RIP hitchens

[MyndFyre]

The message is complimentary in that he acted as a product of natural selection, not a missionary, carrying out the dirty deeds of natural selection, as you're seeming to suggest.

I'm not saying anything about Hitchens.  As I stated, until today, I'd never even heard of him.

I'm following this chain of thought:
* Sidoh posted that he liked Hitchens
* Sidoh then posted an image that was not disparaging to Hitchens, that described him as a product as natural selection.
* Therefore, Sidoh must like people who behave as products of natural selection and, by extension, products of natural selection.

I have no ulterior motive other than to find out if Sidoh is or is not a fan of products of natural selection.

[while1]

Christopher Hitchens is in hell right now, lololololololol.

Just kidding.  I only go to church to pick up women.  I don't know what I believe.

[Sidoh]

The message is complimentary in that he acted as a product of natural selection, not a missionary, carrying out the dirty deeds of natural selection, as you're seeming to suggest.

I'm not saying anything about Hitchens.  As I stated, until today, I'd never even heard of him.

I'm following this chain of thought:
* Sidoh posted that he liked Hitchens
* Sidoh then posted an image that was not disparaging to Hitchens, that described him as a product as natural selection.
* Therefore, Sidoh must like people who behave as products of natural selection and, by extension, products of natural selection.

I have no ulterior motive other than to find out if Sidoh is or is not a fan of products of natural selection.

The message is complimentary in that he acted as a product of natural selection, not a missionary, carrying out the dirty deeds of natural selection, as you're seeming to suggest.

Yeah, that's pretty close to how I interpreted it.

After 4.5 billions years, you'd think whatever we have to show is pretty great, but we're mostly scumbag idiots. Hitchens makes me feel better about being an h. sapien.

[MyndFyre]

After 4.5 billions years, you'd think whatever we have to show is pretty great, but we're mostly scumbag idiots. Hitchens makes me feel better about being an h. sapien.

Here's the thing: this statement is ambiguous at best and self-contradictory at worst.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is:
* Do you think people shouldn't behave like "scumbag idiots"?
* Do you think that 4.5 billion years of evolution should or shouldn't cause people to behave like scumbag idiots?
* Do you think that Hitchens, then, was or was not an outlier?

[iago]

Perhaps being a scambag idiot is a survival traid (genetically superior?).

[Armin]

The message is complimentary in that he acted as a product of natural selection, not a missionary, carrying out the dirty deeds of natural selection, as you're seeming to suggest.

I'm not saying anything about Hitchens.  As I stated, until today, I'd never even heard of him.

I'm following this chain of thought:
* Sidoh posted that he liked Hitchens
* Sidoh then posted an image that was not disparaging to Hitchens, that described him as a product as natural selection.
* Therefore, Sidoh must like people who behave as products of natural selection and, by extension, products of natural selection.

I have no ulterior motive other than to find out if Sidoh is or is not a fan of products of natural selection.

Okay.

[Rule]

This is a sort of interesting discussion, but it's tangential.  You're reading too much into the image.  It's just a slogan, and its intended meaning is pretty clear.  In common discourse, "natural selection" is very loosely interchangeable with "evolution", and the word "evolved" is used synonymously with "intelligent", "sophisticated", and so on.

[while1]

When I hear natural selection, I think of "survival of the fittest".  So... the fact that the guy died at age 62 due to cancer which probably could have been prevented himself... I would've found the picture kind of confusing had I not really know who the guy was/ what he was known for.

[Sidoh]

This is a sort of interesting discussion, but it's tangential.  You're reading too much into the image.  It's just a slogan, and its intended meaning is pretty clear.  In common discourse, "natural selection" is very loosely interchangeable with "evolution", and the word "evolved" is used synonymously with "intelligent", "sophisticated", and so on.

Yeah... considering how dead these forums tend to get, though, I'm inclined to indulge in any interesting conversation.

After 4.5 billions years, you'd think whatever we have to show is pretty great, but we're mostly scumbag idiots. Hitchens makes me feel better about being an h. sapien.

Here's the thing: this statement is ambiguous at best and self-contradictory at worst.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is:
* Do you think people shouldn't behave like "scumbag idiots"?
* Do you think that 4.5 billion years of evolution should or shouldn't cause people to behave like scumbag idiots?
* Do you think that Hitchens, then, was or was not an outlier?

Yes, it's ambiguous, but I'm inclined to agree with Rule.

No, I don't think that people should behave like scumbag idiots. I think the world would be a better place if we had fewer scumbag idiots.

No, I don't think that 4.5 billion years will necessarily select for or against scumbag idiots. I'd just rather like it if we had fewer of them.

An outlier by what measure? Scumbag idiotude? I don't really know much about Hitchens' personal life. He may or may not have been a scumbag. He was certainly an outlier on the intelligence scale.

He was not afraid to slaughter sacred cows. One of his books is devoted to attacking Mother Teresa. Another one is entitled "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

[Newby]

Not to derail this amazing discussion, but I still have no clue who hitchens is.

(Granted, I've only read posts on this thread pertaining to him. Maybe I should read the Wikipedia article...)

[Sidoh]

Not to derail this amazing discussion, but I still have no clue who hitchens is.

(Granted, I've only read posts on this thread pertaining to him. Maybe I should read the Wikipedia article...)

Just watch some videos of him on youtube. It won't take long to understand what you were missing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w

[Rule]

It's too bad the world, in general, was not more aware of Christopher Hitchens.  He was famous, certainly, but not a household name like Richard Dawkins, and he deserves to be.  No one compared with Hitchens.

Although Hitchens was a lot more than an outspoken atheist, of the "4 horsemen", this is how I would rank them:
Christopher Hitchens > Richard Dawkins > Sam Harris > Daniel Dennett.

I find Dennett hugely boring.

[deadly7]

It's too bad the world, in general, was not more aware of Christopher Hitchens.  He was famous, certainly, but not a household name like Richard Dawkins, and he deserves to be.  Hitchens is a lot more interesting and intelligent and just overall unique than Dawkins.  Not that I especially have anything against Dawkins, I do like some of his writings and he's reasonably interesting and sometimes funny.  On balance I like him.  Just basically no one compared with Hitch. 

Although Hitchens was a lot more than an outspoken atheist, of the "4 horsemen", this is how I would rank them:
Christopher Hitchens > Richard Dawkins > Sam Harris > Daniel Dennett.

I find Dennett hugely boring.

It baffles me that you think Dawkins is a household name.

[while1]

Aye, Hitchens was more of a household name IMO...

[Rule]

In my experience, the average university student knows who Dawkins is, and could tell you a few things about him (like that he's a biologist), but doesn't know who Hitchens is.