Comments

  1. jakc says

    Don’t know that I agree, but I’m sure Hitch would appreciate that someone published a contrarian obit on FtB.

  2. says

    I’m sure Hitch would appreciate that someone published a contrarian obit on FtB.

    You know, you’re right. Well done, CPP. In that spirit, here’s a quotation from Hitchens I read recently:

    I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out to be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy—theocratic barbarism—in plain view…. I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.

    Asshole.

  3. Saurs says

    Yeah, I kinda always figured he wanted to make the horr0rs of September 11th!!1 all about himself, and that passage is a great representation of his self-centered, amoral line of bullshit, wherein possessing (or, rather, inventing) an ideological enemy you can craft a (latterhalf) career whinging about with all the verbosity of an earnest eight-grader is of utmost importance. Did he ever possess a conviction that wasn’t based solely on the possibility of obnoxiously employing it to strain the limits of a wordcount (I mean, apart from sincerely believing in the inferiority of women and The Darkies)? Even his self-professed leftwing politics of yore were just watered down popular contrarianism, easily discarded when he realized the work Thompson, Hobsbawm, et al, didn’t implicitly support his brand of white supremacism.

  4. twooffour says

    Sorry, what?

    Yea, there was something “self-centered” to the way he approached these issues, even though at no point in his speeches did it seem as if his concern with them was insincere – but please do tell, where exactly would I find his “racism” and “misogyny”?

    Is the racism because he had something against Islam, or theocratic countries from the Middle-East? Where did he accuse any of them on the basis of skin color, quote please.

    And as for misogyny, well, can it be anything else other than his “women aren’t funny” article? Or when he said that “women didn’t have to work” (which basically boils down to the obvious, + that men HAVE to work)?

    Please tell me this is a little bit less silly than that.

  5. Saurs says

    Yes, it’s patently self-centered to take the view that mass murder has an upside because it grants One Very Special Boy a certain amount of pleasure and “exhilaration,” particularly when that pleasure will be derived almost solely from crafting fairly boring and bogstandard, if it weren’t so bloody-minded, apologia and propaganda for a white Christian empire’s latest slaughter-and-pillaging adventure, all in the fatuous name of retaliation. Hitchens, like any good warmonger, seemingly had no qualms about reducing fairly involved, complex political machinations to a nice, steamy romance about good v evil and — surprise! — somehow white folk were always on the side of the righteous, were always being injured for no good reason, while the dark folk whose land they so casually invaded, far from being a legitimate resistance movement, were violent primitives in need of civilizing and a good, solid thwack to the head.

    As for banal instances of racism and misogyny (erm, apart from the bit where he regularly cast any non-white political entity as villainous or vaguely sub-human?) he had the charming habit of calling people wogs and dykes with a straight face, of theorizing in the shallowest way possible as to the biological inferiority of women and of drinking deep but uncritically from the bowels of evolutionary psychology to justify said theories, of being unabashedly anti-abortion, of apologizing for all manner of rapists so long as it riled up the correct demographic.

    (Women never having to work? When in the history of forever has this been either true or anything other than a deliberately evasive non-sequitur, probably used to explain away a gaffe invoking mythological golddigger to explain the oppression of women or the wage gap?)

  6. Nathan says

    I’m relatively new to admitting to myself that I am an atheist.
    I’m very new to admitting to anyone else that I am an atheist.
    I am also very new to subscribing to Free Thought Blogs.

    I have not read a whole lot of Christopher Hitchens’ writings, and I must admit that the misogyny accusation is surprising to me. I can see where one could make the accusation of imperialism (although, I’m not sure that I agree with that assessment).

    However; I am refreshed to see criticism on the same site as praise for a recently deceased leader of the movement. Within religious circles, this would not happen. I commend you for your honesty, and your willingness to express your opinions without holding ot some supernatural “respect for the dead.”

  7. kraut says

    Saurs says:… far from being a legitimate resistance movement, were (where?) violent primitives in need of civilizing and a good, solid thwack to the head.”

    What a pile of really nice steaming shit.

  8. twooffour says

    “One Very Special Boy a certain amount of pleasure and “exhilaration””

    From what I’ve seen of him, though, this wasn’t his dominating attitude in any of these issues – probably just a part of his old cognitive dissonance, like when he said that he didn’t wish religion to go away because he’d be left with no one to argue with, even after Dawkins insisted that there would be many other, better arguments left to deal with.

    Did he go around talkshows insisting how much he enjoyed arguing with the religious folks?
    Seemed like a passing self-reflective thought to me, more than anything.

    “white Christian empire’s latest slaughter-and-pillaging adventure”
    I haven’t read all of hiw “apologia” for the Iraq war, but even without looking, I’m pretty sure none of that has to do with the USA being “white” and “Christian” (it’s neither, btw).

    “all in the fatuous name of retaliation”
    Really, because all I heard him talk about was “stopping the Hussein regime” and “liberating those citizens”. Whatever the facts, his support for the invasion certainly wasn’t “in the name” of retaliation, because that’s now what he cited as his reason.

    “somehow white folk were always on the side of the righteous”

    Like, you mean, except when they weren’t, and chewed out by himself for being Christian, bigoted or fanatic? Yea…

    “were always being injured for no good reason”
    If you mean the fact that the victims of 9/11 (not all of whom were white) weren’t at fault for what happened, then, um, yea?

    “while the dark folk whose land they so casually invaded, far from being a legitimate resistance movement, were violent primitives in need of civilizing”

    Really, because all I’ve heard him talk about was their “oppression” by their “totalitarian regimes”, and their need of liberation from them.
    Liberating an oppressed people =/= civilizing primitives.

    He was on the side of those “darkies”, to go by anything he’s said about it.

    “of theorizing in the shallowest way possible as to the biological inferiority of women”
    Again, quote please, because the fact that he said women were less capable of being funny (without having to act like men, that is) doesn’t have anything to do with “inferiority”.

    More like with stupid gender stereotypes (even though, interestingly, some women commented that they shared the same observation).

    Men should be equally insulted by that article because he implied that they were mostly too ugly to have a chance with women unless they compensated with “humor”.

    “of being unabashedly anti-abortion”
    Which has nothing to do with misogyny. If you’re against abortion, you think that the embryo / fetus is a human being who has the right to live, and nothing to do with women’s rights to be on equal foot with men.

    “of apologizing for all manner of rapists so long as it riled up the correct demographic.”
    Would make Hitchens a very confusing and contradicting person, indeed, if you could quote him even implying support for any form of “rape”.

    Hitchens may have been factually wrong and biased on all of those issues (he did have the tendency to accentuate the negative when it came to relgion, for example), and he’s displayed some questionable cognitive dissonances, but from what it seems so far, your accusations are far from being honest even in that context.

  9. twooffour says

    By the way, just looked up the word “dyke” to be sure – it was considered a derogatory term at some point, but now not so much. Meaning, it CAN be derogatory, but can as well be meant positively, or neutrally.

    Couple this with the fact that he listed “Jews” in the same sentence as the “dykes”, if that’s the clip you’re referring to, and we all know how anti-semitic Hitchens was, right?

    °_°

  10. lylebot says

    Which has nothing to do with misogyny. If you’re against abortion, you think that the embryo / fetus is a human being who has the right to live, and nothing to do with women’s rights to be on equal foot with men.

    Yeah, because that has nothing to do with a woman’s right over her own body compared to a man’s right over his.

    Sorry, but I don’t really care if people say they’re anti-abortion because they think the fetus is a human being. In 99.9% of cases, their actions show them to be anti-abortion because they’re anti-woman.

  11. twooffour says

    Wow, this response is even more idiotic than I’ve expected.

    First, a man doesn’t give birth to children. Do you get that or not? Nature decided to be a sexist prick, and limited this burden to the women. Had it not, the people thinking that men should have the right to abort but women should not would be “anti-woman” and sexist.
    If you don’t like that, why don’t you call Ahnold Governator and hire him for your experiments on male impregnation?

    As it stands, though, yes, it’s the woman’s body, but IT’S ALSO THE BABY’S. Is it really so hard to grasp that this is what “the debate” is all about?
    “The woman’s body” is at stake when you talk about cosmetic surgery. No one forbids them to go through cosmetic surgeries, or have piercing and tattoos, that men are allowed to unergo, as well.

    This is solely about the moral dilemma between the woman’s discomforts coming from bearing a child, and the fact that THE CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING, but not a fully developed one.

    The pro-lifers don’t get to label you as “child murderers”, and neither do you get to label their very valid objects as “misogyny”.

    It’s funny that on a page criticizing Hitchens’ black-and-white painting when it comes to Middle Easterners or Muslims (even though anyone who’s listened to him just a bit knows that he has no objections to people believing what they want), you come here and present the dumbest possible mischaracterization existing in the abortion debate.

    Congratulations.

  12. LadyDreamgirl says

    This is solely about the moral dilemma between the woman’s discomforts coming from bearing a child, and the fact that THE CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING, but not a fully developed one.

    You do realize that pregnancy is a potentially dangerous medical condition that permanently alters a women’s body in some cases to the extreme point of causing death, right? I think that’s a little more than “discomfort”.

  13. julian says

    wow Hitchens. Thank you for such assholes as the fuckwad currently defending you. You may have been eloquent. You may have had great taste in whiskey. But jesus were you one obnoxious ignorant fucker.

    This is solely about the moral dilemma between the woman’s discomforts coming from bearing a child, and the fact that THE CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING, but not a fully developed one.

    Again. Thank you.

  14. says

    “You do realize that pregnancy is a potentially dangerous medical condition that permanently alters a women’s body in some cases to the extreme point of causing death, right? I think that’s a little more than “discomfort”.”

    And you should be honest enough to “realize” that I wasn’t talking about the cases that are dangerous, or cause suffering (aside from the actual birth), in the mother.

    Most pro-lifers (certainly the rational kind, as opposed to the religious nutbags) constantly stress that cases like this are exempt from the debate, and should Hitchens have said something to the contrary, that certainly would make him a complete douchebag.

    Having that said, most of the time when parents decide to “get a baby”, and then another baby, and then another sibling, there isn’t any “this could kill you” vibe going on in the room.

    The chance to die or suffer permanent damage from it is generally very low nowadays, so yea, in those “lucky” cases it’s really discomfort and labor.

    Even if that weren’t the case, radical pro-lifers would still do it out of a (disproportionally) high regard for unborn life, not misogyny. One could argue that it would be even worse than misogyny, or maybe not, but calling things their names is the least you should do.

    “Thank you for such assholes as the fuckwad currently defending you.”
    I’m only arguing against dishonest, absurd accusations such as the one above.
    If he was wrong about Iraq, he was wrong about Iraq. If he’s made statements about women I haven’t heard or read that are actually misogynistic and not some stupid bullshit about female comedians, I’d object to that.

    But if you want to insist that being pro-life, even to a mild extent, has anything to do with “misogyny”, or that Hitchens supported the war because he “hated all the darkies”, you’re not getting away with it. Sorry.

    Quotes or stop whining. ;)

  15. julian says

    Once again, thank you, Hitchens. Perhaps I might spit on your memory after all. Not only were you a complete ass, your dick jockeys believe that policies that disproportionately and unambiguously hurt women aren’t in any shape way or form misogynistic.

  16. julian says

    And you should be honest enough to “realize” that I wasn’t talking about the cases that are dangerous, or cause suffering (aside from the actual birth), in the mother.

    Let me exclude all the cases that undermine my argument from the pool of evidence. Once I have done so you will have no choice but to agree that I am correct.

  17. says

    The only reason I’ve excluded them, was that they are ALREADY excluded by most “pro-lifers”, you FOOL.

    I’m not even going to delve into this, seeing as how I’ve just done that in my last post and you’re obviously way too dishonest to read it properly, aside from citing what I’ve written RIGHT AFTER THE PARAGRAPH YOU JUST QUOTED:

    “Most pro-lifers (certainly the rational kind, as opposed to the religious nutbags) constantly stress that cases like this are exempt from the debate …”
    Now you may guess what I said after that.

    Could it be said that the LEAST anyone involved in the abortion debate should do, is acknowledging that it exists for no reason other than the fact that the moral conflict between the well-being (even if only psychological and emotional, which is still a lot) of the mother and the (potential?) life of the baby, is a real one?
    Just a few weeks ago, I was involved in a short exchange with a pro-lifer, who insisted that abortion was equal to “murder” and I simply had been brainwashed into considering unborn babies lesser life-forms. No, thanks, I’ve had it with the dense, demonizing fanatics who can’t even comprehend the other side of the issue.

    Should I direct you to that guy by any chance? I’m sure you could make the infamous “debate” between Michael More and Bill Orally would pale in comparison!

    Thanks so far for all the stupidity – I think I’ll refrain from posting here until someone comes up with a sensible comment, rebuttal or answer to any of my questions.

  18. julian says

    I’m not even going to delve into this, seeing as how I’ve just done that in my last post and you’re obviously way too dishonest to read it properly, aside from citing what I’ve written RIGHT AFTER THE PARAGRAPH YOU JUST QUOTED:

    Oh my god!

    He’s-he’s….

    He’s using all caps! Run!

    (even if only psychological and emotional, which is still a lot) of the mother

    you worthless sack of shit. Like those are the only concerns for why abortion is a fundamental right for women. Fuck you.

    I think I’ll refrain from posting here until someone comes up with a sensible comment, rebuttal or answer to any of my questions.

    I think, personally just me, that you should fast until abortion ends. Think of the commitment it would show to your cause! Think of the headlines! It would be so brave and courageous of you.

  19. says

    Ok pal, you’re a disingenuous, dyslexic clown.

    I guess I should be keeping it down after just announcing that I wouldn’t be responding to any further comments this empty and fatuous, but I thought the above might be the least you’d deserve to hear – especially as you obviously have trouble reading posts that are longer than a few lines, and clearly rebuke your kneejerk assumption that I’m a pro-lifer.

    Have fun talking to the hand – in the meantime, I’ll be waiting for worthwhile responses to my questions.

    thxbai, clown

  20. LadyDreamgirl says

    Oi! Pregnancy changes a woman’s body no matter whether it does any ‘damage’ or not and if a woman decides on an early term abortion it can very well be before it can be determined exactly how dangerous the pregnancy will or will not be. There is never zero risk and it is no one but the person who will be physically taking that risk by putting her body on the line who should have the right decide if the risk is an acceptable one or not. The sense in which a zygote or embryo or fetus is a human being is far less certain than the sense in which a woman is a human being.

    Also, I personally generally am a fan of Hitchens’ work and generally appreciated your addition of counterpoints to the discussion, but I could not put up with how you trivialized the position of women in regards to abortion.

  21. says

    Yes, all of those are valid arguments for abortion. Another is that if abortion is made illegal, people will seek it from illegal offerers, and nothing good will come from that.

    However, “the sense in which a zygote or embryo or fetus is a human being is far less certain than the sense in which a woman is a human being”, while true, also relies on the fact that it’s “uncertain”.
    And, without delving into the details, that sums up the argument against it.

    I’m not here to defend the pro-life position, mostly because, if I haven’t been clear enough on this (just kidding: I have), I don’t actually hold it.
    If anything, I’m probably pro-choice, but think that this “choice” can often be immoral.

    I’m only here to make it clear to some fanatic prickheads that aborting a growing human being IS actually an issue, it doesn’t end with “the mother’s body”, that the debate has merit on both sides, and none of this has anything to do with misogyny.

    You do realize that doing the above devalues the word misogyny (more than SkepChick does, if nothing else sounds deterring enough), as well as “trivializes” the relation abortion has with cosmetic surgery and preemptive medical procedures, right?

    If men could give birth (as, rumoars say, they already do in California), guess whose bodies would be on the line then. What, that’s Science Fiction? Well, then so is the claim that pro-life equals misogyny. ;)

  22. LadyDreamgirl says

    So what makes us human? That’s really the question. A good theory of what constitutes the important elements of human-ness and how a zygote, embryo, or fetus has those elements in sufficient quantity is necessary to even begin to have the debate on where one human’s right to exist infringes on another humans right to bodily integrity. Until it is demonstrated that a questionably human entity matches what we consider the important elements of human-ness there is no real argument for a questionably human being to be given precedence over a definately human being.

    And Hitchens’ espoused other views about women that are distasteful. Remember his article on how women aren’t funny? There I didn’t use the m-word, does that make you happy?

    I’m not actually afraid of being compared to Rebecca Watson or any of the rest of the bloggers over at SkepChick. Just using the word ‘misogynist’ a lot doesn’t trivialize it if you make a decent case for why it’s an appropriate descriptive term. Boiling down what happens to a women’s body during pregnancy (and which permanently alters said body in EVERY pregnancy) to ‘discomfort’ brings to mind, for me, how you feel when you have a mild cold, or after a blood draw, or a routine vaccination.

  23. julian says

    Slightly more seriously I have never heard an argument an iteration of the ‘it’s a person!’ argument that didn’t apply to both sperm and egg cells.

  24. Saurs says

    The abortion of a zygote is not a moral quandary. One can’t “trivialize” abortion because it’s an essentially trivial thing, a bodily function that occurs naturally more often than one can reckon, and then occasionally helped along when a woman decides she doesn’t want to host a fetus right now or ever. It’s only burdened with heaping helpings of philosophical and political baggage because women’s reproductive freedom (deciding when to ovulate, controlling ovulation, preventing pregnancy, controlling gestation, et al) threatens misogynists, whether their misogyny is actuated by religion or not.

    (As for Hitchen regularly aligning himself with imperial projects, Falklands through Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m willing to believe, based on the naivete of most of his overtly political opinions, his inability or unwillingness to realize the economic rationale behind any one of those invasions, that he merely absorbed and reiterated in a pretty and pleasing fashion the prevailing propaganda, whether its laughable justification was “spreadin’ freedom” or not. But it’s not a reasonable defense of his position, it’s merely an apology for someone parading around deeply uninformed opinions that would be comical if they didn’t seem so bloodthirsty. He may have been an atheist, but his peculiar stance towards Islam — his willingness to go along with the American party line in demonizing and generalizing all Muslims — rings all my fundie Christian bells.)

  25. says

    “there is no real argument for a questionably human being to be given precedence over a definately human being.”

    In matters of life and death, or serious health implications, definitely not.
    How matters stand when none of that is the case, has to be weighed against the fact that whatever fraction of a human an unborn baby is supposed to represent (a fetus definitely more than an embryo), DIES and gets no chance to live.

    Just keep that in mind, and the rest is obviously decided by scientific facts and all that jazz.
    I don’t know too much about it, so I’m on the fence ;)

    Having that said, the morons I argued against aren’t even getting into all these nice details – a woman’s body is a woman’s body (and a fetus apparently just an appendix), and anyone who disagrees hates women. Well, excuse my urge to bash in a few heads for such mindless idiocy.

    “Boiling down what happens to a women’s body during pregnancy (and which permanently alters said body in EVERY pregnancy) to ‘discomfort’ brings to mind, for me, how you feel when you have a mild cold, or after a blood draw, or a routine vaccination.”

    Well, in that case I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to trivialize it like THAT.
    Having that said, I don’t know all the details (and those holding an actual position on this issue, ESPECIALLY if it’s pro-life, definitely should), but a vast majority of women have multiple kids and come out just fine.
    It’s not the scary, life-threatening issue it was centuries ago, and as long as people stop treating it as such, I’m fine.

    ___
    Just to give you some perspective, a pro-lifer might make the argument that the worth of an embryo’s life is higher than we think, and overweighs those (RELATIVELY) minor problems pregnancy entails that don’t cause health damage or suffering.

    Unless we’re talking about rape (a whole new dimension altogether), after all, babies don’t arrive from spontaneous generation, and if the woman wasn’t “careful enough” to think ahead, she might have to go through the efforts and problems until they become sufficient to justify ending a life.

    Just once more to the trolls who still can’t seem to get it, I do NOT hold that view, but I at least understand the valid aspect of it, and I have the impression that some people on here do not.
    ____

    “And Hitchens’ espoused other views about women that are distasteful. Remember his article on how women aren’t funny?”

    You know I’ve already brough up that one, right?

    “if you make a decent case for why it’s an appropriate descriptive term.”
    Except that’s the problem, she doesn’t.

    You may argue that making sexual (not demeaning) remarks in comments also counts as misogyny, even though it actually doesn’t involve any hate or inferiority ideologies – although I prefer to call it irresponsibly fratboy horndodginess that can make the receiver feel uncomfortable – but that elevator incident? Yea… no comment.

  26. LadyDreamgirl says

    The abortion of a zygote is not a moral quandary. One can’t “trivialize” abortion because it’s an essentially trivial thing, a bodily function that occurs naturally more often than one can reckon, and then occasionally helped along when a woman decides she doesn’t want to host a fetus right now or ever.

    Quite, I suppose what I was intending to convey was displeasure at the trivialization of the effects of pregnancy on a woman’s body. I appreciate the reminder to be more precise in my use of language.

  27. julian says

    In matters of life and death, or serious health implications, definitely not.

    Pregnancy.

    No serious health implications.

  28. LadyDreamgirl says

    “And Hitchens’ espoused other views about women that are distasteful. Remember his article on how women aren’t funny?”

    You know I’ve already brough up that one, right?

    Yes and I did you the kindness of not pointing out that calling an entire group “less capable” of something is essentially the same thing as calling them inferior when you are clearly placing a value on being competent with regards to the issue at hand.

  29. Saurs says

    Perhaps I should have been more precise, LadyDreamGirl. I was referencing twooffour in #25 making claims that the pro-abortion, pro-woman set might be, shockhorror, “devaluing” or “trivializing” abortion, yegods. I heartily concur with all of your comments.

  30. LadyDreamgirl says

    Ah, yes, I had overlooked that bit, I got caught up on the fact that twooffour seemed to think that his opponents might be deterred by comparison to SkepChick.

  31. says

    “his willingness to go along with the American party line in demonizing and generalizing all Muslims”

    I’ll read up on the Falklands stuff and what not, but you’ve just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously with the above statement.
    (Just kidding; you’ve already done that when you said that Hitchens thought all whites were innocent.)
    Whether you’re really a Christian fundie or not, isn’t even relevant at this point.

    “threatens misogynists”
    Even if an embryo can’t be considered a living thing with any “right” to exist, the people who are against abortion (EXCLUDING the religious “life begins at conception” nutbags once more) obviously think it is, and none of that has to do with misogyny.

    I can only explain why this is a completely fatuous non-sequitur so many times on one page, and I’d say the line’s just been crossed.
    Misogyny is about denying equal rights for both genders in equal circumstances, and nothing about the reproductive functions in males and females is in any way, shape or form “equal”.

    Men neither have to go through the burden and risks of bearing a child, nor does their “function” at any point involve moral dilemmas.
    As soon as the jizz is out, they’re off the hook. They’re not “allowed” any privileges that women are restricted from, such as the choice of using contraception.

    While misogyny in different forms CAN correlate with being pro-life, it doesn’t follow from it, and this is the last time I’m going to bother to address this.

    “It’s only burdened with heaping helpings of philosophical and political baggage because women’s reproductive freedom”

    Believe it or not, the question when fetuses begin to feel pain, or whether they do it at all, is actually part of academic debate. Even though the overwhelming view, from what I know, is that they don’t do it until about 25 weeks, it’s not a resolved question.

    If you want to argue that fetuses have no self-awareness, the same can be said about the born baby in the first few months (even though, for example, evidence suggests that awareness begins at birth).

    Point is, all these academics can do their complex studies that still haven’t given definitive answers on some questions (such as whether fetal reactions to sounds, voices and music has any implications on these issues), but you’ve already figured it all out and can safely dismiss all of that as a bunch of “philosophical” and “political” nonsense.

    Sorry, no respect for that at all.

    Even if it’s proven that fetuses have zero awareness and zero “forming personality”, the fact that it’s a conscious human being being “programmed” and already in an advanced stage, already makes it a moral issue.
    (If someone is ignorant of evidence pointing in either direction, it’s still factual ignorance waiting to be corrected, and not sexism.)

    If you can’t even concede that much, you’re a fanatic and any discussion with you at this point would be without one.

    Take care.

  32. says

    “Yes and I did you the kindness of not pointing out that calling an entire group “less capable” of something is essentially the same thing as calling them inferior when you are clearly placing a value on being competent with regards to the issue at hand.”

    First, he didn’t place any “value” on it, as the point was that men needed humor in order to “score” with women, while women could accomplish that anyway.
    The “seriousness” he ascribed to women (and you can correct me if I read it wrong) was described as a “virtue” just as much as the “male humor at the expense of bodily decay”.

    Secondly, as far as I’ve understood it, his point was that FEWERS women were capable of being funny (or being so without adopting “male” humor), not that all of them were less capable of that.

    “There are more terrible female comedians than there are terrible male comedians, but there are some impressive ladies out there.”

    Thirdly, his given reason, as pseudo-scientific as it may be, is anything but misogynistic:
    “If I am correct about this, which I am, then the explanation for the superior funniness of men is much the same as for the inferior funniness of women. Men have to pretend, to themselves as well as to women, that they are not the servants and supplicants.”

    That article, to me, is as “misandric” as it is “misogynistic”, if you ask me.

    At other points, he said that women (most of the time) were more capable of raising children than men (who were too “inept” for that task). Is that against women, or against men, or just inaccurate, or accurate?

    At any rate, let me ask you this: at what point does “quipping at gender differences” stop and sexism begin?

    If Sam Harris points out in his essay about violence that women are much less likely to engage in “social bantering” (even though I think he underestimates the reality) resulting in violence, is that misogyny? Or misandry?

    If a man believes that women are more likely to become “competitive” in a group than men, based on what he’s heard, is he sexist?
    Is the implication of ANY differences between genders, even though they may be accurate, sexist, or may any of this be actually talked about?

    Even if it is, it’s certainly not the kind of misogyny that approves of one-sided violence, deprivation of rights or social inequality, and would warrant a “good riddance” comment (although you can obviously throw as many of those at Hitch as you like). Just some stupid, fallacious shit about the percentage of funny women.

    I’m not going to equate some black dude with Louis Farrakhan if he implies that black men are statistically better runners, if you catch my drift.

    For all it matters, some women who’ve commented on his essay agree with him, btw, but I don’t. The women I’ve seen and heard were just as likely to be funny as the guys.

  33. julian says

    The “seriousness” he ascribed to women (and you can correct me if I read it wrong) was described as a “virtue” just as much as the “male humor at the expense of bodily decay”.

    *facepalm*

    You know what’s awesome about black guys? They’re all super athletic and have huuuge cocks.

    That article, to me, is as “misandric” as it is “misogynistic”, if you ask me.

    Maybe you aren’t a complete idiot.

  34. says

    After implying that there was no difference between a sperm cell + egg and an advanced fetus, and repeatedly failing to understand that I’m not pro-life, you’re in no position of calling anyone an incomplete idiot.

    Your response above is equally fatuous, and as far as I’m concerned, your remarks and interjections are pretty much spam.

  35. Saurs says

    twooffour, you keep saying you need to look up this or that reference. So why are you so intent to claim authority on subjects about which you seem to know nothing?

    Hitchens and Hitchens apologists have at least this much in common: the tendency to bluster and bellow at you in long-winded fashion as means of deterring further (and fruitful) discussion and of disguising one’s own ignorance, the tendency to assume discussion itself is a game of oneupsmanship and one’s interlocutor as an opponent who must be bested at all costs.

  36. says

    Don’t worry, that’s a common character trait on the internet. In your case, however, you were spewing some serious garbage bullshit in light of what I ALREADY know, so I thought I’d adress that much.

    If that’s all you’ve got to say, I’d say we’re done here.

  37. physioprof says

    I’d say we’re done here.

    Hey, fuckebagge. You keep saying you’re done, so how about actually shutting your fucken logorrheic piehole already?

  38. julian says

    After implying that there was no difference between a sperm cell + egg and an advanced fetus

    You irritant. I did no such thing. What I said was

    Slightly more seriously I have never heard an argument an iteration of the ‘it’s a person!’ argument that didn’t apply to both sperm and egg cells.”

    explicitly referring to the arguments used to defend the idea that a fetus is a person. My point should have been obvious considering how obstinately you’ve been defending the idea that it is reasonable to believe such a thing.

  39. says

    “Hey, fuckebagge. You keep saying you’re done, so how about actually shutting your fucken logorrheic piehole already?”

    Heh, the sensible response from the equally sensible OP, eh?

    “We’re done” as in – “it’s your turn to address my other points now; I’ve replied to everything you had to say, and if nothing more comes from you, we’re done and I’ll do some reading”.

    It doesn’t mean I’ll never post another comment on this page again.

    “I have never heard an iteration of the ‘it’s a person!’ argument that didn’t apply to both sperm and egg cells.”
    Which can’t be true if there are actually qualitative differences between the two.

    The “personhood” gradually emerges during pregnancy, and while it’s debatable at what point the combination of cells become a heap, the progress is ongoing and results in a fully developed, programmed being shorly before birth – distinguished only by his (supposed) lack of awareness while in the womb.

    If you haven’t heard such an argument, maybe you haven’t heard that much altogether.
    How about:
    “It’s a bunch of cells. Screw ‘em”
    “Wow, this looks almost like a human, and moves like one. And there’s already a developing brain inside. Let’s carefully examine how it functions, and what can be deduced about its awareness.”

    There’s your stupid difference. Honestly, I don’t even know why I’m responding.

  40. Comrade PhysioProf says

    “Honestly, I don’t even know why I’m responding.”

    Because you’re an ignorant obsessive logorrheic mansplaining fuckebagge, that’s why.

  41. twooffour says

    “Because you’re an ignorant obsessive logorrheic mansplaining fuckebagge, that’s why.”

    Wrong, the implication was that the other guy is stupid, because he’s a lazy reader and gets trapped between the simplest logical conclusions.
    I’m sure you were smart enough to pick up at least on that (not so much the content that preceded), so nice “subversion”, I guess. Heh.

    You make the discussion spawned by your empty parrot dropping of an opening post look academic and sophisticated in comparison, and it’s nothing you should be proud of.

  42. Comrade PhysioProf says

    I’ve always wondered what the endgame is for obsessive dumshittes like this asshole. Some delusional “win” in a game only they know they’re playing?

  43. twooffour says

    No “endgame”, just a natural reaction to drooling stupidity. If you have information that could easily rebuke my comments, why not use it to make me look like the ignorant fool I am, rather than yourself?

    This is the biggest “benefit of the doubt” I can summon in your favour, and no upcoming vapid insults will be responded to.

  44. anat says

    Even if an embryo can’t be considered a living thing with any “right” to exist, the people who are against abortion (EXCLUDING the religious “life begins at conception” nutbags once more) obviously think it is, and none of that has to do with misogyny.

    That they deny the woman on whose body such embryo/fetus necessarily depends the control of its fate is a sign of either not thinking much of said woman or not thinking in an organized manner on this question at all. After all, we do not force matching donors to donate kidneys or even bone marrow to definite persons who could go on living a healthy life with such a donation or die horribly without it. Forcing the continuation of a pregnancy on a person is more intrusive than either of these.

  45. julian says

    but you are an irritating little thing.

    Which can’t be true if there are actually qualitative differences between the two.

    differences which are irrelevant to any pro-life argument that hinges on the unborn mass of cells eventually developing into a human being. It does not matter if a sperm cell is different from a zygote if the quality of a zygote that makes it unethical to abort it is that it will grow into a human being then it is equally unethical to destroy sperm and egg cells.

    Personhood is equally problematic even if we find that the fetus’ developing brain is being influenced by what’s going on outside the womb. Drawing an arbitrary line between the different factors that play a role in development (in this case sound and hormones) because one seems more recognizably as part of human experience* does not make the pro-life argument better.

    And the blanket dismissal of how pregnancy impacts women (physically, emotionally, economically, socially, essentially every aspect of her life) which characterizes all pro-life arguments (including the ones you have represented in this thread) can only be described as misogynistic.

    It doesn’t mean I’ll never post another comment on this page again.

    Shame.

  46. twooffour says

    “Forcing the continuation of a pregnancy on a person is more intrusive than either of these.”

    Not really – if by “intrusive”, you mean “intrusive”, then forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure is definitely more intrusive than to have them keep a baby they’re already bearing (and in the cases we’re talking about, most likely out of a lack of thought at an earlier occasion – if, in theory, you were somehow directly responsible for someone’s damaged kidney, what arguments would people present in favor or against a mandatory donation?).

    Same with vaccinations for dangerous diseases that can prevent further infections.
    A “fun” ethical question so ponder, by the way – how dangerous and contagious does a disease have to be, and how minimal the risks of side effects, until you can justify making vaccinations mandatory?

    If you want to talk about danger, then that’s a whole other issue. Losing a kidney isn’t that good from what I know (at its best, it deprives the person of a “back-up” in emergencies) – while a bone marrow extraction has no long-term effects, and only minimal risks during the procedure (mostly stuff that can be expected from any kind of shot).

    The risks of pregnancies can obviously vary to the extreme, even though the virtually harmless cases strongly overweigh the risky ones.
    On the other hand, obviously, an unborn child (especially in a very early stage) is less of a human being than a dying patient.

    So on some level, that’s actually not a bad argument.

  47. twooffour says

    “It does not matter if a sperm cell is different from a zygote if the quality of a zygote that makes it unethical to abort it is that it will grow into a human being then it is equally unethical to destroy sperm and egg cells.”

    Well, the fact that it IS somewhat of a moral concern because it’ll develop into a human being, is still there, but it grows with the development of the embryo into more and more of a human being.

    “Personhood is equally problematic even if we find that the fetus’ developing brain is being influenced by what’s going on outside the womb.”
    Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean signals outside of the mother’s body?
    I don’t know anything about this in particular, but if, say, the mother’s body should play part in the “programming” of the brain, next to the genes (which I’m not aware of if that’s the case), that would only increase the difference between the zygote and the sufficiently developed fetus, would it not?

    “because one seems more recognizably as part of human experience* does not make the pro-life argument better.”

    Um, the fact that some kind of “emotional response” can be observed in unborn babies in response to aural signals, actually does show that a fetus is more than an internal organ, or becomes less and less of one with each development stage.

    “And the blanket dismissal of how pregnancy impacts women (physically, emotionally, economically, socially, essentially every aspect of her life)”

    The point isn’t in “dismissing” it, but in weighing it against the alternative, which is the active cessation of a future life, and more and more of an actual life as development progresses.

    Believe it or not, but the question whether killing something that is (questionably, and up for research and debate) partially a human being, because of the mother’s minor financial problems, is justified, is actually a question that can be discussed.

    If the economic impacts are significant, then yea, I’d say go with the abortion – but that’s just my argument, my sentiment, and all it really says is that there’s a problem in the society.

    If a social environment stigmatizes pregnant women, and doesn’t support her financial needs connected with getting good guidance and treatment, I sure utterly condemn it.

    “which characterizes all pro-life arguments (including the ones you have represented in this thread) can only be described as misogynistic.”

    Nope, sorry. I appreciate the fact that you’ve tried to slip this in after a series of actually considerable arguments, but, nope, not gonna work.
    Don’t even try.

  48. Saurs says

    Sex amongst humans and a host of other species is almost strictly recreational, you utter turd, so attempting to equate the fun, pleasurable, non-procreative sort with an accident or illness that necessitates a particular method of treatment (in this case, bearing the burden of your dirty, slut behavior by experiencing the pain of childbirth) is both absurd and offensive. Say what you mean: naughty ladies who dig (hetero) fucking need to be punished with a bay-bee. Anything less than that, and you’re lying.

    I’ve always wondered what the endgame is for obsessive dumshittes like this asshole. Some delusional “win” in a game only they know they’re playing?

    I was always particularly fond of your high school debate team champeen analogy, myself.

  49. twooffour says

    Your attempt at creating an outrageous strawman mischaracterization is so brilliantly dishonest and sleazy, I’ve almost gained some bit of respect for you.
    The higher the respect rises, though, the deeper it eventually falls.

    Sorry, pal, nope, doesn’t work.
    There is a certain thing called CONTRACEPTION, which highly reduces / virtually eliminates the risk of impregnation, as well as transmission of diseases.

    I’m all for carefree, casual, frequent sex for whoever desires it – unfortunately, the unintelligent design of impersonal nature has produced diseases that are mainly transmitted sexually, and forgot to build in a casual, consequence-less on-and-off button for fertility into our bodies.

    Modern medicine compensates not badly, but there is still a lot of work to do – and you can bet your ass that as soon as all the nasty diseases are eliminated, and there’s an easy, 100% certain way of preventing impregnation, the face of all debates concerning sexual intercourse will change considerably.

    Feel free to yearn for that day as everyone else does – but in the meantime, the risk of impregnation (and STDs) is an actual natural consequence of (unprotected) sex, and the consequence of that is that an emerging human being starts growing inside the woman’s body.

    Taking responsibility for such a consequence, no matter how fun the sex was, is just a question that will have to come up in such a situation, and that has nothing to do with crazy delusions about facts of nature being some sort of “punishment” or “moral treatment”.

    Especially if you hurl that accusation at me, even though I’m an atheist and (as stated at least 6 times by now) overweighingly pro-choice ;)

    °_°_°_°_°_°

    The only useful argument I can extract from your newest pathetic low blow is that there is a moral difference between abortion following a contraception accident (as contraception doesn’t guarantee 100% safety), and actual dumb recklessness.

    I’m pretty sure there’s no reasonable way of working that into the law, though – and it shouldn’t anyway, because legal restriction of abortion means more abortions by illegal means, and no one wants that.

    So, I’m afreeeehd, that this renders your post completely useless. Congratulations, you glorious mustache-twirling villain of the internets blogging.

  50. anat says

    Not really – if by “intrusive”, you mean “intrusive”, then forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure is definitely more intrusive than to have them keep a baby they’re already bearing

    Simply not true. Because by denying the woman an abortion you are forcing her to undergo the rest of her pregnancy plus full term birth. Full term birth alone is more intrusive than abortion at an earlier stage of pregnancy, and definitely more than marrow donation or kidney donation.

    (and in the cases we’re talking about, most likely out of a lack of thought at an earlier occasion – if, in theory, you were somehow directly responsible for someone’s damaged kidney, what arguments would people present in favor or against a mandatory donation?)

    Have the person responsible for the kidney dysfunction pay damages (including the hospital stay and the transplant procedure). Forced physical reparations belong in the days of Hamurabi. You can ask people nicely to sacrifice the use of their body or part of it to support the life of another, nobody should be forced to do so (especially if the other is an entity that doesn’t even have a mind yet).

    Vaccinations are a different question, because the person whose bodily integrity may be affected by potentially forced vaccination is also the one who may benefit from that forced medical intervention (or lose from its absence) while the one currently making the decision (in many cases) is the parent.

  51. julian says

    If the economic impacts are significant, then yea, I’d say go with the abortion

    How gracious of you.

    Believe it or not, but the question whether killing something that is (questionably, and up for research and debate) partially a human being

    My sperm cells are partially human. So human they have human DNA. Why should they not be given the same consideration as an embryo?

    (1)the fact that some kind of “emotional response” can be observed in unborn babies in response to aural signals, (2)actually does show that a fetus is more than an internal organ, or (3)becomes less and less of one with each development stage.”

    (1)Sorry, I don’t buy it. Gauging emotional responses in actual toddlers and infants is difficult enough.

    (2)No more than the twitching of a developing limb.

    (3)Of course it does. So what? The same applies to sperm and egg cells and a zygote. Establishing that it is indeed a person is not the same as establishing that it becomes more and more like a person during development.

    The point isn’t in “dismissing” it, but in weighing it against the alternative, which is the active cessation of a future life

    No more condoms!

    The Pill kills!

    Ejaculation is murder!

  52. julian says

    100% certain way of preventing impregnation

    Why would they if you would still be intervening to halt the maturation of a potential human being?

  53. twooffour says

    “Simply not true. Because by denying the woman an abortion you are forcing her to undergo the rest of her pregnancy plus full term birth. Full term birth alone is more intrusive than abortion at an earlier stage of pregnancy, and definitely more than marrow donation or kidney donation.”

    Yea, but strictly speaking, an assisted birth isn’t “intrusive” because it’s not something done to the mother, it’s aiding her in what already happens due to previous events that only a mischievous imp would dare to call “intrusive” in this context.

    Whether these semantics matter, though, considering that labor and birth are still a difficult and often painful process, I’m not sure.

    “Forced physical reparations belong in the days of Hamurabi.”
    Just to be specific, I’m not talking about accidents and bar fights, but purposeful injury.

    Forcing the perpetrator to donate a kidney seems sick and cruel either way, but on the other hand, have the other person suffer health damage while the criminal gets treated nicely in prison seems kinda sick, as well.

    Right now, I’m glad about two facts, though: first, that this topic isn’t part of this discussion, and secondly, that the chance of two random people having compatible organs is actually pretty damn low, and it was a stupid thought experiment to begin with :D

    “Vaccinations are a different question, because the person whose bodily integrity may be affected by potentially forced vaccination is also the one who may benefit from that forced medical intervention”
    Yea, but as long as it’s still “intrusive”, and adverse effects are possible, the person should be the one deciding it. In this case, the pro-choicer mantra really applies 100%: it’s his body, and his choice.

    While that’s true for diseases that can’t be transmitted from human to human, the only reason one could think up for mandatory vaccinations in all the other cases is really the safety of OTHERS, and not the actual recipient.

    So I guess you consider childbirth more of an intrusive act than I do, while I’m more condemning of forced vaccination than you… kinda interesting :)

  54. twooffour says

    “How gracious of you.”
    Apply that sarcasm to yourself, considering you’re pro-choice as well.
    All I’m saying is that it’s more moral for a becoming mother to choose abortion if her financial consequences otherwise would be calamitous.

    “My sperm cells are partially human. So human they have human DNA. Why should they not be given the same consideration as an embryo?”

    Because you’re an idiot. After breaking this down for you one too many times, I think this is really the best argument one can think of.

    “No more condoms!
    The Pill kills!
    Ejaculation is murder!”

    Cartoonization was always an effective debating tactic – keep it up.

    “Why would they if you would still be intervening to halt the maturation of a potential human being?”
    Moron.

    “(1)Sorry, I don’t buy it. Gauging emotional responses in actual toddlers and infants is difficult enough.”

    Well, then don’t. Actual toddlers obviously DO have emotional responses, and at some point in the late development stages, a fetus is really just a (probably sedated) toddler.

    “(2)No more than the twitching of a developing limb.”
    The limb has no trace of developing (and in later stages partially or almost developed) sentience.

    You wanted to disqualify yourself from the discussion by offering this fatuous statement as an argument – your fault.

    “(3)Of course it does. So what? The same applies to sperm and egg cells and a zygote. Establishing that it is indeed a person is not the same as establishing that it becomes more and more like a person during development.”

    No, it isn’t, but the fact that it does, still sets it apart from a zygote, let alone an egg / sperm cell.
    I guess that would increase the moral implications of an abortion with progressing time, eh?

    Just ask yourself whether killing an upcoming baby (a fully developed baby just waiting to be “awakened” at birth, if it’s sedated while in the womb at all) because the mother suddenly gets cold feet is the same as taking the morning-after pill (or even aborting the baby while it looks like a space fish alien), and you’ll have your answer.

    Dismissing the development of a zygote into an embryo into an early fetus by equating it to “some growing twitching organ” (which must imply that somewhere in the last weeks, the limb magically turns into a sedated toddler) is one easy way out of the discussion you’re not actually going to get.

  55. Comrade PhysioProf says

    “This is the biggest “benefit of the doubt” I can summon in your favour, and no upcoming vapid insults will be responded to.”

    It’s excellent how you provide such detailed ongoing information about when you are “done”, what sorts of comments “will be responded to”, and other fascinating features of your internal rhetorical state.

  56. twooffour says

    By the way, thousands of sperms die after ejaculation even if it’s during unplugged duet – as well as if you don’t ejaculate, because they eventually die somewhere in scrotal vicinity.

    So if there’s anything you should be conerned about, it’s the zygote – the point where the programming is actually activated.

    Or, you know, when we’ve got warp drive and inhabit thousands of planets, you can start thinking about giving every sperm a chance at living. In space.
    Except, oh no, the exponential function.

    Screw the sperms, I guess :(

  57. twooffour says

    Meh, whatever.
    From the Wiki on the standard contraceptive pill:

    “Some pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic.”

    Doesn’t affect my question either way – replace it with misoprostol or whatever, and quit nitpicking medical details in order to avoid having to face your giant disingenuous fail above.

  58. julian says

    Hate to burst your bubble (not really) but, you haven’t actually addressed any of my points. Your entire argument rests on halting a developing embryo from fully maturing being as legitimate a concern as killing a new born. In essence you have been equating a potential life with actual life. So I ask, if it’s the potential for intelligence and sentience that determines how concerned we should be then why should we not spend an equal amount of time debating the right to masturbate?

    because the mother suddenly gets cold feet

    I can just feel the concern for women and their well being.

  59. julian says

    all those pesky medical details. Like pregnancy being more than just a discomfort for women with many far reaching health implications for the rest of her life.

  60. twooffour says

    “I can just feel the concern for women and their well being.”
    But getting cold feed shortly before childbirth is a very justified reaction – in some ways, maybe even more justified than months ahead of it.

    Sorry you couldn’t pick up on this obvious conclusion through my deadpan choice of words. Should’ve expected a misundertanding like this, considering it took you 6+ times to get that I’m not a pro-lifer – but you know what, I’m not pandering to your stupidity.

    The only one here who can’t address points, is you.
    If you want the obvious conclusion spoonfed to you, the answer is that a half-developed fetus is different from a zygote, and the fully developed one is different from a half-developed fetus or embryo.

    Wow, was that so hard to get? Where’s your vapid “let’s stop masturbating” now, especially as I’ve just shown this objection to be completely nonsensical (you know, sperms dying no matter what, and all).

    Fetal development is a complex process going through multiple stages, and at each point it’s important to inquire and research just how developed its “human features” (i.e. the brain and the mind) are.
    I understand that you prefer the clear-cut simple answers, but the only conclusion that would lead you to, would be the “magical moment/week” where a fetus suddenly becomes a human.

    Go with that if you want, and the point in talking to you will vanish in an instant – once again ;)

  61. twooffour says

    “all those pesky medical details. Like pregnancy being more than just a discomfort for women with many far reaching health implications for the rest of her life.”

    Hey, keep it up, go on being a disingenuous prick and equating the distinction between different pharamceuticals in terms of their mechanism and abortifaciency, to this actually crucial question of a mother’s well-being.

    My point stands, most mothers nowadays do just fine after multiple births, any risky and/or longterm health effects should be thoroughly considered during pregnancy no matter what, all serious and especially active pro-lifers should be very well informed on all these issues, and I support a woman’s right to choose an abortion if such concerns arise (and even if they don’t).

    But seeing this issue reduced to “twitching limbs” and cosmetic surgery, I will not. If you can’t concede that we’re still with a moral issue here (even if the concern for the mother’s well-being should ultimately overweigh), you’re an idiot and that’s really my sole point.

  62. Saurs says

    Frantically scouring the interwebs in search of relevant data to solve the pesky problem of your own pitiful ignorance while engaging in a furious and masturbatory burst of misinformed and arrogant soliloquies on a subject that was obviously, heretofore, virtually unknown to you, will, on occasion, lead to these embarrassments, such as paraphrasing from the propaganda anti-abortion folk insert into wikipedia articles and then assuming your audience, captivated by your inability to turn a phrase, is not going to notice.

  63. physioprof says

    Dumshitte has proven his impotence. At this point, I would ask my other commenters to forbear from further engagement, in the hope that he will peter out.

  64. julian says

    oh please. You’re pro-choice the same way I’m pro-gun rights.

    But getting cold feed shortly before childbirth is a very justified reaction – in some ways, maybe even more justified than months ahead of it.

    You really don’t get how dismissive and condescending you are, do you?

    If you want the obvious conclusion spoonfed to you, the answer is that a half-developed fetus is different from a zygote, and the fully developed one is different from a half-developed fetus or embryo.

    So what? Each has the same potential to develop into a human. Each one is distinctly not a person although they might be developing the traits of a full person and some are further along the path than another.

    Since each has exactly the same potential as any other why should they not be given the same concern? You can’t argue that something that isn’t a person be given the rights of a person so what does it matter what stage in development it is in?

    you know, sperms dying no matter what, and all

    so? I’m acting in such a way that instantly destroys millions of potential offspring. Each one is perfectly capable of implanting an egg. I’m married to a woman who has no objections to unprotected sex. Why shouldn’t I give such an act the level of nuance and thought you demand be given to fertilized eggs? Why should I maximize their chance of becoming people?

  65. physioprof says

    It’s obvious to everyone what an ignorant shittebagge this douche is, so please, let’s just let this end.

  66. twooffour says

    Wow, that was pointless.
    I guess you’ve really allowed yourself to think that my mistake regarding the mechanism of the morning-after pill makes my entire position crumble down, and correcting it is somehow capable of atoning for all your (and julian’s – not even talking about the OP who obviously can’t do anything else other than toss stupid insults while others are left to make the points) outrageous dishonesties and fallacies.

    Well, sorry, you’ll have to do a little bit more than that.

    I don’t give a shit about the morning-after pill – actual pharmaceuticals that abort pregnancy during the first days/weeks exist, and my whole point was comparing this form of abortion to the abortion of somewhat advanced fetuses.

    With the conclusion that there is an undeniable difference, and that that I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FORMER, so even if I quote pro-lifers who are against the pill, I use that against them.

    Go on, do the actual work of reading and rebutting my *relevant* points, and ditch the substitutes.

    “while engaging in a furious and masturbatory burst of misinformed and arrogant soliloquies”
    And that coming from the guy who just tried to accuse me of being some kind of anti-sexual puritan, on no grounds whatsoever.

    Yea, you know what, fuck off. Until you face up to that OUTRAGEOUS misstep on your part (yea, more outrageous than confusing pharmaceutical abortion methods with each other), you really should keep it down with the criticisms.

    Because otherwise, you just come off as a joker grasping at straws – when the assumption about my “pregnancy as moral punishment” views failed, you’re trying to pick on some technical detail.

    Yea, keep it up :D

  67. physioprof says

    Just a reminder that it is already abundantly clear on the record as it stands who in this comment thread knows what they are talking about, and who is pulling crap out of their asse.

  68. twooffour says

    “oh please. You’re pro-choice the same way I’m pro-gun rights.”

    Sorry you’re too stupid to recognize the difference between being pro-life, and arguing that pro-lifers have more of a point than you to admit.

    I guess it’s “either for or against” when it comes to complex, ambiguous issues in your primitive mind – but that’s not my concern, you know.

    “You really don’t get how dismissive and condescending you are, do you?”
    Now that was a pointless excuse for an “objection” if you’ve ever written one.

    How about you address my question instead, and tell me whether there would be a difference between killing a fully developed baby shortly before birth (if it’s not medically justified), aborting a fetus, and chemically eliminating the multi-celled mass a few weeks after conception.

    “So what? Each has the same potential to develop into a human. Each one is distinctly not a person although they might be developing the traits of a full person and some are further along the path than another.”

    You’ve just confirmed my point.

    “You can’t argue that something that isn’t a person be given the rights of a person so what does it matter what stage in development it is in?”
    Again, I see your desire for clear-cut “yes or no” answers, but truth is, the question to which extent a fetus is human at a given time, is actually as relevant as it gets.

    Again, and I’m repeating this for the 3rd and last time: if you argue that the stage of development doesn’t matter, the necessary conclusion would be that the emergence of personhood happens very quickly in a very short timeframe.

    Because at some point before the birth, we’re already talking about a fully developed baby (that even can be removed prematurely if the necessity arises).

    I guess that would be great if it were proven to be so, but as it happens, the facts are currently murkier than that.

    You’d also have to ask yourself whether a baby can be considered a “full human being”, since, you know, a baby has no actual self-consciousness, long-term memory, or thought-out desire to live, and still “develops” its basic mental and physical functions.

    If it’s still developing, who are we to say that… well, you know, fuck that.

    “I’m acting in such a way that instantly destroys millions of potential offspring. Each one is perfectly capable of implanting an egg.”

    You’re… such an incredible retard. Can you even read?

    SPERMS DIE WITHIN YOUR BODY EVEN IF YOU DON’T JERK OFF, and the majority of them dies even during conception.
    So the only way to follow through with your fake ideology would be to impregnate… how many sperms are there in one shot, again? More than a few million, right?

    “Why shouldn’t I give such an act the level of nuance and thought you demand be given to fertilized eggs?”

    I don’t demand this much attention for fertilized eggs, and after bashing this point inside your head for several hours (you know, all that stuff about distinguishing between fetuses and zygotes, it was about this), you really have no excuse to fail THIS hard at reading comprehension.

    Please, follow the other moron’s advice, and quit posting. You’re not contributing anything to the discussion with such a drooling behavior, and you’re just embarassing yourself further and further.

    Bye.

  69. twooffour says

    “and who is pulling crap out of their asse.”

    Whatever the case, it’s certainly clear who’s got the better reading comprehension and who’s got none, as well as who has absolutely NOTHING to say on the topic at all. ;)

  70. says

    So as near as I cna tell, Hitchens was a brilliant debator and writer who in some ways was insufferably wrong. Have I got it right?

    I also happen to think he put his convictions to the test, as in his support for Salman Rushdie and his willingness to be waterboarded.

    There are damn few people whom I agree with totally, but I still classify Hitchens as someone to emulate in many ways.

  71. gallus1 says

    Too funny. The theist has again raced to lie for jesus, re libeling Hitchens a misogynist and racist. They forget they are not talking excusively to the willing ignorant in church.
    I have criticized Hitchens myself but misogyny and racism?…lol, Get back in your caves thesists.

  72. twooffour says

    Is physioprof a theist, though?

    Most people on these blogs seem to be atheists, and oppose a lot of Hitchens said. I think he just way overshot it.

  73. extian says

    While I appreciate Hitchens’ contributions to atheism, I found it repugnant that he would support the Iraq war and be so bloodthirsty in cheerleading the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I can’t comment on the claim of racism or misogyny, but I was disturbed by how readily he jumped in with the neo-cons.

    The man definitely had a way with words, but he was fucking asshole when it came to politics, IMHO.

  74. twooffour says

    Willing to take casualties =/= being “bloodthirsty” with regard to those casualties.
    Quit the dishonesties, please.

  75. extian says

    When Hitchens says a dead Muslim is one less Muslim fighting the U.S., he dehumanizes an entire sector of human beings as being nothing more than evil terrorists who all equally deserve to die. That’s being bloodthirsty.

    When Hitchens says:

    “If you’re actually certain that you’re hitting only a concentration of enemy troops…then it’s pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they’re bearing a Koran over their heart, it’ll go straight through that, too. So they won’t be able to say, “Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.” No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words.”

    …then he is reveling in the rending of human flesh. Never mind that the context of this quote was American cluster bombs, which kill an inordinate amount of innocent civilians, or that Hitchens considers any Muslim in the vicinity of a U.S. attack as an “enemy troop.” That’s being bloodthirsty.

    When Hitchens says:

    “I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view….I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.”

    ..then he is conflating the 9/11 attacks with the regime of Saddam Hussein (who was not a theocrat and had nothing to do with 9/11, though Hitchens refused to acknowledge this even up to his death) in order to justify his barely contained glee – “pleasure,” he called it – in advocating a war that didn’t need to be waged. Taking pleasure in unnecessary deaths = bloodthirsty.

    Dictionary.com defines “bloodthirsty” as:

    “1.
    eager to shed blood; murderous: to capture a bloodthirsty criminal.
    2.
    enjoying or encouraging bloodshed or violence, especially as a spectator or clamorous partisan: the bloodthirsty urgings of the fight fans.”

    Now, how am I being dishonest?

  76. twooffour says

    “When Hitchens says a dead Muslim is one less Muslim fighting the U.S., he dehumanizes an entire sector of human beings as being nothing more than evil terrorists who all equally deserve to die.”

    That’s the sloppy rephrasing of what Hitchens actually said at the Freedom from Religion speech, in response to an equally poorly phrased question – and you can go listen to it if you want (part 5 or 6 of the youtube series, I believe).

    The second quote, however, independent of its context, is chilling, and would pass as “bloodthirsty”.

  77. extian says

    Ok…you seemed to imply that the quote, within context, might not be categorized as such. Apologies if I misunderstood.

  78. says

    This post is the perfect response to him dying. It is exactly what I wanted from someone on FTB, but never expected to actually see. Thanks CPP.

  79. says

    Yea, you know what, fuck off. Until you face up to that OUTRAGEOUS misstep on your part (yea, more outrageous than confusing pharmaceutical abortion methods with each other), you really should keep it down with the criticisms.

    lets say you are right, and someone else made an OUTRAGEOUS MISSTEP that they have failed to face up to. What the fuck does that have to do with you dealing with your mistakes? Do two wrongs make a right now, or…?

  80. says

    I know the discussion got sidetracked with abortion but there are many concrete examples of hitchens saying blatantly misogynist things. He called hillary clinton a bitch on more than one occasion, along with other gendered comments. He referred to wanda sykes as “the black dyke” instead of by her name. He wrote an article about why women aren’t funny. What the fuck more could be needed?

    http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/2009/11/bill-maher-and-white-dude-privilege-of.html

  81. twooffour says

    I’ve already dealt with my mistake by correcting it. It was, however, in some technical detail irrelevant to the topic, and the guy tried to make a huge drama out out of it while pretending he hadn’t tried to strawman me into some kind of misogynist puritan.

    Which was simply pathetic.

    ___

    Now, to the “blatatly misogynist” things Hitchens said: just to make it clear, if Hitchens really had a misogynist inside of him, these kinds of remarks might very well be a symptom of that.

    Without further condemning evidence and quotes, though (which may very well exist), I’m afraid all these do is leaving a kinda fishy impression.

    The Wanda Sykes bit is the only one that irritates me: while neither dyke nor black are derogatory terms (dyke can be, but not necessarily), and it would depend on the context and tone how that should be taken – just mentioning that because she’s black and not all too feminine is questionable at best, and having watched her performance, she obviously did say a few things that only a black (woman) could’ve said, but all in all it was just a roast of Obama and other politicians.

    No idea why Hitchens said that, and what he meant by “the rules”.
    So that one’s a good candidate for an “offensive remark”.

    In case of Hilary Clinton, he was talking about her “pulling the gender card” and playing into the “stereotype” of female “sobbing” (again: a questionable stereotype, not what women actually do, or are supposed to), while actual victims of misogyny had to put up with a lot more.
    Of course, you could say that her sentiments were justified, and major offenses elsewhere don’t make the minor ones irrelevant – and trying to discredit opposition to misogyny when it’s actually justified, is in itself misogynistic.

    But I haven’t really followed the whole Clinton thing, so I can’t tell.

    Calling a woman a bitch can very easily be sexist, but just as well not – he’s called men scumbags a number of times, and some insults don’t translate to the other gender as well as others.

    The “why women aren’t funny” article I’ve already addressed above multiple times – he doesn’t claim that women can’t be funny, or as funny as men (if you read more than the title), and the reasons he gives for that have a good chunk of misandry in them, as well as criticism of male misogyny.
    What, you didn’t pick up on any of that? Go read it again.

    So in short, if you want to be “skeptical”, you should look into these kind of things before allowing yourself a kneejerk reaction to some word being dropped.

    I may be biased as well, in that I probably don’t want Hitchens to have been a misogynist (beyond holding some rather silly inaccurate notions about humor in genders – have heard “she’s cute, and very funny” from guys often enough, thank you very much), but the inner fanboy, should be held at a short leash in such cases.
    Hitchens himself was pretty sensitive about “mild” antisemitism, so there’s no need to overlook his “minor” offenses with regard to other prejudices, either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>