Although I greatly admire Hitchen's writings on atheism, let's not forget what a horrendous ass-hat he really was when it came to the Iraq war, neoconism, and the deaths of civilians. Hitchens would never let anyone else slide (see Mother Theresa, Princess Diana) on their moral misgivings and hypocrisies just because they're dead. How do you reconcile celebrating him with these unforgivable lapses in moral judgement?
And so you're saying that by your doing what you deplore in him you're doing us all a solid?
I never said it was unseemly. You did. I think it's perfectly fine when he criticized public figures upon their death and it's fine when I do it. It's deification that I'm against, which would be suppressing criticism because it's unseemly.
Deification?!!! I've just seen people saying they'll miss his incisive commentaries on religion.
And as far as greatness, I think Hitchens had a remarkable gift of intellect and persuasiveness. I think what you DO with your gifts and the consequences of your actions define greatness, not the gifts themselves. His flawed support of the Iraq war was very far from greatness.
Adding a negative would equal subtraction only if Hitchens were a number. You're the first to say that. When someone mentioning a critical note is to be banned from the community of seemly people by your decree than so be it. I give a rats ass about your tastes.
I found a pretty good article that discusses his war stance.(except for the last sentence :))
Well, gee, it's a little too soon to pronounce a final judgement on the war, isn't it? Wait 5 or 10 years and a lasting verdict will come into focus. Right now, about all you can say is you disagree with him, not that history shows he was wrong.
Like Zhou Enlai answered when asked about what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution: "It's too soon to tell".
Yes, the French Revolution was horrific, and yet all modern democracies can consider themselves its progeny, n'est ce pas?
Weeeeelll.. I've always found it's significance to be a bit overrated. There always seems to be rather cataclysmic events whenever humanity enters a new age, whether it was the entering of the industrial era, in which the French Revolution takes place, or the entry into the modern era on the eve of two world wars.
I personally prefer starting the analysis in 1848 to 1789 when drawing the outline of the world around us today. Your mileage may wary. :)
I pat your head. Your opinion is noted.
I'm also reminded of the fabulous castle Neuschwannstein in the Bavarian Alps. Built on the back of peasants by the mad kind Ludwig. He was a despot, but the result is a fairy tale castle open to the world. Was it worth it? If I had been a peasant back then, no. But for what we can enjoy today, yes!