The Hitch is dead.

The Mad Hatter

There's a debate between Christopher and Peter online somewhere, on religion and the Iraq war, interesting partly because they discuss growing up together. Sibling rivalry is common in families, but I think the kind of family is rare that requires the father to draw up a peace treaty between the two brothers.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apologies if this is a reproduction.

The other Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, who just so happens to be a Christian, wrote a brief memorial article about his brother here. I happen to have listened to one of his debates before (Peter that is) and it is remarkable to note that both brothers were cut from the same cloth. It's strange to hear the similarities between them in terms of rhetorical style.

Except Peter Hitchens is a dick.

R P McMurphy

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

There's a debate between Christopher and Peter online somewhere, on religion and the Iraq war, interesting partly because they discuss growing up together. Sibling rivalry is common in families, but I think the kind of family is rare that requires the father to draw up a peace treaty between the two brothers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJdTjsZeeio

I think that his stance on the Iraq war showed up a fundamental flaw with CH. While he had some great writings, he clearly couldn't admit that his position on the Iraq war was based on a false premise and used shoddy info to try to substantiate his claims even when US Neo-cons gave up

The Mad Hatter

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I think that his stance on the Iraq war showed up a fundamental flaw with CH. While he had some great writings, he clearly couldn't admit that his position on the Iraq war was based on a false premise and used shoddy info to try to substantiate his claims even when US Neo-cons gave up

His arguments in favour of the Iraq war were at least consistent, and I don't know anyone else of whom I can say that. In general, he stood against tyranny in all its forms, and that was why he supported war in Iraq, not because of any fictional weapons of mass destruction or links to extremist terrorist organisations. As a result, he could continue to make his case long after people like Bush and Blair had lost credibility.

R P McMurphy

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

His arguments in favour of the Iraq war were at least consistent, and I don't know anyone else of whom I can say that. In general, he stood against tyranny in all its forms, and that was why he supported war in Iraq, not because of any fictional weapons of mass destruction or links to extremist terrorist organisations. As a result, he could continue to make his case long after people like Bush and Blair had lost credibility.

Consistently bogus that is. He adopted a position that was bogus and then wouldn't back down. Opposing tyranny by supporting a 'shock and awe' armed campaign on the Iraqi population

Arcus Arrow

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Yeah, you see, this is the problem I always had with Hitchens and Dawkins, they would debate or interview people they knew they would slaughter. Ann Widdecombe, jesus....

On the night, all things considered, Ann Widdecombe held her end up very well. The bishop drifted off into detached musing and irrelevant personal anecdotes.

The debate was organised by IQ2 so they presumably invited the speakers on either side. When Hitchens toured to promote his book God is Not Great he took on all comers so your'e just talking bollocks.

As regards Iraq when Hitchens debated (or rather wiped the floor with-) John Wishy Watery in the Gate on the subject of religion some balloon from the audience tried to bring up the war in Iraq.

Hitchens replied:

Fuuck Off.

Arcus Arrow

And if anyone wants to remember Christopher Hitchens by imitating something he did it might be more fitting to stand against the poison of religion outside the Pro Cathedral next Saturday night when the Cloyne report will be burned.

He didn't just drink whiskey and the price of a bottle would cover the taxi fare.

Galvasean

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Yeah, you see, this is the problem I always had with Hitchens and Dawkins, they would debate or interview people they knew they would slaughter. Ann Widdecombe, jesus....

I don't ever recall Hitchens shying away from a debate with anyone. He seemed quite happy to take on all comers. Bill Maher is no sloth, but that didn't stop Hitchens from taking him on on Maher's own TV show in front of a hostile audience.

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Except Peter Hitchens is a dick.

What has your personal dislike of PH got to do with the eulogy he wrote to his brother?


On another note, I'm curious why those people who feel such affection for CH went out and purchased a bottle of his favourite drink and raised a glass (or even a bottle) to his memory. Would it not be better to donate the €20 to cancer research instead?

the_antagonist

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Consistently bogus that is. He adopted a position that was bogus and then wouldn't back down. Opposing tyranny by supporting a 'shock and awe' armed campaign on the Iraqi population

Hitchens was never afraid of changing his position once the facts showed he was wrong. It's one of the main reasons I have so much respect for him.

Hitchens supported the war in Iraq mainly for reasons which had little to do with the reasons the Bush administration were pushing. He supported the removal of Saddam and would have supported any war to remove him regardless of 9/11 or any rumors of WMD's.

He supported Thatcher in the Falklands war for a similar reason and went against most of the Left in the UK in doing so. But his reasons for supporting it were not in line with the Right in the UK either. He believed that winning the Falklands war would aid in the removal of the dictator in Argentina and he was right.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

]
On another note, I'm curious why those people who feel such affection for CH went out and purchased a bottle of his favourite drink and raised a glass (or even a bottle) to his memory. Would it not be better to donate the €20 to cancer research instead?

You can't drink that! :pac:

Wereghost

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On another note, I'm curious why those people who feel such affection for CH went out and purchased a bottle of his favourite drink and raised a glass (or even a bottle) to his memory. Would it not be better to donate the €20 to cancer research instead?

Not everyone is an "either-or" person.

MagicMarker

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What has your personal dislike of PH got to do with the eulogy he wrote to his brother?


On another note, I'm curious why those people who feel such affection for CH went out and purchased a bottle of his favourite drink and raised a glass (or even a bottle) to his memory. Would it not be better to donate the €20 to cancer research instead?

€37 actually.

And no.

Fanny Cradock

Scrawny71 wrote: »

Not everyone is an "either-or" person.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting otherwise. No doubt there are many here who give generously to charitable causes and may well have continued this in response to CH's passing. My question was directed at those people who seemingly are the either/ or types - at least with respects to this thread. The reason I ask is because I think it curious that alcohol is seen as an appropriate eulogy. I suspect there would be less people willing to light up a fag in his memory. And while I am not saying that his reported fondness for alcohol was a definite contributory factor in his death, it seems plausible that it was. I would have thought that fighting against the thing that killed him is in everybody's interest.

But, hey, different courses and all that.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The reason I ask is because I think it curious that alcohol is seen as an appropriate eulogy.

It's what the man enjoyed. I'm sure he would not have liked a mass in his honor.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

It's what the man enjoyed. I'm sure he would not have liked a mass in his honor.

No, I don't suppose he would have liked a mass in his honour. That's why I never suggested that he be given one.

Anyway, before this starts to generate unwanted heat I'll bow out.

Sonics2k

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed. I'm not suggesting otherwise. No doubt there are many here who give generously to charitable causes and may well have continued this in response to CH's passing. My question was directed at those people who seemingly are the either/ or types - at least with respects to this thread. The reason I ask is because I think it curious that alcohol is seen as an appropriate eulogy. I suspect there would be less people willing to light up a fag in his memory. And while I am not saying that his reported fondness for alcohol was a definite contributory factor in his death, it seems plausible that it was. I would have thought that fighting against the thing that killed him is in everybody's interest.

But, hey, different courses and all that.

It's very common for people to have a drink in memory of someone.

My family and I have a glass of Sherry every year on Christmas day, because it was my Great-Grandmothers favourite drink. We all do it, even the ones who hate sherry.

I'll be having a shot Tequila in memory of one of my best friends who passed away last January, as it was his favourite drink.

oceanclub

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't ever recall Hitchens shying away from a debate with anyone. He seemed quite happy to take on all comers. Bill Maher is no sloth, but that didn't stop Hitchens from taking him on on Maher's own TV show in front of a hostile audience.

I saw a tribute from a fundamentalist who made this same point; when Hitchens released "God is not Great", he specifically asked for his tour to consist of debates against Christians and not just do talks to the already-converted (so to speak).

P.

R P McMurphy

the_antagonist wrote: »

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Consistently bogus that is. He adopted a position that was bogus and then wouldn't back down. Opposing tyranny by supporting a 'shock and awe' armed campaign on the Iraqi population

Hitchens was never afraid of changing his position once the facts showed he was wrong. It's one of the main reasons I have so much respect for him.

Hitchens supported the war in Iraq mainly for reasons which had little to do with the reasons the Bush administration were pushing. He supported the removal of Saddam and would have supported any war to remove him regardless of 9/11 or any rumors of WMD's.

He supported Thatcher in the Falklands war for a similar reason and went against most of the Left in the UK in doing so. But his reasons for supporting it were not in line with the Right in the UK either. He believed that winning the Falklands war would aid in the removal of the dictator in Argentina and he was right.

One of the main reasons he supported the war was the supposed proliferation of fundamentalist terrorist groups in iraq. There was little evidence to back up this assertion and was indeed false. Supporting the removal of a dictator through means which would involve the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians is a fundamentally flawed position

Turtwig

Here is Stephen Novella's excellent, imo, tribute.

News of the death of Christopher Hitchens has by now worked its way around the internet and around the world. I first heard of it from a fellow skeptic in Australia. Hitchens was a great intellectual light in this world and it is always sad to see such a light go out.

I have been reading his column for years. Every Monday I eagerly read his take on world news or modern culture. He was an exceptional investigative journalist. You did not have to agree with his point of view to gain insight into the issues he covered. In fact he was one of those rare writers who was more useful and provocative when you did disagree with him – because he challenged your views with overlooked facts and interesting analysis. I am really not aware of anyone writing today who will fill the niche he occupied in my weekly reading.

I also admired Hitchens for being an outspoken unapologetic atheist. There too he filled an important role – exposing the intellectual shenanigans of many religious leaders and helping to mainstream non-belief. Whether or not you hold any particular religious belief, you should still be able to appreciate the force of his arguments. Criticizing religion and certain religious figures has been taboo in many cultures, and Hitchens calmly and fearlessly exposed folly in the name of religion without concern for such taboos. In doing so he made a larger point – intellectual honesty and free inquiry demands that there are no taboos. Our thoughts and arguments should be free to go wherever logic and evidence leads, and it is the job of a journalist, in particular, to go there.

I had the pleasure of interviewing him once (available here, and an extended and uncensored version is available here), during which he stated that he did not get his news from newspapers or other journalists. He had a healthy skepticism for any second hand information, and a general disrespect for the average journalist. He would gather his own news from sources as close to primary as possible.

Hitchens announced in the Spring of 2010 that he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. It was clear from the beginning that his cancer was bad, not curable and likely to be rapidly fatal. He underwent chemotherapy, but no surgery. We therefore knew this day was coming. During the past year and a half, however, Hitchens continued to investigate, write, and live – although he was candid about the changes in his life. He wrote many articles about the impact of cancer on his life, all worth reading. Here is one such passage:

Nobody wants to be told about the countless minor horrors and humiliations that become facts of “life” when your body turns from being a friend to being a foe: the boring switch from chronic constipation to its sudden dramatic opposite; the equally nasty double cross of feeling acute hunger while fearing even the scent of food; the absolute misery of gut-wringing nausea on an utterly empty stomach; or the pathetic discovery that hair loss extends to the disappearance of the follicles in your nostrils, and thus to the childish and irritating phenomenon of a permanently runny nose. Sorry, but you did ask … It’s no fun to appreciate to the full the truth of the materialist proposition that I don’t have a body, I am a body.

Hitchens faced his cancer exactly as I imagined he would (if his public writing is any guide) – fearless, intellectually honest and unapologetic. He blamed nothing and no one but himself for his condition – he said it was an almost boringly predictable consequence of his habits. And he was honest about the materialist world view when it comes to facing mortality.

His fellow materialists have to face this reality as well. Hitchens is gone. His brain – which was everything he thought, felt, remembered, and all the insight he had to offer the world – no longer functions, and never will function again. The same fate awaits us all. Without regret, Hitchens seemed to understand the flip side of this reality – we are the lucky few who get to live. So make the most of it while you can.

Source.

ShooterSF

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed. I'm not suggesting otherwise. No doubt there are many here who give generously to charitable causes and may well have continued this in response to CH's passing. My question was directed at those people who seemingly are the either/ or types - at least with respects to this thread. The reason I ask is because I think it curious that alcohol is seen as an appropriate eulogy. I suspect there would be less people willing to light up a fag in his memory. And while I am not saying that his reported fondness for alcohol was a definite contributory factor in his death, it seems plausible that it was. I would have thought that fighting against the thing that killed him is in everybody's interest.

But, hey, different courses and all that.

It's a reasonable question. But most people that raised a glass to the man's honour were possibly showing respect for his attitude to enjoy the pleasures of life. I doubt he would have given up drink if he thought it would extend his life as it would have just made it longer but less fun. (I'm not saying drink is the only pleasure in life either)
Mourning and drink also tend to go hand in hand in society in general. You wouldn't suggest a cancer victims family pool together the money they spend after a funeral for research instead of having a few drinks...

[-0-]

Emile Hirsch's tribute is fantastic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emile-hirsch/christopher-hitchens-books_b_1154389.html

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I don't suppose he would have liked a mass in his honour. That's why I never suggested that he be given one.

Anyway, before this starts to generate unwanted heat I'll bow out.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply you did. I was using it as an example of a tribute he probably would not have liked in defense of drinking in his honor..

Fanny Cradock

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's a reasonable question. But most people that raised a glass to the man's honour were possibly showing respect for his attitude to enjoy the pleasures of life. I doubt he would have given up drink if he thought it would extend his life as it would have just made it longer but less fun. (I'm not saying drink is the only pleasure in life either)
Mourning and drink also tend to go hand in hand in society in general. You wouldn't suggest a cancer victims family pool together the money they spend after a funeral for research instead of having a few drinks...

Thanks for the answer.

No, I wouldn't ever suggest such a thing. But as was pointed out earlier in the thread, this is not an either/ or situation. I would expect that if somebody touched your life in some meaningful way this would server as the impetus to fight against the thing that cut theirs down. I've no problem with people raising a glass. But I am curious why some people - if I am understanding their posts correctly (I may well not) - would leave it at that.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no problem with people raising a glass. But I am curious why some people - if I am understanding their posts correctly (I may well not) - would leave it at that.

It's a fair enough question. Personally I raised a glass in his honor but have not been inspired to step up my donations to cancer based charities. I do plenty of charity work in my own time, however I do not feel compelled to increase my charitable output every time something bad happens. If you were to boil it down every time a person buys a can of beer, a new jacket, goes to the cinema or anything for that matter that is not charity there is always the notion that said money could have been put to better use. People can call me selfish if they wish, but personally I will not devote my every waking hour / every last cent to charitable causes. I simply don't want to. (Incredibly rare examples excluded) everyone on this planet could be more charitable.

The Quadratic Equation

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On another note, I'm curious why those people who feel such affection for CH went out and purchased a bottle of his favourite drink and raised a glass (or even a bottle) to his memory. Would it not be better to donate the €20 to cancer research instead?

The ironic thing is, going by his alleged favourites, he knew feck all about Whiskey either.

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The ironic thing is, going by his alleged favourites, he knew feck all about Whiskey either.

How is that ironic?

Zillah

Starting right now on Current TV (183 on Sky) is "Stephen Fry and Friends: Christopher Hitchens". As I understand it, it's a bunch of smart and charming people sitting around talking about the loves, hates and interests of Christopher Hitchens. Not sure if its live or not, but its scheduled until eight.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

I was using it as an example of a tribute he probably would not have liked in defense of drinking in his honor..

To clarify. I'm not saying that raising a glass to Hichens is in and of itself wrong. I really don't care what people do with their whiskey. However, in terms of consequences such a private ceremony has very little lasting impact on anyone - possibly even yourself. A donation to charity X (be it involved in research or palliative care) would surely have the potential to make more of a difference.

Socialist_Pig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

light up a fag in his memory

we dont burn fags in this forum!!:pac: