Peter Hitchens

Thomas Eshuis · #1 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 9:40 pm

What a pompous patronizing and arrogant ass this man turned out to be. If I didn't know better I would never have believed him to be a brother of Christopher Hitchens.

Some prime examples of his ludicrous positions and statements:

P.s. Wasn't sure what the correct subforum for this'd be. So if it belongs in one of the others feel free to inform me or one of the mods.

DougC · #2 by **DougC** » Apr 05, 2014 9:52 pm

I always wonderd about these two.

I think sibling rivalry had a LOT to do with it. like his brother, he had been a Trotskyist in the 1970s. Both changed with age (as we all do) but on a personal level it was good that Christopher eventually expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew, who was born in 99.

Glad I'm an only child.

Thomas Eshuis · #3 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 9:57 pm

DougC wrote:I always wonderd about these two.

I think sibling rivalry had a LOT to do with it. like his brother, he had been a Trotskyist in the 1970s. Both changed with age (as we all do) but on a personal level it was good that Christopher eventually expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew, who was born in 99.

Glad I'm an only child.

My brother and I disagree on many things, but most of those are minor.
We certainly do not hold such diametrically opposed views on such fundamental issues.

DougC · #4 by **DougC** » Apr 05, 2014 10:08 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DougC wrote:I always wonderd about these two.

I think sibling rivalry had a LOT to do with it. like his brother, he had been a Trotskyist in the 1970s. Both changed with age (as we all do) but on a personal level it was good that Christopher eventually expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew, who was born in 99.

Glad I'm an only child.

My brother and I disagree on many things, but most of those are minor.
We certainly do not hold such diametrically opposed views on such fundamental issues.

I was not, you understand, painting ALL brotherly relations in the same light.
If I had a brother I would hope our relationship was like the Eshuis's, rather than the Hitchens's. :cheers:

Edit: misplaced '6' ?

surreptitious57 · #5 by **surreptitious57** » Apr 05, 2014 10:10 pm

I post occasionally at his blog. I like him as he thinks differently to me and so therefore
can challenge my thinking for it is the only way to test its validity. Now while it may be
comforting to surround oneself with those who agree with you it is not very stimulating

DougC · #6 by **DougC** » Apr 05, 2014 10:17 pm

Also, the fact that both worked in journalism did not help. If either of them had worked in a less public field, then none of this would be so apparant. However, as surreptitious57 said, its good to have views from the other side.

I'm With Stupid · #7 by **I'm With Stupid** » Apr 05, 2014 10:20 pm

Peter Hitchens (if you'll allow me to stereotype for a second) is exactly what you'd expect of some privileged, public school educated person in his political views. Although interestingly, like Christopher, he was actually a staunch socialist and even a member of the Labour party in his younger days. I find it strange that someone can basically do a complete 180 degrees turn in their political views.

Thomas Eshuis · #8 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 10:22 pm

DougC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DougC wrote:I always wonderd about these two.

I think sibling rivalry had a LOT to do with it. like his brother, he had been a Trotskyist in the 1970s. Both changed with age (as we all do) but on a personal level it was good that Christopher eventually expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew, who was born in 99.

Glad I'm an only child.

My brother and I disagree on many things, but most of those are minor.
We certainly do not hold such diametrically opposed views on such fundamental issues.

I was not, you understand, painting ALL brotherly relations in the same light.
If I had a brother I would hope our relationship was like the Eshuis's, rather than the Hitchens's.

Edit: misplaced '6' ?

Not that we have a wonderful relationship mind, we can really get under each others skin at times.

Thomas Eshuis · #9 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 10:23 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I post occasionally at his blog. I like him as he thinks differently to me and so therefore
can challenge my thinking for it is the only way to test its validity. Now while it may be
comforting to surround oneself with those who agree with you it is not very stimulating

Who has advocated surrounding yourself with those who agree with you?

DougC · **#10** by **DougC** » Apr 05, 2014 10:23 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:Peter Hitchens (if you'll allow me to stereotype for a second) is exactly what you'd expect of some privileged, public school educated person in his political views. Although interestingly, like Christopher, he was actually a staunch socialist and even a member of the Labour party in his younger days. I find it strange that someone can basically do a complete 180 degrees turn in their political views.

Political doplar shift.

Thomas Eshuis · **#11** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 10:27 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:Peter Hitchens (if you'll allow me to stereotype for a second) is exactly what you'd expect of some privileged, public school educated person in his political views. Although interestingly, like Christopher, he was actually a staunch socialist and even a member of the Labour party in his younger days. I find it strange that someone can basically do a complete 180 degrees turn in their political views.

There are plenty of people who are currently members of Dutch rightwing parties who used to be hippies in the '60s.
I guess it does happen.

Thomas Eshuis · **#12** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 05, 2014 10:38 pm

He has his very own rationalwiki page apparently:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Thomas Eshuis · **#13** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 08, 2014 4:23 pm

Some more pontification:

BlackBart · **#14** by **BlackBart** » Apr 08, 2014 5:41 pm

My theory was Christopher must have been laying on Peter's umbilical cord until I found out they weren't actually twins. :tehe:

Thomas Eshuis · **#15** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 08, 2014 6:35 pm

According to Peter, quality selection will eliminate the family income/social background factor of a child's education:

Horwood Beer-Master · **#16** by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Apr 10, 2014 11:13 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...There are plenty of people who are currently members of Dutch rightwing parties who used to be hippies in the '60s.
I guess it does happen.

That's not necessarily much of a drastic conversion. Many self-proclaimed hippies in the 60's would have been in it more for the lifestyle than for any ideology anyway; and much of the ideology espoused by many hippies, once you scratched the surface, contained a lot of thinly-veiled self-centred individualism.

I can imagine there may be more right-wing ex-hippies out there than left-wing ex-hippies. They probably stopped "sticking it to the man" the day they realised they were earning enough money that they were now "the man".

Thomas Eshuis · **#17** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 10, 2014 12:46 pm

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...There are plenty of people who are currently members of Dutch rightwing parties who used to be hippies in the '60s.
I guess it does happen.

That's not necessarily much of a drastic conversion. Many self-proclaimed hippies in the 60's would have been in it more for the lifestyle than for any ideology anyway; and much of the ideology espoused by many hippies, once you scratched the surface, contained a lot of thinly-veiled self-centred individualism.

I can imagine there may be more right-wing ex-hippies out there than left-wing ex-hippies. They probably stopped "sticking it to the man" the day they realised they were earning enough money that they were now "the man".

Fair point.

poolshark · **#18** by **poolshark** » Apr 13, 2014 8:20 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:Peter Hitchens (if you'll allow me to stereotype for a second) is exactly what you'd expect of some privileged, public school educated person in his political views. Although interestingly, like Christopher, he was actually a staunch socialist and even a member of the Labour party in his younger days. I find it strange that someone can basically do a complete 180 degrees turn in their political views.

Well there is a saying "right wing before 30 - no heart. Left wing after 30 - no brain". Not necessarily agreeing with that as I am an old lefty myself.

Animavore · **#19** by **Animavore** » Apr 13, 2014 8:23 pm

poolshark wrote:
I'm With Stupid wrote:Peter Hitchens (if you'll allow me to stereotype for a second) is exactly what you'd expect of some privileged, public school educated person in his political views. Although interestingly, like Christopher, he was actually a staunch socialist and even a member of the Labour party in his younger days. I find it strange that someone can basically do a complete 180 degrees turn in their political views.

Well there is a saying "right wing before 30 - no heart. Left wing after 30 - no brain". Not necessarily agreeing with that as I am an old lefty myself.

If there is any truth in this saying it might be referring to the fact that what starts off left and liberal when you're younger becomes right and conservative as you get older while a new left comes into play.

surreptitious57 · **#20** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 13, 2014 9:21 pm

When you are young you have less understanding of how the world works so may not think much of wanting to change
it. When you are older however you realise there are significant limitations as to how much you can do that. Also and
this is true of all ages there is an assumption that your position by default must be the right one. But this is fallacious
thinking because by that logic everyone would be right including those who hold contrary positions. But no one has a
monopoly on wisdom so even if contrary positions did not exist that would not automatically render them true. Moral
truth anyway cannot be objectively true less one thinks the two are mutually compatible although this is not a given

I adopt the position of observer rather than participant where human beings are concerned for I am merely passing
through so try not to get too involved in their affairs. I am not here to change the world just my mind as that is the
one thing I have jurisdiction over. But none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. Only in the here and now

Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens

Ads by Google

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Ads by Google

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Ads by Google

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Re: Peter Hitchens

Who is online