Comments on: Really takes me back to my Sophomore year…

by: Dan McCarthy

Wed, 16 May 2007 20:54:12 +0000

Thank you John. Your commentary is welcomed - brimming as it is with the moisture of wit and insight.

by: John

Tue, 15 May 2007 05:06:06 +0000

Dan McCarthy, you are insane.

by: Dan McCarthy

Sun, 13 May 2007 08:51:00 +0000

Well, actually, you didn’t describe your definition of said material that “isn’t straight out of high school speech class”, so forgive us lesser mortals if the construct was misinterpreted. What I’ve been commenting on, if it hasn’t been entirely clear, has been the simple aspects to the debate between Sharpton and Hitchens. That’s it. Nevermind the want, or unwant, to induldge in the larger discussion of faith or even the greater matters which carries the secular flag - animated though that is - it was simply what was viewed, first hand, at the discussion which spawned this entire chain. I don’t think I’ve deviated from that, aside from the tantalizing danglers placed from commenters posting their opinions and inviting a quip here and there. No, I think I was clear from the get-go, saying that from the perspective of someone watching and judgeing a debate (which I was at, of course, and not commenting on it from second or third hand accounts) - Sharpton was spanked. So, forgive me if the material I’m op-eding is “straight out of high school speech class”, assuming, of course, that you were subjected to such a thing, instead focusing on refuting the original posting suggestiong that Sharpton took the thing in full (found this via the NYT blog, how, Peter, you were linked to it is a mystery to me but kudos to you anyway) is all I intended here. Views stretching into the greater stratosphere of the “God” debate, “Religion” debate, and “whiny, self-indulgent” rot will obviously be attached to it - but let’s not lose sight of what spurned all this, what?

by: neill

Sat, 12 May 2007 02:34:15 +0000

An honest intellectual point, as I described above, is material that isn’t straight out of high school speech class. Hitchens has consistently proven that he’s not the man to provide it, so I suppose I’m upset that he’s giving the rest of us atheists such a whiny, self-indulgent–solipsistic?–name.

by: Dan McCarthy

Fri, 11 May 2007 15:28:51 +0000

Interesting analysis, Neill. What an “honest intellectual point” is, I’m not quite sure, but given your want to never again return to the empty, tired issues of “subjugation of women, enslaving minorities” and other frivolous piffle, well, I’m sure I could take a crack at it in the quiet moments solipsistic inner-gazing. It seems to be the only way to crack your code. Like learning Italian to understand Dante…

by: neill

Wed, 09 May 2007 20:25:55 +0000

Krueger?

I think the reason some of us don’t want to have this debate, Dan, is that it would validate the sort of juvenile, ham-fisted “analysis” that Hitchens brings to the table. There’s no honest intellectual point to trotting out the same tired points about religion’s illiberal consequences–whether that’s subjugation of women, enslaving minorities or fighting brutal wars–in the way he does it, because it’s been done before. Repeatedly. Or, to put a finer point on it, I’m not surprised that he claims to have come to his position when he was 9 because he presents himself like a 9 year old who’s decided he’s smarter than the adults in the room.

If he cares this much about carrying the secular flag, there are plenty of issues he could take up, like the war against reprod. rights in this country, rather than keep jerking off onto the written page and calling it “intellect.”

by: Dan McCarthy

Wed, 09 May 2007 17:18:38 +0000

As a final point, and given the inherent “weirdness” of someone commenting on a debate to which one hasn’t attended, heard, or read - I will gladly do comrade Krueger the favor of posting this for all: http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/audio.cfm.

It’s the audio of the debate, in it’s entirety. So, I urge anyone interested in the play-by-play, point for point exchange (or in Sharpton’s case more than once, pointless burbles pooling up from the dusty attic of his intellectual mind) to download it and listen for oneself.

Also, whether a Hitchens fan or not, I urge all to go to http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com. Don’t miss the posts by Greywolf, and by God’s Balls don’t overlook the comments sections there. Hilarious back and forths…

by: pjk

Wed, 09 May 2007 10:50:17 +0000

Dan, you’re a weird guy. Thanks for stopping by.

by: jon

Wed, 09 May 2007 05:38:29 +0000

man, it’s always funny hearing sarcastic intellectual insults. whatever happened to “pistols at high noon?” or maybe we just need some infantile jabs in there to even things out a bit.

“anything too revealing may scurry off a potential employer….BUTTMUNCH!”

by: Dan McCarthy

Wed, 09 May 2007 05:01:35 +0000

Furthermore, I’ve no doubt you’ve tipped a wee toe in this water before, and had this conversation “way, way too many times”, but I’m curious - is it the debate on religion you’ve had too many times, or the discussion on what was or wasn’t said during the exchange, or who did or did not win the debate? I can say with cheery certainty that at least one of us knows the correct answer.

But, I don’t want to push someone on their own “blog for talented people”, and especially not challenge what was said at the debate - as I’m sure you were there, from the authoritative voice - so I’ll comply and cordially bow out. I noticed your resume is posted on here. I now understand the hesitation to go into any matter with relish and ginger; anything too revealing may scurry off a potential employer….