He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"? He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
His arguements and opinions are entirely sound and thought out, he just clouds them with insulting garbage. If you can look past the shock value he's actually pretty good.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
Surely you can understand comedy is subjective, and his style is most certainly funny to a great many people.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"?
How do either one of those detract from the evidence he supplies and the logical arguments he proposes in between his jabs?
He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
This all just conjecture. You are unable to find "reasonable criticism" if it is framed in something you consider to be in bad taste. Fine. Unfortunately, that is a similar brand of ad hominem that you're calling Hitchens out on. He, on the other hand, actually only uses those kinds of comments to otherwise "dress up" perfectly acceptable evidence and reason. He may insult someone for something in a needless (and perhaps tasteless) manner, but a rational mind should be able to separate that from the uncoloured arguments he presents.
If the only thing you can call the guy out on is his tendency to try and make himself entertaining, then I'm curious who the fuck you think has anything relevant to say in popular media.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"? He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
His arguements and opinions are entirely sound and thought out, he just clouds them with insulting garbage. If you can look past the shock value he's actually pretty good.
That's just the problem.
He makes you look past his garbage, and forces anyone who would level similar criticism make their audience look past his garbage. You can't even get to the quality of his arguments without turning the public against you.
When he's the most well-known critic of Mother Teresa, what are people going to think of first when I try to say she was less than perfect? It doesn't matter to the public at large if his criticism or mine is accurate and well deserved, all that matters is that he called that poor little old lady helping all the lepers a mean name, it turns her and any other targets of his criticism into martyrs-by-word.
He's working against the causes he claims to work for, and is doing it rather well.
Whether or not he's right (which I have not tried and don't intend to argue either way), he's still a counterproductive ass.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
Surely you can understand comedy is subjective, and his style is most certainly funny to a great many people.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"?
How do either one of those detract from the evidence he supplies and the logical arguments he proposes in between his jabs?
He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
This all just conjecture. You are unable to find "reasonable criticism" if it is framed in something you consider to be in bad taste. Fine. Unfortunately, that is a similar brand of ad hominem that you're calling Hitchens out on. He, on the other hand, actually only uses those kinds of comments to otherwise "dress up" perfectly acceptable evidence and reason. He may insult someone for something in a needless (and perhaps tasteless) manner, but a rational mind should be able to separate that from the uncoloured arguments he presents.
If the only thing you can call the guy out on is his tendency to try and make himself entertaining, then I'm curious who the fuck you think has anything relevant to say in popular media.
Whether or not he is a comic is not subjective at all- his goal is not humor, he is not a comic. Whether or not he is funny is, which is kinda the point of an opinionated rant like this one.
He makes his "evidence" irrelevant by the way he states it. Whether he's right, whether he has well-formed arguments, whether he's the only reasonable, sane, intelligent person living, he's still an ass and he's still defined his public persona in that way. The argument doesn't matter if no one's listening.
An argument ad hominem is only a fallacy if you state, or at least imply, that a persons argument is incorrect because of some personal failing. My argument is that he has personal failings. It would be fallacious of me to say that my argument is correct because he's an ass, fallacy doesn't enter into it is my argument is that he's an ass.
When you're dealing with the public at large, you never assume rationality. That is exactly why the way he works is so counterproductive.
He makes you look past his garbage, and forces anyone who would level similar criticism make their audience look past his garbage. You can't even get to the quality of his arguments without turning the public against you.
When he's the most well-known critic of Mother Teresa, what are people going to think of first when I try to say she was less than perfect? It doesn't matter to the public at large if his criticism or mine is accurate and well deserved, all that matters is that he called that poor little old lady helping all the lepers a mean name, it turns her and any other targets of his criticism into martyrs-by-word.
He's working against the causes he claims to work for, and is doing it rather well.
Whether or not he's right (which I have not tried and don't intend to argue either way), he's still a counterproductive ass.
So, because Nietzsche consistently called John Stuart Mill a "blockhead", that makes it difficult for you to confront discourse about Mill because opponents will assume "Oh, you just think he's a blockhead"? It suddenly strips everything he had to say about Utilitarianism of merit?
Please. It's almost getting to a point where you're just saying "Hitchens creates a bad image for anyone who agrees with him on a subject."
That is such a slippery slope logical fallacy that... well, Christ. That I'm going to bed.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
Surely you can understand comedy is subjective, and his style is most certainly funny to a great many people.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"?
How do either one of those detract from the evidence he supplies and the logical arguments he proposes in between his jabs?
He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
This all just conjecture. You are unable to find "reasonable criticism" if it is framed in something you consider to be in bad taste. Fine. Unfortunately, that is a similar brand of ad hominem that you're calling Hitchens out on. He, on the other hand, actually only uses those kinds of comments to otherwise "dress up" perfectly acceptable evidence and reason. He may insult someone for something in a needless (and perhaps tasteless) manner, but a rational mind should be able to separate that from the uncoloured arguments he presents.
If the only thing you can call the guy out on is his tendency to try and make himself entertaining, then I'm curious who the fuck you think has anything relevant to say in popular media.
Whether or not he is a comic is not subjective at all- his goal is not humor, he is not a comic. Whether or not he is funny is, which is kinda the point of an opinionated rant like this one.
He makes his "evidence" irrelevant by the way he states it. Whether he's right, whether he has well-formed arguments, whether he's the only reasonable, sane, intelligent person living, he's still an ass and he's still defined his public persona in that way. The argument doesn't matter if no one's listening.
An argument ad hominem is only a fallacy if you state, or at least imply, that a persons argument is incorrect because of some personal failing. My argument is that he has personal failings. It would be fallacious of me to say that my argument is correct because he's an ass, fallacy doesn't enter into it is my argument is that he's an ass.
When you're dealing with the public at large, you never assume rationality. That is exactly why the way he works is so counterproductive.
So, it's his fault that the average person is too stupid to see the logic in what he says since he assumes intelligence on the part of those who will listen to him, and continue to make him popular; hence he makes it difficult for you hard-pressing soldiers who really don't want to be seen as insensitive as him to those you discuss these sorts of things with.
He makes you look past his garbage, and forces anyone who would level similar criticism make their audience look past his garbage. You can't even get to the quality of his arguments without turning the public against you.
When he's the most well-known critic of Mother Teresa, what are people going to think of first when I try to say she was less than perfect? It doesn't matter to the public at large if his criticism or mine is accurate and well deserved, all that matters is that he called that poor little old lady helping all the lepers a mean name, it turns her and any other targets of his criticism into martyrs-by-word.
He's working against the causes he claims to work for, and is doing it rather well.
Whether or not he's right (which I have not tried and don't intend to argue either way), he's still a counterproductive ass.
So, because Nietzsche consistently called John Stuart Mill a "blockhead", that makes it difficult for you to confront discourse about Mill because opponents will assume "Oh, you just think he's a blockhead"? It suddenly strips everything he had to say about Utilitarianism of merit?
Please. It's almost getting to a point where you're just saying "Hitchens creates a bad image for anyone who agrees with him on a subject."
That is such a slippery slope logical fallacy that... well, Christ. That I'm going to bed.
That would be accurate if he focused a great deal on arguing against Mill, and if his material on mill all focused on his blockheadedness to the degree that it made reasonable, respectable discussion of their disparate views impossible.
It's not that he makes people who would share his views look bad, though I would say that he does, it's that he works toward making any worthwhile discussion impossible.
There's a time and a place for childish name-calling. I don't know how society could function without it. It should not be mingled with any attempt at a rational argument against views and positions. Were I to be arguing against the man, I would not insist on calling him an ass. Since I'm not, since I'm essentially using bigger words to call him a "stinky doo-doo head", I feel free to call him an incendiary, counter-productive, pseudo-intellectual ass of the highest degree.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
Surely you can understand comedy is subjective, and his style is most certainly funny to a great many people.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"?
How do either one of those detract from the evidence he supplies and the logical arguments he proposes in between his jabs?
He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
This all just conjecture. You are unable to find "reasonable criticism" if it is framed in something you consider to be in bad taste. Fine. Unfortunately, that is a similar brand of ad hominem that you're calling Hitchens out on. He, on the other hand, actually only uses those kinds of comments to otherwise "dress up" perfectly acceptable evidence and reason. He may insult someone for something in a needless (and perhaps tasteless) manner, but a rational mind should be able to separate that from the uncoloured arguments he presents.
If the only thing you can call the guy out on is his tendency to try and make himself entertaining, then I'm curious who the fuck you think has anything relevant to say in popular media.
Whether or not he is a comic is not subjective at all- his goal is not humor, he is not a comic. Whether or not he is funny is, which is kinda the point of an opinionated rant like this one.
He makes his "evidence" irrelevant by the way he states it. Whether he's right, whether he has well-formed arguments, whether he's the only reasonable, sane, intelligent person living, he's still an ass and he's still defined his public persona in that way. The argument doesn't matter if no one's listening.
An argument ad hominem is only a fallacy if you state, or at least imply, that a persons argument is incorrect because of some personal failing. My argument is that he has personal failings. It would be fallacious of me to say that my argument is correct because he's an ass, fallacy doesn't enter into it is my argument is that he's an ass.
When you're dealing with the public at large, you never assume rationality. That is exactly why the way he works is so counterproductive.
So, it's his fault that the average person is too stupid to see the logic in what he says since he assumes intelligence on the part of those who will listen to him, and continue to make him popular; hence he makes it difficult for you hard-pressing soldiers who really don't want to be seen as insensitive as him to those you discuss these sorts of things with.
Good night.
It's not his fault that the average person is stupid, its his fault that he doesn't acknowledge their stupidty in his methods.
Intelligent people won't listen to him, at least not in a meaningful way. He says what other people have said better, and his primary value is in confirming the beliefs that his audience already holds by restating them in an aggressive and "edgy" way. Whether these people are intelligent is irrelevant. I suspect that you only assume that they're intelligent because they hold these views.
Him, and others like him, are quickly making rational discussion impossible. They're breeding an environment of ideological xenophobia. It doesn't matter which side he appears to be arguing for, what he's actually working toward is balkanized beliefs and an increase in political, religious, and philosophical conflict.
...but I haven't gotten to axe Page my question yet...
Honestly though, D&D is the absolute worst place to go for either debate or discourse. It's even more worthless for a discussion, argument, or exchange of ideas.
Posts
His arguements and opinions are entirely sound and thought out, he just clouds them with insulting garbage. If you can look past the shock value he's actually pretty good.
ahahahaha
Surely you can understand comedy is subjective, and his style is most certainly funny to a great many people.
How do either one of those detract from the evidence he supplies and the logical arguments he proposes in between his jabs?
This all just conjecture. You are unable to find "reasonable criticism" if it is framed in something you consider to be in bad taste. Fine. Unfortunately, that is a similar brand of ad hominem that you're calling Hitchens out on. He, on the other hand, actually only uses those kinds of comments to otherwise "dress up" perfectly acceptable evidence and reason. He may insult someone for something in a needless (and perhaps tasteless) manner, but a rational mind should be able to separate that from the uncoloured arguments he presents.
If the only thing you can call the guy out on is his tendency to try and make himself entertaining, then I'm curious who the fuck you think has anything relevant to say in popular media.
That's just the problem.
He makes you look past his garbage, and forces anyone who would level similar criticism make their audience look past his garbage. You can't even get to the quality of his arguments without turning the public against you.
When he's the most well-known critic of Mother Teresa, what are people going to think of first when I try to say she was less than perfect? It doesn't matter to the public at large if his criticism or mine is accurate and well deserved, all that matters is that he called that poor little old lady helping all the lepers a mean name, it turns her and any other targets of his criticism into martyrs-by-word.
He's working against the causes he claims to work for, and is doing it rather well.
Whether or not he's right (which I have not tried and don't intend to argue either way), he's still a counterproductive ass.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
also a GLOBAL NETWORK is controlling the outcome of the political primaries
our only recourse is to make retarded youtube videos about it
go back to junior college, page
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Whether or not he is a comic is not subjective at all- his goal is not humor, he is not a comic. Whether or not he is funny is, which is kinda the point of an opinionated rant like this one.
He makes his "evidence" irrelevant by the way he states it. Whether he's right, whether he has well-formed arguments, whether he's the only reasonable, sane, intelligent person living, he's still an ass and he's still defined his public persona in that way. The argument doesn't matter if no one's listening.
An argument ad hominem is only a fallacy if you state, or at least imply, that a persons argument is incorrect because of some personal failing. My argument is that he has personal failings. It would be fallacious of me to say that my argument is correct because he's an ass, fallacy doesn't enter into it is my argument is that he's an ass.
When you're dealing with the public at large, you never assume rationality. That is exactly why the way he works is so counterproductive.
So, because Nietzsche consistently called John Stuart Mill a "blockhead", that makes it difficult for you to confront discourse about Mill because opponents will assume "Oh, you just think he's a blockhead"? It suddenly strips everything he had to say about Utilitarianism of merit?
Please. It's almost getting to a point where you're just saying "Hitchens creates a bad image for anyone who agrees with him on a subject."
That is such a slippery slope logical fallacy that... well, Christ. That I'm going to bed.
Hey page, can I axe you a question?
To preempt anymore stupidity: I had no part in the production of that video, and I think it's funny.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
So, it's his fault that the average person is too stupid to see the logic in what he says since he assumes intelligence on the part of those who will listen to him, and continue to make him popular; hence he makes it difficult for you hard-pressing soldiers who really don't want to be seen as insensitive as him to those you discuss these sorts of things with.
Good night.
That would be accurate if he focused a great deal on arguing against Mill, and if his material on mill all focused on his blockheadedness to the degree that it made reasonable, respectable discussion of their disparate views impossible.
It's not that he makes people who would share his views look bad, though I would say that he does, it's that he works toward making any worthwhile discussion impossible.
There's a time and a place for childish name-calling. I don't know how society could function without it. It should not be mingled with any attempt at a rational argument against views and positions. Were I to be arguing against the man, I would not insist on calling him an ass. Since I'm not, since I'm essentially using bigger words to call him a "stinky doo-doo head", I feel free to call him an incendiary, counter-productive, pseudo-intellectual ass of the highest degree.
Have a nice sleep.
It's not his fault that the average person is stupid, its his fault that he doesn't acknowledge their stupidty in his methods.
Intelligent people won't listen to him, at least not in a meaningful way. He says what other people have said better, and his primary value is in confirming the beliefs that his audience already holds by restating them in an aggressive and "edgy" way. Whether these people are intelligent is irrelevant. I suspect that you only assume that they're intelligent because they hold these views.
Him, and others like him, are quickly making rational discussion impossible. They're breeding an environment of ideological xenophobia. It doesn't matter which side he appears to be arguing for, what he's actually working toward is balkanized beliefs and an increase in political, religious, and philosophical conflict.
Take that shit to D&D.
We have a faggoty debating subforum for a reason.
It is pretty hilarious.
Just like 9/11 man. Think about it!
the maddest of props for this dead kid
beat you to it yesterday bitch
SCIENCE
Let's see if you can do that same trick-ON FIRE!
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxmkWrDbn34
this is a reference to a humorous web comic strip
Let us celebrate our comradery with a token display.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0quDfpfRUQ&sdig=1
What kind of asshole wastes that many Watermelons