Sheesh, Pat Condell is perhaps master of the rant.
In his latest bit, he talks about Fitna, Politics and freedom of speech.
Here's the vid:
Britain's spineless government
Here's a list of links to the topics discussed:
Dutch MP banned from Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newst...
Labour minister praises Muslims because "secular commentators are afraid to criticise them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newst...
"Freedom go to hell" and other choice slogans.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics...
When the original screening was cancelled Lord Ahmed told the Pakistani press it was "a victory for the Muslim community".
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?o...
Fitna the movie
http://www.themoviefitna.com/fitna-th...
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF GEERT WILDERS
http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders...
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION AND SUPPORT THE GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST SHARIA LAW
http://www.onelawforall.org/
http://www.shariapetition.com/
You can download an audio version of this video at http://patcondell.libsyn.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A while ago I remember reading Dinesh D Souza describe Condell as a "self-congratulatory buffoon".
ReplyDeleteHe was right. A very accurate portrayal.
Isn't he great Trav? :)
ReplyDeleteI read just now that Dinesh D'Souza is an insulting, tiresome, bone headed, gibbering idiot. This is so right. A very accurate portrayal.
Trav,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of ad hominem.
I've watched Dinesh in a number of debate videos. While I can see why some people may find his style convincing, not a single one of his arguments holds up to scrutiny. Not one.
It's only an ad hominem argument if I was replying to an argument in the first place. I wasn't, so it's not an ad hominem.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a response to any argument, I'm just criticising Pat Condell. The guy's clearly an arrogant wanker with no class.
Anthony, yeah I've watched D Souza in a couple of debates. I thought he got the better of Shermer, by a bit. But I also watched him debate Peter Singer, and I thought Singer won the day in that debate. Still it was actually good watching D Souza make fun of Singer's subjective morals. Thats where D Souza's at his strongest- using history to show that this ridiculous "religious war" argument is a bit of a joke.
There's two main claims of the new atheists- 1. That belief in God is irrational and there's not much evidence and 2. That the world would be better off without religion.
D Souza contributes more to rebutting the second point than the first, and he's pretty good at that I must say. I personally find that second broad claim to be laughable, and so do a lot of people (even atheists) and D Souza does a good job of exposing the flaws in those claims.
Btw, as I write this I'm listening to Condell's video. How ironic it is that we're debating the use of ad hominems whilst commenting on a video from Condell. The guy can't go more than 15 seconds without calling someone an "idiot" or a "pussy". It puts me off listening to him, honestly.... Grow some class or people like me will give you the ass. He's alienating his target audience.
It's a shame though, in finishing, that guys like Condell throw themselves at ALL religions. Christianity is based on a peaceful man, unlike Islam. And unlike fundamentalist Muslims, Christians might try and convert you but they won't use violence in the process. Yes, there's a few right-wing Christian loonies about, particularly in the US, but on the whole Christians are pretty non-violent, democratic and charitable people. Unfortunatly it would appear that the same can't be said for Muslims.
Um, Trav, are you aware that Pat Condell is a comedian?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean he can't last 15 seconds with out an ad hominem? He doesn't call them pussies till 1:27!
His target audience is anyone who wants to listen. If you don't like him, don't watch the videos. Simple.
And as for your last paragraph Trav, all I can say is wow. You are even more deluded and ignorant that I thought. (Not an ad hominem, just an observation).
Feel free to show me which comments in my last paragraph were ignorant and deluded, Rach.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise it's a statement without evidence.
Are Christians:
Charitable? I've shown on this blog before that Christians are much more charitable than atheists. New research consistently confirms this conclusion, specifically the recent census results.
Democratic? Yes. Show me a Christian country (definition: majority of people identify as Christian) in the world which runs by a system that is NON democratic.
Non-violent? More debateable than the others, but the evidence clearly shows that Christian government have been far less violent that governments with atheistic goals. So relatively speaking, Christians are definitely non violent.
Now, feel free to utilise your critical thinking skills and disprove my conclusions, Rach.
Trav said:
ReplyDelete"Christianity is based on a peaceful man".
Read your bible Trav.
Matthew 10:34 (KJV) - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 12:51 - Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 22:36 - He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Revelation 19:11 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Trav said:
"And unlike fundamentalist Muslims, Christians might try and convert you but they won't use violence in the process."
What about all the abortion clinics that are bombed by the Christian pro life movement? The doctors that have been murdered? Paul Hill, a Presbyterian minister, said that god led him to shoot Dr. John Britton and his driver, James Barrett, as they arrived at a Pensacola abortion clinic in July 1994. What about the entire history of christianity? The crusades? The inquisition?
Charitable? Perhaps, if you include tithing 10% of your income to your church (so that your imaginary friend will bless you), though that's hardly helping anyone but your pastor drive a fancy car.
Peaceful- You think that by quoting 4 seperate bible verses, without even giving context an afterthought, that you can somehow show that Jesus was NOT a peaceful man!? Try again. That sort of ignorance and standard or argument barely deserves a reply...
ReplyDeleteNon-violence:
Come on Rach, give me something decent to chew over. Clutching at straws would be an understatement based on what you've posted. A few abortion clinib bombers proves nothing. The history of Christianity? Yes, violent at times. I admitted as much in my initial post. I said Christians were "relatively speaking"..."definitely non violent". If you even want to argue against that statement, you'll need to show some evidence that Christians are more violent than other worldviews. If you simply talk about Christianity and show some violent instances, you'll only be knocking down a strawman of my original argument. I didnt say they were COMPLETELY non-violent, I said they were RELATIVELY non-violent. Specifically, that regimes with Christian based goals have been non-violent compared to regimes with atheistic goals
Charitable:
We've discussed this before. As I said, more evidence is coming all the time. Need I dig up some references? I've shown this several times on this blog already, I doubt it's necessary for me to repeat the process. Regarding the tithing, it's a moot point, because all the studies show that Christians give more money and volunteer more time even when EXCLUDING time volunteered and money donated to churches.
It'd almost be funny if it wasn't so sad Rach, you call me deluded and ignorant, yet when given the opportunity to make your case, you can't even come up with one good or relevant argument.