Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Limericks by Christopher Hitchens!

  1. Aug 16, 2007 #1

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    NOTE OF WARNING:
    Only for adults!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 16, 2007 #2
  4. Aug 16, 2007 #3

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  5. Aug 16, 2007 #4

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Which reminds me of a question:

    What do people think on his stance on terrorism? He says that terrorists must be destroyed because they're too aggressive of a people to co-exist with us.

    Now usually, I think the word 'terrorist' is overused in the US, but I would think Hitchens remains lucid in his use of it, and I personally agree with him.
     
  6. Aug 16, 2007 #5

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Suppose you come over a guy raping a child.

    Should you engage in dialogue and debate with him?

    People intent on violating others' human rights have thereby suspended several of their own, i.e, we are not in any moral obligation to respect his "rights". They have by their own actions destroyed those rights (to some extent)
     
  7. Aug 16, 2007 #6

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No. guy gets boot to head for an opening argument.

    The reason I ask is because he supports a war in Iraq for non-religious reasons, but it's still kind of hard for me (in all my ignorance) to separate innocent people from terrorists in a whole country.

    It's possible that I may have misunderstood his dialogue, too.
     
  8. Aug 16, 2007 #7

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, sympathizers with terrorists should stop sympathizing with them, or face the consequences one chooses to impose upon them.

    Sympathizers of terrorists are NOT "innocents", they are the breeding ground of terrorists.
     
  9. Aug 16, 2007 #8
  10. Aug 16, 2007 #9
    Please tells us what it means to be a terrorist. Does it mean intentionally targeting civilians? Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo and nuking Japan twice are these constituted as acts of terrorism?
     
  11. Aug 16, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No they weren't. Hitler wanted to take over the world and he had to be stopped. Japan attacked us. We even warned them of what was coming, but they ignored it. Then, after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender.

    If we were to nuke the entire middle east just to be done with it, that would be an act of terrorism.
     
  12. Aug 17, 2007 #11
    You are simply supporting my argument. The parallel is quite apparent. A foreign power has imposed its will in the Middle East. The response by those who seek to counteract it must be asymmetrical since they cannot fight head-to-head. You then make a statement about proportionality, which again to some of the insurgents is a battle of the highest order; meaning to reach their end goal of driving out the foreign power extraordinary actions must be taken.
     
  13. Aug 17, 2007 #12

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hrmm... I don't disagree. I was talking about innocent people. Surely you don't think everyone in Iraq is either a terrorist or a sympathizer?

    Of course, when people cry out about innocents being killed over there, I don't know whether they're talking about innocent people or sympathizers.
     
  14. Aug 17, 2007 #13
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2007
  15. Aug 17, 2007 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    So, according to you, there are only two possibilities:

    1. The terrorists&sympathizers are a tiny minority in a huge sea of innocents
    or

    2. ALL are sympathizers&terrorists

    I see no evidence for either assertion.
     
  16. Aug 17, 2007 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  17. Aug 18, 2007 #16

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're putting words in my post, I didn't make either assertion: I was asking about yours when you posted this:

    in response to this:

     
  18. Aug 18, 2007 #17

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, then the innocents can start organizing themselves and inform upon those in their neighboorhood that they suspect harbour terrorist sympathies.
     
  19. Aug 18, 2007 #18
    Thats more easily said than done when your entire family will be killed for talking.
     
  20. Aug 18, 2007 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And that's precisely why they need to do so, in order not to remain slaves and hostages any longer..
     
  21. Aug 18, 2007 #20
    Armchair quarterbacking is a nice thing to do, isnt it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Limericks by Christopher Hitchens!
  1. Write-a-Limerick (Replies: 106)

  2. Physics Limericks (Replies: 2)

  3. Christopher Langan (Replies: 43)

Loading...