Live data from Hacker News

In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

vanityfair.com

91–100 of 228 posts

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not know much about different Christian denominations, but I do come from a Catholic background myself, and I guess Catholicism does qualify as mainstream. I think that according to current Catholic doctrine, if someone does his best to find out the truth, and lives according to what he sincerely believes, he goes to heaven, even if he's wrong in the end. And I think Hitchens qualifies for those qualities (to be…

In Catholic doctrine one who commits a mortal sin without repenting is bound to hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Roman_Catholicism If you look at the three conditions that a sin must meet to be considered a mortal sin, I think there is a very high probability that writing a book titled God Is Not Great is a mortal sin. There are hundreds of things that Christopher did which very likely meet those conditi…

The three conditions for a mortal sin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.

2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).

3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

The question is about point 2. While Hitchens knew that it would be morally unacceptable according to Catholic doctrine, he considered writing the book as the right thing to do according to his own moral standard, so he would not be doing something he considered as a gravely wrong thing to do. Similarly for other people who live according to what they sincerely believe: they are not committing actions with full knowledge that the actions are the wrong thing to do.

It does leave room for interpretation, and can be argued both ways, but I do not wish to be drawn further into a religious discussion.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#92
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I think it's really distasteful that you people use the deaths of people who probably wouldn't have even agreed with the message of that essay to promote the ideas in that essay.

He went in for cancer treatment, so he clearly wanted to avoid death, which is what the essay is about.

Or he just didn't want to die of cancer, but rather of old age.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#93
post #25

dammit. hitchens barely got his trousers off.

Always made me smile when he finished off a debate with the "We've barely got our trousers off" line.

Did he do this often?

I was only aware of him using this turn of phrase when debating O'Reilly ("We barely got our trousers off, we should pursue this.")

[youtube link taken down by Fox News, sorry]

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#94

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where s…

"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it." "all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness to find insult, nothing legitimate.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#95
post #80
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

> Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx. Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block co…

> Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist".

He is indeed quoted as saying "I'm not a marxist, I'm Marx."

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#96
post #80
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

> Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx. Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block co…

[deleted]

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#97
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always made me smile when he finished off a debate with the "We've barely got our trousers off" line.

Did he do this often? I was only aware of him using this turn of phrase when debating O'Reilly ("We barely got our trousers off, we should pursue this.") [youtube link taken down by Fox News, sorry]

Here's another time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm3whAxMgdc. I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it a few times.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#98
post #90
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "his willingness to debate" Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate: In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he descri…

I read Hitchens's letter and the reply. Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity. Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitc…

You seem to split hairs here.

For me, using a reference to a sexual position as a title of a book about a respectable worldwide admired nun /is/ "Disgusting or repulsive", which is definition number 3 in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obscene

NB: I am all but a puritan, I like some disgusting things sometime. I don't care how Hitchens title his books. I just deeply dislike bad faith, a more traditional way to describe trollism.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#100
post #88

Christoper Hitchens. Rest in Peace. One of the most articulate people, always incisive, even when I disagreed with him. I saw Hitchens speak at the New York Public Library, as part of their Live! series. Everyone retired to the garden afterwards, to take drinks. I spoke with Hitchens briefly. He called Mother Theresa "a bitch". I criticized his diction and argued that bitch was the wrong epithet. I don't recall my ex…

That's actually an interesting anecdote, because it demonstrates a willingness to admit when he was wrong, something that is often uncommon among so-called "great thinkers" - especially when they're engaging with a member of the "ordinary public". (My apologies if you're actually quite extraordinary.)
Post reply on HN