Originally posted by Bosse de NageHitchens substantiates my claim every time he appears on Real Time with Bill Maher---making mocking statements and inane diatribes at an audience, then daring them to come and "take him on", knowing full well the security will prevent that from happening. He's a blowhard who sounds real brave when he's got a wall of guards keeping those he insults at bay.
Please substantiate your claim!
Originally posted by PinkFloydHitchens has proven his courage many times, not by undergoing waterboarding, but in his very public attacks on religion including "the religion of peace" which has earned him threats against himself and his family. He has very publicly defended such people as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali against those who believe in censorship through death. There are any number of open debates available on youtube where he displays confidence, courage and wit going head to head and not a security guard in sight. He has traveled to Sudan, Darfur, Iran, Iraq. Not places for the average tourist let alone someone who has been so public in their criticisms.
Hitchens substantiates my claim every time he appears on Real Time with Bill Maher---making mocking statements and inane diatribes at an audience, then daring them to come and "take him on", knowing full well the security will prevent that from happening. He's a blowhard who sounds real brave when he's got a wall of guards keeping those he insults at bay.
Originally posted by WajomaI rather doubt that Mr. Hitchens is very high on any group's "hit list", thus explaining his lack of need for security guards 😀
Hitchens has proven his courage many times, not by undergoing waterboarding, but in his very public attacks on religion including "the religion of peace" which has earned him threats against himself and his family. He has very publicly defended such people as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali against those who believe in censorship through death. There are ...[text shortened]... t places for the average tourist let alone someone who has been so public in their criticisms.
Originally posted by PinkFloydThis all came up when PinkFloyd said Hitchens was a fey pantywaist. A claim that has gone unsubstantiated. I have provided examples of Hitchens courage, he has received threats against himself and his family as a result of his publicly stated views. He does not hide behind a pseudonym.
exactly---she says nothing. That's what I thought...
Originally posted by WajomaHitchens doesn't need to hide; no one's "after" him. he just isn't that brave nor important.
This all came up when PinkFloyd said Hitchens was a fey pantywaist. A claim that has gone unsubstantiated. I have provided examples of Hitchens courage, he has received threats against himself and his family as a result of his publicly stated views. He does not hide behind a pseudonym.
3 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydNothing about the term "fey pantywaist" can be used to describe Hitchens.
Hitchens doesn't need to hide; no one's "after" him. he just isn't that brave nor important.
A milksop sissy pansy does not travel to some of the most dangerous places on earth.
A milksop sissy pansy does not publish a book denouncing the major religions some of those religions having fanatical members capable murdering those that are critical of their religion.
A milksop sissy pansy does not take open questions at live television broadcasts.
Milksop sissy pansies don't do television let alone 'live' television.
Milksop sissy pansies do not engage in public debates to defend their veiws.
Milksop sissy pansies do not subject themselves to waterboarding.
That's just "pantywaist". Should we look up the definition of "fey" and see if that can be applied to Hitchens?
You don't like Hitchens, that's fine.
You want to call him names, that's fine too, you might like to make out that none of his achievements require great courage but you cannot claim the direct opposite of the man either, you'll need to find something more fitting to call him, go on, no need to be so stubborn.
