Oh please, Hitchens may have drank before the debate but that doesn't mean he was in any way drunk, what is 'heavy drinking to Hedges'? 3 glasses, 4? Hitchens can handle his liquor, more than most. Hitchens also didn't walk off the stage or mischaracterize what Hedges was saying, Hitchens never said, 'Shame on you for supporting suicide bombers'. Honestly it takes 2 seconds to find out what he actually said, Hitchens was accusing Hedges argument, that the palestinian suicide bombers are driven by despair. He also continuously criticizes Hitchens personal attacks, while personally attacking Hitchens himself and likens everyone one he disagree's with to be some sort of Fox news anchor.KenDowns wrote:He was what he was, a drunken swaggering f*ck whose supposed intelligence could only impress an imbecile. Hedges said it better than I can:
http://www.cbc.ca/day6/2011/12/16/chris ... -hitchens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and here when they debated:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/he ... 201112161/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Off topic discussions. Feel free to talk about anything here.
Last edited by Jebus on Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Right from wrong, sure, I'll grant you that. However it sounded like KPJ was making the point that this sounded a lot like "casting the first stone" so to speak. Then Ken seemed to be weaseling out of it. You could also interpret it is a colloquialism, like "not a very nice thing to say", implying it's uncharacteristic of a Christian to talk that way. Either way the response seemed like a sort of lame justification.stuward wrote:I don't know why I'm getting involved but being able to discern right from wrong is a basic part of being Christian. It is what Jesus taught.Ironman wrote:Wrong, Christians believe Jesus is the son of god, and in his teachings. What you are describing is in no way a core Christian belief. It sounds more like pseudo-philosophical bull$h1t.Actually it is. Christians distinguish between the necessary ability to perceive the truth, for which our jargon term is discernment from the base desire to seek vengeance and inflict suffering, for which our jargon term is judgment.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Christian-Dis ... id=1359823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.acts17-11.com/discern.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1 Thes 5:21 (Phi) "By all means use your judgment, and hold on to whatever is good."
It's not as simple as that. Sometimes it can be very hard to find a job, especially in this economy. The purpose is to help them get by while they try to get another job. Looking for work can be time consuming. Besides that the taxpayer is still paying, and the company is getting the benefit. I doubt they need motivation, so much as they need a suitable job.teafan wrote:About that jobseeker article from the Guardian:
The "slaves" arent working without pay, they are working for less money than their colleagues. They continue to receive their jobseekers allowance ([1 million dollars] a week?) whilst developing "employable skills". They can leave "slavery" at a time of their choosing but they will lose their tax funded allowance.
We have an awful lot of bums in our country who think that the state should pay their way - we also have issues whereby a graduate or similarly qualified individual struggles to find work. We need to find a solution to both issues but occasionally these issues overlap. We can't keep handing out tax payers money for job seekers as this just stimulates the attitude we are suffering from - if annoying the s*** out of them by getting them to stack beans in Wal Mart for 30 hours a week works in encouraging them to find a job... damn, I'm all for it! We have plenty of vacancies in our call centre and will pay much more than their current [1 million dollars] quid a week should they choose to apply.