padib said:
It rings a bell, and he does sound smart but that post wasn't very smart imho. There are easy arguments against some of the points he raises. Put it this way I wouldn't want to be in an argument with him, I'd be afraid he wouldn't listen to reason. It's funny how some people sound very smart by their use of vocabulary, but when I hear their ideas I'm like "huh?". |
I can understand that people can sound intelligible while either skirting around or grossly missing the mark. I, however, think he raises a valid concern. So which parts are easily countered?
Hhitchens` wass not without his faults, of course. He was fairly notorious for purposefully inciting others. He tended to use language that could be divisive and distracting from the issue at heart. But that's always been both his most endearing and objectionable feature. Though he tended to have fun, was inciteful and many, including I, may have often disagreed with his methods, he was rarely classified as being unreasonable. Without being familiar with his work, it`d be unfair to assume what his ability was to reason (I wonder what parts had given you doubt in his ability here) or to make connections. Though his vocabulary is quite excellent, he has encyclopaedic knowledge over many historys, politics and literature, and draws many clever connections between them.
These comments of his may provide some context of character:
"Time spent arguing with the faithful is, oddly enough, almost never wasted``
``The one unforgivable sin is to be boring``
