Both as authors and as public intellectuals. I always found Christopher to be less interesting because the stuff he was saying in regards to religion was already then being echoed by so many fedoras.
>killing your son as a sacrifice like in this 4,000 year old story is actually bad u guise
Easy answer
Peter is better because he actually has consistent beliefs and is ironically far more considerate of perspectives outside his own.
Chris was probably a better speaker but that's about it
>Killing your son is bad
>tfw no suspensión teleológica de lo ético
He should an hero.
>but peter is less charming
>Lets invade Iraq and kill 300 000 women and children
No
>Damn you Morality Man, I would have goten away with it if it wasn't for your inexistent """""god"""" I dislike so much
Neither
>people actually believe this
>I usually find christopher less interesting because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
strikingly similar to
>I usually find Nietzsche less interesting because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
I wonder if...
>I usually find (anyone at all) to be (anything at all) because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
You know how I know you're a pseud? It's because you apparently constantly condition yourself with the whimsy of memeing faggots.
The BURN is real!!
/thread
Whoever wins ... we lose.
Muslims are not human tho
Both are pseuds without an original thought between them.
Is there anyone in America like Peter? There was Christopher Lasch but he died over 20 years ago. It's hard to find American conservatives who don't have a hard-on for capitalism.
Look up the distributist on YT
Christopher had more skill, but Peter has more heart.
He's never been consistently misrepresented by his fanboys the way Nietschze has, so that's a poor comparison to make. His stuff on religion is trite.
Christopher Hitchens wins the debate because of gifted oratory, an audience packed with supporters, liberal media personalities falling in love with him.
Peter Hitchens is booed before appearing on the stage, is widely ridiculed in the media for being a dinosaur but rises above to present strong, logical points that fly over the head of the college-level intellectuals surrounding him.
Unless the topic is Islam, in whichcase they both agree and go for a pint.
Peter unironically changed my views on drug laws, after watching many debates and reading his book, I've yet to see anyone seriously demonstrate why his position is wrong.
Peter seems to admire Islam more than the degenerate liberalism of his brother.
You can admire the destruction caused by an A-bomb, does not mean you want one in your home town.
He admires muslims for the conviction to their faith, not so muh the tenets of islam itself
...
Isn't his entire position based on the tenuous link between marijuana and schizophrenia?
Maybe Pat Buchanan? He's a paleoconservative, though, which is different than Peter's stance.
John Derbyshire maybe, if you count him as American.
>Hitchens contends that it is only through much harsher and more stringent punishment – for both consumers and dealers of drugs – that any war on drugs can be successful.
fuck him and fuck you too
fuck you Leatherhead
fuck off junkie
never did drugs, never will
again, fuck him and fuck you
My neighbors are hard drug addicts. They make everyone around them miserable while at the same time ruining their own lives. I'm certain that they will continue to live like this indefinitely. Cutting off their access to drugs in some way is the only answer. Police being given permission to actually do their jobs seems like the smartest solution to me. They've been raided before but nothing came of it. I refuse to believe that they found nothing inside their home.
you're willing to ruin (and I do mean RUIN) tens of millions of people's lives over your neighbors being shitbags
for the third time - fuck peter hitchens and fuck you too
>ruin people's lives
how? the only people damaged by harder drug laws are the junkies and the dealers
Drug addicts are ruining themselves. They're just too fucked up on drugs to notice it. Even ignoring their negative impact on the people around them (which is huge, destruction of social capital, introducing more people to drugs, police corruption, etc) cracking down seems like a good idea.
jesus christ, not everybody that uses drugs is a character from trainspotting and your "solution" would put even more people in prison - which is useless, by the way
america already has a huge prison population and the two of you would dramatically increase it
people who know what they're talking about are championing less people in prisons and/or less stringent drug laws, I think I'll trust them and not the guy from Veeky Forums whose expertise seems to be gotten by way of interacting with his junkie neighbors
>prison is useless
Then we'll reform the prisons too.
>America
I'm not a freedom, I'm an Australian. If America's prisons are full but your crime rates are still fucked that might mean your prisons aren't working. That doesn't mean prisons are a bad idea. There's pretty clearly something wrong with how you do it though.
>people who know what they're talking about are championing less people in prisons and/or less stringent drug laws
Who are they and what exactly are they saying? The only smart pro-legalization argument I've heard is the libertarian one which might be effective but also seems cruel since it's pretty much condemning them to rot and giving up on helping. Anything in between complete legalization and harsh punishment just seems like crap to me. But which specific ones are you referring to? Who are these people who know what they're talking about?
>Who are they and what exactly are they saying?
I don't have any links. A couple of years ago I read a few articles on the subject and all of them concluded that prison is not the way to deal with drugs.
Not only prison, you have to be harsh all over. The crime rates in the Phillipines have gone way the hell down since Duterte stepped in. There have been a few thousand casualties, sure, but it's too soon to go calling him a mad dog. This stuff might just serve as a working example in a couple of years.
OK, I'm sorry for giving you an honest answer, you're either a nutjob or a troll.
>nutjob or a troll
Do you honestly think these problems will be fixed by social programs and community outreach? Where I'm from there's no community left. Without big stirring actions to whip us out of apathy things are going to keep rotting and falling to pieces until there's nothing good left. Refusing to acknowledge and attack problems is as good as lying down and accepting defeat.
>The crime rates in the Phillipines have gone way the hell down since Duterte stepped in.
news.abs-cbn.com
>murder cases went up 51.14 percent
>According to Reuters, same PNP statistics show that serious crime was already in decline during the administration of Duterte's predecessor, President Benigno Aquino.
>The police figures show that in the January-August period of 2015, serious crime was down 22 percent compared with the same period the previous year. In 2014, it declined 26 percent.
you're a fucking murderous idiot
it's basically about whether you want to hate muslims while being an atheist or while being a christian
Christopher was incredibly witty and an amazing debater. Peter is a far better intellectual and authored much better books.
fuck you gynocentric cunt
>big stirring actions
>Duterte was right
>more prisoners and more prisons
The one stirring action that I can think of is you blowing your brains out.
>murder cases
I'm having trouble telling if deaths as a result of police-action are included or not in this statistic. And an overall increase could potentially be explained by increased pressure within criminal communities. I'll need to read more on this.
I noticed that crimes against persons and property both dropped solidly though. Look at these results. Everything but murder has dropped. At worst I can only see this as a mixed blessing.
addendum: just read another piece before hitting 'submit.' Philippine Police claim that the deaths are now mostly drug dealers. Obviously this can't be taken as straight proof things are awesome and no innocent people are dying but there would almost certainly be at least some truth to it. If we were to remove crackdown-related deaths of criminals from the murder figures it'd probably be less severe looking.
I didn't necessarily mean more prisoners and prisons. More punishment is definitely the way to go though. And real punishment. Most prisons in the first world seem to be run by their prisoners and totally ineffective at reforming inmates. I don't know how I'd fix this, I've never studied prisons before, but surely there's a better way than what we're doing now. At the moment in Australia youth offenders riot and break out every other week and treat prison stuff like dirt.
>I noticed that crimes against persons and property both dropped solidly though. Look at these results. Everything but murder has dropped. At worst I can only see this as a mixed blessing.
they were dropping before duterte too, and without the 50% increase in MURDER
Now they're dropping more, and the murders are possibly largely due to vigilante militias hunting down drug dealers. I can't think of any other reason for every other crime to drop but for murder to suddenly spike during a drug-focused police crackdown. Maybe desperate criminals are robbing each other on account of the drug industry collapsing but then theft would be up too.
maybe when you have bands of murderers roving around the country killing anyone they suspect of looking at a drug people get less willing to commit other crimes
what a wonderful world
I'd take a town controlled by vigilantes over one run by criminals. At least the vigilantes probably don't own a bloody sub-woofer like my neighbors.
This.
Christopher is a pseud. Peter is a better writer as well. His columns are hilarious sometimes.
And how many lives are ruined by the production of those drugs to begin with? How many lives do they ruin in order to attain those drugs?
Why is it only the criminal that is a victim?
I like Fr. Hitchens, but the formatting on his blog can be awful sometimes.
I like Peter.
>I don't have any links. A couple of years ago I read a few articles on the subject. . .
Truly, we are in the presence of erudition.
I might need to start watching Japanese wrestling.
This guy has the right idea, just kill addicts and dealers and there will be no more addicts and dealers
Peter has consistent beliefs and backs them up with evidence and logic, for the most part, and he sticks to his beliefs even though people hate him for it. Peter consistently debates everyone and always wins, plus his views on the creation of the EU are interesting.
Christopher jumped on the bandwagon of American atheism and relies solely on feels and emotion (Saddam was bad lets kill hundreds of thousands of women). Christopher had no bravery or intellectual to match Peter, he rode a bangwagon atheist wave to the top, and then embarrassed petty old conservatives which is easy.
Peter vs Christopher debate shows the intellectual difference between the two. Christopher says what gets claps. Peter speaks his mind backed up by an immense understanding of politics and the world.
He is right. Deter both the supplier and the consumer with punishment and drugs will cease to be a big of a problem as it currently is.
>Putting dealers and druggies in prison
>Ruining their lives
>Implying they haven't already ruined it and aren't potentially ruining the lives of millions of other innocents
high schooler detected. Don't worry kid, you'll try the devil's tobacco in college and it'll all make sense
Nice argument, buddy.