Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Is Peter Hitchens a moron?

Scroll to see replies

Not in the UK they aren't.

We don't have a conscript army. We have professionals. Young people know what they are going in to when they train as a professional to be a soldier, there is a risk of being killed but the British military won't treat young soldiers as being more expendable, they share the same risks as their older and more experienced colleagues.

The real problem with what Hitchens was saying was that he was implying that young soldiers don't know what they are doing and go naively off to war and so the government/military takes advantage of their ignorance by putting them at risk. This isn't the case at all. Young people that join the army understand the situation, they make the conscious choice in a democratic society to train to be a professional soldier and understand the risks.

In other countries where young people are conscripted or brainwashed in to making the sacrifice for their fatherland etc then he would have a point about the state taking advantage of them.

They might make the decision but I'd say it's often not a very well-informed decision and it's one that's taken when there's often not a lot of other choices available

Reply 81

XxelliexX

I saw him in a debate - he's a really very vile man. He was so rude - lolling his head back and paying no attention whatsoever when the other speakers were talking and then when the debate was other he went up to the speaker who had just finished, invaded his personal space and adopted a threatening stance in a clear effort to intimidate him.

Reply 82

aeon439

Original post by Captain Haddock

Pretty much everything you have said about addiction can be said about depression. "There's no blood test for depression! You should just stop being sad!"

Wrong. Addiction can be a very physical thing and withdrawal can have very real, diagnosable symptoms. Going cold turkey on certain drugs, including alcohol, can even be fatal.

I'm not asking for a special court to help me stop my depression as I haven't committed any crime (watch the debate) My anti-depressants work as well, so they must be acting on my brain chemicals successfully.
I wouldn't say depression was a disease either; it's a psychological condition but brain chemistry is definitely affected.

it's all about the effect addiction to illegal drugs and alcohol has on society. My depression isn't impinging on other peoples' lives like the type of drug and alcohol addiction that causes people to commit crime.

Reply 83

aeon439

Original post by XxelliexX

Matthew Perry was being pretty unpleasant too in the Newsnight debate; calling Peter Hitchens insulting names and glaring at him in a very aggressive manner. They had to leave the studio by different exists apparently and I'll bet it was because Perry was at risk of hitting Hitchens not vice versa and I'll bet Perry will be off the wagon before the year is out, proving all his hot air was just that!

Reply 84

SciFiRory

he's an egotistical right wing moron, it just beggars belief that anyone listens to him, he's as mad as Nick Griffin.

Reply 85

Squaresquirrel

I only heard about Hitchens a week ago and everything I have ever seen makes me hate the man. Yes he can argue reasonably well but from stances that are ludicrous I just can't take him seriously.

Also on the point about addiction, it is worth bearing in mind that it isn't just drugs that are addictive. Self harm, gambling, sex also can be addictive (although of course physical withdrawal really only exists for drugs). But imho it is the psychological addiction that is the worst and needs treating. I've been addicted to several things and the physical side only lasts a few days/ a week, but psychological is a life long struggle. Anyone trying to undermine addiction as a matter of "will power" clearly has never had to struggle with it. . .

Reply 86

Soft Cat

He's a closet bender who acts like one needs to be outed and humiliated. No place for his bender views poisoning youth.

Reply 87

viddy9

He's certainly an incredibly irrational creature; his late brother was far more witty and intelligent than he could ever hope to be.

I have stumbled across a couple of good things he's said, though: firstly, he supports the renationalisation of the railways; secondly, he opposed the Iraq War.

However, this is seriously outweighed by his irrational views on religion, vaccines and his general pseudoscientific stance as is the norm for publications like the Daily Mail for which he writes, as well as the Telegraph and to some extent The Times.

I saw him debating the existence of God at the Oxford Union (on YouTube). He was atrocious. Rambled on about irrelevant things and actually started off by saying how much he hated the debate, which leads one to question why he agreed to do it in the first place.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 88

limetang

Bias is a wonderful thing. It seems that shockingly those who disagree with his views find him to be an insufferable creature. Personally I don't agree with everything he has to say but I have to admire him for two reasons, firstly he isn't somebody who is afraid to hold and express unpopular views, and secondly he isn't an idiot, misguided perhaps on some of his views (but then again who isn't, his brother Christopher let us not forget supported the Iraq war, but it doesn't seem to be the case that anybody here is chastising him for that)

Reply 89

limetang

Original post by perspiracious

I never agreed with Christopher's stance on Iraq War. Nevertheless, this thread is not about him. Also, one must not forget that bias is a two-way street, with Peter Hitchens being full of it. One must not look far to find evidence for his biased views. His Mail On Sunday blog is full of purposefully deceitful, not newsworthy, meaningless stuff (especially his advocation of moral theology and to a lesser extent: his drug addiction stance). Other than his wasted efforts on complaining of moral collapse, his ad hominem and strawman critiques of other individuals, he is a fairly intelligent man.

Which are valid criticisms, though I'd agree he's no moron. The only thing I would say is that his advocation of moral theology isn't something you can criticise too much, it's a self consistent view with his christian beliefs, and I mean you can criticise that sure, but I'd question how far before again it becomes a question of bias creeping into our perceptions of a person.

For example as a Christian I don't think of somebody as purposefully deceitful if they try and propose a form of say secular humanist ethical system. I disagree with them sure, but I don't dismiss them as a result of that.

Reply 90

limetang

Original post by perspiracious

Surely, secular morality is more objective than moral theology? Plus, secular society and separation of church and state, are one of the best methods to guarantee freedom of religion.

Depends which (if any) is true.

I'm not talking secular society though, I was talking about secular humanism as an example of a worldview that contains within it a moral worldview, not secularism.