So if I call someone "arrogant", you say that I'm crying about him. Dude, don't be so sensitive. Remember I also said he was intelligent. He was arrogant as well. Not everybody who doesn't worship him is "crying" about it.You and PlayDrive seemed to dislike his "mean" ways.
He was certainly very good at discussion and debate. Whatever one thinks of my knowledge and intelligence here, I have great trouble even making the points I make here in unstructured, unprepared discussion. But when I saw him on TV, such in the ABC Australia Q&A program, his command of the discussion and quotes and that sort of thing was quite impressive.
So if I call someone "arrogant", you say that I'm crying about him. Dude, don't be so sensitive. Remember I also said he was intelligent. He was arrogant as well. Not everybody who doesn't worship him is "crying" about it.
The same reason I consider Madonna and Cardinal George of Chicago arrogant. I've heard them speak.Why do you consider him "arrogant?"
The same reason I consider Madonna and Cardinal George of Chicago arrogant. I've heard them speak.
Hearing Hitchens speak so eloquently makes him arrogant? I'm not sure I follow.
I'm not sure I follow how you came to the conclusion that eloquence = arrogance, particularly since I said nothing about eloquence.Hearing Hitchens speak so eloquently makes him arrogant? I'm not sure I follow.
I'm not sure I follow how you came to the conclusion that eloquence = arrogance, particularly since I said nothing about eloquence.
Being eloquent does nothing to refute the fact that you sound arrogant. I can be quite eloquent when I want to be and at the same time sound arrogant. Eloquent concerns how the speaker goes about using language. Arrogant concerns how the speaker views himself.
I don't know what those posters meant, and they may be making a genuine point. But for some people knowing intellectual terms or classical, even modern classical, writers is a sign of pomposity and arrogance and such things. I found him the most eloquent, in writing, of the New Atheists, though I don't think he was outstandingly eloquent in writing. I thought he had a very similar style to his brother, but though the prose of God is not Great was relatively good, he was somewhat more rambling than Peter generally is, as say he is in The Abolition of Britain. It was certainly in verbal discussion where he excelled.That's why I said I didn't follow. What makes Hitch so "arrogant?" what did he say that made you make this claim?
I'm not going to search for quotes because I care that little about this. I thought he was arrogant because his attitude was often "marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others".That's why I said I didn't follow. What makes Hitch so "arrogant?" what did he say that made you make this claim?
Yeah, no. I went to a university where "intellectual terms" and knowing "classical and modern writers" was a requirement for classes. Let's try to make it through this without assuming the worst and becoming arrogant ourselves by assuming that those who have opinions have them because they don't read books.I don't know what those posters meant, and they may be making a genuine point. But for some people knowing intellectual terms or classical, even modern classical, writers is a sign of pomposity and arrogance and such things.
I'm not going to search for quotes because I care that little about this. I thought he was arrogant because his attitude was often "marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others".
arrogant - definition of arrogant by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Is there a reason why my opinion is so difficult for you to accept? I have already assumed that it has something to do with the fact that you can't handle criticism of people who share your opinions. Am I wrong?
Why should I? It's such an unimportant point. If I call Pope Benedict arrogant will you accuse me of crying and then demand "evidence" from me over something so trivial or do you only do these sorts of things when someone criticizes those who share your opinions?I can accept criticism of him, but, make it well-founded.
Why should I? It's such an unimportant point. If I call Pope Benedict arrogant will you accuse me of crying and then demand "evidence" from me over something so trivial or do you only do these sorts of things when someone criticizes those who share your opinions?
I specifically stated I wasn't necessarily referring to those in this thread. I wasn't referring to you, at least. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough. There are certain people who find it pompous or arrogant simply if you ever quote respected writers or use rarefied terms.Yeah, no. I went to a university where "intellectual terms" and knowing "classical and modern writers" was a requirement for classes. Let's try to make it through this without assuming the worst and becoming arrogant ourselves by assuming that those who have opinions have them because they don't read books.
That's what I thought. At least you're honest which is more than I can say for most people.People who share my opinions.
Aren't we rather forgetting the point that Hitchens - though comparatively well read for the job - was at best a journalist, saying things for money and making a terrible fuss about it to make himself appear bold and radical?
Like so many, he found a dull remake of the battles of Darwin and Huxley with the reactionaries a useful displacement activity from serious politics, in which he grovelled to the powers-that-be in a fairly disgusting manner.
In America, where the religious quarrel has also been revived as one of the substitutes for politics, I'm sure he seemed more interesting. For someone like me who was in I.S. at the same time as he was, it is considerably less so: he was following a very well-worn trail.
He never really claimed to be a science head, and that never really underpinned his arguments as strongly as the other pop Atheists so the comparison to Darwin and Huxley is disingenuous. Dawkins and Harris would be more apt comparisons. In a similar fashion, it didn't seem like economics had much bearing on his political views, probably because he wasn't that well read on it or couldn't grasp it. He was still discussing geopolitics till the end either way.
No - he would have been opposing imperialism, as he knew very well - so he invented political illiteracies like 'Islamo-fascist' to make believe he was still human.I'm not sure what you mean by grovelling to the powers that be. You mean supporting the Iraq war? Would he not have been grovelling to Schroeder and Chirac if he stood against it? Or is it simply not possible to be anything other than a shill for "powers that be" if one supported the war?.
I don't understand this. In the country we were brought up in it wasn't an issue: he was doing this stuff because it went down big with Americans and brought in money.Since you don't really grasp what form his anti-religious tirades took, I'm not sure that they didn't fly entirely over your head unlike any Americans or others you're talking down to.
That's your opinion, and you could say the same thing about anyone who is good at what they do and makes money at it.he was doing this stuff because it went down big with Americans and brought in money.
That's your opinion, and you could say the same thing about anyone who is good at what they do and makes money at it.
I've watched many debates, I've read a number of books and read alot of articles involving religion and world politics. Hitchens debates were always the best, his books were among my favorites and his articles were amongst the best I've read. To me that means something and I will miss his contributions.