@@PrincipledUncertainty Andrew McDonald If you watched the video before commenting gents you'd hear Peter Hitchens says those words and refers to it as an 'obvious cliche'
Tough, unmoved, man and voice of steel. A bit raw sometimes but I understand how he feels maybe deflated when his voice and books seem to have fallen on deaf ears, ears deliberately blocked, or ears filled with liberalism, feet stamping and table thumping socialism - which seems a champion in silencing, shutting down voices (and ruining a person's career and reputation cruelly) - voices that don't actually agree with it, you know, because we actually STILL, I THINK live in a free country based on democracy. I don't think we do anymore unless something changes before, as Peter H says, we'll fall giggling into the sea.
Peter sounds depressing but he has many points.I have lived here a very long time in the U.K but this country is not going the right way.It has lost its way.
Love both brothers and am so pleased we have/had them. Watch the video of their debate about Peter's book, The Abolition of Britain, and you'll see just how downtrodden and pessimistic the man has become. He was so witty and entertaining back then but he's been beaten by all this modern-day nonsense.
The point is, we are in a burning theater, and being told that the word fire is hate speech. The very words that the situation demands be spoken, are specifically the ones being prohibited, a situation deliberately engineered to make those words conspicuous by their absence. In other words, we can say anything we want except what needs to be said.
Peter is right about education, but wrong on its timeline, and therein lies a modicum of hope. I have three 1st class Hons degrees, including in Philosophy (real Philosophy, not Foucault) and including from Cambridge, all earned in the 1980s and 1990s. If we could just get an explosion of grammar schools, the ability of young people to develop thinking and critical faculties could change in 1-2 generations. But it has been nearly 60 years since Crosland virtually destroyed the grammar school system in the name of fairness, and no government since has had the guts even to try to reinstitute them.
Get a useful degree, try engineering, computing, or even an apprenticeship as an electrician. You would be employed, after some experience, be well paid. Then maybe open up your own company, earn a good reputation, expand and open up new premises in a nearby city or diversify into other areas as new tech and opportunities arise. Do well and you could retire a rich man before you’re 50. There aren’t many employment opportunities for philosophers, history of art majors or CRT (polytechnic level degrees-which you could probably knock out in under a year) just as an example. I mean no disrespect, I doubt I could have acquired your level of qualifications. I have a BEng (hons), my friend done a YTS (UK career path straight from school at 16) electrician apprenticeship. Both of us are now similarly paid, (took me a long time to catch up to him btw), and have found no problems finding employment. I would have loved to have studied Roman history, but I knew I would find it hard to find employment after the degree if I did. I believe that school leavers, prior to uni application should be planning out a career path prior to sending away their ucas forms. A well educated person, like you seem to be, should have his pick of employment opportunities, and I think you would have if you’d chosen to perhaps study business (economics, philosophy of, or accounting-for example), engineering and computer science. I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but that’s the skills that are in demand. Wishing you the best. No disrespect intended, pls don’t feel that there was, only saying what I see as being true, and what the market demands are. ✌️
Hebdo should be free to say what they did but shouldn't have said it? Criticising Islam helps to expose the viciousness and intolerance of the ideology while it is still a minority belief in the West. Best to find that out now rather than when they are close to a majority.
Yes. And then you should be made to face the consequences of your lies. For example, if you lie about someone's character then you could face court action. But nobody should decide for you ahead of time what is 'truth;' and what is a 'lie'.
for people who like Peter Hitchens, where does one go if they want to listen to him at a public forum or university? I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday, but does one just have to constantly check out his columns there to know when he'll be speaking at such and such? would really like to contact and meet him.
the great issue now though really is that of free speech in science, which has basically been somehow left out by all the political stuff. going against a paradigm in that is just as bad..
Yes especially in the field of human genetics. The whole discipline appears to adopt rigid self censorship, I guess it is an ever-present risk that if accurate but unpalatable conclusions are published then ones career is De-funded.
I just can't get into the discussion with enough attention being fairly focused personally because of the horrible sound of noise trying to be music in the CARNIVAL in the background of an interview on philosophical issues. Only me?
Freedom of speech is vital this guy has a typical middle class way of patronising his audience although I would fight for his right to say whatever he likes only through speech can differences be bridged an interesting character the best education is learning for yourself
@@goodyeoman4534 yeah. ok, how about this... wtf u mean d00d, wut hubris? wouldn't want to make you cringe, soymilk. wash it down. veggie burgers and cupcakes, you sound like my doctor.
His great late brother would have disagreed vehemently, especially on Charlie Hebdo. The West has managed to civilize Christians to the point where they no longer burn blasphemers and everyone is better off for it. If other religions and ideologies could reach the same level of enlightenment, that'd be great. Using force to achieve this goal is not justified, but we can ridicule and satirize. If one says even that is a no-no, what other means are left? While trying to be polite, Peter is pushing in the wrong direction.
no he's not. he did not say it was a no-no, only that in his view, that particular satire did not have a point. I don't agree or disagree with him, merely pointing out that he did not do what you say he did. The West did not civilize Christians. To speak of the two as being inherently different or apart is historically inaccurate. For much of the middle ages, Christians were the civilizing force that brought about the Carolingian Renaissance, that preserved Classical knowledge, that fostered the pursuit of science, that brought an end to tribal barbarism. You are speaking of an institution that lasted for over a thousand years, having passed along between very very different leaders throughout time, as a monolith. It was not. Protestants were burned at the stake on such large numbers it was tantamount to a genocide. They were no less Christian than the Catholics who burned them.
@@Fear_the_Nog Nah, the West actually did civilize Christianity. There are Christians in Africa still burning witches today. Because the 'holy' book calls for offing witches. We had several sweet movements in the West that the rest of the world did not experience and was not affected by. Sure, Christianity is not a monolith, but to ignore the regress caused by church rule and executions for wrongthink is just distasteful. The West is built on enlightenment values, rather than dogmatism and superstition, and it shows.
@@nikolaneberemed "Nah, the West actually did civilize Christianity." MY point was Christianity civilized itself. "There are Christians in Africa still burning witches today. Because the 'holy' book calls for offing witches." There are also witches in Africa who also kill albino children and dismember them to sell off their parts, believing them to offer protection against evil spirits. There are "democratic revolutionaries" in Africa doing worse. Whenever you have to bring in Africa, we know where the conversation goes. There are many places in the world where ideologues burn or execute people. Any form of ideologue. You can be a Venezuelan socialist and you execute people. You can be a Burmese Buddhist and you execute Rohingya. You can be a Chinese atheist and you detain free-speech dissenters from Hong Kong without trial. Because their "holy books" of ideals, they say, tell them to. Nothing is a monolith. People are civilized. Religions and ideologies are mere excuses to do or not do things people already want to do. The New Testament, where Christianity's founding principles are based on, clearly states to everyone who bothers to read that "let who without sin cast the first stone." True understanding of that led to the stop of these kinds of executions in Europe. The illiteracy of the masses were used by people of power to incite Inquisitions and Fatwas and Jihad. "Sure, Christianity is not a monolith, but to ignore the regress caused by church rule and executions for wrongthink is just distasteful." Likewise to ignore the progress churches created. And I don't think your point is ignored at all. In fact, everywhere you go people will tell you the evils of "the church" despite the historic plurality of churches. How is it ignored? What is ignored, are the advances and enlightenment, science, progression of the humanistic philosophies, artistic development, and freedoms inculcated in the educated ideals of Christianity, that various very different Christian sects and churches have fostered over millennia. Ignoring that is not just distasteful, it's simply to understand history and the West as humans incompletely. The West was built upon values Classical, Christian and Enlightenment. The latter owing all of itself to the combination of a revival of the former and the maturation of the middle.
@@Fear_the_Nog "MY point was Christianity civilized itself." Sorry, but it changed because of external pressure. Rational and secular movements exerted pressure and Christianity folded, like it historically does. Religion does not lead society, it follows. Only after science figured out and society at large learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system, Christianity changed its tune. When external pressure becomes too great, religions have to change. Without external pressure, religions don't really change much. Look at Islam in the Middle East. As I type this, some countries literally uphold iron age laws. Because they were put in their favorite book by iron age people and external pressure to change was successfully suppressed. On the other hand, the West dropped dogmatism and superstition in favor of reason and logic thanks to the renaissances and the Enlightenment (which originated in the West and did not spread to all parts of the world), rather than Christianity, which is founded on dogmatism and superstition. At any rate, dogmatic systems can't have a self-correcting element by definition because they are dogmatic, so the claim that a dogmatic system like Christianity evolved without external pressure is not true.
@@nikolaneberemed "Sorry, but it changed because of external pressure. Rational and secular movements exerted pressure and Christianity folded, like it historically does." False dichotomies and Untrue. Please specify how you arrived at this conclusion. The Enlightenment was not merely a secular movement. It had within itself both ideologies, each pushing the other forward, working in tandem. And Christianity, again, was not monolithic. There had always been sections of it that fully supported and fostered rationalism. "Religion does not lead society, it follows." Demonstrably not true. The various "little renaissances" in Europe prior to the generally more known one are evidence enough. And at first, it was the Catholic Church that was a major proponent of scientific research, with the majority of medieval and late medieval discoveries made by monks and clergy. "Only after science figured out and society at large learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system, Christianity changed its tune." Honestly, a similar discovery in pagan Greece that challenged preconceived notions would have gotten flack as well. And the ones who learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system were clergy. "When external pressure becomes too great, religions have to change. Without external pressure, religions don't really change much." Also not necessarily true. Most changes are internally caused, actually, such as the Nicene Creed, and the Protestant Reformation. Again, it is a false dichotomy in my view. What you term external was technically true in certain stages in history when the majority power within the polity of the churches were dumb and stagnant men. But you always discount the vast social benefits the churches brought, the change from honor morality to charity morality across nations, for one. "At any rate, dogmatic systems can't have a self-correcting element by definition because they are dogmatic, so the claim that a dogmatic system like Christianity evolved without external pressure is not true." It is true because Christianity, or many forms of it, were not dogmatic at all. Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar itself was a doctrine which provided an allowance for a dialog with "external" forces to begin with. Granted, the most powerful historically, the singular Catholic Church, had been dogmatic for most of its tenure. But there were also times when it was not.
@@czrbumm.5290 He is much better at what? They are seperate people; one believed in the eutopian Marxist pipe dream until the day he died, the other has given up the delusion.
So Peter, was killing those at Charlie Hebdo justified in your mind because maybe they shouldnt have been so controversial, or is that a craving for the blasphemy laws that used to protect your religeon?
@@182dunc I don't think he said it's asking for offended people to attack you. If you remember it differently, could you share the mm:ss timestamp where he said so? (I think his point was more nuanced: just because you can offend, doesn't mean you should. For example, going to funerals and shouting abuse may well be a free speech freedom, but it's utterly tasteless and achieves nothing).
@@aliasgharkhoyee9501 3.48-358. Pete believes in free speech but thinks people shouldn't criticise religion . He mentions Charlie Hebdo , says they shouldn't have published what they did, hence they were asking for it.
@@182dunc "Hence they were asking for it" and "people shouldn't criticise religion" are missing from what he said -- it's something only in your mind. He literally said what I mentioned in my last reply (that just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should - as there's no point in saying some things).
The problem is, we are being prevented from shouting fire in a theatre that is currently ablaze.
great analogy mate, can i use it?
@@SgtAndrewM Thanks. Though I am sure that I am not the first to coin it. I have vague memories of Douglas Murray saying something similar :)
@@PrincipledUncertainty Andrew McDonald If you watched the video before commenting gents you'd hear Peter Hitchens says those words and refers to it as an 'obvious cliche'
@@sratus Whoosh
@@PrincipledUncertainty What exactly do you think has gone over my head?
I ADORE Peter Hitchens
Very true it is hard to keep trying when no one cares to hear.
Watch a few Black Swan videos...
I do enjoy listening to him....
me too. i wasnt even paying attention to his words. his voice sounds soothing lol
Glad he keeps speaking and gives others their term to do their work. I miss his brother and wish he spoke of him at times.
"I love arguing with Blairites". Yes!
Peter Hitchens. The Voice of Reason.
Tough, unmoved, man and voice of steel. A bit raw sometimes but I understand how he feels maybe deflated when his voice and books seem to have fallen on deaf ears, ears deliberately blocked, or ears filled with liberalism, feet stamping and table thumping socialism - which seems a champion in silencing, shutting down voices (and ruining a person's career and reputation cruelly) - voices that don't actually agree with it, you know, because we actually STILL, I THINK live in a free country based on democracy. I don't think we do anymore unless something changes before, as Peter H says, we'll fall giggling into the sea.
Great guy. I approve.
Peter sounds depressing but he has many points.I have lived here a very long time in the U.K but this country is not going the right way.It has lost its way.
Peter believes it is fully gone. Beyond repair. I do hope he's wrong, but he certainly backs up the argument.
I’m guessing you think that way because there are more brown people now.
Love both brothers and am so pleased we have/had them. Watch the video of their debate about Peter's book, The Abolition of Britain, and you'll see just how downtrodden and pessimistic the man has become. He was so witty and entertaining back then but he's been beaten by all this modern-day nonsense.
Peter and Christopher were together on C-SPAN back in the 90's and the man's discrepancy is only more staggering.
Yup I've read the abolition of Britain ,he has no solutions
rob Dubz and yours are?
He's a christian. It's not pessimism.
The point is, we are in a burning theater, and being told that the word fire is hate speech. The very words that the situation demands be spoken, are specifically the ones being prohibited, a situation deliberately engineered to make those words conspicuous by their absence. In other words, we can say anything we want except what needs to be said.
This country has not lost its way politicians have lost their way. We must get shut of this shower of remainers roll on nf
A very honest English gentleman. ..a class of literature missing from the modern English society
"I love arguing with Blairitessss..." A little bit of Hannibal Lecter there
You're are perfectly free to criticise Islam as long as you don't actually criticise Islam. Got it?
Freedom of speech better create a better world.
This is not the Hitchens I was searching for.
Peter is right about education, but wrong on its timeline, and therein lies a modicum of hope. I have three 1st class Hons degrees, including in Philosophy (real Philosophy, not Foucault) and including from Cambridge, all earned in the 1980s and 1990s. If we could just get an explosion of grammar schools, the ability of young people to develop thinking and critical faculties could change in 1-2 generations. But it has been nearly 60 years since Crosland virtually destroyed the grammar school system in the name of fairness, and no government since has had the guts even to try to reinstitute them.
'real philosophy' oh so like purely racist people from the 1700s and athenian pedos?
@@lepistanuda Daaaaaats Raaaayyysist!
Jep Hep Foucault believed in the abolition of age of consent laws.
Get a useful degree, try engineering, computing, or even an apprenticeship as an electrician. You would be employed, after some experience, be well paid. Then maybe open up your own company, earn a good reputation, expand and open up new premises in a nearby city or diversify into other areas as new tech and opportunities arise. Do well and you could retire a rich man before you’re 50. There aren’t many employment opportunities for philosophers, history of art majors or CRT (polytechnic level degrees-which you could probably knock out in under a year) just as an example. I mean no disrespect, I doubt I could have acquired your level of qualifications. I have a BEng (hons), my friend done a YTS (UK career path straight from school at 16) electrician apprenticeship. Both of us are now similarly paid, (took me a long time to catch up to him btw), and have found no problems finding employment. I would have loved to have studied Roman history, but I knew I would find it hard to find employment after the degree if I did. I believe that school leavers, prior to uni application should be planning out a career path prior to sending away their ucas forms. A well educated person, like you seem to be, should have his pick of employment opportunities, and I think you would have if you’d chosen to perhaps study business (economics, philosophy of, or accounting-for example), engineering and computer science. I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but that’s the skills that are in demand. Wishing you the best. No disrespect intended, pls don’t feel that there was, only saying what I see as being true, and what the market demands are. ✌️
People think in terms of feeling and prejudice then look for confirmation bias to back up their ideas
Would be nice to be able to hear the interviewer withought having to increase the volume such that Hitchens becomes deafening.
There is no limit to free speech unless you make a threat to physically hurt people
What about hate speech?
Hebdo should be free to say what they did but shouldn't have said it? Criticising Islam helps to expose the viciousness and intolerance of the ideology while it is still a minority belief in the West. Best to find that out now rather than when they are close to a majority.
Does free speech mean you should be allowed to deliberately lie?
Yes. And then you should be made to face the consequences of your lies. For example, if you lie about someone's character then you could face court action. But nobody should decide for you ahead of time what is 'truth;' and what is a 'lie'.
Its not my responsibility anymore!!! Evil prevails when good men fail to act Mr H. Get back to the mill stone and grind the grit the mill requires.
It doesn't get much more based than this, does it?
FREE SPEECH KNOW'S NO LIMITS ( ;
for people who like Peter Hitchens, where does one go if they want to listen to him at a public forum or university? I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday, but does one just have to constantly check out his columns there to know when he'll be speaking at such and such? would really like to contact and meet him.
follow hitchensblog. he posts about any events
@@SA-tl7fk and he does his column every sunday or sometimes twice a week?
love Hitchens
the great issue now though really is that of free speech in science, which has basically been somehow left out by all the political stuff. going against a paradigm in that is just as bad..
Yes especially in the field of human genetics. The whole discipline appears to adopt rigid self censorship, I guess it is an ever-present risk that if accurate but unpalatable conclusions are published then ones career is De-funded.
Free to say what I want any old time sunshiiiinnneee
4.40 If you shout ‘fire’ people will automatically look around for it/smoke, that’s all…
Look up the Italian Hall disaster.
Peter Hitchen alway's talk,s sense
why the noise it always is with right strange
I just can't get into the discussion with enough attention being fairly focused personally because of the horrible sound of noise trying to be music in the CARNIVAL in the background of an interview on philosophical issues. Only me?
that's the idea! ideas + music = 1 fun weekend ---> howthelightgetsin.org/hay/
PETER Hitchens! No wonder he didn’t look like Christopher
SPELL IT OUT!!!!!!! Either NI Joins ROI or *whisper* vice versa...…....
I think the internet has completely passed by Peter Hitchens.
please elaborate
You can say fantastically stupid things and get away with it... you said it..!,
I can’t make out a single word he’s saying, but it’s good to just listen to his mumbling.
3 gates of speech
1. Is it true
2. Is useful
3. Is it kind
Freedom of speech is vital this guy has a typical middle class way of patronising his audience although I would fight for his right to say whatever he likes only through speech can differences be bridged an interesting character the best education is learning for yourself
Too much emotion, fuzzy logic creeps in.
This guy would get a broader audience if ihe wasn't so up himself. The man is so full of hubris.
please clarify his hubris... if only to save us all from speculation regarding the physical attributes of various family relations
@@just83542 Your wannabe intellectual prose is cringe-worthy. Less is more, cupcake.
@@goodyeoman4534 yeah. ok, how about this...
wtf u mean d00d, wut hubris?
wouldn't want to make you cringe, soymilk. wash it down. veggie burgers and cupcakes, you sound like my doctor.
@@just83542 you sound bitter and desperate to impress. was that your intention, cupcake?
@Gap Rame Mlon Eusk which makes your unimpressive particularly bad, Gape Ram
Hmmm...
His great late brother would have disagreed vehemently, especially on Charlie Hebdo.
The West has managed to civilize Christians to the point where they no longer burn blasphemers and everyone is better off for it.
If other religions and ideologies could reach the same level of enlightenment, that'd be great. Using force to achieve this goal is not justified, but we can ridicule and satirize. If one says even that is a no-no, what other means are left? While trying to be polite, Peter is pushing in the wrong direction.
no he's not. he did not say it was a no-no, only that in his view, that particular satire did not have a point. I don't agree or disagree with him, merely pointing out that he did not do what you say he did. The West did not civilize Christians. To speak of the two as being inherently different or apart is historically inaccurate. For much of the middle ages, Christians were the civilizing force that brought about the Carolingian Renaissance, that preserved Classical knowledge, that fostered the pursuit of science, that brought an end to tribal barbarism. You are speaking of an institution that lasted for over a thousand years, having passed along between very very different leaders throughout time, as a monolith. It was not. Protestants were burned at the stake on such large numbers it was tantamount to a genocide. They were no less Christian than the Catholics who burned them.
@@Fear_the_Nog Nah, the West actually did civilize Christianity. There are Christians in Africa still burning witches today. Because the 'holy' book calls for offing witches. We had several sweet movements in the West that the rest of the world did not experience and was not affected by. Sure, Christianity is not a monolith, but to ignore the regress caused by church rule and executions for wrongthink is just distasteful. The West is built on enlightenment values, rather than dogmatism and superstition, and it shows.
@@nikolaneberemed "Nah, the West actually did civilize Christianity." MY point was Christianity civilized itself.
"There are Christians in Africa still burning witches today. Because the 'holy' book calls for offing witches."
There are also witches in Africa who also kill albino children and dismember them to sell off their parts, believing them to offer protection against evil spirits. There are "democratic revolutionaries" in Africa doing worse. Whenever you have to bring in Africa, we know where the conversation goes. There are many places in the world where ideologues burn or execute people. Any form of ideologue. You can be a Venezuelan socialist and you execute people. You can be a Burmese Buddhist and you execute Rohingya. You can be a Chinese atheist and you detain free-speech dissenters from Hong Kong without trial. Because their "holy books" of ideals, they say, tell them to. Nothing is a monolith. People are civilized. Religions and ideologies are mere excuses to do or not do things people already want to do.
The New Testament, where Christianity's founding principles are based on, clearly states to everyone who bothers to read that "let who without sin cast the first stone." True understanding of that led to the stop of these kinds of executions in Europe. The illiteracy of the masses were used by people of power to incite Inquisitions and Fatwas and Jihad.
"Sure, Christianity is not a monolith, but to ignore the regress caused by church rule and executions for wrongthink is just distasteful."
Likewise to ignore the progress churches created. And I don't think your point is ignored at all. In fact, everywhere you go people will tell you the evils of "the church" despite the historic plurality of churches. How is it ignored? What is ignored, are the advances and enlightenment, science, progression of the humanistic philosophies, artistic development, and freedoms inculcated in the educated ideals of Christianity, that various very different Christian sects and churches have fostered over millennia. Ignoring that is not just distasteful, it's simply to understand history and the West as humans incompletely. The West was built upon values Classical, Christian and Enlightenment. The latter owing all of itself to the combination of a revival of the former and the maturation of the middle.
@@Fear_the_Nog "MY point was Christianity civilized itself." Sorry, but it changed because of external pressure. Rational and secular movements exerted pressure and Christianity folded, like it historically does. Religion does not lead society, it follows. Only after science figured out and society at large learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system, Christianity changed its tune. When external pressure becomes too great, religions have to change. Without external pressure, religions don't really change much. Look at Islam in the Middle East. As I type this, some countries literally uphold iron age laws. Because they were put in their favorite book by iron age people and external pressure to change was successfully suppressed. On the other hand, the West dropped dogmatism and superstition in favor of reason and logic thanks to the renaissances and the Enlightenment (which originated in the West and did not spread to all parts of the world), rather than Christianity, which is founded on dogmatism and superstition. At any rate, dogmatic systems can't have a self-correcting element by definition because they are dogmatic, so the claim that a dogmatic system like Christianity evolved without external pressure is not true.
@@nikolaneberemed "Sorry, but it changed because of external pressure. Rational and secular movements exerted pressure and Christianity folded, like it historically does."
False dichotomies and Untrue. Please specify how you arrived at this conclusion. The Enlightenment was not merely a secular movement. It had within itself both ideologies, each pushing the other forward, working in tandem. And Christianity, again, was not monolithic. There had always been sections of it that fully supported and fostered rationalism.
"Religion does not lead society, it follows."
Demonstrably not true. The various "little renaissances" in Europe prior to the generally more known one are evidence enough. And at first, it was the Catholic Church that was a major proponent of scientific research, with the majority of medieval and late medieval discoveries made by monks and clergy.
"Only after science figured out and society at large learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system, Christianity changed its tune."
Honestly, a similar discovery in pagan Greece that challenged preconceived notions would have gotten flack as well. And the ones who learned that the Earth was not in the center of the solar system were clergy.
"When external pressure becomes too great, religions have to change. Without external pressure, religions don't really change much."
Also not necessarily true. Most changes are internally caused, actually, such as the Nicene Creed, and the Protestant Reformation. Again, it is a false dichotomy in my view. What you term external was technically true in certain stages in history when the majority power within the polity of the churches were dumb and stagnant men. But you always discount the vast social benefits the churches brought, the change from honor morality to charity morality across nations, for one.
"At any rate, dogmatic systems can't have a self-correcting element by definition because they are dogmatic, so the claim that a dogmatic system like Christianity evolved without external pressure is not true."
It is true because Christianity, or many forms of it, were not dogmatic at all. Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar itself was a doctrine which provided an allowance for a dialog with "external" forces to begin with. Granted, the most powerful historically, the singular Catholic Church, had been dogmatic for most of its tenure. But there were also times when it was not.
I Miss Christopher Hitchins whenever I hear his brother talk.
But what is your point?
Yeah Right that C. Hitchens is much better and most miss him. What did u think I meant?
@@czrbumm.5290 He is much better at what? They are seperate people; one believed in the eutopian Marxist pipe dream until the day he died, the other has given up the delusion.
nazarene, where did you pop up from? And why are you here?
@nazarene The Chris Hitch fanboys are impossible
So Peter, was killing those at Charlie Hebdo justified in your mind because maybe they shouldnt have been so controversial, or is that a craving for the blasphemy laws that used to protect your religeon?
Why do you think he would support murder?
@@aliasgharkhoyee9501 Because thats whats hes saying. Criticising religion is asking for those who claim offence to attack you.
@@182dunc I don't think he said it's asking for offended people to attack you. If you remember it differently, could you share the mm:ss timestamp where he said so? (I think his point was more nuanced: just because you can offend, doesn't mean you should. For example, going to funerals and shouting abuse may well be a free speech freedom, but it's utterly tasteless and achieves nothing).
@@aliasgharkhoyee9501 3.48-358.
Pete believes in free speech but thinks people shouldn't criticise religion . He mentions Charlie Hebdo , says they shouldn't have published what they did, hence they were asking for it.
@@182dunc "Hence they were asking for it" and "people shouldn't criticise religion" are missing from what he said -- it's something only in your mind. He literally said what I mentioned in my last reply (that just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should - as there's no point in saying some things).