Posted: Dec 21, 2011 2:08 am
by Just A Theory
Exi5tentialist wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:Hitchens's support for the invasion of Iraq helped to sustain the ideological offensive launched by the US and its allies; it is not merely polemical to point out the reactionary consequences of this stance. While Hitchens was drunkenly lurching around the US lecture circuit, dazzling the gullible with his loquacity, the people of Fallujah were suffering and dying in their thousands.

If you want to get all sentimental about the recently deceased, I am sure Kim Jong-il's family would appreciate a Xmas card.


What a feeble pile of ignorant, festering fucking guff.

On the contrary, Barry Cade's paragraph above is insightful, eloquent, on-topic and wholly accurate, unlike your own. hackenslash, I do not know if there is a word for a sentence that describes itself, but I think you have produced one there.


Insightful, eloquent, on-topic and wholly accurate would seem to mischaracterise Cade's sentences.

Firstly, he editorialises by claiming that the Iraq war was ideological in nature without that being a demonstrated point. It could (and still might) have been economic in nature. Secondly, he claims that his points are not polemic in nature when the type of personal attack on a viewpoint held by a singular person is the very definition of polemics. Thirdly, the ad hominem attacks of "drunkenly lurching" and "dazzling the gullible" have not been substantiated - was Hitchens commonly drunk when speaking, were only the gullible persuaded?

Finally, false equivalence between a journalist who had something to say and a dictator who oppressed a country for a generation has been drawn by Cade.

His points are definitely not wholly accurate and neither on-topic nor eloquent except insofar as his boorishness displays a large vocabulary or access to a decent thesaurus.