/lit/ - Literature

i don't know them. i saw the right one on a debate on the youtubes recently. i can't remember who he was, i can't remember what he said, but goddamn he was a massive twat, this much i can recall quite vividly

>>6099207
Probably Christopher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEcBzxoMB8

>>6099226
mate i said
>the right one

although yes definitely, both of them twats

>>6099168
Christopher ma waifu

Fuck Peter, marry Christopher, and kill myself.

Anyone ever read a book by Christopher?
I felt like picking up one but I'm unsure which.

>>6099273
mortality is cool

>>6099168
Peter definitely

Let's be fair, if Chris wasn't such a controversial figure no one would care about his brother. He'd just be a more posh-sounding George Will.

Christopher.

Peter is a spitefilled muppet who can't handle the fact that he'll always be seen as 'the brother of'. In response to this, he desperately tries to be the opposite of his brother, but does it far too blatantly. At least Christopher had some insightful stuff to say without having to necessarily agree with him.

Also, he and Roger Scruton seem to form this pathetic and whiny movement, a movement I like to call 'backinmydayism'. It seems to be geared towards sad old men who can't handle the fact that they're not really relevant anymore and in response construct a strawman of the modern world and push it over

>>6100199
Lets be fair, if Chris wasn't such a controversial figure his brother would have been the only one with a carrer

>>6100210
>At least Christopher had some insightful stuff to say
Yeah like how we should all back George Bush and the Iraq war. Peter has always been the one who stuck by his morals and personal values, Christopher may as well be an /r/atheism meme

>don't know who Chris Hitchens is
>look him up

>NO ABORTION
>MURICA STRONK
>New Atheism bullshit

Into the trash it goes

>>6100230

His brother is even worse.

>>6100277
At least Peter wan't pro-war
I remember him BTFO of some kid on question time about it

>How old are you?
>19
>Well you're about the right age, why don't you sign up for the military?
>I-I er um...

>>6100226
Actually Christopher stuck to his morals as well, in fact to a stupid degree sometimes. He was a hard liner and his view on Iraq was way more differentiated than you uneducated lot may think.

Peter Hitchens is a legit 1/10

>>6100230
>>6100293
You sound massively anti-intellectual
>loud greentext
>"into the trash" meme
>"BTFO"
>doesn't actually understand the things he's being told

>>6100305

welcome to /lit/, nerd
it's cold as steel in here

>>6100226

>without having to necessarily agree with him.

See this? You blatantly ignored this. I knew that Peter Hitchens fanboys are dishonest, but this even low for your type

>>6100305
>You sound massively anti-intellectual

I'm not.

I just can't understand why an obviously intelligent person like Chris Hitchens would support Bush's mad war and deny women abortion rights.

Also I never said "BTFO", that was another anon.

>>6100310
>insightful stuff to say

>>6100320
>deny women abortion rights
Because some of us have different opinions on when a clump of cells turns into a human being.
I don't know the numbers in America, but here in Germany at least we have 200.000 abortions yearly.

Now factoring out the moralistic issue of "killing" babies, the social acceptance and the accessibility of abortion entails many things for society as a whole, for example the rise of STDs or broken families.

Also: Making the claim that 'abortion' is a woman's right is a null statement, you have to elaborate on that, when you're terminating the potential birth of a human being, you are not only terminating the life of your own child, but also the child of another person.
So there are two people whose (sadly non-juridical) rights you are simply ignoring.

As Peter puts it: Adoption is always preferable to abortion.

Now the war on Iraq is a controversial issue and here again I think you took a very anti-intellectual absolutist stance on it, I don't think you truly dealt with the way Christopher has justified this war either.

>>6100342
>deny women the right to murder their babies
FTFY

>>6100350

>>>/pol/
>>>/localsanitarium/

>>6100356
Abortion is just a nice way of saying baby murder and you know it

>>6099273

He's an entertaining writer. He may even appear insightful if you know absolutely nothing about religion. God is not Great is full of factual inaccuracies and distortions. It's the only one I've read (aside from articles and video stuff). It's not boring, just couldn't be called a scholarly work in any real sense.

>>6099168

I actually don't mind Peter at all. He makes me laugh. He's such a stereotypical religious conservative. It's even more hilarious when he's facing off with the typical American liberal commentators. Always entertaining.

>>6100364

I'm not a teary housewife from the ozarks, so I have to disagree

>>6100366
Can you point out some inaccuracies?

Peter obviously

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI4cE1iHER0

I get the feeling when I watch Peter Hitchens that he's not really a Christian. I think he's fond of Christian ethics and conservatism. He started out atheist just like his brother and converted, Only I'm not sure he really did convert. I think he just sees value in the church where his brother didn't.

>>6100372
There is literally no difference between killing a two year old and killing a foetus

>>6100364
abortion is just a tool for whores to evade responsibility and get back to having sex. It is disgusting that society attempts to normalise this.

>>6100388
Same.

I see his point though, he wants to conserve British culture and tradition and Christianity is a big part of that. I think as long as you follow the traditions and same moral code he doesn't really care if you believe in god or not.

>>6100394
>>6100392

bedtime, Cletus. you too, Zedd

>>6100388
Absolutely wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx7MWNgdHOY

>>6100408
>If you disagree with me you're some backwards country hick

Do you have anything constructive to say?

>>6100409

But when I listen to that, I just hear him holding up Christianity as moral guidelines. I'm not saying he's disingenuous. I have much respect for him. I just think he says he's Christian and talks about a true belief in God, but is mostly just interested in Christian morality. I think if you're going to apply Christian morality, you have to appear to be Christian or people will wonder why they even listen to you.

>>6100413

if you think there is literally no difference between a toddler and a foetus, I question how it's possible you can even read what I'm typing
just saying

>>6100413

Not to you, since you seem to ignore even basic biology and obviously believe in God, meaning anything logical I can throw your way can simply be dismissed.

I remember watching them debate. Peter's anti-Iraq war argument was completely anecdotal, and his pro-God argument was basically trying to stall time and hope that his Iraq argument would be strong enough to tie with his brother.

I love Peter, but his stepbrother was the far more honest, and far less fearfully nervous man. Peter's death would be a loss for center-right conservatives, Christopher's death was a loss for everyone.

>>6100418
Both are humans. If you think it's fine to kill a human while they are a foetus then it's fine to kill them when they're a baby or a toddler
>>6100421
I don't believe in god

>>6100417
He literally says
>Dear Lord lend me strength
Also Peter argues that we derive our morals from divine domains, this is a purely theistic worldview.

>>6100431
>Both are humans.

A clump of cells with no sentience or self awareness is not a "human", my friend.

>>6100426
>Christopher's death was a loss for everyone
Yeah no.
Also Peter's anti-Iraq war argument was pretty logical

>>6100431

>Both are humans. If you think it's fine to kill a human while they are a foetus then it's fine to kill them when they're a baby or a toddler

It's not always wrong to kill humans, though

>>6100380

He claims Wycliffe was burned alive and he also claims that orthodox jews fuck through a sheet.

http://mythoslogos.org/2014/03/30/christopher-hitchens-an-excess-of-errors/

It's not my own personal opinion. Many others have pointed out glaring errors.

and, surprise, they all work in his favor.

>>6100440
It's homo sapiens. But I agree that's not ethically relevant, only cognitive capacities are.

>>6100426
>stepbrother
Full brother

>>6100440
It isn't a clump of cells it is a human foetus, a stage in human growth. You are just trying to dehumanize them so you don't feel guilty about murdering them.

>>6100452
Only cognitive capacities relevant. Kill them all!

>>6100417
You'd have much more success defending Christian morality without actually being a Christian because it immediately disarms all the retarded hat-tippers responding with >muh skydaddy!!! or >muh sheep herder moralz!!!

>>6100434

But of course he would say this and act this way. I'm not even criticizing him. I pray the rosary every day and go to mass more than once a week. I tell people all the time I believe in God, but in truth the existence of God is the one thing I don't buy into. I just like everything about the church. I, of course, tell people I believe in God, because otherwise they wonder why I would buy into everything else without buying into the foundation.

>>6100442
>Hurting my feelings
Why was it more logical?
>>6100451
>Full brother
Stepbrother

>>6100458
That is massively stupid, either way this guy has a good counter-argument actually >>6100457

>>6100456

You're exaggerating.

>Let's reproduce like rabbits with absolutely no birth control because muh sacred human life until we have consumed every resource on Earth!

See, I can do it too.

>>6100443
No it's not but killing a human just because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, killing a child that has done no harm to anyone is murder

>>6100465
I know, I was joking. Though you could employ Benatar.

>>6100466
Then so is neglecting to clone every one of your somatic cells. Enjoy the daily genocide.

>>6100466

killing a foetus isn't murder, neither is killing a braindead vegetable with a lethal injection

>>6100460
Peter
>The US is not the world police
>If you are claiming it's for moral reasons then why aren't you attacking N. Korea and many other regimes around the world?
>When you choose to act on "morality" in some places and not in others it shows that you don't really have morals

Christopher
>SADDAM IS EVIL!!
>AMERIKA STRONK!! WORLD POLICE!1!!

>>6100483
Again, completely anti-intellectual stance, do you ever put thought into your arguments, you also greatly missed Christopher's stance on the Iraqi invasion.
Will you just stop posting?
Btw this is one out of three posts I've made ITT, I'm not the one arguing with the pro-choice guys.

>>6100473
A foetus is a human being, not a clump of random cells. Just as a child is still a human even though it has not fully grown
>>6100474
No that is definitely murder

>>6100483

Guy I agree with
>here is my opinion, I'm obviously the rational guy

Guy I disagree with
>I AM SILLY, STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN

>>6100493
But it lacks all the cognitive capacities of a normal child. How can you say a foetus is in no way ethically distinguishable from a two year old.

>>6100492
Christopher said that the US had to make an example of Iraq to make sure the region knows America is willing to attack if they do wrong. He advocated for America to be the world police and ultimately the Iraq war has been a complete failure and the Iraqi people are worse off for it

>>6100499
A two year old 's brain is not as developed as a 25 year old, it is just as wrong to kill it though.

>>6100210
You forgot Harold Bloom. He's also in the club.

>>6100503
Christopher said that Iraq has repeatedly disregarded treaties which made it clear that if a nation engages in several acts such as genocide (I forgot the other three notions) it has to expect consequences, Iraq has repeatedly and massively offended these treaties and there was no end in sight.

A war with Iraq was inevitable, and we were basically letting Saddam decide when and how we would go to war.
We could have waited until Saddam acquired nuclear weapons and the US/UK were in weaker positions.

Luckily we didn't and removed one of the most evil regimes in human history.

>Iraqi people are worse off for it
How can you say this?
Kurds have not been completely genocided thanks to the intervention, for example.

>>6100509

And does a fetus have any capability of consciousness

>>6100418
>if you think there is literally no difference between a toddler and a foetus, I question how it's possible you can even read what I'm typing
just saying
strawman following ad hom

>>6100431
>Both are humans. If you think it's fine to kill a human while they are a foetus then it's fine to kill them when they're a baby or a toddler
BTFO

Let's be honest here, a new human being is formed at conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That point is where life begins and what all people come from. Deal with it.

>>6100509
Not if it can suffer. Foetus's can't suffer anymore than insects. Although it would be more wrong to kill a 25 year old (all other things being equal) than a two year old.

>>6100483
Christopher never argued that it was planned as a moral operation. The US was fighting an on-and-off war with Saddam from Bush to Clinton, to Bush II. Mistake to invade since his military competence turned out to be a bluff, but at least a genocidal dictator who frequently violated both international law and the human rights of his people was removed.
>>6100503
Anyone who argues that ISIS is worse than Saddam should be ridiculed.

>>6100517

>BTFO
>deal with it

Confirmed for being a tween.

>>6100518
Suffering is irrelevant. Anybody who isn't a complete sociopath would disapprove of a) murdering comatose people or b) murdering people with nerve conditions which prevent them from feeling pain.

>>6100511
The crimes were Iraq were accused of have mostly found to not be based in reality and the Kurds were not in danger of being exterminated and are a tiny minority of Iraq.

Look at Iraq now compared to Iraq of the 90's. American intervention has destroyed the nation to the point where a large portion of it is now under control of a terrorist organization far worse then the Saddam regime

>>6100515
I don't know and I don't think you do either. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because it will gain consciousness if you let it grow.

>>6100528

So if someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed with no chance of ever waking up again, we should just let them live? Even though there's no point to that?

>>6100528
The latter would experience emotional suffering. As for the former, if no one would suffer, including friends, family, and so on, who could it possibly be said to harm.

>>6100523
>Anyone who argues that ISIS is worse than Saddam should be ridiculed.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about

>>6100529

>the Kurds were not in danger of being exterminated and are a tiny minority of Iraq.

I guess that makes throwing nerve gas on them totally okay then

>>6100529
>the Kurds were not in danger of being exterminated
>a terrorist organization far worse then the Saddam regime
Fucking cringe.

>>6100529
180.000 Kurds have died since Iraq had started genociding them in the 80's, 3.5 million Kurds were living in Iraq at the time, hardly a small minority.
Either way, international law is clear, genocide is absolutely not worthy of discussion, the numbers are irrelevant.

I don't agree that Iraq is worse off, I also don't agree that IS is more intimidating than Saddam, who was on his way to achieve nuclear offensive.

>>6100544
I guarantee you were born in the 90's.

>>6100529
lel Holy Shit

>Christopher Hitchens was totally convinced that Saddam had WMD, and when that turned out to be a lie he didn't say anything to the effect of "I was wrong"

>>6100539

>t the end of the day it doesn't matter because it will gain consciousness if you let it grow.

That's completely irrelevant. It doesn't have the capacity to feel any pain while its life is being terminated, so it cannot be compared to a toddler

>>6100553

The Kurds were smothered to death by pillows?

>>6100529

fucking retarded tbh

>>6100546
>>6100548
I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy or that the actions of his government were right.
Using chemical weapons was wrong, but it was the US who sold it to them. Also fighting with Kurdish rebels =/= genocide. Are you going to accuse Turkey of trying to genocide the Kurds next?

>>6100547
Yes ISIS is worse than the Saddam regime. It is far more brutal and their crimes are far more horrific. Also there's the problem Iraq's infrastructure which America failed horribly at rebuilding

>>6100563
>but it was the US who sold it to them
Not so Saddam can practice genocide, now again this argument absolutely makes no sense, when I sell you a knife and I see you on the street trying to stab someone to death, I have no moral obligation to stop you from doing so?
If you disagree with this, why did you just mention the US selling those weapons to Saddam?
It makes no sense.

Most Kurds who died were civilians, please look into this issue.

>>6100557
>America played no part in Iraq gaining chemical weapons

>>6100557

>Unironically caring about k*rds

>>6100567
America sold chemical weapons to Iraq knowing they would be used against Iran, then when they have some left over it all of a sudden becomes wrong in the eyes of the US to use them.

What Iraq did was wrong but America is partly to blame and the Iraq war has resulted in nothing but more turmoil, unrest, and bloodshed for the Iraqi people.

>>6100569
Fuck off Turk

>>6100563
I'm sorry you were emotionally scarred by a worldstar video of a group of disorganized thugs who need to seize oil wells and banks just to keep themselves from falling apart, beheading a man with a borrowed machete.

The Iraqi people are used to this sort of thing, living under a crime family and seeing people executed. Fortunately the numbers are nowhere near as high as they were before you were born. And fortunately just a collective air campaign has put them on the point of desperation within a month, with of course help from our allied Iraqi government.

>>6100574
America has also sold weapons to South Korea when it was at war with North Korea, while war is also morally questionable it is not equal to exercising genocide on your own people.
Also as I said, the genocide aspect is just one out of many infringements on the agreements of the treaties.

And if you're putting the blame on the US for what happened in Iraq, that only fortifies arguments -for- US intervention in Iraq to set things straight.
And again, I don't agree that Iraq's current state is worse, and even if it is, the US didn't invade Iraq with the intention to make things worse.

>>6100576
kurds are wannabe jews, they think they can just steal land from their rightful owners :^)

>>6100563
>Also fighting with Kurdish rebels =/= genocide. Are you going to accuse Turkey of trying to genocide the Kurds next?
This is usually the point where people stop posting. Saddamy got chemical weapons from the US before he betrayed them.

>>6100581
Do you think Iraq is better now? On the brick of anarchy with a failed government, a crippled infrastructure, and a violent terrorist organisation running half their nation? At least there was some stability in Saddam's Iraq, again I'm not supporting his actions but the nation was at least intact.

Also the US's intentions don't matter, the end result is all that counts and I think the end result was a failure.

>>6100586
>before he betrayed them
>by using the chemical weapons on people the US didn't want him to
You realise the US sold them chemical weapons knowing they would be used in war crimes against Iran, right?

>>6100554
So if you shoot a two year old in the head while it's asleep it's totally fine then

>>6100590
IS runs two cities in Iraq right now, they lost Kobane and Raqqa will fall aswell.
I told you, yes Iraq is better off without a psychopathic regime, these problems are temporary and will be fixed.
Who wants an intact nation where genocide occurs?

The US' intentions DID matter if we're talking about the US' justifications of invading the nation.

>>6100602
If absolutely no one cares, which is very unlikely, then yes. Likewise with anyone else, including myself.

>>6100608
>absolutely no one cares
What about the fucking child you retard

>>6100608
You are a liar. You're lying to me and lying to yourself.

>>6100605
>Implying the genocide happened
>implying it wasn't always just around the corner
last I checked there are still plenty of fucking Kurds cucking everyone's day

>>6100590
It's like a time traveler from 2007, who bases his opinions off of Fahrenheit 911 and Zeitgeist.
>>6100593
So it's a crime if it's to be used against a military power, but not when he uses it against a civilian population?

>>6100615
>cucking
Remaining credibility: 0%

>>6100610
They won't care, and cannot care if they're asleep. For it to work they would have to have no foreknowledge either, otherwise they'd be terrified.

>>6100612
I'm not, but even if I were it's an ad hominem, to think it's relevant to the argument.

>>6100621
>So it's a crime if it's to be used against a military power, but not when he uses it against a civilian population?
They are both crimes the point is the US sold them CW with the intention they would be used for criminal activity

>>6100628
Stop posting

>Atheist moralizing hack vs. religious moralizing hack

wow im really on the spot here.

>>6100631
Bullshit. No one here knows the circumstances or intentions of shady dealing between countries. If the US failed, it was by playing realpolitik by dealing with enemies of our enemies regardless of their morals or sanity. Maybe we should have played "policeman of the world" against Iran instead of sitting back and arming regimes that weren't the ones immediately trying to crash international trade back to the stone age. Iraq, Iran, and most of the rest of the Middle East would be in an actual third-world crisis, while the rest of the world can't heat their homes or feed themselves because Iran had a minor border dispute with Iraq, and also didn't want "filthy infidels" doing business in the Persian Gulf.

>>6100657
>low-case typing anon confirms Oxford students and authors are retarded

>>6100663
>The Iraq-Iran war was a minor border dispute
>maybe we should have invaded Iran
>WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE!

America sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq. They sold chemical weapons to Iraq knowing they would be used in the war. At no point were either of these countries a threat to the US.

Also the Kurds you guys seem to care so much about were fighting on Iran's side.

>American education

>>6100683
>Also the Kurds you guys seem to care so much about were fighting on Iran's side.
You are so incredibly stupid.
No Kurdish civilian that was murdered by Saddam's regime had any involvement in the war.
Even if they did, this would never excuse genocide.

This isn't about loving Kurds, if he had genocided Yazidis, Turks, you name it, it demanded action.

>>6100230
You must be some special kind of idiot to draw this conclusion from a snippet of his views. He wasn't anti-abortion, he personally thought that it wasn't appropriate but he didn't advocate to deny the abortion of baby's for others.

>>6100687
Either way the US knew what the CW's would be used for when they sold them, they have no right to start complaining about war crimes after they intentionally made it possible for them

>>6100683
Your posts are some of the most retarded strawman shitposting I've ever seen.

>>6099168
the dead one was at least funny

the other doesn't seem to have a sense of humour.

>>6100706
I'm still baffled that you are confusing war with genocide executed on your own people.
To pick up my allegory again, imagine I taught you some sort of martial art or sold you a weapon, am I not morally obliged to stop you from abusing these things to unjustly hurt others?

This is so massively stupid.

>>6100737
If you sell me an illegal weapon with the intention of having me use it for illegal activity you have no right to be morally outraged when I use it for illegal activity.
Of coarse the US didn't actually go into Iraq on moral grounds, no country has ever gone to war because of moral reasons, it's just a lot easier to get support when you say you are.

>>6100523

They are, though. Saddam was preferable to ISIS. Not to mention, he was a run of the mill dictator and was replaced by Islamic fundamentalists.

>>6100767
Fact: I would be have been able to travel safely through Iraq while Saddam was in power

>>6100776

I'm sure that's a relief for all the political prisoners that were tortured to death

>>6100737
>genocide executed on your own people
As if that's some sort of inexcusable ultimate crime!

The USA commits genocide against its own black people, and nobody cares. (Not even the blacks themselves.)

>>6100788

Seems like a stupid argument. Political dissidents were tortured and killed under an oppressive dictatorship. Big deal. That's still happening.

ISIS not only kills political dissidents. It kills people that don't believe what it believes. It takes women as sex slaves.

Saddam would have crushed them before they even started.

>>6100667
Christopher Hitchens got a third from Oxford so he actually is a certifiable retard.

>>6100824
what's a third?

>>6100853

Just above a fail on a degree

>>6100857
lmao what a retard

I've always appreciated Peter for differentiating between democracy and the institutions that make it possible.

I see quotes from senior politicians saying things like "This should not be happening in democracy", which I beleieve to be a very dangerous line of thinking, that a democracy should inherently stick to some set of rules. A democracy can be anything, as long the people vote for it. Democracy is becoming a catch-all term for some imaginary progressive utopia which anything can be justified in the name of it.

It is the institutions and the laws of the country, that are immune to the democratic process, that protect your liberty and your rights, not the fact that you can vote for two or three similar political parties. The greatest thing Britain exported to the world were its laws and its parliament, the English bill of rights, the Magna Carta etc, most famously seen in the American constitution.

Peter has other views that I'm not convinced by like harsher punishments for drugs, and he seems to descend into name-calling when he gets worked up, but he always struck me as much more honest and principled than his brother. Christopher claimed to be a socialist, but would host parties for wealthy media types and was paid very well throughout his life. I get the feeling that he began to focus on God later in his life more because that's what his audience wanted, his earlier writings and documentaries on Princess Diana and Mother Theresa were great, and I liked his critique of celebrity worship. I like them both in different ways, and don't really pay attention to what either have to say about God.

>>6100859
I've always wondered - what do americans get graded on degree wise - with UK its like third, lower second, upper second, First class

>>6100875
sorry not an american

>>6100868

Christopher stopped being a socialist in the 90s i think, and thereafter claimed to be a 'liberal marxist'. Apparently being a marxist wasn't contrarian enough for him.

>>6100876
Don't worry you don't have to apologise for being part of the English Master Race

>>6100885

"Always remember that you are British, and have therefore already come first in the great race of life"-Cecil Rhodes

>>6100517
> Let's be honest here, a new human being is formed at conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That point is where life begins and what all people come from. Deal with it.

It cannot feel pain.

>>6100889
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMQq60Xfmk

>>6100517
>WANNA POP THAT SHIT SO BAD

>>6100230
>doesn't know who Christophe Hitchens is
Underagedb&

>>6100894
>It cannot feel pain.
Neither can some living post-natal humans.

>>6100447
He doesn't say that about Jews actually, he says "it is said of of Orthodox Jews"

I haven't even read the book I only know that cause I saw him BTFO some rabi

>>6100895

My father was born in Rhodesia. He really hates Brits, though.

>>6100913

That's a minor detail, though. His accounts of the crusades and the deaths of a number of people were objectively incorrect. Some aspects were so obviously incorrect that it feels like no one was around to fact-check it.

>>6100918
They did betray us after all.

>>6100644
Make me. Cannot provide a counter?

>>6100910
And it wouldn't be wrong (if no one cared), to kill them.

>>6100546
That happened in the 80's, you stupid fuck.

>>6100687
>No Kurdish civilian that was murdered by Saddam's regime had any involvement in the war.

No, you dumb fuck. The Kurds fought against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. This is a fact.

>>6100320
>>6100230
>Denying women's abortion rights

He didn't. He said that abortion made him personally 'a bit squeamish', but that it wasn't up to him or the state to decide such things. He never actually took a side on the abortion issue but stated that since he viewed unborn babies as 'potential members of society', and as such their rights should be a societal question rather than just a right of the woman. He THEN says that in order for anybody to have moral authority on this issue society must also provide readily available contraception, since in many instances the abortion issue could be avoided entirely through contraception.

You don't have to agree with him, but its a much more nuanced view than you outlay.

>Supporting Bush's mad war.

He didn't, and this is the view of somebody who never read or heard anything he said about it. He supported the removal of Saddam, for many reasons that mostly came from his trips to Iraq, and he said on a number of occasions when pressed on the Bush thing that "You go to war with the president you've got". In other words he supported war in Iraq, and since Bush did that he supported that action. Even then he was heavily critical of how Bush conducted the war, and was far from a blind supporter.

In both cases his views are quite nuanced, and way more than what you have said. You don't have to agree, but you can't say he didn't think about his opinions.

>>6100981
Sociopath detected

>>6100366
>Gets asked for book recommendations
>"God is not Great is bad. I haven't read any other of his books"
>Comments on an author with a huge bibliography and hasn't read anything but one book released near the end of his career

>>6100460
>Step Brother

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Religion aside, they were pretty similar. Deep down they were the imperialist sons of a commander who grew up with the displeasure of seeing the British empire shrink.

One brother wanted a new global order based on secular democracy, the other wanted to go back by being profusely nostalgic.

>>6100199

Christopher's popularity was an anomaly anyway due to atheist movement. How many columnists reach that rockstar status?

>>6100447

Out of a whole book, this guy managed to find just 13 'errors'? Must be a pretty solid book

>Hitchens makes a reference to “Iran’s progress in thermonuclear fission.” The correct terminology is “nuclear fission,” not “thermonuclear fission.”

Big whoopie-doo. This is one of the most significant errors he could find?

It's pathetic how most of these people who have carried on resenting Christopher Hitchens' existence even after his death consider themselves 'cultured' and 'tolerant', when the truth is they're absolutely rabid.

I can't remember the name of it, but there's an actual website dedicated to being anti-Christopher Hitchens. No joke.

>>6101167

>I can't remember the name of it, but there's an actual website dedicated to being anti-Christopher Hitchens. No joke.

/pol/?

>Hitchens apologists try to defend his stupidest positions again

Just stop

>>6099168
>Christopher
Sexist
Zionist
Anti-theist
>Peter
Sexist
Zionist
Theist

Hard fucking choice

>>6100230
What? He is anti-anti-abortion

>>6101265
Because he wished his ladies to remain at home and pampered? He was a horny toad for sure, yet "the great cure for poverty has always been the empowerment of women."

>>6099168
I like both, but these days I'm really enjoyed Peter Hitchens. He has some interesting views on how Christianity shaped civilization, law, etc. that I wish he would elaborate on more.

Well, Christopher's a better writer, is more broadly educated, and actually has a sense of humor, so I'll go with him.

>>6101663
Oops.

>is
*was

>has
*had

>>6101265

Look everyone, he's shitposting again!!

>>6100529

Leftists, everybody. I'm surprised this guy hasn't trotted out the statistic that women were allowed to drive cars in Hussein's Iraq yet

>>6100590

>Saddam apologists
>At least it was stable!

This is the same tract of thought that romanticized the Titoist regime during the Yugoslav wars.

>>6100608
Nice way to confirm being a psychopath and arguing for him.

>>6100563
>Are you going to accuse Turkey of trying to genocide the Kurds next?

Yes, but not before I've accused them of genocide against the Armenians.

>>6101657
I agree, from a perspective of someone disillusioned with secular morality and finding more and more merit in Christianity I find him compelling. He understands that a religion isn't just a set of abstract beliefs but an all-pervasive cultural phenomenon which needs evaluation, even if you don't share the same bekiefs.

>>6101881

Right, but my main problem with Peter Hitchens and Roger Scruton is that to them, the historical-cultural value isn't separated from the truth value, which is an essential distinction

>>6101902
I don't know about that. Peter values tradition and cautions against mindless overthrow of it, but he surely holds values which aren't traditionally Christian.

>>6101881
>>6101902
Have you guys read the Rage Against God? Does it cover these topics at all?

If not I think that would be a great book for Peter to write, i.e. how Christianity shaped our laws and culture, perhaps with some info on the monarchy as well which I know he has also touched on.

All I've heard from him on these things are sound bytes in Youtube clips.

>>6101902
The historical-cultural value derives from the act of affirming the truth of the doctrine. To think you can retain what you like of Christian civilisation while abandoning the core act of religious faith is naive to the extreme.

>>6101947
You should read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. This is where much of Peter's politics originates.

The one who's not a dead unshaved alcoholic

>>6101992
u jus don lyk christop becos he too epin 4 u. get euphoric skydaddyfag!!!

>>6101973

>The historical-cultural value derives from the act of affirming the truth of the doctrine.

So you can't run for Senate without asserting the glory of Jupiter?

>>6102042
What?

>>6101973
I disagree. Many norms of Christianity can be valued even if Christianity is incorrect, just like much of scholastic philosophy can be valued. I'd say it's naive to think there is one singke "core" from which everything originates instead of a huge system influenced by various Christian and pre-Christian thinkers and practices.

>>6102050

The Senate is historical-cultural heritage from pagan Rome, and since it only gets its cultural value from affirming the truth of the doctrines held by the pagan Romans, I guess we would have to pay respects to Jupiter every time we enter a senate, according to you

The wrong Hitchens died.
Their father is the one who should have died.

>>6102052
Christian ethics derive most of their binding authority from the genuine belief of a Christian people regarding the prospect of metaphysical punishment following a breach.

>>6102056
My comment was specifically about Christian culture. I didn't make any more general claim so you're just tilting at windmills here. Learn to read.

>>6102059
You can be a neo-platonist and hold a big number of beliefs matching Christian ones without nekieving in the religion. Start with the greeks m8

>>6102064
Neo-Platonism is heretical.

>>6102071

I guess you can never read Augustine then

>>6099273
Get Love, Poetry and War. It's very good stuff, and even if you disagree with him (although a lot of it's really before his antitheist-to-the-core stage) his writing style means his prose is simply pleasurable to read regardless of content.

>>6100447
A few of these amount to little more than spelling errors. Yeah sure there's some actual stuff he got wrong but I feel the substance of much of his argument remains intact

>>6100230
>NO ABORTION

So what?

>>6102250
abortion is great

>>6101973
>Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France
thank you for the recommendation

>>6100705
>he didn't advocate to deny the abortion of baby's for others.
I watched a debate of his once where he did exactly that.

>>6104000
>I watched a debate where he talked about abortion being a question for society rather than a question for the individual, but then stopped listening and slotted him into one of the categories I already have in my head.

FTFY

>>6102074
Not the guy you are talking to, but AUgustine make a few loud and clear distinctions when he became a Christian from neo-platonic.

The big one is neo-platonism basically asserts that everything is of the essence of God, whereas Christianity asserts that everything is ontologically distinct form God, and there for not the same nor a part of God etc.

>>6099168
Niether. They're both petty-bourgeois counter-revolutionaries. ( ͜ʖ )