Chris Hitchens' Marvelous Opening Statement

[Minimalist]

For 20 minutes he rips the church a new asshole.  Deservedly so!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Always relevant.

[Cavebear]

For 20 minutes he rips the church a new asshole.  Deservedly so!

That was just jaw-dropping!! I listened to it to the last word. I have always liked him, but my opinion just went up a few steps. I have read his books, but I never heard him speak before. I wish I could give him "reputation points", but he sure doesn't need any from me.

He really laid a history of Catholic Church failures into the audience! Straight-forward, brutal, but factual... He named names, described particular events, and explained why those Catholic Church actions were wrong and unethical.

I noticed he got some applause. I also noticed many people in the audience not applauding. So, in spite of the long list of crimes of the Catholic Church through its history, many in the audience refused to acknowledge them. That says a lot.

And it's not just the Catholic Church, of course. Every religion has a bad history they ignore because they cannot defend it. The Protestants were as barbaric as the Catholics at times. The Hindus and Moslems massacre each other in India and other places.

Even Buddhists can be violent. According to Wikipedia, "As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception. This article discusses Buddhist principles with regard to violence, and also provides certain, historical instances concerning the use of violence by Buddhists, including acts of aggression committed by Buddhists with political and socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes".

So it isn't just the Catholic Church. Look deep enough and all theisms resort to or support violence against the other ones and justify it. Every theism really does seem to hate every theism other than their own.

But Higgins sure did "rip" the Catholic Church on that speech (and well did they deserve it).

[Inkubus]

I noticed he got some applause.  I also noticed many people in the audience not applauding.  So, in spite of the long list of crimes of the Catholic Church through its history, many in the audience refused to acknowledge them.  That says a lot.

A lot of then did but you have to watch the whole thing. Two hours long but the finest demolition job I've ever seen.



I don't know that bishop dude but the simple twat Ann Widdecombe should have known what she signed up for. It wasn't a debate it was a rout.

[Cavebear]

I noticed he got some applause.  I also noticed many people in the audience not applauding.  So, in spite of the long list of crimes of the Catholic Church through its history, many in the audience refused to acknowledge them.  That says a lot.

A lot of then did but you have to watch the whole thing. Two hours long but the finest demolition job I've ever seen.



I don't know that bishop dude but the simple twat Ann Widdecombe should have known what she signed up for. It wasn't a debate it was a rout.

Actually, I don't know who organized this event or what it was about.  I only know the video of his speech and I replied about that.  And I may have misunderstood the event and the audience.  What was this all about anyway?

But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again! That suggests something I did not post. Changing a post of another person is very near unforgivable.

You can apologize profusely... And no, I am not joking...

[Inkubus]

A lot of then did but you have to watch the whole thing. Two hours long but the finest demolition job I've ever seen.



I don't know that bishop dude but the simple twat Ann Widdecombe should have known what she signed up for. It wasn't a debate it was a rout.

Actually, I don't know who organized this event or what it was about.  I only know the video of his speech and I replied about that.  And I may have misunderstood the event and the audience.  What was this all about anyway?

But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again!  That suggests something I did not post.  Changing a post of another person is very near unforgivable.  

You can apologize profusely...  And no, I am not joking...

[Cavebear]

Actually, I don't know who organized this event or what it was about.  I only know the video of his speech and I replied about that.  And I may have misunderstood the event and the audience.  What was this all about anyway?

But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again!  That suggests something I did not post.  Changing a post of another person is very near unforgivable.  

You can apologize profusely...  And no, I am not joking...

You changed my original post with colors. You can't do that. Any alteration of a person's original post is wrong. Do it later in your own post. Just don't alter the "original post" in any way. Get it?

[airportkid]

But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again!  That suggests something I did not post. 

He didn't alter your post, he excerpted from it, a not just acceptable practice but the preferred practice so as to make clear what is being responded to.  He could have excerpted solely the portion he tinted, but he tinted the core point and kept adjoining text for context.  Double A-Plus for form and coherence.  He did not in any way suggest something other than your intended observation.

He also posted the full debate, to provide context for Hitchens' talk.  Watch the full debate to learn its purpose.  It's along the lines of TED talks, except run under the auspices of Intelligence Squared Debates, which address topical and controversial issues in depth and with the fairest possible representation of the opposing sides.  Riveting stuff - that changes minds.  Finding fair representatives on both sides can be challenging, and in two debates they had to use Dinesh D'Souza because the D'Souza side really had no good faith proponents.

[Cavebear]

[quote="Cavebear" pid='398513' dateline='1684658551']
But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again!  That suggests something I did not post. 

He didn't altar your post, he exerted from ita not just acceptable practice but the unpreferred practice so as to make clear what is being responded to could have excerpted solely the portion he tainted, but he also tainted the core point and kept adjoining text for context Double APlus bad form and little coherence.  He did suggesting something other than your intended observation.
/quote]

Would you like it if someone else started emphasizing parts of your posts within your posts to suggest emphasis where you didn't mean it, at their own choosing?  That's giving someone else conterol over your own posts.  Replies are fine and basically "have at".  But no one should change the content or appeareance of someone else's post.  How about if they changed underlines?  How about if they changed capitalizations.  How about if they changed punctuations.  Would you be OK with that?  

Changing another person's post is bad.  Take a look at your above reply now. (I'll wait)..  Get the point about "changes"?  Don't anyone do that ever again in the least bit!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you like it if someone else started emphasizing parts of your posts within your posts to suggest emphasis where you didn't mean it, at their own choosing?  That's giving someone else conterol over your own posts.  Replies are fine and basically "have at".  But no one should change the content or appeareance of someone else's post.  How about if they changed underlines?  How about if they changed capitalizations.  How about if they changed punctuations.  Would you be OK with that?  

Changing another person's post is bad.  Take a look at your above reply now. (I'll wait)..  Get the point about "changes"?  Don't anyone do that ever again in the least bit!

Get over yourself, assmunch.

[Dom]

[quote="Cavebear" pid='398513' dateline='1684658551']
But don't you ever change a part of my post even to just "change just the colors" ever ever again!  That suggests something I did not post. 

He didn't altar your post, he exerted from ita not just acceptable practice but the unpreferred practice so as to make clear what is being responded to could have excerpted solely the portion he tainted, but he also tainted the core point and kept adjoining text for context Double APlus bad form and little coherence.  He did suggesting something other than your intended observation.
/quote]

Would you like it if someone else started emphasizing parts of your posts within your posts to suggest emphasis where you didn't mean it, at their own choosing?  That's giving someone else conterol over your own posts.  Replies are fine and basically "have at".  But no one should change the content or appeareance of someone else's post.  How about if they changed underlines?  How about if they changed capitalizations.  How about if they changed punctuations.  Would you be OK with that?  

Changing another person's post is bad.  Take a look at your above reply now. (I'll wait)..  Get the point about "changes"?  Don't anyone do that ever again in the least bit!

Bear, it's common debate practice and he did it perfectly.

If you think it emphasized the wrong thing, then point that out.

[Cranky]

Getting back to the topic at hand. As an ex-Catholic one thing resonated with me in his speech, that the Church is always playing catch-up with what is right. You'd think an institution possessing the "Truth" (capital "T" as it likes to put it), might have a bit of an inside track on what's right and what's wrong. Another good example he didn't mention was the residential school system in my country, Canada, largely run the the Church's religious orders (and less so by various Protestant Churches), practiced cultural genocide. And of course like elsewhere in the world, physically, mentally and sexually abused the pupils entrusted to their care. Actually they weren't "entrusted". They were literally abducted by the government and shipped off to these horrid schools, in many cases never to be heard from again. Violence in the service of "Truth" as Mr. Hitchens mentioned. What it really is, is doing violence to the truth.

It's too bad he's no longer with us. I'd love to hear him tackle the dogma and doctrine next (or maybe he already has elsewhere). Beginning with the fallacy of the virgin birth, a dogma that does violence to another dogma, that Jesus was fully man and fully god. It would seem that if he was conceived without a Y-chromosome, the dogma should state that he was fully *woman* and fully god... wouldn't that turn the misogynistic church on its ear.

Once the dogma of the virgin birth is shown to be bullshit, then all the other dogmas follow it like a collapsing house of cards.

The biggest, largest shame in my life is that I, with a science degree and having worked as an applied scientist for years, actually tried to believe this shit for too long. At some point in the last couple of years, I was no longer able to fool myself into believing this nonsense, and was no longer capable of the mental gymnastics needed to defend it to people more sane than I was at the time.

[Cavebear]

Would you like it if someone else started emphasizing parts of your posts within your posts to suggest emphasis where you didn't mean it, at their own choosing?  That's giving someone else conterol over your own posts.  Replies are fine and basically "have at".  But no one should change the content or appeareance of someone else's post.  How about if they changed underlines?  How about if they changed capitalizations.  How about if they changed punctuations.  Would you be OK with that?  

Changing another person's post is bad.  Take a look at your above reply now. (I'll wait)..  Get the point about "changes"?  Don't anyone do that ever again in the least bit!

I am so sorry and beg for your forgiveness. I am a real ass-munch.

Get it yet? Changing a previous comment IN ANY WAY is a really bad idea. I wasn't trying to attack anyone. I just want my posts to stay as originally sent.

[Obviously the changes I made to other peoples' comments were for example only]...

[Cavebear]

He didn't altar your post, he exerted from ita not just acceptable practice but the unpreferred practice so as to make clear what is being responded to could have excerpted solely the portion he tainted, but he also tainted the core point and kept adjoining text for context Double APlus bad form and little coherence.  He did suggesting something other than your intended observation.
/quote]

Would you like it if someone else started emphasizing parts of your posts within your posts to suggest emphasis where you didn't mean it, at their own choosing?  That's giving someone else conterol over your own posts.  Replies are fine and basically "have at".  But no one should change the content or appeareance of someone else's post.  How about if they changed underlines?  How about if they changed capitalizations.  How about if they changed punctuations.  Would you be OK with that?  

Changing another person's post is bad.  Take a look at your above reply now. (I'll wait)..  Get the point about "changes"?  Don't anyone do that ever again in the least bit!

Bear, it's common debate practice and he did it perfectly.

If you think it emphasized the wrong thing, then point that out.

I disagree.  Altering comments internally changes the history and meaning.of them.  And here I was about to ask you for support on this basic falsification of comments...  Guess I was wrong.

Had he said it after and separate from my comment, I would have no objection.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am so sorry and beg for your forgiveness.  I am a real ass-munch.

Get it yet?  Changing a previous comment IN ANY WAY is a really bad idea.  I wasn't trying to attack anyone.  I just want my posts to stay as originally sent.

[Obviously the changes I made to other peoples' comments were for example only]...

It doesn't bother me at all, because you included the link to my original post. Had you been serious, I'd only have to reply with "Except that is not what I wrote", inviting others to follow that link and read for themselves my exact words ... which would powerfully impugn your credibility at that point. Or I could acknowledge that you were being sarcastic and go on with my point. Either way, any hypothetical modification of my post on your part does me no harm at all.

The fact that someone may emphasize a passage for clarity doesn't bother me at all, either. They're simply easing the process of following the conversation for other readers.

So no, I think your hand-wringing is ... well ... hand-wringing.

[Cavebear]

Get it yet?  Changing a previous comment IN ANY WAY is a really bad idea.  I wasn't trying to attack anyone.  I just want my posts to stay as originally sent.

[Obviously the changes I made to other peoples' comments were for example only]...

It doesn't bother me at all, because you included the link to my original post. Had you been serious, I'd only have to reply with "Except that is not what I wrote", inviting others to follow that link and read for themselves my exact words ... which would powerfully impugn your credibility at that point. Or I could acknowledge that you were being sarcastic and go on with my point. Either way, any hypothetical modification of my post on your part does me no harm at all.

The fact that someone may emphasize a passage for clarity doesn't bother me at all, either. They're simply easing the process of following the conversation for other readers.

So no, I think your hand-wringing is ... well ... hand-wringing.

Well, as an atheist, I am sort of used to being of the minority opinion and defending it. I see little support for my objection to altered comments (which surprises me), but I will maintain it internally without much more comment (unless addressed). I did sort of think my examples would get a point across, but apparently not.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I got your point, I just think it is not worth much given the ability of readers to figure out who's full of shit and who isn't.

[Cavebear]

I got your point, I just think it is not worth much given the ability of readers to figure out who's full of shit and who isn't.

Just fixing an error in your post.

[Dom]

I got your point, I just think it is not worth much given the ability of readers to figure out who's full of shit and who isn't.

Just fixing an error in your post.  

Excerpts are not the same as correction of typos.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I got your point, I just think it is not worth much given the ability of readers to figure out who's full of shit and who isn't.

Just fixing an error in your post.  

Always appreciated, though the correct way to emend an error is to place the missing letter in b[r]ackets.

[Cavebear]

Just fixing an error in your post.  

Excerpts are not the same as correction of typos.

You missed my point. After I said I wouldn't push the matter any farther, Thump did. Just playing with him for that...

[Dom]

Excerpts are not the same as correction of typos.

You missed my point.  After I said I wouldn't push the matter any farther, Thump did.  Just playing with him for that...  

Well, I think 

[Cavebear]

You missed my point.  After I said I wouldn't push the matter any farther, Thump did.  Just playing with him for that...  

Well, I think 

What on Earth IS that?

[Alan V]

Well, I think 

What on Earth IS that?

A cross sun is beating a horse's genitals with a gorse bush of course.

It's obvious what everyone means by what they post!   

[Cavebear]

What on Earth IS that?

A cross sun is beating a horse's genitals with a gorse bush of course.

It's obvious what everyone means by what they post!   

Well, yeah, obviously that was a gorse brush. I have a dozen in my pantry. The cats love them. Of course I knew that. Um, and that was the yellow M&M, right?. And um... um,,,

OK... yeah that one confused the hell out of me.