What are you reading?

[cigarsam]

A brief history on lichen abundance in graveyards (actually had to write that at uni)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[butternutsquashpie]

A brief history on lichen abundance in graveyards (actually had to write that at uni)

that had me laughing more than it should've.....

Well you see, in the graveyards there are certain organisms tha-
Ah fuck it. I'm good enough with the "nearly" status

[senor_robusto]

He wasnt a neo conservative, he was a socialist mate and I can tell by your post thar you already know that. I dont fully understand why large ranks in the Left disowned him after his questioning of certain religions that he perceived as fascist or medieval in conception. I dont fully agree with him myself but I thought his defending of Rushdie was absolutely spot on.
You called him quote ' cowardly in his principles '
Im not sure what you mean by that.

yes he was a neo-conservative, he admitted so himself!! and you're wrong, he wasn't a socialist, he was a member of the communist party and a self proclaimed trotskyite, different from socialism! you don't know why large ranks in the left disowned him? well, it certainly wasn't for disagreeing with their views on religion, that's for sure!! do you know anything about the 'man'? he WAS a trotskyite and a member of the communist party, then he became a big supporter and advocate of the bush and blair administration, post 9/11 (especially the foreign policy)! he was a big supporter of the neo-con's stance on the iraqi war!! that's almost like saying it's okay for a pacifist to become a nazi overnight!!

oh, yes, his defense of salman rushdie was correct, morally!! however, can you defend his attacks on noam chomskie? another great intellectual of our times!! or his attacks on michael moore? the dalai lama? even his attack on bob hope when he died!!

when you say that you don't know what i mean when i say he is 'cowardly in his principles', it's very simple: hitchen's himself is quoted at the end of the debate with galloway as saying:
'when you take a position of solidarity with your comrades, you do so..... win or loose'
this sums him up, as he wasn't abandoned by the leftists, he turned his back on them!! this one hypocritical statement kinda sums him up alright!!

as you hopefully can tell, i am a weeee bit educated and knowledgeable on the 'man' and his thoughts!! he was a great 'thinker'...... but then most alcoholics are!! his rhetoric only appeals to other wannabe 'intellectuals'....... many of whom only accept what he says rather than try and understand what he says, think for themselves and form their own opinions!!

alex

[Mr Moore]

I dont agree with your discription of Hitchens senor robusto. I think like a lot of peeps on the left you misunderstand his views. Im sure he labelled himself a Marxist at some point so wouldnt that in theory make him a socialist. I think at times he played devils advocate with the left and right. I know he did say at some point socialism is a poor arguement against capitalism or words to that effect. If he did call himself a neo con then so be it. Although I do find it hard to perceive him as the latter.
Nice post buttersquash. I think I 'almost' fully agree with your musings on Hitchens. Im at work at the mo but will definately check out Hitchens Razor tomorrow.

[senor_robusto]

Well sure, but to fit in with the American society, he couldn't be deemed a socialist AND be respected. That word is akin to the devil in certain places in America. That being said, he would need to have certain conservative views to be have his views be even listened to.

absolutely correct jeremy........

I'm not sure if he is a communist or a neo-conservative, frankly, i don't give two shites about his political sidings. It just makes enemies of us all. Many a great mind in history stays clear of the political game like Neil Armstrong, Erwin Rommel, etc. But alas I digress.

but he was a political thinker....... and to respect the man, you gotta understand and respect his work!! he started out as a communist, ended up as a neo-con, but insisted he was a marxist, while also agreeing to the USA's foreign policy in the middle east (especially iraq)!

[/QUOTE]Despite that, he was an intelligent man above all. In fact, of the three razors, I love his the most:
"A stance stated without evidence or correct backing can be disproved without evidence as well." Not the exact words, but google: Hitchen's Razor. You'll find it![/QUOTE]

i will agree, he was an intelligent, well educated man!! as for that quote........ as true as it is, other great thinkers have been more successful at getting that point across more easily! btw, here it is:
'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
funny, during that debate with george galloway, he tried to catch him out numerous times, but galloway kept coming back with evidence and facts!! you could tell hitchens was under pressure!! his 'razor' was more of a dull butterknife in this debate!


[/QUOTE]Methinks large ranks with left wings would've disowned the bloke because any attack on a culture or identity is seen as blasphemy in society nowadays ( no pun there, i promise!). In order to get the common votes of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. ANY party can NOT be seen with a man so famous for hating on religions. In the end, it's about keeping an image. And he had to be slightly hypocritical in order to keep him well understood in the public eye. Maybe not to the extent of "cowardly in principles".... But, you know..... [/QUOTE]

he wasn't disowned by the left because of 'blasphemes attacks on identity and religion' or whatever!! he crossed over to and supported what many in the left perceived as the enemy, the right wing neo-con!! also, he 'had to be slightly hypocritical to keep him well understood in the public eye'? need i say more jeremy...... whatever you were trying to say, i think you've just proved my point!! who understands him? pseudo intellectuals and the people he supported!!

alex

[butternutsquashpie]

oh, yes, his defense of salman rushdie was correct, morally!! however, can you defend his attacks on noam chomskie? another great intellectual of our times!! or his attacks on michael moore? the dalai lama? even his attack on bob hope when he died!!

as you hopefully can tell, i am a weeee bit educated and knowledgeable on the 'man' and his thoughts!! he was a great 'thinker'...... but then most alcoholics are!! his rhetoric only appeals to other wannabe 'intellectuals'....... many of whom only accept what he says rather than try and understand what he says, think for themselves and form their own opinions!!

alex

Just gonna ignore his political siding as I have never seen much into it. So i can't argue too much on it.
But do allow me to pitch in about the other things.

The Dalai Llama is someone I HAVE researched on. And i find his means to be simply atrocious.. I have also seen him attack Mother Teresa, which we shant get into as it's a WHOLE new field of debate. Anyways. Dalai Llama: he's the leader of the Llama ruling class of tibet who got ousted by the Chinese. The llama class basically controlled Tibet in a Medieval style system where 90% of population lives in poverty. Since the Chinese communists regained political power (in a less appreciable manner), the people are now educated again, healthy, and live in much better conditions than they did under the Llamas.
That attack is justified nicely as the Dalai Llama seems to just want to go back to Tibet and live in "modesty" whilst his people who he's trying to "save" suffer.
Michael Moore? Everyone makes fun of that guy! Even many liberals and socialists!!
Noam? Didn't know that. Chomskie is someone I respect dearly and deserves the title of: the wisest man in academia. I shall search that up right now!
Bob Hope as well. Him and Bingo have my deepest respects in the music business. That's depressing.. I'll go dig up on that too.........

He was a great thinker. and i would say the other way around. Many great thinkers are alcoholics.. F. S. Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, oh and Hunter S. Thompson!! Dr. Thompson <3. However, methinks that a decent amount of people just pick and choose what they like about his works and just use them in daily speech (like me! ). Methinks they don't base their theory and thinking AROUND what he says. He has said many a wise word. He has also given many a good lecture.
But, alas, methinks that all i've been shown from the bloke is a selectively positive melange of his work. Rather than everything he has done in his lifetime..


Anyways, i'll go take a viddy at Chomskie and Bob Hope right now. Something I do hope to God is not true
OR if anything, i hope it's just in a drunken rage rather than sober anger.......

[butternutsquashpie]

he wasn't disowned by the left because of 'blasphemes attacks on identity and religion' or whatever!! he crossed over to and supported what many in the left perceived as the enemy, the right wing neo-con!! also, he 'had to be slightly hypocritical to keep him well understood in the public eye'? need i say more jeremy...... whatever you were trying to say, i think you've just proved my point!! who understands him? pseudo intellectuals and the people he supported!!

alex

That's understandable. I only do know him for the logical items he has mentioned in his work rather than the political backings. I always enjoyed his voice preaching about possible atheism despite me being a theist and him tearing away various arguments that people used to think were true. Never for this political background. Guess I just never cared too much on them so I can't argue for or against him as well as you mates can. Just not as researched on the man as you mates seem to be here. So I don't think I can prove you wrong anywhere here. However, I can say without a doubt that he has had quite some intelligent moments in his life that are decently noteworthy

Also, back to the razor. Now that tibits of thought and research has crossed my mind, he is DEFINITELY not the first to use it in debate. Hitchen's Razor could easy be called Jeremy's Razor and it would still mean the same thing.
Also, i just see he used it to argue against Agnostic Theists. That's just wrong. Why the bleeding fook would you argue against a people who are trying to find inner peace with themselves and are harming no one. It just seems to me like..
Ah fook it, it's too late for this shite. Oi Johnny, where's the bar!?

[senor_robusto]

I dont agree with your discription of Hitchens senor robusto. I think like a lot of peeps on the left you misunderstand his views. Im sure he labelled himself a Marxist at some point so wouldnt that in theory make him a socialist. I think at times he played devils advocate with the left and right. I know he did say at some point socialism is a poor arguement against capitalism or words to that effect. If he did call himself a neo con then so be it. Although I do find it hard to perceive him as the latter.
Nice post buttersquash. I think I 'almost' fully agree with your musings on Hitchens. Im at work at the mo but will definately check out Hitchens Razor tomorrow.

labeling yourself a marxist doesn't 'in theory' make you a socialist!! if you are aware of marx and engel's theories, socialism was to be a prelude to communism after the abolition of capitalism!! so communism was the goal of marx and engels!! mikhail bakunin, a 'collective anarchist' differed with marx & engels in that he believed in a classless society governed by the people, where as marx and engels believed there needed to be a leader of the people!!

playing devil's advocate between the left and the right? how can one say they are a marxist, communist, socialist or trotskyite and support the biggest, capitalist country in the world!! as i quoted him from the end of that george galloway debate, hitchen's states:
'when you take a position of solidarity with your comrades, you do so..... win or loose'
pity he didn't apply that thought to himself.......

as for hitchen's razor, look it up!! it's just a translation of an old 19th century latin proverb:
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

• Translation: What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.
• Variants: What is asserted without evidence/proof/reason, may/can be dismissed/denied without evidence/proof/reason.
• Jon R. Stone, The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations (2005), p. 101. Anonymous, widely used since at least the early 19th century (e.g. The Classical Journal, Vol. 40 (1829), p. 312).

at the end of the day, you don't agree with my description of hitchens, that's cool!! i've my reasons to dislike him as you have to like him!! thing is though, over the years i have read up on him, watched his debates, read his articles..... i never ever believed his bullshit!! he's always come across to me as smug, arrogant, slimey and dishonest!!

alex

[senor_robusto]

The Dalai Llama is someone I HAVE researched on. And i find his means to be simply atrocious.. I have also seen him attack Mother Teresa, which we shant get into as it's a WHOLE new field of debate. Anyways. Dalai Llama: he's the leader of the Llama ruling class of tibet who got ousted by the Chinese. The llama class basically controlled Tibet in a Medieval style system where 90% of population lives in poverty. Since the Chinese communists regained political power (in a less appreciable manner), the people are now educated again, healthy, and live in much better conditions than they did under the Llamas.
That attack is justified nicely as the Dalai Llama seems to just want to go back to Tibet and live in "modesty" whilst his people who he's trying to "save" suffer.
Michael Moore? Everyone makes fun of that guy! Even many liberals and socialists!!
Noam? Didn't know that. Chomskie is someone I respect dearly and deserves the title of: the wisest man in academia. I shall search that up right now!
Bob Hope as well. Him and Bingo have my deepest respects in the music business. That's depressing.. I'll go dig up on that too.........


Anyways, i'll go take a viddy at Chomskie and Bob Hope right now. Something I do hope to God is not true
OR if anything, i hope it's just in a drunken rage rather than sober anger.......

hey jeremy, add hitchens' attack on mother theresa to your list!! he did a show on channel 4 called 'hell's angel'.......... also, are you aware of the attack on hunter s thompson after he died? there's a load more, it's a bit late, but i'll try to remember them......

alex

[butternutsquashpie]

Haha, that's what I thought. It should be around 0245 there! Tad too late for such a debate forum i'm thinking?? . Have a good one, eh?

are you aware of the attack on hunter s thompson after he died?

Just read up on that right now when I couldn't believe it....
Alas, not quite the direct insult. But a definite indirect insult by a person who was ignorant of Dr. Thompson's life in general...... And yet was commissioned to write the intro of one of Dr. Thompson's books: Ancient Gonzo Wisdoms. I shall read "Ancient Gonzo Wisdoms" after I get "The Great Shark Hunt" back from a mate of mine and end up finishing the damned book.

Like I said, Great Shark Hunt is on Amazon UK for only 7 quid!!

[senor_robusto]

i'll be sure to check that out........ hunter s thompson was someone i was interested in a few years ago.....

you'll find that hitchens didn't openly insult people, he was good at making 'veiled attacks'!! some would argue that he was too smart to openly insult someone, that's BS!! as for writing a foreword in a HST book, he was paid to do it!! lol!!

alex

[Mr Moore]

It must be great having wiki so close at hand alex.
I dont understand what your trying to prove in your remarks about who he called out or attacked. What do you expect him to do? That was his job for gods sake.
I dont claim he was a saint and I believe he has left his mark in history. I know he is hated by a large contingent of the left but I liked him and many others around the globe did as well. I think we have digressed enough to put this one to bed.

[butternutsquashpie]

as for writing a foreword in a HST book, he was paid to do it!! lol!!

I don't doubt that at all. But why the bleeding hell would the editors allow him to write in a Dr. Thompson book anyways?? That's just misplaced as all hell.....
Check out the books though. He's one of my most respected men. Behind Erwin Rommel

Mr. Moore also has reason. It sure was his job.... Me just thinks that.... Ah i have no bloody clue anymore. It's late here even though we're 4 hours behind you blokes. We each have our own respectable reasons to love and despise the man. OR respect and disrespect him. But, Mr. Moore, the only thing we're gonna put to bed now is me.
Cheers fellas,
Jeremy.

[senor_robusto]

It must be great having wiki so close at hand alex.
I dont understand what your trying to prove in your remarks about who he called out or attacked. What do you expect him to do? That was his job for gods sake.
I dont claim he was a saint and I believe he has left his mark in history. I know he is hated by a large contingent of the left but I liked him and many others around the globe did as well. I think we have digressed enough to put this one to bed.

it's funny, when debating with someone so obviously clued in, when you make a valid point to which they can't respond, it always comes down to, 'it must be great having wiki handy'? lol!! guess you can't use hitchen's 'razor' on me then? lol!! did you read i anything i said, mr moore? i have read his books.... i have read his articles, i have watched his debates!! as for my remarks about who he attacked in his writing.... you claim it was his job to and ask me what did i expect him to do? again, you validate my sentiments on the 'man'!! do you think it is an honourable way to make a living, attacking the dead, who can't defend themselves? there is a 'cult of personality' around the man who don't seem to think for themselves and defend his opinions, who 'get off' on the man's 'shock attacks' on other thinkers or personalities! so much so i've seen at least 5 different versions of the debate with george galloway, edited down to make hitchens look good (sometimes even removing whole responses from george galloway)!!

to cap this off, my opinions of the 'man' are based on many years of familiarizing myself with his thoughts etc (not a 2 minute glance on wiki as you suggest), because a couple of my friends admired him (we've all be reading this stuff from we were teenagers, marx, engels, bakunin, hitler, sartre, debord, chomsky, hitchens etc etc! teenagers in northern ireland have 3 choices, join a paramilitary, educate themselves on how the world really works, or pretend the troubles aren't happening! my friends and i choose the second option, we educated ourselves on what was/ is going on in the world outside northern ireland)!! they too came to the same conclusion, especially when he started slandering great minds like chomsky, and the dead...... and they couldn't find a defense for the man!! anyway, it's nice that you and many people around the globe like him........ the same could be said for justin beiber!!

anyway, hopefully when you read enough on the man, the old adage will be true for you:
'as you are i was, as i am you will be'

alex

[senor_robusto]

Mr. Moore also has reason. It sure was his job.... Me just thinks that.... Ah i have no bloody clue anymore..

again jeremy, do you think it's an honourable way to make a living? slandering people in articles and books (some, like me, you have trouble understanding never mind accepting)? he was a smug, arrogant detestable, alcoholic with a huge chip on his shoulder, and boy, did he let the world know about it! lol! politically he was a 'turn coat'!! as a thinker, he was egocentric and arrogant!! as a human being, as galloway put it, he was a 'butterfly who turned back into a slug', a 'drink soaked, former trotskyite'......

alex