taleon
Posts: 48
Joined: 4/20/2007 From: The Netherlands Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Yeah, we all know how important speaking eloquently and defending unpopular stances is... it does not matter what sort of nasty obnoxious thing you stand for, as long as you are wordy when you do so  Obviously, there is a line to how "nasty" one can get. But, before that line is crossed, I feel that having people around who will go against the mainstream are necessary to keep society evolving. Of course, to be of any help, they need to be able to carry a point which makes one stop and think. The "eloquent" part comes to play, right there. quote:
You know what, there have been a lot of compelling speakers through history that advocated for the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, in fact it is usually the eloquent speakers that convince people to follow them no matter what sort of fucked up madness they advocate... like attacking a country that was never a threat to us. Yes, I do know that. Two points here: - As to being a war monger: nothing I've read to heard from him suggests to me that he is, a priori, in favor of war. If I remember correctly, he campaigned against the first Gulf War. What's more, Hitchens didn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. In fact, his point is that to save lives, Saddam had to go. He seems to think that invading Iraq will ultimately result in a lesser loss of life, rather than to let Saddam sit there. I don't think he uses that as an excuse to drag a country into war, I think he actually believes that. In his mind, he opts for the lesser of two evils. - Hitchens lives in a country which supports freedom of speech. Which means that he can advocate any military action he deems necessary, as long as he stays within the boundaries of the law. You simply can't wish people to shut up, because they you find them "war mongering". The best course of action, to me, would be to debate against their arguments. Get more people on your side of the fence. quote:
Hitchens was wrong about that one, and he never backed down no matter how apparent it became he was wrong about that. Now, to you, the fact he was articulate and wordy may make up for being a hate mongering war mongering fucktard, but it doesn't make up for it in my book. Wait, where and when did he incite hate? As far as I've heard him talk, he attacks religions, he attacks policies, he attacks governments, he attacks certain individuals (Kissinger, for example), and he will gladly and colourfully point out that other people are wrong, but I've never seen him trying to incite hate against any of his opponents or a group of people. Quite the opposite, he ferociously defends the right of his rivals to speak up. I think I've heard him quote Voltaire on this issue: "I may not defend what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it". Ok, sorry for the tangent. And back on topic: to me, what makes up for him is that he can argue his position. Although he did not convince you, I usually had to pause and think things through, if he argued against my own point of view. Again, I find that valuable.
|