Antonin Scalia found dead

[drunkenshoe]

Counterargument ... so you are saying being secular immunizes one from being an asshole?  I will believe that, when I believe that one being religious automatically means one is an asshole.  I can name one ... Hitchens.  Hitchens was a Trotsky-ite who later fell in love with George W Bush's anti-Muslim crusade.  He can't be described as a religious bigot ... but I think he qualifies (as do many anti-Muslims on the Left) as a secular bigot.

Hitchen passed as leftist? *Snort. When he was 25? Or just in USA? Whatever he was, he is beyond a secular bigot. Have you read him on Mesoamerican Genocide? He has always been very consistent with his thoughts and love on genocidal government policies as long as it is out of the fence and serving American policies. That man disgusted me to no end and still does.

[SGOS]

Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion.  During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized."  OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent.  Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?"  And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all.  By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.

No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park.  My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias.  I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment.  At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability.  I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.

[josephpalazzo]

Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion.  During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized."  OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent.  Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?"  And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all.  By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.

No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park.  My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias.  I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment.  At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability.  I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.

I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.

[drunkenshoe]

Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion.  During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized."  OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent.  Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?"  And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all.  By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.

No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park.  My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias.  I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment.  At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability.  I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.

Idolising people always ends bad. Finding out that religion is bullshit, that there is no magic man in the sky and how much religion harms everyone DO NOT NEED a special kind of talent, intellect or rationality. A 15 year old kid can find this out by himself. Someone being an excellent debater just means, he is an excellent debater and nothing more. That is actually bad news in the hands of people like Hicthens if you consider the other side of the coin.

These are not extraordinary traits or abilites. On the other hand supporting a war and an invasion literally started as a 'Crusade' is not just abhorrent to me also a very good way of showing the so called secular qualities of the mentioned people.

This man has so much effect on some group of people, they use made up bullshit phrases like "Hitchen's razor" which is an inflated word salad for the thousand year old burden of proof. It's almost like he is promoted because of lack of anyone talking loud about against religion in the US. Like Harris. 

This is not simple personal bias. Blatantly lying aside, it's saying 'It's OK, if WE do this'. How is that secular? This is religious thinking itself.

[Baruch]

Most people would say ideological ... if one is blind to anything but one's own opinion ... and one isn't a theist.  I would agree that a lot of people were fearful of what Saddam might do, and it was within his powers to do it ... to purchase or make deadly weapons if necessary, if he didn't already have them.  So it isn't just a matter, did he have them at the time ... but also if he had them, would he use them.  The answer was clearly yes, he was a psychopathic genocidal maniac, just like Rumsfeld or Cheney were.  As to if there were some grander conspiracy, other than overworked contingency plans ... we really can't know.  In my judgement, there wasn't enough evidence then to justify an actual invasion, as opposed to something smaller, like special forces intervention against weapons sites or assassination of leadership.  We were all fooled at the time by the false intel coming from Cheney and Powell.

[drunkenshoe]

I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.

Eh, he is not blaming Hitchens for what Bush admins. did ffs. You are turning into pr a bit more everyday.

[wolf39us]

Good riddance.

[josephpalazzo]

The Onion right on spot:


Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress

[josephpalazzo]

[PickelledEggs]

I'm still waiting for Pat Robertson to kick the bucket...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom

[drunkenshoe]

I'm still waiting for Pat Robertson to kick the bucket...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom

I completely forgot about that thing. Can't we make a change? We'll give him and take the judge back and then later at a convenient time, we'll give the judge. :pp

[PickelledEggs]

It's more important that Scania is out of power.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom

[SGOS]

I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.

Yes, it can be justified.  I don't like Islam (or Christianity either), but bias and prejudice should not enter into a reasoned debate about threat of WMD:  "Bush is right because I hate Muslims?"  It's not relevant, is it?  As I've said, however, I don't really know his motivation for this.  That was speculation on my part.  I only know what he said, and can point to reasoning which I believe was seriously flawed.

As to the matter of WMDs, yes, Bush led America down a road of false propaganda and cherry picked intelligence, for the purpose of furthering a feeble brained neocon ideology that had long advocated an invasion of the Mid East, an ideology  which was abhorrent to two previous administrations, one being Bush's own father, along with the public, until Bush started lying.  But Hitchens responsibility should have been to consider all available intelligence, including much of which was highly credible from both current and previous weapons inspection teams that could find no justification for believing the WMDs were there.

I won't deny Hitchens' prejudice or bias.  Those are common human errors, but as the thinker I believe he was, he was unable to push that aside and instead of demonstrating critical analysis, became an unwitting shill for the administration.  I don't think I'm being unfair in this particular situation.  He has been a guiding light of reason on many important issues for years, and I'm grateful to him for this.  He's allowed to make a mistake, but in this case, it was a big mistake totally out of character.  Yes, that was Bush, not Hitchens that invaded, but I'm talking only about a time when Hitchens failed the art of reason.  The one time when the brightest among us lost his way and got an F- on one exam.  But kudos for the rest of the stuff he has illuminated.  I admire him for that.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If Obama wanted, he could say, "There will be a replacement for Scalia by July. If the Senate chooses to delay their confirmation of my candidates by that time, I will consider that as full consent to whoever I choose."

Because according to the constitution, that is well within his rights.

[drunkenshoe]

It's more important that Scania is out of power.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom

Well, I am just taking what you guys are saying obviously, but as I said it doesn't look good to me.