RE: Not this shit again, Hitchens deathbed "conversion".
April 20, 2016 at 10:03 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2016 at 10:05 am by Brian37.)
(April 20, 2016 at 6:28 am)robvalue Wrote: I just want to say again:
What utter bullshit. How dare they. How fucking disrespectful to speak for someone after they have died, and after a suspiciously long length of time too.
Rob, I normally agree with you 99% of the time, but the truth is if we stand by our own logic that there is no afterlife the Hitchens himself isn't being hurt by this one bit because he is nowhere now in realty outside the memories of those who knew him.
It is immoral not because Hitchens is hurt by it, he'd dead. It is dishonest because he's not around to defend himself now, on top of your standard selection bias and sample rate error, and logical fallacies. The living are reacting to this tactic, not the dead, they cant.
When I die myself, I really don't want those who survive me to give one fuck about those who hate me or what they say, I won't be alive to care. I'd want the human decency face to face in the direct physical moment of morning for those who survive me who knew me, sure, but for them, not me. Outside that personal face to face moment especially with celebrities it's going to happen in all directions and you wont stop it.
I don't think Hitchens would give one fuck about what people say about him, he was perfectly willing to take the heat. But even in "God Is Not Great" he did have the decency in the face to face moment, in person, to value the rights of others. Even he talked of taking his shoes off entering a Mosque or Buddhist temple, but as we also know he also was no fan of taboos or blasphemy.
So attack the bad logic yes, but the idiots making these bad arguments were not at his funeral in real life. And any of his theists friends that might have attended in reality, would have kept their mouths shut at that physical event. I wouldn't call it "disrespect" as much as I would call it "intellectually dishonest".
