Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones 3 of 11 , 06 October 2009 10:00
If there were any doubts about writer and general provocateur Christopher Hitchens ability to pull a crowd, they were ...
If there were any doubts about writer and general provocateur Christopher Hitchens ability to pull a crowd, they were ...
Chris, Sam, and Dick are the start. Now we need some more to become college professors.
thank you!
@TheAwesomeClub
Don’t care. I’m not the one who avoids the argument, everyone else is. You can look at this entire comment area and find out, that is the truth. EVERY – SINGLE – COMMENT anyone has answered to me on this board has been off topic and personal attacks.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Every time you fight on the internet, you lessen the species.
@jeffparr123 Why would you equate gays with pedophiles?
I wrote:
They didn’t have ability to write and document what happened over 3000 years BC.
And to add -
That’s why you can’t draw the conclusion “heaven watches with indifference”
-Hitchens refuted
I do want to add that I find Hitchens a far more intelligent man than Dawkins. Hitchens makes me laugh because he’s amusing, Dawkins makes me laugh… well for the incorrect reasons.
@MsSlopjar I reckon you mean me and Tcrowaf, he was the idiot I was setting straight here. If you look up “View All Comments” and go to the beginning you’ll find my initial counter-argument about what Hitchens said that got that ass-whooping faggot going (but he couldn’t argue for shit, only waste my time and patience)
@TheSilverDragon
Godwin’s law is the stupiest argumentive fallacy I’ve ever heard of. And jeffparr didn’t even try to start discuss anything but insults… just like Tcrowaf, another mentally dysfunctional piece of confused shit
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Haha you got to like Godwin’s law. The Nazi’s always end up being dragged into it.
When Hitchens speaks women drop twice the amount of eggs that they are supposed.
MW &JP; I am learning so much from your arguments and appreciate the knowledge you are able to express so thoroughly as well as passionately. Must we get so viscious? I respect you both.
I don’t need to deny or prove anything as your attitude is what it is and by being the ignoramus that you are you beat up yourself. I reckon the pointless style you apply and the laughable tone init stands in it’s own merit – you fail. There is no reason for me to “form an argument.”
“pretentious ad hominem”? It WAS your character I was attacking not your augument. If you want me to be pretentious, try this: read something of Sun Tzu.
I called you on your bigotry and you in no way denied it, Qui tacet consentit. Comprehend what you read, don’t be destracted by such an obvious trap as Jackson and throw a temper tantrum, form and maintain a coherent argument and then you may sound less like a whining adelescent.
It’s spelled “immaturity”.
Yawn… By the tone of your pretentious ad hominem language I just don’t reckon I’m the one who needs the white coats here. You call the most successfull artist of all time a “peodophile” and call me ignorant biggot. And where the hell did the Hitler comment came from? Your closet-nazi mind…? Buddy, don’t answer thanks alot.
By the term you used you have clearly shown yourself up as an ignorant biggot.
Also you can admire the oratory skills even of a criminal like Adolf Hitler, you don’t need to idolize the man. This, like your judgment, indicates a certain level of immatureity.
Is that so, small jeffparr123. Well take a look into the comments of this board – that faggot has been spewing derogatory remarks at me for a fucking week, avoiding all argumentation, and now YOU come along and thinks your small comment will affect me. lol
Why is it that you lowlifes feel the NEED to post that shit, trying to get cocky for no reason. You’re a nobody. Jackson was declared innocent, perhaps you should read into it aswell as getting to know he was a SINGER. See ya Hitchens-sucker
MoonwalkerWorshiper
Whats with the “Hey, faggot”? Anyone using this term as a derogatory epithet and at the same time has Michael Jackson, a peodophile, as his idol is either on or needs medication.
*quote B I meant
So, replace the word “suffering” with “hardship”. Gee that’s really well-thought and profound. Not logical fallacy at all…. really.
They suffered “hardships”, therefore more suffering = They suffered “suffering”, therefore more suffering.
Proof I have been talking to a complete IDIOT. Rhethorical word-play and rambling is NOT solid argument. This baloney got the same value as his videos – a fucking waste of time, from start to end. Considering the avoidances aswell.
Hey, faggot Tim. You haven’t showed up to refute the arguments. I’m going to take it as a sign you don’t know fuck all about this topic and can’t defend your point of view? Gee, how could I ever know.
Here’s, by the way, a blatant contradiction where you kick your own ass:
Quote A
“I didn’t say they suffered more, therefore they suffered more. I said they experienced more HARDSHIPS, therefore they suffered more.”
Quote NB
“Suffering is human hardship.”
Conclusion: You talk in circles.
rootytuners, I had a question to you that you STILL have not addressed. Yet you keep showing up.
You said something about Occam’s Razor and how it doesn’t apply to my reasoning with Hitchens fallacious thinking. You still don’t care to elaborate that?
It’s with people who deserve it. They are the ones who can’t stop pushing buttons and rise the irritation.
Look at this idiot for example – if you really saw all the posts, you KNOW I had arguments and presented them – it’s HIS fault for avoiding it, not mine. It’s these cyber twats who simply can’t address anything related to the subject. Take YOU – your comment is only a personal comment directed at me. Why? I don’t need to hear you have been watching my comments. Kind of useless information.
@ MoonwalkerWorshiper
I’ve been fascinated by your attitude.
After days of amazement (and amusement) at your posts, I happened upon unrelated posts of yours on other videos. I see that the discourse here isn’t an isolated incident. You seem to stumble into circular arguments and vile language quite regularly.
Cyber fag Tim
“Sorry I need to know your opinion, because I simply don’t know how to attack the argument WITHOUT attacking the arguer at the same time, since I’m a small small shit who really don’t know what to do, as you’ve said.”
Silence…. there is obviously a hidden agenda of ad hominems wrapped with fallacious assumptions with homo Tim. As for why he shit his pants and refuse – to DISCUSS – the ARGUMENTS. Who would’ve known…
Just to make time pass by while I’m waiting for more bullshit, here’s another example of you answering your own questions.
Going on and on about “how am I incorrect about suffering, what is it”
“Suffering is human hardship.”
So, you’ve answered your own question. Again. Just like the time before that. And the time before that. But I don’t see the SHADOW of a rebuttal.