3 ms·

I'm not splitting hairs about my main point, which is that Leys doesn't actually respond to Hitchens's main criticism. But let me respond about "obscenity": Y

by bravura 15y ago

I'm not splitting hairs about my main point, which is that Leys doesn't actually respond to Hitchens's main criticism. But let me respond about "obscenity": You call Mother Theresa "respectiable". Hitchens's whole book advances the argument that she is nothing but, and is in fact contemptible. His argument is not germane to your point, so I won't delve into it. Hitchens, in a video (you can find it on youtube, can't remember the title), argues that laughing at religious authority is important, and that religion should be mock, because mockery is one of the first steps towards overthrowing an oppressor. So the argument that we can't talk about a "respectable nun" in profane and coarse terms, and instead must treat her with ignorant reverance, is poisonous and cuts to the foundation of Hitchens's argument. "It (the title) is actually a perfect triple entendre: the book is about the politics of missionaries and the position of those who feel they can enlighten by divine warrant and presume to instruct the rest of us not just in morality but in day-to-day conduct. It was a title I couldn’t not use." [edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4VhQX5Ckk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4VhQX5Ckk "Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things because to demystify supposedly 'holy text dictated by god' and show that they are man made and what you have to show [is] there internal inconsistencies and absurdities. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority..."]

gbog 15y ago
I don't mind expressing disrespect for religions, I am an agnostic myself, I even think this title was a good catch. But you don't seem to address my point, which is that Hitchens denies the implications and sexual connotation of calling his book "The Missionary Position", which is bad faith. He could have skip the point, or just said he was sorry Simon Leys didn't like it, but saying it is nowhere obscene is plain insincere.
- bravura 15y ago
  Let's go to the text: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” and complains that it attacks someone who is “elderly.” Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens doesn't deny that there is a sexual connotation. Regardless, sexual connotation is not synonymous with obscenity. The point is that he invites Leys to discuss whether the title is obscene or not. (He doesn't explicitly deny the claim of obscenity, you'll note.) This discussion would further Hitchens's goal of discussing religious wfigures with less reverence. p.s. I'm not the one downvoting you, if it matters.
- epo 15y ago
  The book title is a pun. The implications and sexual connotations are purely a fabrication of your imagination. Don't project your hangups onto other people. EDIT The meaning of the word "obscenity" is quite clear, just saying something is obscene does not make it so. If you are asserting there was obscene content you should support your assertion and say what the obscenity was.
  - gbog 15y ago
    Do you mean that for you the two words Missionary and Position put together don't carry any sexual meaning? Then let me explain it to you: The Missionary Position is the name of one of the many possible position both partners can use during sexual intercourse, specifically the one where the girl lies down on her back and the boy lies over the girl. If you didn't know that, I understand that you might not see the sexual connotations of such a title. But please don't tell me Hitchens didn't know, it would be the most formidable misunderstanding in the history of debating.

by bravura 15y ago

gbog 15y ago

I don't mind expressing disrespect for religions, I am an agnostic myself, I even think this title was a good catch. But you don't seem to address my point, which is that Hitchens denies the implications and sexual connotation of calling his book "The Missionary Position", which is bad faith. He could have skip the point, or just said he was sorry Simon Leys didn't like it, but saying it is nowhere obscene is plain insincere.

bravura 15y ago
Let's go to the text: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” and complains that it attacks someone who is “elderly.” Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens doesn't deny that there is a sexual connotation. Regardless, sexual connotation is not synonymous with obscenity. The point is that he invites Leys to discuss whether the title is obscene or not. (He doesn't explicitly deny the claim of obscenity, you'll note.) This discussion would further Hitchens's goal of discussing religious wfigures with less reverence. p.s. I'm not the one downvoting you, if it matters.
epo 15y ago
The book title is a pun. The implications and sexual connotations are purely a fabrication of your imagination. Don't project your hangups onto other people. EDIT The meaning of the word "obscenity" is quite clear, just saying something is obscene does not make it so. If you are asserting there was obscene content you should support your assertion and say what the obscenity was.
- gbog 15y ago
  Do you mean that for you the two words Missionary and Position put together don't carry any sexual meaning? Then let me explain it to you: The Missionary Position is the name of one of the many possible position both partners can use during sexual intercourse, specifically the one where the girl lies down on her back and the boy lies over the girl. If you didn't know that, I understand that you might not see the sexual connotations of such a title. But please don't tell me Hitchens didn't know, it would be the most formidable misunderstanding in the history of debating.