Myers on Hitchens and on belief being "the lesser of two evils"

Diarmuid

I sent off a letter which got on the web page but I don't buy the print version so don't know if it made it there. It seems there were two letter disagreeing with Myers and then that fine letter above disputing the other two letters.

karen3212

I have seen a few debates of Christopher Hitchens, and I thought he was extremely dumb. Anyway, the clincher was that once again, he said Northern Ireland was about religion, I know, it's a modern Christain war that people like to use as a modern example of Christain violence. F***ing lazy.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that the only really dangerous ideology(ideas) are the ones that people are willing to kill and die for. Whatever they may be, whilst all for the good of the people of course.

I also think that the US at present is using their wonderful theory of democracy to justify to their people the worthwhileness of killing millions around the world, and freedom is the ideology. I mean most people there now, even though they know they were lied to about the war, still think it's ok to keep killing for the good of the locals.

So the only dangerous idea is one that people think it's ok to kill and die for.

stevejazzx

karen3212 wrote:

I have seen a few debates of Christopher Hitchens, and I thought he was extremely dumb.

Hmmmm..he's been called a lot of hings but dumb? Have you heard his debate with Stephen Fry on religous fundamentalism. Even Fry seems surprised at his almost encylopaedic knoledge of history, plolitics and religon.

karen wrote:

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that the only really dangerous ideology(ideas) are the ones that people are willing to kill and die for.

At the risk of sounding patronising, would you care to expand?
We should only be bothered by ideologies where people are prepared to kill? What about ideologies where education and sense are corrupted?
Isn't it the case that ideologies can start off realitively harmless and then become dangerous?

karen3212

stevejazzx wrote:

Hmmmm..he's been called a lot of hings but dumb? Have you heard his debate with Stephen Fry on religous fundamentalism. Even Fry seems surprised at his almost encylopaedic knoledge of history, plolitics and religon.



At the risk of sounding patronising, would you care to expand?
We should only be bothered by ideologies where people are prepared to kill? What about ideologies where education and sense are corrupted?
Isn't it the case that ideologies can start off realitively harmless and then become dangerous?

I mean that no idea, no matter how wonderful it sounds, is worth killing or dieing for. If everyone agrees, instead of sending brave people off to war, idiots can be arrested and tried via a criminal system. That is all. And yes, I thought he had read a lot, but well in my humble opinion, he is dumb.

edit,

I mean that we all start from the premise that no idea, is worth killing or dieing for. Therefore if that idea spreads peacefully, well nobody willing to die or kill for anything.

MoominPapa

good read from the village by Jamie Hyland particularly the way he parallels religion and post modernism, although he's wrong to say Dawkins hasn't confronted pm, Devils Chaplin has quite a few essays where he rips it to shreds. Always nice to have Myers/Waters self appointed status as Irelands intellectual titans questioned, particularly waters boning up on John Grays Straw Dogs before a radio debate with Ivana Bacik:rolleyes: