogic
12-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Christopher Hitchen ruminates on what it is like to be dying... (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/01/hitchens-201201)

shivam
12-15-2011, 10:28 PM
May the soul you don't think you have find peace, hitchens.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

you were the adversary i needed, in order to teach me to think critically and deeply about my faith. And while i came to a different conclusion than you did, I appreciate that you helped me get there.

Falselogic
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
May the soul you don't think you have find peace, hitchens.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

you were the adversary i needed, in order to teach me to think critically and deeply about my faith. And while i came to a different conclusion than you did, I appreciate that you helped me get there.

=(

Kayin
12-15-2011, 10:59 PM
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

JDS
12-16-2011, 12:49 AM
This is the saddest news. Put his name into youtube and just click on him owning people for hours.

christoffing
12-16-2011, 04:46 AM
Christopher Hitchen ruminates on what it is like to be dying... (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/01/hitchens-201201)

I was reading this just before going to bed, so he was the last thing on my mind last night. Then I wake up to this =/

He might have held some of the most despicable political views during the last ten years or so but what a hero nonetheless.

Sprite
12-16-2011, 06:57 AM
May the soul you don't think you have find peace, hitchens.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

you were the adversary i needed, in order to teach me to think critically and deeply about my faith. And while i came to a different conclusion than you did, I appreciate that you helped me get there.
Amen. Requiescat in pace.

Evil Dead Junkie
12-16-2011, 09:43 AM
There will be other eulogies written about him. But none will be better than this one. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/postscript-christopher-hitchens.html)

Dizzy
12-16-2011, 10:09 AM
This is the saddest news. Put his name into youtube and just click on him owning people for hours.

"If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox (http://youtu.be/doKkOSMaTk4)."

EDIT: Well, he did publish some contemptible stuff (http://coreyrobin.com/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-the-most-provincial-spirit-of-all/) though.

Just in case anyone thinks the following link is distasteful, I point you to what I just linked before that one.

Sir Sly Ry
12-16-2011, 11:08 AM
I don't know much about Christopher Hitchens's political views, and I'm not saying I agree with everything the man said, but as an atheist, he was spot on and wonderful. I wish I could have thanked him for being one of the people who helped me grow as a person. You will be missed, Mr. Hitchens.

juanfrugalj
12-16-2011, 12:02 PM
Dammit, I'll miss him.



He might have held some of the most despicable political views during the last ten years or so

There's Iraq, and... what else?

The man was completely wrong on Iraq, but there's no reason to think he was just a turncoat. If anything, he was being true to himself, as his main concerns were a) brutality inspired by (any) organized religion, and b) wrathful revenge as a self-identified American.

The essay about women and humor was really entertaining and, frankly, spot-on.

MikeDinosaur
12-16-2011, 12:23 PM
The essay about women and humor was really entertaining and, frankly, spot-on.

Really? Please just keep opinions like that to yourself. Have you made anything as good as The Heartbreak Kid (the one from the 70s), "Good One", or 30 Rock? It's really "spot on" to say that women are unfunny, then move the goalposts by saying any woman like Roseanne who is funny is just aping male qualities anyway? I mean if that's the case, if men and women can move back and forth between masculinity and femininity, then how valuable a dichotomy is he setting up?

Ugh...

That said, yes, Hitchens was a genius and a very entertaining one. He made any pundit show, however awful, immediately watchable just by being a real human being. He'll be missed.

Sir Sly Ry
12-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Yeah I'm not going to talk about that kind of stuff in here, but he did say some things I wasn't down with. But it's because of quotes like this that I will miss the guy:
The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell.

Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love.

There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.
These vocal atheists aren't perfect, and they say some wrong things sometimes, but quotes like that reflect a very positive outlook on life and what it is to be human, and it's helped change my attitude to be a much more positive and humanistic one. So God bless 'em.

juanfrugalj
12-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Really? Please just keep opinions like that to yourself. Have you made anything as good as The Heartbreak Kid (the one from the 70s), "Good One", or 30 Rock? It's really "spot on" to say that women are unfunny, then move the goalposts by saying any woman like Roseanne who is funny is just aping male qualities anyway? I mean if that's the case, if men and women can move back and forth between masculinity and femininity, then how valuable a dichotomy is he setting up?

Dude, did you even get the point behind that article? He didn't say women are incapable of funny, nor did he imply they haven't got a sense of humor. He said society doesn't require them to be funny, and for that reason most women don't ever turn into Richard Pryor.

Which makes absolute sense. How can they be funny if nobody expects them to be? He also goes on to great lengths to explain that, half the time, men are considered humorous be virtue of being immature dumbasses. Which is also true. The ol' comedy section of your (closed) rental shop was chock-full of raunchy comedies of young adult males doing embarrassing stuff.



Also, appeal to accomplishment? Low blow. What have you done to convince anyone of anything ever? There, please just keep rebuttals like that to yourself. Also, that urge to purge opinions you disapprove is amusing.

MikeDinosaur
12-16-2011, 01:31 PM
This isn't the place to fight about this, I'll pm you later, but I understand that point and also find it a deeply confused and humorless piece, and its claim, that virtually any funny trait a person could have is inherently masculine, is unfair and ridiculous.

FinalSlayer
12-16-2011, 03:41 PM
I was saddened to hear of Hitchens's death yesterday, and wanted a day to gather my thoughts.

I agreed with him on a lot of things and disagreed with him on a lot others, which is probably true for most people. However, I always respected his intelligence, euridition, and the independent nature of his thoughts.

He didn't follow a party line. He wasn't a liberal who believed everything they did. He wasn't a conservative who agreed with them on all issues.

He was an independent, intelligent thinker who came to his own conclusion on matters, absent of what a party or the media told him he should.

And beyond his amusing, intelligent writings and fine rhetoric, that's what I respect him for the most.

Paul le Fou
12-16-2011, 11:09 PM
From the Onion:

Fumbling, Inarticulate Obituary Writer Somehow Losing Debate To Christopher Hitchens


He wasn't my favorite of the "four horsemen," and I don't agree with him on some of his politics, but he was a gifted writer and a hard fighter. He'll be missed.

Pombar
12-17-2011, 05:31 AM
The most amusing thing to come out of his death (http://imgur.com/jmYmH)

VorpalEdge
12-17-2011, 06:58 AM
Hitchens has written quite a lot of things, of which I've read regrettably little. What's his best? Give heavy weight to anything with ridiculously awesome takedowns to remember, like the aforementioned enema'd Falwell.

and ricky gervais is awesome.

Evil Dead Junkie
12-17-2011, 09:26 AM
His brother did a nice piece. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2075133/Christopher-Hitchens-death-In-Memoriam-courageous-sibling-Peter-Hitchens.html)

Red Hedgehog
12-20-2011, 12:57 PM
Neal Pollack's take (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/i_knew_christopher_hitchens_better_than_you/singleton/)

Dizzy
12-20-2011, 01:04 PM
Katha Pollit's take (http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher)

blinkpen
12-20-2011, 03:19 PM
Katha Pollit's take (http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher)

I really like this one.

JDS
12-20-2011, 05:57 PM
His being a drunk and a bully at times isn't something that needs to be glossed over.

The fact that he was so distracted his last twenty years with insider carousing, talk show shit-kicking and writing bad Slate columns that he left the substantiative writing on the subjects he cared about to others is also unfortunate. You just know the man had some really great books in him, but instead we got at best book-length pamphlets that were over-reliant on the insights of others. He could have been so much more that "the man who was willing to go there."

juanfrugalj
12-21-2011, 02:26 PM
I really like this one.

Part of it, I guess.

The thing about being a bully, his drinking and young writers idealizing alcohol is definitely true. So is Hitchens' absurd reluctancy to admit his mistakes on 9/11 and Iraq, but almost every other piece after his death mentioned it. Frankly, the abortion stuff was unknown to me and, if true, would be both wrong and contradictory in many, many ways.

But then you have the mischaracterization. The writer stops short of calling him a sexist pig, but he's still the man who thought their empowerment can solve the world's biggest problem (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/897795--ex-british-pm-hitchens-take-debate-to-a-higher-plane). She's also calling a double standard on Bill Clinton and George Bush, but Hitchens was critical of GWB's death penalty record in Texas, too.

You can't really accuse someone of bias and suspiciously selective memory while falling in the same trap yourself.

Red Hedgehog
12-21-2011, 10:58 PM
But then you have the mischaracterization. The writer stops short of calling him a sexist pig, but he's still the man who thought their empowerment can solve the world's biggest problem (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/897795--ex-british-pm-hitchens-take-debate-to-a-higher-plane).

She's also calling a double standard on Bill Clinton and George Bush, but Hitchens was critical of GWB's death penalty record in Texas, too.

You can't really accuse someone of bias and suspiciously selective memory while falling in the same trap yourself.

The GWB death penalty thing came off as odd to me in that I was pretty sure Hitchens had written against GWB's death penalty record because I remembered reading an essay he wrote about it in the magazine they both worked for together (http://www.thenation.com/article/bushs-death-watch).

I don't really have a problem with her criticism of him with regards to women. His misogyny was long a criticism of him, from his arguments on abortion, women's humor, paean to blowjobs, and even why women shouldn't drink. Echidne sums it up pretty well (http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_12_18_archive.html#5024541002693519104).

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 02:02 AM
women's humor,

I don't want to wade into the rest of the debate, but as juanfrugalj correctly noted on the last page (http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/showpost.php?p=1211822&postcount=114), most people horribly misunderstood that article.

I think what happened is that they looked at the provocative title of the article ("Why Women aren't Funny") and immediately flew into a rage, instead of sitting down and trying to figure out what Hitchens was saying.

Had they read it, they would have noticed that the article was primarily arguing that women aren't funny not because they can't be, but because they don't have to be. Which is absolutely true.

A lot of men rely on humor to attract women. Virtually no woman needs humor to attract men, though.

In fact, it's a very witty and intelligent article, and any scorn Hitchens got from it was because people didn't bother reading his specific points.

MikeDinosaur
12-22-2011, 07:31 AM
Yes ladies, you'll be funny when men ask you to be funny! Til then, just hike your dress up if you want to land a man.

I don't know guys, the women I know are as funny or funnier than the men I know. Maybe that's because I seek out women who are funny! I genuinely don't like to date women who aren't funny, so I need to find them. But if you guys and Hitch don't need to find women who are funny, and thus don't find them, isn't that just confirmation bias? Also, hitch says there are more terrible female comics than terrible male comics. I hereby invite any of you to an open mic night! There aren't as many female comics PERIOD as there are terrible male comics.

And juan, I didn't mean, "please keep your opinion to yourself, because it's so scary persuasive"! I just don't think it seems cool to say this stuff anymore. So, advice, not thought policing.

Sorry I didn't pm about this like I said I would :(

Edit: oh, and appeal to accomplishment, bullshit, sure.

Mokrap of Croton
12-22-2011, 08:21 AM
Neal Pollack's take (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/i_knew_christopher_hitchens_better_than_you/singleton/)

Brilliant!

MikeDinosaur
12-22-2011, 08:28 AM
Neal Pollack's take (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/i_knew_christopher_hitchens_better_than_you/singleton/)

Holy Christ is that great

Pombar
12-22-2011, 08:37 AM
I thought we'd already sorted the real reason women aren't funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3qREbKqLw)
Though to be honest, Jo Brand is one of the funniest people on the planet, so... no. Women are funny.

locit
12-22-2011, 10:21 AM
Neal Pollack's take (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/i_knew_christopher_hitchens_better_than_you/singleton/)
This, this is what I needed.

blinkpen
12-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Neal Pollack's take (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/i_knew_christopher_hitchens_better_than_you/singleton/)

I think I like this one even better.

Red Hedgehog
12-22-2011, 11:29 AM
Had they read it, they would have noticed that the article was primarily arguing that women aren't funny not because they can't be, but because they don't have to be. Which is absolutely true.

A lot of men rely on humor to attract women. Virtually no woman needs humor to attract men, though.

Um, that's exactly the problem with the article. Arguing that women's biological and social role is to appreciate men's jokes, not create their own is a profoundly misogynist statement.

juanfrugalj
12-22-2011, 11:31 AM
I don't really have a problem with her criticism of him with regards to women. His misogyny was long a criticism of him, from his arguments on abortion, women's humor, paean to blowjobs, and even why women shouldn't drink. Echidne sums it up pretty well (http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_12_18_archive.html#5024541002693519104).

I still can't comment on his abortion material, but the humor piece was met with "oh, but men have such crass, immature humor" responses... which was Hitchens' point through a good third of his article. I don't think one can refute an argument by paraphrasing a portion back at it. More on the argument of sexism later, if you care reading it.

Apparently, the full quote from earlier goes like this:

“The cure for poverty has a name, in fact. It’s called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you throw in a handful of seeds, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but health and education, will increase.”

After such sweet little gem, I still think the "baby factory" argument (which was also used by Echidne* in the blog you mention) is hyperbolic.

I will, however, read the blowjobs essay exclusively because it sounds like purely inflammatory drivel.




Yes ladies, you'll be funny when men ask you to be funny! Til then, just hike your dress up if you want to land a man.

I don't know guys, the women I know are as funny or funnier than the men I know. Maybe that's because I seek out women who are funny! I genuinely don't like to date women who aren't funny, so I need to find them. But if you guys and Hitch don't need to find women who are funny, and thus don't find them, isn't that just confirmation bias? Also, hitch says there are more terrible female comics than terrible male comics. I hereby invite any of you to an open mic night! There aren't as many female comics PERIOD as there are terrible male comics.

And juan, I didn't mean, "please keep your opinion to yourself, because it's so scary persuasive"! I just don't think it seems cool to say this stuff anymore. So, advice, not thought policing.

I agree, those are not cool things to say. Luckily, nobody here did. That's just you putting words in my mouth. I guess it's cool to imply I'm a disgusting sexist prick who only fancies hot airheads, though. I'm discussing stuff that I find interesting and you just called me a shallow bigot. That's not classy, dude, knock it off.

But really, when did I say that? When did Hitchens say that? I'm glad you think many women are just as funny as or even funnier than men. Hitchens thought that as well! We can tell because he wrote it in that same article. Good to know we all agree on this.

As long as we're sharing anecdotal evidence, with your "well, I seek women who are funny" and all, I can tell you many of my male friends do seek women based on other stuff. To some, it's looks, for which I don't particularly care, because the girls they choose are generally capricious and shallow. However, there are also nice, wholesome values that many friends find charming in a girl (these usually lead successful, happy relationships, even when both parties are truckloads of dull). None has ever told me "her great jokes" are an undesirable trait, but lacking it sure isn't a dealbreaker. On the other hand, many women do expect men to be funny, to such a degree that "he's got to make me laugh" is a cliché. Personally, I'm in a long-standing relationship with a really funny woman. She has more friends than I do, and those we share like her more than they do me. All I've learned is this: I only got this far by appreciating how goddamn rare her wits, charm and prolific sense of humor are.

I don't see how pointing out that many women are not proficient wisecrackers (primarily because current society and mating rituals have neither allowed nor required them to play the funny roles**) instantly translates into "the woman cannot and will not ever be funny (because she's dumb and must stay in the kitchen)". It is, in fact, quite the contrary. No, anecdotal evidence about twenty of our friends and a modest selection of wonderful comediennes does not magically make it untrue. And it's not even a question of "whose side" can provide the "higher" brand of laughter, because it's very clear that "male" humor is plagued by stupidity, immaturity and -most notably- an absolute disregard for actual skill: Most guys and many successful male comedians can rely on stale dick and fart humor, and they'll still be considered funny by a lot of people (it doesn't matter if you and I agree with them).

It's an uncomfortable topic, I guess, But there's a significant difference between vocalizing an issue and embracing it as the natural order of things, or even gleefully enforcing its implications. I'm sure I did the first, and Hitchens may have even done the second, but the negative response has characterized it as the third. And that's absurd.



teal deer: That's not what I said. That's not what anyone said. Quit being knee-jerks.






* I admit not knowing who she is, though. Maybe she knew the guy and speaks from first-hand recollection of him spewing hateful remarks against women, but I'll assume that's not the case.

** And no, "maybe you're not looking for funny women" does not solve "my" filthy sexist problem, because the point was that men are still largely expected to provide the wits and do the actual wooing. Maybe that's not the case in our social circles, but it is in many others and in sizable portions of the world.











EDIT:

Had they read it, they would have noticed that the article was primarily arguing that women aren't funny not because they can't be, but because they don't have to be. Which is absolutely true.

A lot of men rely on humor to attract women. Virtually no woman needs humor to attract men, though.

Whoa, I didn't read it like that. I thought it's "because they haven't had to" (which is accurate, but regrettably wrong), and that society should change that (which is correct).

Um, that's exactly the problem with the article. Arguing that women's biological and social role is to appreciate men's jokes, not create their own is a profoundly misogynist statement.

Agreed, but that's a report, not necessarily his approval. He even knows things are changing in the long run and appeals to a speedier pace.

Or at least that's what I got from reading it back then. Am... am I reading some man better than Hitchens in his own writing?

Pombar
12-22-2011, 11:36 AM
Um, that's exactly the problem with the article. Arguing that women's biological and social role is to appreciate men's jokes, not create their own is a profoundly misogynist statement.

I believe the point is that he's saying this is why a large proportion of men don't find women funny. He wasn't making a value judgment on whether that is a good thing, as you seem to imply, merely stating that this is the cause for the issue in the first place. He's not saying it SHOULD be this way, merely that it IS.

FD: I haven't read the article and as such have no opinion on his comments, but this is what I've been getting from the comments here.

MikeDinosaur
12-22-2011, 12:04 PM
Juan, I'm not calling you a pig, I'm responding to the article. I have no problem with you, and I don't know you so it wouldn't make much sense would it? I'm responding to this nuanced article bot you and finalslayer claim nobody gets. In that article, Chris admits some women can be funny, but then claims all these women are hefty or dykey or otherwise masculine, implying a good female sense of humor is just a pale shadow of a good male sense of humor. The social pressures that keep women from being funny include their lack of a cock and their desire that everyone be nice and sweet to each other, and that they don't need to be funny because men don't need them to be funny; why crack a joke when you can suck cock?! As for my use of anecdotal evidence, well I don't have the latest humor figures from yale and neither does hitch, so cut me a little slack. Also please reread that dumbshit article. Hitchens isn't asking society to change so ladies can be funny, he's just talking some ignorant shit.

Patrick
12-22-2011, 12:25 PM
I can see both readings, but when I read it I saw it as someone from an older generation who still believed in a lot of outdated values. I think that he was honestly trying to be fair-handed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fair handed.

It really just reads to me as someone telling women that being funny would make them less attractive, and that they should just depend on their looks and seduction to attract men rather than their minds. Additionally, I don't think that humor is inherently masculine, since humor is often used to compensate for a lack of physical strength, and classically masculine men have been stoic. I know a lot of extremely funny women though, so maybe that just set me against his conclusion to begin with.

Dizzy
12-22-2011, 12:27 PM
I'm gonna be That Guy who superciliously wonders what the point of this debate is because as far as political thinkers and literary critics go, Hitchens was merely a footnote.

JDS
12-22-2011, 12:59 PM
I think he's much more than a footnote as a literary critic, and while I can't say much for his political insights, the man was atheism's primary representative on the national stage for the last few years of his life and was certainly more of a boon to the movement in America than, say, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

His anti-Kissinger campaigning had some far reaching international relations effects considering that certain popular Western figures now have to limit their travel to keep from being indicted for human rights violations as soon as they get off the plane.

Kayin
12-22-2011, 01:32 PM
Patrick said some of what I wanted to say. I think his analysis was definitely more true during the prime of his life and has grown increasingly less so with the internet.

Arguing that women's biological and social role is to appreciate men's jokes, not create their own is a profoundly misogynist statement.

I also think this is sorta a really misleading, slanted perspective. Considering the inverse.

Arguing that men's biological and social role is to appreciate women's sexiness, without having to sexualize themselves is a profoundly misanderist statement.

I'm not going to say these two things are direct inverses, but I would say that it's definitely more complicated than that (not to pick on you, Red, but I think explaining this applies to the rest of the argument). Also saying that they're there to appreciate our jokes sorta misses the point. The point of the JOKES are the impress the women and the implication is that without women, there won't be the need to hone humor.

Remember, nature doesn't care about keeping things fair and even. Men lift more and women live longer. Our courtship and desires work in different ways. Of course this is going to lead to certain things manifesting differently. Like the humor thing, Men, on average, are much bigger risk takers -- but no one envies that (well maybe to a degree they do, because that seems to be evening out, with both sexes moving toward the middle)!

Just talking about the differences between the sexs should not be grounds to freak out and start screaming about sexism. We should EXPECT there to be differences. And the good news is, it seems like culture overpowers any biological imperatives we might have in our monkey brains. Anyone who says "And thus thats the way it always should be" should be appropriately vilified. We put up a lot of red flags because a lot of assholes DO try and do this but I don't think Hitchen's was (even if he was being rather impolite and terse about it, furthering the mixed signals) but regardless of that, we should be able to have this conversation without lapsing into hyperbole.

Just an anecdotal note, I know a lot of funny women but they all seem to be products of some sort of pressure. My favorite grew up in a miserable situation where one of the few things she could do to make her self feel good was to make her deadpan mom laugh. Almost all of the rest were outcasts in highschool and socially awkward. Also to consider as well: Even men who go through this shit tend to be extra funny. The only difference seems to be that the male gender is rolling the dice more. I'd also say of my extended family, only one of my aunts is particularly funny (and she is absurdly funny) but almost all my uncles are (Though that one Aunt is funnier than all of them).

The genders seem to just hang out more in general now. I mean, society for awhile seems to have been progressing from 'hiding women in boxes to until a husband claims them' to us mingling... and the more we mingle, the more social pressure for things like humor will equalize The internet also gives us a ton of mingling, which is doubly great.

But to end, I think Patrick got it right. While I don't think it's sexist, I don't think it's a particularly great article either. It mostly reads like a guy from the older generation who's just a bit out of touch with how things are now. It's like reading 30 years into the past or something.

(and yeah, I think Hitchens will probably be remembered most for his part in the whole atheism movement)

Red Hedgehog
12-22-2011, 01:38 PM
Apparently, the full quote from earlier goes like this:

Yes, he used that argument against both Mother Theresa and Islamic extremists. I have no doubt his views on women are more nuanced than "they should be subservient to men" and indeed know that he had female friends and admired some women. That doesn't mean he hasn't said some misogynist things. One can be misogynist without putting down women at all opportunities. (Indeed I just read an article on how many in the civil war-era US supported equal rights for all, but still maintained that blacks were inferior to whites).

After such sweet little gem, I still think the "baby factory" argument (which was also used by Echidne* in the blog you mention) is hyperbolic.

Just re-read the women in humor essay. He says, "For women, reproduction is, if not the only thing, certainly the main thing. Apart from giving them a very different attitude to filth and embarrassment, it also imbues them with the kind of seriousness and solemnity at which men can only goggle."

If that's not reducing women to their uterus, I don't know what is.

I don't see how pointing out that many women are not proficient wisecrackers (primarily because current society and mating rituals have neither allowed nor required them to play the funny roles**) instantly translates into "the woman cannot and will not ever be funny (because she's dumb and must stay in the kitchen)".

It is not pointing out that there are fewer professional female comedians than male ones. It's not even saying that women use humor less than men (because he actually provides some evidence for that). In my mind, the big problems are 1) Saying women are not as funny as men (without giving any evidence for that) and 2) The reasons he gives for why all of the aforementioned are true (as, without providing any evidence for them, he comes off as sexist at best). Okay and 3) He dismisses successful female comedians as acting male or not being womenly and 4) He never indicates that the lack of female comedians is a problem and seems to accept that's just the way things are and always will be.

Well, those are my problems with the essay anyway.

[SIZE="1"]* I admit not knowing who she is, though. Maybe she knew the guy and speaks from first-hand recollection of him spewing hateful remarks against women, but I'll assume that's not the case.

To my knowledge, Echidne did not know the guy. Katha Pollitt, whose obituary sparked this debate, worked with him for 20 years.

EDIT:

I don't know, Kayin. Grammatical / phrasing issues aside, that does read like a profoundly misandrist statement to me.

JDS
12-22-2011, 01:41 PM
I just read the essay as "most women aren't funny because they don't have to be" and moved on. It was something he was put up to by the Vanity Fair editor, IIRC -- I wouldn't take it any more seriously than he did.

Kayin
12-22-2011, 01:48 PM
EDIT:

I don't know, Kayin. Grammatical / phrasing issues aside, that does read like a profoundly misandrist statement to me.

I'd actually like you to explain this if you don't mind, as that's interesting to me! Is it the phrasing or the implied reality that you find sexist? I mean phrasing wise, yeah, it would be misanderist, but also be sorta laughable. "No no, you see, they're dressing up for ME and thats good FOR ME (morality aside)". So while the original statement you put up would be misogynst by phrasing, the point is more that it's sorta the backward way to look at it. It's not that the inverse I put up isn't misanderist, it's that it's a totally backward misreading of the actual situation.

If thats not what you mean, I'm doubly interested in your position!

widdershins
12-22-2011, 03:23 PM
Just re-read the women in humor essay. He says, "For women, reproduction is, if not the only thing, certainly the main thing. Apart from giving them a very different attitude to filth and embarrassment, it also imbues them with the kind of seriousness and solemnity at which men can only goggle."

If that's not reducing women to their uterus, I don't know what is.


Not... really. The phrasing of the first sentence is certainly inflammatory, but I got the impression he was referring to biological function more than societal function the same way he does earlier in the article RE: men

"The chief task in life that a man has to perform is that of impressing the opposite sex..."

I'm certainly not well versed enough with the man himself to have an opinion one way or another about the extent of his misogyny, the point he's making here doesn't really strike me as such. He's saying in part that because the puerile nature (poop) of much humor is serious business in the world of child rearing, which while not necessarily the sole domain of women, is one they cannot as easily escape as men, it's harder to find amusement in them. Beyond that, and I don't know whether he sees this as a function of biology or society or both, he seems to say that that inherent role thrust upon them by having a womb gives them a higher than average sense of seriousness which must be overcome to chuckle at said poopie.

Don't know if I buy it, but I certainly don't find it offensive or particularly derogatory.

Hitchens is a guy that revels in being inflammatory, and let's face it, he'll lose a lot of people with his opening thesis.

"Why are women, who have the whole male world at their mercy, not funny?"

He seems to take this as a given that we all know but are too PC to voice, a trait not altogether uncommon among those who are opinionated with a fairly rigid world view. While I don't necessarily agree with the premise, I think there's value in a lot of what's being said. It wouldn't take much work to take that article, without changing much, and turn it into a piece about how patriarchal society keeps women down.

At any rate, do I think women are inherently less funny than men? No, and I don't think he did either.

Do I think women are discouraged from being funny by men who don't require it and are even threatened by it? Do I think women who aren't particularly funny are made to think they are by men who are really more interested in their looks?

Certainly, I've seen it in action, and imagine many of you have too. Hell, I'd say it goes both ways (particularly on the second point). The difference seems to be that Hitchens saw it as a wide-spread, nigh universal phenomenon, which strikes me as outdated at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

Still, something has to explain how Chelsea Handler got a television show.

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm an economist by profession, and as such, I believe people respond to incentives. That is, people only do or become something when there is a need for them do so.

Men need humor to attract women, in most instances.

Women, on the other hand, most certainly do NOT need humor to attract even the most desirable of guys!

Hitchens describes other reasons why he believes women are less funny than men, but that's what he believes his salient point is.

While I don't fully agree with his other reasons, I certainly agree with his main one.

Also, hitch says there are more terrible female comics than terrible male comics.

He might have a point! Kathy Griffin, Rosanne, Margaret Cho, and yes, even the much-lauded Sarah Silverman are all terrible stand-up comedians.

There are a lot of women that are enormously funny in the context of television shows or movies, but even for someone that follows stand-up comedy, it's hard for me to think of more than a couple of females that even hit "okay" level as stand-ups.

Again, Hitchens is pointing out very obvious facts here, but some people are too angry at his implications to logically consider them.


Arguing that women's biological and social role is to appreciate men's jokes, not create their own is a profoundly misogynist statement.

It's not their "role" dude, it's just the way things are presently.

Women have never had a problem getting laid.

For most men, it's a task that requires wit, charm, and yes, humor!

Men appreciate humor in a woman, but it's not essential to loving them. For many women, a man being funny is a hell of an aphrodisiac!

Anyways, that's not "misogynist", and trying to brand it as such is a lazy way to shut down the opposing argument.

Patrick
12-22-2011, 04:04 PM
Men need humor to attract women, in most instances.

Women, on the other hand, most certainly do NOT need humor to attract even the most desirable of guys!


I disagree with this.

He might have a point! Kathy Griffin, Rosanne, Margaret Cho, and yes, even the much-lauded Sarah Silverman are all terrible stand-up comedians.


I disagree with this.

Women have never had a problem getting laid.


I disagree with this.

I'm heading home from work so I don't have time to get into it, but I think that your post is very unrealistic.

MikeDinosaur
12-22-2011, 04:12 PM
Ok, well I'm a comic by hobby, and I've worked with exactly as many great female sketch writers as I have male ones. Same for improv performers. There are fewer female stand-up comedians, it's true, but that just proves women's sense of humor might manifest differently than men's sense of humor. And Roseanne and Sarah Silverman are not terrible comedians--they are both comedians who are very skilled at working a room and getting laughs. Whether or not you find them funny has nothing to do with the fact that they're both original, talented voices who achieved success on their own terms. Neither of them are my favorites, but I went to a Tig Notaro show and almost couldn't breathe I was laughing so hard. Heather Lawless also did an unbelievable set. Haven't heard of them? Maybe it's because men don't give them much of a chance! That confirmation bias thing again. Chris Rock once said "If I was as funny as David Spade I would be homeless." Do you understand what he's getting at there?

And I just said I have to find a woman funny to fall for her. But please keep ignoring everything everyone says, otherwise you might learn something!!

Sarcasmorator
12-22-2011, 04:30 PM
In case you missed the foofarah in the Movie Time thread last week, a PSA: FinalSlayer seems to like taking contrary views and sticking to them in the face of all claims to the contrary! So don't expect to gain any ground.

Because he's a troll.

Kayin
12-22-2011, 04:35 PM
I think it was certainly true that women used to not have much of a problem getting laid relatively. But that I think has changed a lot in the last hundred years with women now taking initiative more regularly. I think what he said about 'fat bullish dykes' being funny was just the start. Now we have very pretty, very sane women walking around who have a problem getting dates. The world is a very different place than it was even 20 years ago!

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 05:02 PM
In case you missed the foofarah in the Movie Time thread last week, a PSA: FinalSlayer seems to like taking contrary views and sticking to them in the face of all claims to the contrary! So don't expect to gain any ground.

Nice try idiot, but in this topic, I'm actually taking the same view the majority in this topic have. ("Women aren't as funny as men because they don't have to be.") You would have known this had you bothered reading the topic, instead of just trolling.


Because he's a troll.

The irony is rich!


And Roseanne and Sarah Silverman are not terrible comedians--they are both comedians who are very skilled at working a room and getting laughs. Whether or not you find them funny has nothing to do with the fact that they're both original, talented voices who achieved success on their own terms.

If that's your opinion, fine, but it doesn't really change what I was arguing. Namely, that Hitchens has a point about there being a lot of really terrible female stand-up comedians, despite their relatively small numbers.

Basically, the point is that if there were only a few female stand-up comedians, but they were all fucking awesome, among the best in their field, you could argue that his entire underlying assumption about women being less funny was wrong.

As it is, Hitchens is showing that in one particular area of comedy (stand-up), men are far more successful than women.

I disagree with this.

I'm heading home from work so I don't have time to get into it, but I think that your post is very unrealistic.

Well, feel free to get into it more when you come home.

All my life experience, and the few statistics I've read show that women have a vastly easier time getting laid or getting into relationships than men do. Also, women don't need humor to do it.

I've never once heard anyone disagree with these two statements before, so I'm curious what your reasoning is.

MikeDinosaur
12-22-2011, 05:30 PM
I try so hard to undermine your points but you do it so much better than I ever could.

Dizzy
12-22-2011, 05:46 PM
All my life experience, and the few statistics I've read show that women have a vastly easier time getting laid or getting into relationships than men do. Also, women don't need humor to do it.

Can I read the stats?

nadia
12-22-2011, 05:54 PM
All my life experience, and the few statistics I've read

Oh, well, that ought to cover it, then.

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 05:58 PM
Can I read the stats?

Sure. One common stat I've read bandied about is that the median woman has twice as much sex as the median man in the early to mid 20s range, which certainly seems reasonable enough;

http://www.healthfinger.com/womens-health/emotion/do-women-have-more-sex-and-sexual-partners-than-men.html

Also, women tend to be way more selective than men about who they will sleep with, which is consistent with having more to select from;

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/health/Study-Women-Choosy-About-Casual-Sex-Men-Not-53054257.html

Really though, it's bizarre to me that anyone can, with a straight face, claim that women don't have an easier time getting laid/a relationship than men do.


I try so hard to undermine your points but you do it so much better than I ever could.

Feel free to respond if you actually think of something!


Oh, well, that ought to cover it, then.

Sarcastic one-liner aside, do you disagree with my statement?

krelbel
12-22-2011, 05:58 PM
Nice try idiot, but in this topic, I'm actually taking the same view the majority in this topic have. ("Women aren't as funny as men because they don't have to be.")

Just dropping in from IRC to say that this tangent in this thread is hilarious, this "majority" is hilarious, and every misogynistic post here is hilarious. Carry on, you fabulous, fabulous men agreeing about how unfunny women are because they can get laid without being funny or something.

In the meantime, RIP Hitchens, your contributions to the atheist community were appreciated and will be missed.

EDIT: Bahaha did you really:

Sure. One common stat I've read bandied about is that the median woman has twice as much sex as the median man in the early to mid 20s range, which certainly seems reasonable enough;

http://www.healthfinger.com/womens-health/emotion/do-women-have-more-sex-and-sexual-partners-than-men.html

I read a study that said the average 22 year old women has twice as much sex as a man the same age. The reason is because most guys have trouble getting laid while a small group of men screw lots and lots of women. It’s evolution at work. The guys that know how to play with a woman’s emotions gets laid the most. Women some how tend to believe all men are like this when in reality it’s only the ones they like.

Patrick
12-22-2011, 06:03 PM
In case you missed the foofarah in the Movie Time thread last week, a PSA: FinalSlayer seems to like taking contrary views and sticking to them in the face of all claims to the contrary! So don't expect to gain any ground.

Because he's a troll.

I missed that, thanks for the heads up.


Well, feel free to get into it more when you come home.


I know women who do standup, and there are way fewer of them then men. That's true of a lot of occupations though, and isn't indicative of their lack of skill any more than the lack of female game designers or scientists is. I'm studying to be a librarian, which is a field that is dominated by women. It doesn't have anything to do with the skills necessary for the job, it's just what gender has historically dominated the field. Since I posted here you've called someone stupid and have been called out for being a troll, so I'll stop here.

Dizzy
12-22-2011, 06:13 PM
Sure. One common stat I've read bandied about is that the median woman has twice as much sex as the median man in the early to mid 20s range, which certainly seems reasonable enough;

http://www.healthfinger.com/womens-health/emotion/do-women-have-more-sex-and-sexual-partners-than-men.html

Also, women tend to be way more selective than men about who they will sleep with, which is consistent with having more to select from;

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/health/Study-Women-Choosy-About-Casual-Sex-Men-Not-53054257.html

Really though, it's bizarre to me that anyone can, with a straight face, claim that women don't have an easier time getting laid/a relationship than men do.

But this doesn't seem really consistent with the claim that women can have sex and get into a relationship easier than men. In the first link I don't see a link to the study itself and the author says the average 22-year-old woman has more sex than the average man of the same age. How is this representative of all women? And the second link doesn't really back up the same claim either. If women are more selective on who they choose to casually have sex with, how does this also mean that they can have sex and enter relationships easier than men? Is this something that has been observed throughout history? Is it distinctive to certain countries, regions and cultures or does it apply to all them?

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 06:19 PM
EDIT: Bahaha did you really:

It's the first link I found after a quick search. I disagree with some of his commentary, but he notes a study that says the same thing I mentioned.

Anyways, it would be nice if the people ostensibly disagreeing posted some actual evidence themselves.

I missed that, thanks for the heads up.

So a guy pops into this topic for the sole purpose of calling me a "troll" based on a movie topic, and you believe him? (You know, instead of actually discussing Christopher Hitchens and his views) I would call what he did "trolling", but hey, that's just me.

I know women who do standup, and there are way fewer of them then men. That's true of a lot of occupations though, and isn't indicative of their lack of skill any more than the lack of female game designers or scientists is. I'm studying to be a librarian, which is a field that is dominated by women. It doesn't have anything to do with the skills necessary for the job, it's just what gender has historically dominated the field.

So in other words, you're saying that you think women are every bit as funny as men, but they simply choose not to go into stand-up comedy? Humor is subjective and all, but I would certainly disagree.

More importantly, what you wrote above has absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed to disagree with me about (http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/showpost.php?p=1215546&postcount=147), especially that women get laid more than men and that they don't need humor to do it.

Patrick
12-22-2011, 06:22 PM
Please stop.

Kayin
12-22-2011, 06:26 PM
http://kayin.pyoko.org/fsitud.jpg

krelbel
12-22-2011, 06:28 PM
It's the first link I found after a quick search. I disagree with some of his commentary, but he notes a study that says the same thing I mentioned.

Anyways, it would be nice if the people ostensibly disagreeing posted some actual evidence themselves.

Oh, please don't misinterpret, I was not disagreeing with you, I was laughing at you. And no thanks, I don't feel like doing your homework for you.

Adrenaline
12-22-2011, 06:31 PM
Sure. One common stat I've read bandied about is that the median woman has twice as much sex as the median man in the early to mid 20s range, which certainly seems reasonable enough;

http://www.healthfinger.com/womens-health/emotion/do-women-have-more-sex-and-sexual-partners-than-men.html

Also, women tend to be way more selective than men about who they will sleep with, which is consistent with having more to select from;

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/health/Study-Women-Choosy-About-Casual-Sex-Men-Not-53054257.html

Really though, it's bizarre to me that anyone can, with a straight face, claim that women don't have an easier time getting laid/a relationship than men do.

Women are either more selective about their sexual partners, or they on average have more sexual partners. It cannot be both.

FinalSlayer
12-22-2011, 06:49 PM
Women are either more selective about their sexual partners, or they on average have more sexual partners. It cannot be both.

It can be both.

Imagine a group of 100 guys and 100 girls. Let's say that each of the 100 guys would gladly sleep with any of the 100 girls, while the 100 girls only want to sleep with 30 of those guys.

Ergo, those 100 girls sleep with 30 of those guys.

The women are more selective, and in terms of the median (not the mean of course, which would be identical for each gender), they have more sex.

Obviously, I'm not saying the actual numbers break down that way, but it's absolutely possible.

In fact, a side result from that hypothetical example is the same one we observe in society. Namely, that there are a few guys that have tons and tons of sex, and tend to have multiple sexual partners.

Adrenaline
12-22-2011, 08:30 PM
Observed in society.

nadia
12-22-2011, 10:34 PM
http://kayin.pyoko.org/fsitud.jpg

It keeps happening.

ajr82
12-22-2011, 11:40 PM
Calling someone "idiot" is the hallmark of a truly mature, rational argument.

I think we're going to have someone new on the banned list very soon.

Nodal
12-23-2011, 04:52 AM
What you don't know is that FinalSlayer is actually a vocal feminist. He takes a position to undermine it.

JDS
12-23-2011, 05:39 AM
He takes a position to undermine it.

itt FinalSlayer's brilliance confirmed

FinalSlayer
12-23-2011, 04:09 PM
Calling someone "idiot" is the hallmark of a truly mature, rational argument.

Except I wasn't arguing with Sarcasmorator, and certainly not on anything related to Hitchens.

His very first post in this topic was stating that I was a troll because I had an unconventional opinion in a completely different forum topic.

So he made a post unrelated to the thread subject, and he made a post insulting another member with no provocation.

And now you're defending him, either because you didn't read the topic, or you're a moron. Take your pick.

Anywho, when I first joined here and made a topic expressing my love for Castlevania 64, I received a private message from a long-time member from 2007 (not a moderator, by the way) informing that people here tend to be complete assholes to new members.

Turns out he was right, and not just about games! It might be the minority, but there's a lot of members here who absolutely love to troll and e-masturbate their own wit.

Most of them aren't half as intelligent as you think they are, but revel in being arrogant dicks to anyone who disagrees, especially newer members.

But hey, it certainly explains your total lack of regular, actively posting members from 2011, or even 2010.

Or why normal registration was disabled when I tried to join.

But continue regurgitating the exact same opinions over thousands of posts to the same 100-150 people.

This is my last post on here, and honestly, I will be sorely disappointed if there aren't a bunch of shitty gifs, one-line douchetastic celebratory posts, etc. following it.

Have fun, kids! ;)

JDS
12-23-2011, 04:31 PM
enjoy your internet retirement

Dizzy
12-23-2011, 04:45 PM
I'm sorry we disappointed you. Sometimes problems solve themselves and hopefully we can follow your example and solve our own problems.

Smiler
12-23-2011, 04:50 PM
So long (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0w1W5RGx9Q)

Kayin
12-23-2011, 05:00 PM
FS, I will totally miss your inability to communicate or understand people, your horrible attitude, as well as your overvaluing of your own opinions or self worth.

Wait no, I won't. PARTY TIME, EVERYONE (until he decides to come back and be annoying again).

Serephine
12-23-2011, 05:08 PM
http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu210/Serephine7/spidermannotasinglefuckwasgiven.jpg
Gotta give the man what he wants right?

Octopus Prime
12-23-2011, 05:10 PM
He left this forum as he lived in it;

By calling everyone a jackass.

ajr82
12-23-2011, 08:00 PM
So his huffy goodbye post was in reply to me: I think that means I win?

JDS
12-23-2011, 08:13 PM
In all seriousness though FinalSlayer you should probably get checked because your posts were like a textbook example of high-functioning austism -- enough to where making fun of you was almost kind of a joyless endeavor because it was obvious that you just weren't capable of processing social signals correctly. PEACE

upupdowndown
12-23-2011, 08:32 PM
So his huffy goodbye post was in reply to me: I think that means I win?

Yeah, I think we all owe you a Coke or something for being the instigator of his epic flounce.

Adam
12-23-2011, 08:35 PM
But hey, it certainly explains your total lack of regular, actively posting members from 2011, or even 2010.

D:

Nodal
12-23-2011, 09:06 PM
D:

Adam what does this mean for us?!

upupdowndown
12-23-2011, 09:25 PM
Adam what does this mean for us?!

Nothing? I took a quick gander at the Members list (http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=lastvisit&pp=30) on who had activity today and saw plenty of folks who joined in 2011 and 2010.

Oh my gosh, it's like the guy who repeatedly showed us that he doesn't know what he's talking about didn't know what he was talking about!

Epithet
12-23-2011, 09:43 PM
http://i.imgur.com/xdrOb.jpg

Falselogic
01-11-2012, 03:45 PM
It's about Charles Dickens (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/02/hitchens-201202)

I couldn't let Final Slayer have the last boohoo in this thread.