Brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens debate the Iraq War and religion at an event organized by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies with the support of the Center for Inquiry and the Interfaith Dialogue Association.
People who are criticising Peter may have missed something. He smiles a lot more here than he normally does, a sign of no matter how much they disagree he still obviously has some affection for his brother
The body language from both of them hardly speaks to fondness. It suggests something quite different: unresolved arguments or diametric opposition and/or deep-seated personal resentment, for instance. They do not talk to each other at all in this thing. They barely acknowledge each other apart from in the third person, which is astonishing. There is no warmth here. Actually, there is an uncomfortable (for any audience) chill between them that flows both ways. So it's fair to say they do (or rather did) not get along. At all.
@@Ingens_Scherz I disagree with that. You are not taking into account the personalities of these two men. They are normally much more aggressive towards people they disagree with. They are definitely toning it down compared to their usual levels. Peter Hitchens has already said although they didn't get on a lot of the time that he loved and misses his brother.
He can’t stand on Chris’s little toe.. how is it possible that Peter is just always wrong. If you want to know the truth - listen to Peter and do and think the opposite..
@@Ingens_Scherz , it's probably because Peter once reminded Christopher about him saying that he didn't care if the Soviet Union took over Britain, and it really pissed his older brother because he was evidently embarrassed by his own words. But what did he expect? He championed some of the worst domestic and foreign policies of our times.
Americans surprised at the Hitchens brothers' sharply different views need to understand that in England it is not uncommon for siblings to scarcely see each other when they are children, as most well-financed families like to send them off to super pretentious boarding schools at an early age--8 in the case of Christopher, 10 or so in the case of Peter. The two brothers grew up in very different environments and under different sets of teachers and mentors, and so it is only natural that their views and convictions should evolve so differently.
In spite of boarding schools and teachers, ultimately, belief or unbelief in God is a personal, soul-searching, reasonable and intellectual decision that each one of us has to make. The case of these brilliant brothers if anything, tells us (in the words of Dr. Geisler): “God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling.”
I Love them both. Both so smart, determined and individual. Who will ever fill the space that Christopher left??? Peter is admirable in his steadfastness and if you take away the booze, the good looks and the uncanny irony which Christopher enojoyed in his life, He would be very similar indeed to Peter.
They are both very intelligent and articulate for sure, the difference is Christopher tends to be right much more often. Especially when it comes to religion
You're right I'm not long out of school, which is why yes, I'm unpublished -for now. You're not in the least shy, sir, of *soliciting* my unconstructive criticism. If you want to offer pointers, make damn sure they be sufficiently sharp, as I've plenty of barbs of my own and can't be bothered to cork them to avoid puncturing any empty heads that may carelessly drift against me. You got your head handed to you and are in NO position to cry, nor am I hard of heart if I remain unmoved.
@r0bbie8arc0de I. I didn't say those three hundred voices were *univocal*, and indeed (for what it's worth) they are heavily countervailed by compliments upon my fine command of language (one of which appears on this page). So then, If I'm to modulate my self-assessment (in this case of my own prose) by heeding what may -or may not- be the confirmatory, or dis-confirmatory, perceptions of others, how am I to decide which of these groups' feedback to "take on board"?
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 , why because he's taken the less popular path? Things that are popular are often wrong. His older brother championed the worst political causes of our times, notably support of the murderous Soviet Union, and the invasion of Iraq - perhaps you can explain how that is being on the right side of history, when Peter opposed those?
E-III ...with the change of phrase you suggest. For example "'the confirmatory, or dis-confirmatory, perceptions of others" is not implied merely in "criticism". This was an allusion to the psychological literature on grandiose delusion and narcissism, and the confirmation bias of narcissists in failing to heed others "disconfirmatory" perceptions. But even without this there is at the very least a case to be made for emphasis, irony, and rhetorical flow (none the which are vacuous).
15 years ago this post was made, and in 2023 we are still having to put up with the religious question in the UK, now more than ever. That's because we have it camped outside our houses and our doorsteps. It won't be that long until the loudspeakers in your town are turned on, to wake us from our beds in order to submit to the call of prayer.
D-IV ...held anywhere at any time -not merely because I command a fund of rhetorical and intellectual resources at least as rich as his, but because I'd also have enjoyed the insuperable advantage of having nearly all the facts aligned in a veritable epistemic phalanx on my side.
Comparing with siblings is common in culture. Peter was having really hard time bcz his brother is greatest debator and one of the most eloquent and articulate person on earth
There is no prosody in text, and I was not riled in the mildest. My intended tone is one of smirking, phlegmatic sarcasm. If it is the mere length of y comments that would seem to belie this, it I spend less time composing them than I do shaving and urinating. The comment was removed because I wished to correct a couple typos. Make of that all you will.
II. One way -indeed as far as I can see the only way, really- is to assess in turn the quality and acuity of the respective detractors and plaudits themselves, as best I can discern. (This may sound tautological, but If you can propose a better alternative I'm curious to hear it.) Now, it seems entirely obvious to me that the plaudits are, by and large, much more intelligent and erudite than the detractors -and at the *very* least are clearly far less confused by...
Your case "rests" like a cart strenuously pushed a short distance up a very steep hill and then released.*smirk* Your options are to walk away or persist and take an intellectual trouncing. There is not third.
IV. This is a subjective literary judgement made as if it were an intersubjective consensus already widely accepted, or patently obvious on its face. It is neither, but this might be fine if you'd adduced some specific reason to think it at as self evident as you appear to. Not only do you fail to so much as hint at any such reason your judgement should supplant my own, it appears to the latter, un-displaced as it sits, that *your* sentences are awkward. For example....
Hi, mpolz. Yes, that one is certainly to Peter's credit... But let us consider some other things he says in this debate (I'm quoting from memory and haven't rewatched it in several months so this won't verbatim) "When a society ceases to believe in Hell, Hell pretty quickly enters into it." "The extreme intolerance and refusal to listen [to creationists] on the other side makes me wonder if there just might be something to this [creationism!] after all." Sorry, but anyone who is...
V. ....you join two separate clauses with a comma that probably ought be separated by a period, resulting in a mishmash of a sentence that is at best graceless if not outright ungrammatical. As for the content, one can say little other than that your thoughts themselves (such as they are) come very close to breaking new ground in banality.
I see what you mean, mjdoyza about the intellectual lightweight interviewer! Surprised CH didn't say anything, but of course, he's far too polite for that!
III. ...my allegedly convoluted phrasing and inordinate use of polysyllabic words, than the detectors profess (or confess) to be. Let us examine your comment, which, like absolutely every single other reproachful one I have received, shows at best no particular gift for or insight into language, and at worst a mere philistine's frustration with what he takes to be the abstruse character of fancy book learnin' ("Talk normal, dammit!"). You say, "Your sentences are clumsy..."
This is a wonderful vignette of the Hitchens' complicated relationship. The body language says it all. Christopher is laid-back, throwing ideas and thoughts out with abandon, and Peter uptight, uncomfortable and tongue-tied. When the next big news story breaks one of my thoughts will be: "I wonder what Hitch would have said about it".
E-II ...that the strict literal meaning would remain unaltered in their absence. I will now tear this to shreds on two grounds: First, the implicit assumption that the meaning of language reduces entirely to semantics. This is just empirically false, but if true would render much poetry, and many idiomatic expressions and figures of speech, nonsensical word salad (it would also make language very dry and prosaic). Second, my literal meaning would NOT in fact remain unaltered...
I can almost see the steam boiling out of your ears! You wish to argue for the sake of arguing? Honestly, I can't think much of your intellect - somebody easily angered, armed with a dictionary, cowardice, and an open foot fetish history. But I'm glad there are still people on the internet to ridicule, so I thank you for the opportunity! The pleasure was all mine.
"I can't think much of your intellect - somebody easily angered, armed with a dictionary, cowardice, and an open foot fetish history." Wow, that is a low blow. :O Glad I wasn't part of this argument which took place approximately a decade ago.
C-II ...to harbor a self assessment that is commensurate to one's abilities? Why can't ego keep pace with intellect? If you think in my case ego overtakes intellect, you haven't given any reason why -at all- and frankly I see no reason I can't just dismiss everything you've failed to say with a wave of the hand. Why not? One last chance: improve upon my verbal economy. Amend one phrase, and give your reasons why your wording is to be preferred. This is not a truculent challenge.
Reread the exchange to which you're referring. I was not engaged in a propositional debate, I was responding to someone who, just like yourself, complained that I'd stuck my prose where it doesn't belong. My assertion of my intelligence was clearly not intended to modify any proposition external to myself or itself, and so your use of the words "reduced" and "resorted" are solecisms as categorically and egregiously incorrect as your total misuse of "straw man" and "ad hominem" .
@caeruleastar2 Peter tends to get strangely hung up on manners I noticed in the debate: the idea that people don't open the door for each other anymore he finds to be a sure sign of moral decay.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 , which statesmen is it who said that real, genuine good is done in minute particulars, and that general good is the posturing of scoundrel, flatters, and hypocrites - Edmund Burke? James Madison? Anyway, the point is that grand gestures are often phoney and done for show (what we now call virtue signalling), where as small gestures, manners and good deeds are genuine and ultimately make the difference between a civilised and uncivilised world.
@r0bbie8arc0de E-I Forgive me; I see now that you did reply to my challenge. As sometimes happens, your comment was not visible when first "posted" (RU-vid's fault not mine.) Anyway, you've done exactly what I thought you'd do, exactly what every other person who's tried to critique my prose on the internet has done (I can link you to a dozen examples to give you some sense of just how tediously predictable you are). You've simply suggested that I elide a few words on the alleged grounds...
*chortle* This metaphorical steam you fantasize, and the putative consternation it represents, are exactly as real and as epistemically verified as phlogiston gas. What comes easily to me, indeed entirely without effort, is the puncturing of empty heads that occasionally drift against me like balloons upon a cactus. Though I have to wonder how difficult you think it ought to be either to become annoyed by, or retort to, internet comments -surely it is no more so than to post them initially.
@HecklerBoy7 If you want to stick to simple language and have to look up words in the dictionary to find out what he's saying, you might as well stop speaking English. Tis the beauty of English, don't insult it.
A-I. It is patently, painfully obvious that you haven't the first idea what an ad hominem is (hint: it 's not even *synonymous* with "insult") nor what a straw man argument is (here I can scarcely even guess at your meaning, as I did not attribute any argument to you at all, let alone distort it) and so it is massively ironic that you should then proceed to admonish me not to use a long word where a short (to say noting of appropriate) one will do. I use "long words"...
II. remotely capable of either of this statements -and many others Peter has made- stands inescapibally below a certain intellectual ceiling, nor is that ceiling terribly high. Add to this Christopher's incontrovertibly superior verbal facility and and mental agility and it seems to me pretty obvious which is brother the smarter, and by a very wide margin indeed. Hey mpolz, I'd be happy to engage in friendly debate, but it's going to have to wait a couple days. Tonight I am...
They're honestly such different people the comparison is barely worth making. As I grow older though, I will say I find in myself a greater admiration for Christopher and his output.
II ...oh damn, that was supposed to come from polymath. I ordinarily use this intentionally invidious handle for disingenuous hoax comments (Poe's law, and all that).
CMIIW, but their parents sided with Peter, right? They were conservative Christian, right? In debate, Peter comes across as someone who feels he doesn't even need to prove anything, you know, "because the Bible tells him so." Whereas Christopher has endless arguments and facts he puts forth that are anti-God.
Their father was not religious at all and I believe their mother was slightly religious. Either way, I don't have this impression at all and you're probably just mistaking his personality, reserve your judgement. I don't blame you for not knowing, but your assumption of Peter's religious beliefs are completely incorrect. Peter definitely doesn't believe in religious beliefs like Christianity or God in the way most people are brought up to do so.
You're easily riled by someone you will never know. My case rests. Hastily removed comment, I wonder why. You don't get that kind of second chance away from your keyboard. :3
Huh? You mean because I mentioned that I was both drunk and trying to get laid? How is this a conundrum? Truth be told, I'd forgotten I'd written that comment and would likely not have remembered it the day after. Even more than a year later, I have to wince at "...which is brother the smarter..." and would have expected the curious asymmetry in the ratings of the two parts to be inverted. I suppose people read as carelessly as I wrote and failed to notice the quotes.
Come now, you chose to participate in a little youtube chat, not a roleplay. I can only imagine you all stressed out from behind your keyboard, despite your intended appearance. I'd like to see what you call an 'intellectual trouncing', however... I don't find insults particularly stimulating, nor am I impressed by your vocabulary. Most of it sounds fairly pretentious to me.
Were you aware that I'd even faintly suggested any such aspiration? That would make one of us. Two strikes. It's getting rapidly worse for you, litttle boy. Now, I'll provide a far more useful reminder than that you request: In the future, if you're trying to sound clever, make at least some attempt to craft a remark of your own, rather than pulling from an old drawer some ragged, hackneyed quip that's passed through so many hands it lost the shape of wit long ago. You lose. As always, I win.
Make an actual, specific claim and an argument to support it, as per my challenge, and I assure you, you will see this intellectual trouncing well beyond your heart's content. "Pretentious" is the first refuge of the lazy and weak minded, and nine times in ten, in its actual usage (rather than its denotation) its referent is, "an unabashed display of erudition, which makes me uncomfortable but for which I lack the erudition to find a more fitting, less threadbare, less readily available word".
I find it fascinating that i love chris and despise peter, chris is open, intellegent and somewhat playful, peter more abrupt, with slightly passive aggresive sinister body language, plus the fact that hes a biggoted oxygen thief
Not Sorry,,, but little brother should of read as much as big brotber. You cannot compare the two. Peter is a little who should of looked up to a more read and gifted brother. Peter, also is indoctrinated by the Catholic church and hasnt gotten away from the priest lap.😢
