Minuscule, even. Flea-sized. How else am I to interpret Dinesh D'Souza's challenge that he should pick on someone his own size, meaning D'Souza? I've heard D'Souza. He's a babbling pipsqueak. But now he thinks he is a worthy opponent to confront Hitchens, because all the pastors that Hitchens knocks aside as if wielding the jawbone of an ass are such weak and timid little flowers.
Besides, Hitchens is tough and mean. Pastors are inhbited because of their position. They can't respond in kind. So Hitchens can call them names but they can't call him names because they have to show Christian forbearance.
Weird. Check out the Reverend Phelps sometime, or look back at the arrogance and slander of Falwell or Dobson or Robertson. I hate to defend Christians, but good grief…Martin Luther King? William Jennings Bryan? John Brown? Jonathan Edwards? I don't think we should automatically assume we can simply blame wilting Christian forbearance for their failures before the rhetorical onslaught of Hitchens (or Dawkins or any of the other Furies of Atheism, for that matter), since we know at least some are capable of throwing thunderbolts from the pulpit. Rather, we should find fault with their pathetic arguments, and experience shows that D'Souza is capable of waving around a pathetic argument with all the self-confidence of a clown armed with a bladder on a stick.
Despite his pompous bragging about how he'd be a worthy opponent, I don't think I'd be that interested in seeing Bambi meet Godzilla again.
- Log in to post comments
Christian forbearance to slander and bully? On what fucking planet is that - Delusionia IX?
Ah, Christian forbearance- Preachers politely saying that you will be damned for all eternity if you disagree with them. That's not mean, no, not mean at all. Jeebus.
I think a debate between Hitch and Dinesh would be rather entertaining actually.
Well, Dinesh did get something right:
"Pastors are used to speaking in churches where everyone already shares their assumptions."
True, it IS a lot easier to preach to the already converted (isn't there even a saying to that effect...).
"What pastors talk about...is completely irrelevant when they encounter an opponent like Hitchens who rejects the authority of Scripture to adjudicate these questions."
Also true. As long as one concedes the authority of an ancient holy book it is hard to argue against that holy book. Captain Obvious is betting that Hitch would lose all of his debates regarding religion if he started out by saying that he thinks the Bible is correct.
Maybe D'Souza is hoping that Hitch will be wasted and just concede the correctness of the Bible from the start. Maybe D'Souza will arrange to leave some good Scotch out in plain sight...
I'm so pleased to know -- as will 300,000 or so dead Iraqis -- that this is a Christian, and hence forbearing, nation.
On another tangent:
PZ, I believe D'Souza is a bladder on a stick.
Stephen Colbert whipped Dinesh D'Souza.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/17/colbert-nails-dinesh-dsouza/
But now he's going to take on Hitchens? Yeah...
I'd love to see Hitchens, the epitome of the viscious evil atheist, savage Dinesh D'Sleazebag. The scene of the killing will be quite a mess, unless DD sets up the conditions O'Reilley-style.
I'd rather argue with Dawkins than Hitch. Dawkins might allow one to look ignorant and slightly foolish, but Hitch will drive a verbal stake through your heart and not even blink while he's doing it.
Dinesh would not even be a worthy snack for Hitch. For crying out loud, Hitch bitch-slapped Mother Theresa!
mjr.
How about Hitchens' encounter with Sean Insanity? He is not known for his self-restraint, and Hitchens made mince meat of him.
I hope Hitch takes Dinesh up on this.
Hats off to Hitch- he's really been doing the leg work with this book tour of his. He's been talking to EVERYBODY.
I don't like Christopher Hitchens. He's a bully and a lout. The fact that he's undeniably brilliant and that I more often than not agree with him doesn't make me like him any more.
On the other hand, I'd pay to watch him disassemble Dinesh D'Souza.
I fear the scotch will make a mesh
Of more than just that sap Dinesh
Still, a Hitchens' soused would be enough
To end D'Souza's little bluff
If all are sober, well, more's the pity
We'll see whose bloomers get all shitty
+++
As if Hitchens would have trouble with d' souse.
Oh, another interesting debate came to my mind. Given Hitchens' support for the war and GN's founding of the Islamic Free Market Institute, wouldn't it be nice to see him show off against Grover Norquist? I highly doubt the encounter could end in anything but physical violence.
D'dumbass can't even write a factual column, let alone argue with an intellectual.
I've heard Dawkins debate theists, and I'm not sure that his approach can be accurately described as furious. He's certainly not about to hold back with the arguments, but he'll at least be very civil about making you look like an idiot.
What do you suppose Dinesh's motivation for this debate is? Is he so deluded that he thinks he actually has a chance of besting Hitch? Or do you think that it's just a chance to give himself a higher profile, even though he knows that he will be on the losing end of it?
Mosasurus: we're speaking of a man here who has dated Ann Coulter. I think the degree of necessary delusion makes it pretty clear which alternative is the most likely.
"Furies of Atheism"
Oh, I like that very much. It has a nice ring to it.
It's posts like these PZ that make it hard to believe that people that have met you in real life describe you as 'mild-mannered'. Maybe you should do a video post one day to show us all just how badass you really are :D
bladder on a stick
As a trainee pathologist with nightmare memories of prosecting cancer cystectomies, all I can say is that these words put really disturbing images in my head.
I have to ask... did the prostate come attached?
D'Souza's a whimpering little prat. This latest outburst is nothing but a feeble attempt by a wannabe media whore to gain a little attention.
He's jealous --plain and simple.
Weak preachers? Let's see, MLK was told if he went to Memphis he was fairly likely to be killed. His response, more or less "So?" Yeah, D'Souza, MLK was a wimp. Sure.
Wait, I am confused. Why do you want to defend Christians? I certainly acknowledge that there are some remarkable and good people amongst them (such as MLK), but I do not see how that is relevant when you are indicating that being Christian in no way mandates that one show forbearance.
As if Hitchens would have trouble with d' souse.
The souse vs. D'Souza. Very good. :-)
(Hey, I'm a fan of Hitchens, but he seldom appears in public in a completely sober state. I think it's his way of mentally tying one hand behind his back)
Speaking of Rev. Phelps, I just watched Louis Theroux's "The Most Hated Family In America," about the Phelpses. It would be funny if it weren't so sad seeing those poor abused kids, and the clearly tormented young woman who was mouthing the "church's" propaganda while her conflicting emotions played out on her face.
Hitchens is smart. Dinesh is a pseudo-intellectual windbag. He's also an apologist for violent Islam.
He has said:
How can traditional Muslims be expected to show any sympathy toward assaults on their most sacred beliefs and the founder of their way of life? Even if true, such accusations should not be made publicly because their effect is likely to strengthen the worst elements in Islam and make terrorism worse.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/04/02/islam,_a_rel…
That's an appalling thing to say. We're not to exercise our right to free speech and publically criticize the Islamic religion because some nut might become violent if we do? Do we just whisper our criticisms to our significant others in the privacy of our own homes?
Someone is batshit insane. He's one step away from advocating violence.
I hope they debate because I want to see Hitchens decimate D'Souza.
On two hours sleep and staggeringly drunk Hitchens would still make mincemeat of that worthless piece of shit.
The trouble is, will Hitchens be sober when the debate takes place. Hitchens in the bag can get pretty incoherent.
Preachers are trained to preach, not argue/debate/discuss. Going against a Dawkins or Hitchens is out of their weight class. What I'd like to see is a debate with a well-trained Jesuit theologian type.
Which pastors is Hitchens dispatching? Is anyone keeping a list? Any links to debates?
I don't want to see a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. I want to see a drinking contest. (Preferably, to the death... but I'll take what I can get.)
Funny thought really - D'Souza is an opponent of the neocon's war, Hitchens is a supporter. What's a person supposed to do when you disagree with the decent human being, and agree with the thoroughly despicable one?
The old saw about a broken clock being right twice a day no doubt applies.
Well, he's taken on Roger Scruton, Nigel Spivey and Julia Neuberger so I don't think he'll blanche at D'Senseless
(Listen to the podcast here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/books/article1570…
)
Hitchens is a good debater, but the Scot George Galloway did make mincemeat out of him.
Admittedly, Hitchens would make mincemeat out of Dinesh D'Souzaphone, though, and that's why D'Souzaphone is unlikely to debate him.
Actually - it would be quite amusing if Hitchens had spent the day binge drinking worse than usual, and D'Souza triumphantly proclaimed the universal implications of his victory over an opponent who could barely form a coherent sentence as well.
Yes!
However, I've recently read a book on faith and science by such a guy (Hans Küng). Deeply disappointing. Having (of course) established that God can't be disproven, he makes it pretty clear that he just believes because he wants to. He gets a few facts about science wrong in the process, BTW.
ROTFL!!!
Hitchens is a good debater, but the Scot George Galloway did make mincemeat out of him.
Oy vey...i couldn't disagree more. galloway came off as an evasive blowhard and spoke in slogans. his colour by numbers reasoning had him bellowing to the audience...whose supporters outnumbered hitchens...he knows what his phoney antiwar supporters like to hear. no substance. he and d'souza are nothing by fascist apologists.
Is it true that Mr. Hitchens is a total homophobe? I've been meaning to read his new book, but don't feel like forking the money over if it means it's going to a bad cause.
It is my belief that Christopher Hitchens probably has a brother who was seperated from him at birth, and who says exactly the opposite of what Hitchens says.
Wouldn't that be amazing if it were true? It would show that the cosmos was in balance.
Hitchens and D'Souza can both be fired into the sun for all I care. I'll consider Hitchens a force for rationally when he apologizes for being wrong about Iraq (and for viciously slandering everyone who was right about it).
If he wants to blow his goddamn brains out immediately afterwards, that'd win him a few more points.
A force for rationality, that is.
Such a compassionate view you have, Philla.
Nevermind, I think I found the answer to my question: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n04/letters.html
Apparently Hitchens is a homophobe. I guess I'll wait till I can get a used copy of the book.
It is my belief that Christopher Hitchens probably has a brother who was seperated from him at birth, and who says exactly the opposite of what Hitchens says.
Wouldn't that be amazing if it were true? It would show that the cosmos was in balance.
Your wish is my command !
Peter Hitchens
Coattails! D'Souza sales must be going down, so he's trying to pull an Muhammed Ali, and taunt a big-seller into the ring with him. Hah! Ali was a champ, D'Souza is a third-rate pug limited to a jab. The worst thing Hitchens could do to D'Souza is to ignore him, and allow him to fade back into his richly deserved obscurity.
I hope you realize that the footage of Bambi getting squashed by Godzilla was caught by a film crew of ancient Canadians 6000ish years ago. It is well known that Bambi's demise was inadvertant because the Godillas of that time were peace loving vegetarian.
Hitchens would destroy D'Souza. It could be fun to watch.
Btw, D'Souza has a column out today blasting Brownback's NY Times Op-Ed. Strange bedfellows and all that...
Nevermind, I think I found the answer to my question: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n04/letters.html
Apparently Hitchens is a homophobe. I guess I'll wait till I can get a used copy of the book.
The incident cited therein dates from 1983 and quite likely would benefit from more context than was given by that letter-writer. From the evidence presented in the letter, CH is certainly no 'self-professed homophobe', as the letter writer claimed.
As for Hitchens 'today', he cast Falwell down as a homophobe, and also criticized one of his own literary heroes for the same failing , neither of which seem consistent with Hitchens himself holding such views:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/2096920.stm
One reason for the interest of his work is that it shows a man deliberately reading and writing his way out of prejudice; educating himself against his own tendencies. The effort was on the whole successful but (if I may immodestly recommend them) I have two chapters of criticism of Orwell, first for his failure to appreciate feminism and second for his uncontrollable fear and disgust where homosexuality was concerned.
The latter failure was not small, because it led him to write a very vulgar attack on W.H. Auden. Mr Davies is right in any event to say that humans should not be placed on pedestals. Orwell would have agreed with him there and I don't try to make an exception in Orwell's case. .
Interestingly, a recent profile in the New Yorker alluded to Hitchens' own sexual experimentation when he was at university.
(Formatting is all kinds of FUBAR in that last post, sorry. First two sentences are anon's. And the italics in the bbc quote should extend from 'One reason' to 'Orwell's case. The last bit about the New Yorker article is mine.)
As if Hitchens would have trouble with d' souse.
Yes!
However, I've recently read a book on faith and science by such a guy (Hans Küng). Deeply disappointing. Having (of course) established that God can't be disproven, he makes it pretty clear that he just believes because he wants to. He gets a few facts about science wrong in the process, BTW.
ROTFL!!!