Dinesh D'souza: Most pretentious cock of all time?
Offline
Having seen most everything youtube has to offer on the four horsemen, I was scouring the YT library for a new fix, and I came upon Dan Dennett's and Christopher Hitchens's debates with Dinesh D'souza.
It struck me again and again how incredibly pretentious this guy is. In the debate with Dennett for example, Dennett argues his position in a very calm and collected, though sometimes a little facetious, manner.
Then Dan calmly sits down, and Dinesh grabs the microphone and is BARELY below an angry voice. I don't know if the dude was on crack that night or what, but he seriously needed to chill the fuck out. Then, to top it all off, he turned around and called Dennett elitist...??? Out of the four horsemen, Dennett is actually the nicest to religion, the least in the public eye, he uses the friendliest language, and never rises above that genial Santa Claus tone. And the guy who can barely keep the vein in his forehead from bursting is calling him elitist? What?
My favorite D'souza moment, though, was watching his debate with Christopher Hitchens in which Hitchens asks... ASKS... as in D'souza was given the opportunity to decline... he asks D'souza if he can have a little more time to respond to the "Hitler and Stalin, etc were atheists" remark (you knew it would be in there) in exchange for giving D'souza more time on another question and D'souza agrees. Hitchens gets as far as halfway through his explanation of why it doesn't apply to Hitler and D'souza is already cutting in and asking him if he's done because he wants time to talk too. So Hitchens wraps it up, obviously. Then... oh, this is great... then D'souza points out all of the famous atheist tyrants Hitchens didn't talk about! BRILLIANT!!! And then later, when Hitchens cuts him off, he remarks that "see? this is how atheists want it. Atheists get everything and theism gets pushed aside." Oh, fucking brilliant, hypocrite.
What is up with this guy? Most pretentious cock of all time? Thoughts?
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Login to post comments
He is a merely a sick " angry kitten" compared to many other "Christians, Islamists " and other god of abe idol worshipers ....
All must read this, from the holy christian celebrated SAINT ,
Martin Luther
'On Jews and their Lies' Part Two
Luther's Advice for dealing with the Jews .... ETC
http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/on_jews_and_their_lies_p2.html
[ link fixed ]
Atheism Books.
He's certainly up there.
I watched the debate with Hitchens, D'souza was beyond annoying. Then again...I can't remember a single atheist vs. theist debate where the theist was not incredibly annoying to me.
D'souza is definitely a hothead, and honestly, he does come across as kind of a douche bag most of the time.
I have watched a number of debates between D'Souza and atheists (ie. Shermer, Hitchens, Dennett, etc.). Dinesh's tactic for "winning" a debate is to play into audience's emotions. Regrettably, the debating atheists do not come back with an equally if not more emotionally charged retort. In those debates, there have been several missed opportunities among the atheists.
Dinesh cries out "Well what about atheists such as Stalin!!! His genocidal crimes far outweight the few hundred that died at the hands of the inquisition!!!! These atheists have the gall to ask Christians to answer for acknowledged crimes when atheists absolve themselves of crimes against humanity committed by atheists!!!"
First, the atheist should point out that there will always be cruel humans walking this earth (either atheist or theist). They should point out that our bloodlust and tribal natures are likely hardwired such that even the "nobility" of religion cannot solve. Then the atheist should go for the jugular and point out the modern day genocide committed by the Christian Hutus of Rwanda. Hutu Catholic priests weilded machetes and participated in the slaughter of Tutsis. They should also point out the Christian Serbs who slaughtered Bosnians en masse in the Balkans. Yet the atheists never mention any of this in their debates with Dinesh. We all agree that his arguments are lame and any amateur secular debater ought to be able to cream him in a match. Yet the atheists who have debated him thus far do not seem inclined to win the audience over with clever but rational retorts. Lets face it, Dinesh is an easy kill in a debate. Yet for reasons I cannot explain, the atheist debaters thus far IMO didn't go far enough for the knock out punch shortly after the bell rings in the first round.
Ragdish, I think no one engages in the "you too" argument, and I have heard a few of these people involved saying that they don't want to be dragged down into that particular argument. The reasoning is that once you say look at the Hutus and Christian Serbs you have immediately supported their false premise that Stalin, Mao etc. killed in the name of atheism. You are unknowingly giving credence to the false dichotomy of theism and atheism being belief systems, and thereby undercutting the assertion that atheism isn't a belief system, but merely a lack of belief. I know thats a bit heady and longwinded response for what seems to be a clear retort when the communist atheist death toll is trotted out, but there is method to their madness. Buying into your opponent's frames validates them, and thus reinforces support for their arguments even if it is merely subconscious.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
He used to fuck Anne Coulter.
Yeah. 'Nuff said.
Jeez. That's rough. Imagine having to suck Anne Coulter's dick, night after night after night. Ugh.
Which reminds me, I'm really hoping we'll see one of those themed parody porno films about the Bush administration before it's all over. I'm thinking something along the lines of an interracial gangbang entitled "Like White on Rice".
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
On the contrary, I don't believe one would be buying into the theist opponent's frame. The argument regarding the Hutus and Serbs committing genocide does not validate the claim that a particular belief system or in the case of Stalin, the lack of belief leads to sociopathic tendencies. Furthermore, the argument does not support the notion that atheism is a belief system. My point was that there will always be individuals who wish to cause harm to others and if they happen to be charismatic leaders and exploit the mass psychology then this will result in a massacre of a specific group. The majority of Dinesh's argument centers around the evil committed by atheists such as Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. Their genocidal tendencies had nothing to do with their lack of belief. It is absolutely false that those individuals would have been "good" if they had to answer to a supernatural deity for their actions. There will always be sociopaths, tribal affiliations, ethnocentrism, xenophobia all of which are likely hardwired traits. Religion (even political religions such as Marxism) does not temper these traits and if anything magnifies them. The atheist debaters do not mention this in their debates with Dinesh. If Christianity is so good at bringing out the goodness in people then why did Christians Serbs and Hutus commit atrocities? Why didn't Christ's Golden Rule or Love Thy Neighbor work? Because Dinesh is a two bit journalist who talks from his anus and knows absolutely nothing about human nature. This is what the atheists need to educate him on when debating. This is the knock-out punch I'm referring to and which the audience will immediately acknowledge that Dinesh is an idiot.
The D'Souza dilemma: Ignorant or compulsive liar?
I think a combination of both, Kelly thinks compulsive liar.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
What I was trying to say that in the immediacy of responding to "look at all of the evils that atheists like Mao, Stalin etc. have led to" an appropriate response is not to say, "look at all of the evils of Christianity." Doing this in this way does reinforce that frame that you are indeed comparing apples to apples, which is the opposite of the point you are trying to sway the audience member to accept.
Of course, laying it out in different terms, as you suggest, and linking theism as a primary motivator, cause, and continuation of such atrocities is definitely on the table and should be paraded as important examples. I think it depends on how you frame that, and the implication that "belief in God" tends to be at the center at many of those things, but it is not essential, as you can see with communistic or fascistic leaders(or insert your state worldview). Then, you make the point that it is a fallacious argument to say that anyone would commit crimes in the name of atheism, since it is simply a lack of belief in deities, and has no compulsory associated dogma linked to it, in stark contrast with theism and religion. This may seem like semantics, but the framing of the debate and the timing affect the perceptions of the audience in profound ways.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
His constant mantra is "its not that atheists don't believe in God, its that they hate him." I think a part of him believes many atheists are mad at God and do things to make him angry.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
D'souza has a very sly debate tactic of rapidly firing nonsense entangled in rhetorical traps. It's difficult to weave your way through the nets and address the numerous misunderstandings and nonsequiturs, let alone have it come back with a rapid-fire delivery to keep the pace. D'souza's debate tactic works in vocal debates but not in textual debates. Textual debates slow the pace, allow the reader to mentally replay arguments without losing pace so they're more privy to mental manipulation attempts, and the opponent has ample time to weave through the nets and address the misunderstandings and nonsequiturs. This is why D'souza gets his butt handed to him in every textual debate. And it's for reasons like these why I would decline any vocal debate despite liking textual debates.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Let's just say he's an asshat. And fucking Anne Coulter is probably like sticking your dick into a can of cat food that was sitting in a hot attic for a week.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
This is essentially how religion works, in general.
Whenever I read one of his blog posts, I just groan. He's so easy to cut to shreds.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I just have such a hard time with the idea of having a handle on the knowledge of a wide array of topics and history but also consistently portraying them completely improperly. If it happened once or twice I could understand, but almost every word out of his mouth is a dishonest backasswards way of portraying the world.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
It's starting to make sense now.
He and the Coulter bitch should both get pizza thrown in their faces.
Dinesh D'Souza is a dishonest, deluded douche. I <3 alliteration!
He's a dishonest, dispickable, deluded, deranged douche who disseminates dogma, and dares to debase, downgrade, and defame Darwin.
He's also a dillhole and a dickhead.
Duly noted.