"Nothing optional--from homosexuality to adultery--is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishments) have a repressed desire to participate" -- Hitchens, "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," p. 40
"[I]f I was suspected of raping a child, or of torturing a child, or infecting a child with venereal disease, or selling a child into sexual or any other kind of slavery, I might consider committing suicide whether I was guilty or not. If I had actually committed the offense, I would welcome death in any form that it might take . . . The ignorant psychopath or brute who mistreats his children must be punished but can be understood. Those who claim a heavenly warrant for the cruelty have been tainted by evil, and also constitute far more of a danger" - ibid, p. 52
Since Hitchens thinks child abusers (of all forms) must be punished, and since he implies, and since it is obvious, that almost all instances of child abuse are done by those with the proper control of their actions to be morally responsible, and Hitchens thinsk they could refrain, so it is "optional," then Hitchens, per Hitchens, must "have a repressed desire to participate."
Really, people lauded this drivel?
The New Atheism?
What a threat.
Perfect instance of "The No-god Delusion."
Slam dunk, Paul. Way to show him.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteYou might be reading to much to this. Hitchens does not include "raping a child" with "optional". You conviniently skipped Hitchens p.52 comment "If I had actually committed the offense, I would welcome death in any form that it might take. This revulsion is innate in any healthy person, and does not need to be taught." Hitchens seem to think that "homosexuality" or "adultery" don't need to be punishable by law, where a child rape is always wrong.
But hey what do we know. Why don't you ask Hitchens rather than speculate about his repressed desires in a blog? He is not that hard to track down.
lyosha07 said...
"Slam dunk, Paul. Way to show him."
Huh! lyosha07, read the paragraphs around the Paul's quotes...
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI quoted what you said I skipped.
Hitchens does not "seem to think" what you claim. Indeed, he *draws a distinction* between "ignorant psychopath or brute who mistreats his children" and *others*, apparently *not* the crazy, deranged, and ignorant.
Your comment has been unable to exculpate Hitchens.
Look, it's pretty simply. Hitchens says to punish or prohibit an optional thing means you want to partake in it. Hitchens wants to punish and prohibit child abuses. Many cases (as much as homosexual etc.,) of child abuse are option, i.e., the person *chooses* to molest the child, Hitchens thinks those optional cases are punishable and prohibited, therefore he secretly wants to partake in them.
Your defense of Hitchens on this obvious point speaks loads to your "objectivity."
What's worse, Hitchens thinks those "religionists" who mutilate female genitals should be prohibited and punished. Guess Hitchens wants to join a religion and mutilate female genitals. or maybe it's not "optional." They're "psychopaths." Okay, then he can "understand" why they do it.
And, there's no need to contact Hitchens - and I doubt he'd respond. I have no reason to think he's not a liar. Indeed, I've noted hundreds of flat out lies in his book. One example is that he changes the words Prager used in an interview so as the be able to springboard into one of his "rants." When called out on it, he said it didn't matter.
So, you said I skipped a comment which I did not.
You failed to exhibit elementary reading skills.
You merely *asserted* that Hitchens is off Scott free.
You make the demonstrably false claims that *all* forms of child abuse or not "optional."
You make Hitchens *contradict* himself because he "understands" those who did not have a choice due to mental illness yet *does not* understand the *others*.
Do you also think it isn’t easy to come up with *hundreds* of things we prohibit that we do not want to "partake" in??
Murder. Or is that not optional too?
Slander. Or is that not optional too?
Robbery. Or is that not optional too?
Sex with animals. Or is that not optional too?
Date rape. Or is that not optional too?
Statutory rape. Or is that not optional too.
Public obscenity. Or is that not optional too.
Prohibiting violations of free speech. Or is that not optional too?
Treason. Or is that not optional too?
Want me to keep going?
Hitchens is a tool and you only make yourself one by defending him.
I got loads of juicy stuff I'll be putting up. I count an average of 30 errors, blunders, or missteps per page. That's roughly 3,000. Stay tuned.
Paul Manata said:
ReplyDelete"So, you said I skipped a comment which I did not. You failed to exhibit elementary reading skills."
You did not seem to have noted that I quoted "This revulsion is innate in any healthy person, and does not need to be taught" which you did not quote. (I quoted the previous sentence so readers know where it fits in). How are your "elementary reading skills"?
Paul Manata said:
"You merely *asserted* that Hitchens is off Scott free."
No Paul, I just pointed out the you failed the notice the difference he made between homosexuality and a child abuse.
Paul Manata said:
"there's no need to contact Hitchens"
You make strong accusations here. A polite way would be at least to contact him and give him an opportunity to response. If you would criticize his book I don't think you would need to contact him, but you are attacking his character and calling him names. That is a bit low...
Peter said:
ReplyDelete“If you would criticize his book I don't think you would need to contact him, but you are attacking his character and calling him names. That is a bit low”
I don’t know what “name-calling” you have in mind, and I don’t know where you’re getting your moral standards to judge what Paul “needs” to do and what’s “low”.
I also don’t see why he should be expected to contact Christopher Hitchens. Maybe Hitchens is unusually responsive to email, phone calls, and such, but I don’t think it’s normal for somebody in his position to interact with most of the readers or critics of his books. If it seems highly unlikely that somebody will respond to an email or some other form of contact, why try to contact him? Should people who want to accuse George Bush of lying about the war in Iraq, for example, contact him first?
Even if Hitchens could be expected to interact with an email from Paul, why would Paul think an email discussion (or some other form of contact) is “needed” before accusing Hitchens of bad argumentation, lying, or some other type of behavior that can be documented? Do you think Hitchens contacted the people mentioned critically in his book before he “attacked their character” or “called them names”? When Hitchens made the comments he made about Jerry Falwell after his death, for example, how likely do you think it is that Hitchens had discussed those accusations with Falwell before going public with them? I doubt that Hitchens has followed the standard you’re expecting Paul to follow. If he hasn't, do you think he "needs" to change his behavior and that his behavior is "low"?
Jason Engwer said:
ReplyDelete"Even if Hitchens could be expected to interact with an email from Paul, why would Paul think an email discussion (or some other form of contact) is “needed” before accusing Hitchens of bad argumentation, lying, or some other type of behavior that can be documented?"
Come on, where was it documented that Hitchins must "have a repressed desire to participate" in a child abuse?
I was just applying Paul's own ideas. He just told me two weeks ago that he contacted an atheist author Michael Martin to clear up thing in his book and Martin was "not hard to get in touch with". Hitchins does not seem to get the same courtesy.
Jason Engwer said:
"Should people who want to accuse George Bush of lying about the war in Iraq, for example, contact him first?"
Great comparison (huh), please try again.
Jason Engwer said:
"I don’t know where you’re getting your moral standards to judge what Paul “needs” to do and what’s “low”"
I take it that by your moral standards baseless accusing someone that "must have a repressed desire to participate" in a child abuse is just fine.
Have you actually read the context what Hitchins was talking about on page 40 Paul quoted? BTW it is easy to find things about Hitchins that many atheists disagree with Hitchins (well documented), but repressed desire to participate in a child abuse; is this the new Christian apologetics. Paul mentioned that he has juicy stuff coming, so hopefully the level of criticism gets elevated.
Peter said:
ReplyDelete“Come on, where was it documented that Hitchins must ‘have a repressed desire to participate’ in a child abuse?”
Where was it argued that Hitchens wants to abuse children? Arguing that Hitchens’ reasoning would lead to such a conclusion, if applied consistently, isn’t equivalent to agreeing with that conclusion.
You write:
“He just told me two weeks ago that he contacted an atheist author Michael Martin to clear up thing in his book and Martin was ‘not hard to get in touch with’. Hitchins does not seem to get the same courtesy.”
Probably because contacting an author isn’t something that Paul considers a “courtesy” that’s due. You can contact an author to “clear up” something without thereby suggesting that you should contact all authors before criticizing them in the manner in which he’s criticized Hitchens. Paul knew what Hitchens had argued. He didn’t need to have anything “cleared up”. The issue isn’t whether Hitchens actually wants to abuse children. Rather, the issue is whether his reasoning suggests that he would, if that reasoning is applied consistently.
You write:
“Great comparison (huh), please try again.”
Asserting that my comparison is bad isn’t the same as demonstrating that it’s bad. Why is it a bad comparison? I know that the circumstances with Hitchens and Bush aren’t comparable in every conceivable way, but how are they relevantly incomparable?
You write:
“I take it that by your moral standards baseless accusing someone that ‘must have a repressed desire to participate’ in a child abuse is just fine.”
Paul was discussing the implications of Hitchens’ reasoning if that reasoning is applied to another issue, namely child abuse. He went on to give other examples (murder, etc.). Since he offered documentation of Hitchens’ reasoning, he wasn’t making a “baseless” accusation. And he wasn’t suggesting that he thinks Hitchens actually wants to abuse children. He said that such a conclusion follows “per Hitchens”, as a result of his reasoning.
And you still haven’t told us where you’re getting your moral standards.
You write:
“Have you actually read the context what Hitchins was talking about on page 40 Paul quoted?”
No, I haven’t read his book, nor have I claimed to. But I do understand the argument Paul is making, which you don’t seem to understand.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI pointed out precisely where Hitchens makes a distinction between "crazy" and non-crazy. He "understands" the one, not the other.
And, I simply will *not* attribute to Hitchens the stupid view that he thinks *all* forms of child *abuse* are not "optional."
If you read your Hitchens, you would not that it is *not* just "molestation" that Hitchens is referring to.
Hitchens brings up the circumcision practices of some Jews, the denial of blood transfusions by JWs, or other denials of medicine to children for other religious reasons, and female genital mutilation.
To say that Hitchens thinks none of these are "optional" is to make him more stupid than he is. You portray Hitchens as saying "we can choose who to love" but some are forced without a choice to circumcise boys penises with their teeth and mouth."
Just as a man chooses to cheat on his wife, some choose to sleep with 15 yr. old girls.
Notice my title says "abuse," not simply sexually "molest."
My charge is not harsh, it is an *undeniable inference* from the book.
I also noticed you failed to answer me. Please try again:
Do you also think it isn’t easy to come up with *hundreds* of things we prohibit that we do not want to "partake" in??
Murder. Or is that not optional too?
Slander. Or is that not optional too?
Robbery. Or is that not optional too?
Sex with animals. Or is that not optional too?
Date rape. Or is that not optional too?
Statutory rape. Or is that not optional too.
Public obscenity. Or is that not optional too.
Prohibiting violations of free speech. Or is that not optional too?
Treason. Or is that not optional too?
Want me to keep going?
Apparently you and Hitchens want to commit statutory rape. Apparently you want to sleep with sheep (or pigs, in Hitchens case, cf. ch. 3). Apparently you want to rob.
No?
Then you do not "prohibit" those optional actions?
So, you make the world dangerous.
You "poison everything." :-)
Either you and Hitchens want to do those things, or you do not want to prohibit them. Which one?
"He just told me two weeks ago that he contacted an atheist author Michael Martin to clear up thing in his book and Martin was "not hard to get in touch with".
ReplyDeleteI never said I contacted him "to clear things up."
I said that *you* could do so.
"I take it that by your moral standards baseless accusing someone that "must have a repressed desire to participate" in a child abuse is just fine."
ReplyDeleteThat is the simple inference of the book.
Not *all* cases of child abuse or forced. The abuser is not forced to do what he does. Not all parents are *forced* to smack their kids.
Since Hitchens prohibits these "optional actions" then he "secretly wants to do them."
It's simple logic, Peter:
[1] All those who prohibit optional actions secretly want to participate in them.
[2] Hitchens prohibits amny optional actions of child abuse (and myriad other crimes).
[3] Therefore, Hitchens secretly wants to participate in actions of child abuse (and many other crimes).
That is valid. The premises are true.
QED
clarification: the premises are true (esp. p.1) *on Hitchens's terms* I do not believe p1. I think it is ridiculous to suppose that if you prohibit an "optional" (whatever that means anyway) activity you secretly want to participate in that activity. That is absurd.
ReplyDeletePaul said,
ReplyDelete"I count an average of 30 errors, blunders, or missteps per page. That's roughly 3,000."
Considering the text size and page layout, there are about 9-11 sentences per page on average. That requires that each sentence makes about 2.5-3 "errors, blunders, or missteps", with very few exceptions. I would like to see somebody intentionally write a book with so many errors, much less do it by mistake. Of course, given the confidence with which you proclaim it, I'm sure that you are prepared to document this extraordinary claim.
Peter said,
"lyosha07 said...
"Slam dunk, Paul. Way to show him."
Huh! lyosha07, read the paragraphs around the Paul's quotes..."
My comment was facetious. I am not one of these loonies.
Lyosha,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I never did the calculations. I see you're one of those ultra-literalist, fundy atheists. As Hitchens said, "But the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger" (p.29). And I can see why you see me as a danger!
So, I was using what's commonly referred to as "hyperbole." Judging by how you've tried to interpret my Bible, I can see that you must have been a toothless fundy from the Appalachian mountains. You're a pedant.
But put it this way if you must: There's a crap load of errors.
Am I "speaking your language?"
I also must point out that your comments don't count as a refutation of the point I made. I should say that I've pointed out a rather major blunder. I wonder what your purpose of commenting was? Pointless comments will be deleted. Take that to heart before you respond back (hopefully I don't need to say that I really didn't mean that biological organ in your chest, right?)
hahaha,
ReplyDeleteGood job Paul!
Look at those fundie atheists comment after you pointed out direct and to the point the bad reasoning of Hitchen's position applied to himself.
But I guess fundie atheists are all like that...and if they are so woodenly literal and a 'letterists', why are they not taking Hitchen's statements literally?
More reasons I can't be a fundie atheist!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete