Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Asherahan]

There was less justification when we did it to austria hungary. And let me remind you they didn't murder millions.

The way we handled the end of WWI was completely wrong.

Fuck no it was absolutely correct at least regarding Austria Hungary we should have done the same for Germany in WW2.

[Novus America]

The way we handled the end of WWI was completely wrong.

Fuck no it was absolutely correct at least regarding Austria Hungary we should have done the same for Germany in WW2.

Austria Hungary was a victim of Serbian unconventional warfare.
Austria Hungary was fully justified in going to war. Serbia was the most guilty party by far.

And as much as Germany’s pro Russia stance annoys me at times, they are not particularly dangerous.
So why? To stop what? The militarily weak and virtually defenseless (besides NATO) Germany we have today?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.

[Camelone]

So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.

He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.

He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.

He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.

[Torrocca]

Took a minute, tops.

See how that post OEP quoted says nothing about shooting and killing Nazis? :3

You conveniently left out the post where I point blank asked you how else you expected to kill them, to which you completely side stepped. It's also incredibly funny that, for someone who always attempts to subscribe motives to my own posts, yours are somehow immune to that.

Nah, I didn't conveniently sidestep anything. You kept insinuating that that post was suggesting to kill all Nazis, which it clearly didn't say at all to anyone with a reading comprehension greater than a rock's. :3

[Camelone]

He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.

He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.

I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.

I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.

If the razor has been used in a way which is stupid, I would say that that is because it has been misapplied rather than that the razor itself is at fault. It need not be profound or wise, it need only be logical, and as far as I can tell, it is. The razor is simply the idea that if you provide no reasoning or evidence to back up a claim, that claim can be discarded with an equivalent lack of effort. I've yet to see a claim provided with no evidence that I would disapprove of someone discarding without evidence, and I would be glad to offer my reasoning for human rights if need be.

If he self-describes himself as an anti-theist, I won't defend that. I find anti-theism to be smug, bigoted and all-round cringy just as much as anti-atheism. I would definitely appreciate him being a bit more clear on what his philosophy was, but I never found it necessary for him to explain his own beliefs during God Is Not Great, as I never found any of his moral assumptions i.e "'murder is wrong" to be controversial. Arguing why murder is wrong would in my mind have detracted from the book.

[Proctopeo]

Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.

[Camelone]

I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.

If the razor has been used in a way which is stupid, I would say that that is because it has been misapplied rather than that the razor itself is at fault. It need not be profound or wise, it need only be logical, and as far as I can tell, it is. The razor is simply the idea that if you provide no reasoning or evidence to back up a claim, that claim can be discarded with an equivalent lack of effort. I've yet to see a claim provided with no evidence that I would disapprove of someone discarding without evidence, and I would be glad to offer my reasoning for human rights if need be.

If he self-describes himself as an anti-theist, I won't defend that. I find anti-theism to be smug, bigoted and all-round cringy just as much as anti-atheism. I would definitely appreciate him being a bit more clear on what his philosophy was, but I never found it necessary for him to explain his own beliefs during God Is Not Great, as I never found any of his moral assumptions i.e "'murder is wrong" to be controversial. Arguing why murder is wrong would in my mind have detracted from the book.

What is evidence though? Everyone has evidence for their points of view, if they think about it that is, but what evidence should be considered worthy of consideration and what evidence should be thrown out. Plus it is merely a redundancy of previously stated logical razors, so perhaps I should change my take on it. Christopher Hitchenson did not create anything but repackaged old logical razors without any good additions. I have no doubt you have decent reasoning for human rights.

I can agree to that with anti-theism and anti-atheism being both rather annoying ideologies, that doesn’t mean that I as a Christian won’t try to convert someone because well if I truly believe my faith than it would be cruel not to at least open the dialogue. I’m taking it that you mean anti-atheism in the sense of looking down on atheists?

By the way do you think it would be interesting to read Rage Against God by his brother Peter Hitchenson who is a Christian? I’ve actually not read the book in its entirety but comparing the two brothers might be interesting.

[Camelone]

Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.

Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.

[The Columbia-Republic]

Continuing from the last thread, Wilson was legitimately awful all things considered, he even screwed the peace negotiations to grandstand about his dream, which would become the... League of Nations.

While I'm salty about Wilson for obvious reasons, I honestly think that even as a US president, he was nowhere as bad as, say, Andrew Jackson (Especially for his trail of tears) in my personal opinion.

Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.

[The South Falls]

While I'm salty about Wilson for obvious reasons, I honestly think that even as a US president, he was nowhere as bad as, say, Andrew Jackson (Especially for his trail of tears) in my personal opinion.

Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.

He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.

[The Columbia-Republic]

Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.

He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.

So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

[The South Falls]

He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.

So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

You need to read some history on FDR lol

[Epicurustan]

Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.

Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.

Scientific inquiry cares little about subjective interpretations of an event.

I could say the same of theists who argue that X is more than material things because reasons.

[Nova Cyberia]

So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

[Epicurustan]

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

Best=/=flawless

[Camelone]

Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.

Scientific inquiry cares little about subjective interpretations of an event.

I could say the same of theists who argue that X is more than material things because reasons.

I was talking about philosophy and theology not the material sciences which while noble in discovering the workings of the creation of God are not in need of any logical razors except for Occam’s.

That wasn’t my point at all, my point was that it doesn’t take into account what evidence is within the philosophical, and by extension theological, fields.

[Nova Cyberia]

Best=/=flawless

Ideologically he was garbage.

He was a good wartime president. That much can't be denied, and I have a lasting respect for him for that reason. But he had too many failings in my eyes.

[The South Falls]

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

You need to read some history on FDR lol

Internment camps... yea. Racism... yea. I think I should have thought before saying that.

[The South Falls]

Best president was cory from cory in the house

[Epicurustan]

Best=/=flawless

Ideologically he was garbage.

He was a good wartime president. That much can't be denied, and I have a lasting respect for him for that reason. But he had too many failings in my eyes.

Good thing ideology's don't matter much when politics gets practical.

I was talking about philosophy and theology not the material sciences which while noble in discovering the workings of the creation of God are not in need of any logical razors except for Occam’s.

That wasn’t my point at all, my point was that it doesn’t take into account what evidence is within the philosophical, and by extension theological, fields.

Again my point stands, the reason is that science doesn't care about that which is not empirical by scientific objective standards. A scientist who respond with ''yeah no'' is completely logical.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You need to read some history on FDR lol

Internment camps... yea. Racism... yea. I think I should have thought before saying that.

Failed economic policies that literally caused a recession during the depression, taking a shredder to the constitution and bill of rights, using the outbreak of WW2 to immediately go after and imprison his critics and political opponents, willfully and purposefully throwing out established precedent for his office, bullying the judicial system to uphold unconstitutional ideas etc etc. He did a whole lot more wrong than just internment.