Sometimes I read too quickly, but I missed it. It said,

"To Ostrich's dismay, the vagina followed, giggling as it said, 'I love it when a man in uniform takes control.'"

I'm confused. Who/what was raped, exactly?

I'm not saying that this wasn't a terribly unfunny attempt at humor (which is a much more serious sin than being "offensive"), but how is it rape?

And I agree with the poster who said that rape jokes can be funny. Any kind of joke can be funny. It doesn't naturally follow that laughing at a rape joke makes one less sympathetic towards rape victims. Just like laughing at "Blazing Saddles" doesn't make one less sensitive to racism. Comedy and human nature are too complex to suggest that specific behavior naturally follows from specific language.

...is that you presume that making a video of sex is "immature." That's just silly, I think. It's different and that's all it is. What's mature is knowing that different people behave sexually in different ways and not judging them for it.

My first thought was that this is a weak strawman. But then I thought that maybe some loathsome people have responded to the Duke case by asserting that "women should never report rape." Did people actually suggest that? Or was my first thought correct?

My sincere apologies. It wasn't my intention to "put words in your mouth." I was responding (too quickly, it appears) to the sentence, "Remember when the privacy of our bedroom with someone we love and trust was where we chose to share our fantasies?" which immediately followed your suggestion that we "exercise judgement and maturity in our lives..." I think I must have felt your reminiscing about how "we" used to have sexual fantasies judged not just her (definitely immature) belief that the video wouldn't be seen by many people, but the act itself. I promise to read slower in the future.

The title of this article sounds like something you'd hear on "Dateline NBC."

Okay, it's perfectly reasonable to not like a style of music or a musical technique. But to suggest that beat-boxing is a "gimmick" is to ignore the craft and artistry (not to mention the hard work) that goes into the best beat-boxing has to offer.

If you don't like beat-boxing (I'm not even a huge fan of it, myself), you probably still won't after seeing these videos. But hopefully, you'll respect it enough not to dismiss it so casually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTETbd7jkjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsNFxOOnjgw

In that case I think you should have said, "Blake's beatboxing is lame." Beatboxing, like every other musical art form, is only as lame as whoever's performing.

My wife's labor was very difficult and if we hadn't been in a hospital both she and my son would be dead.

So, you have nothing to contribute other than a tired ad hominem and a misrepresentation of Hitchens' previous beliefs?

What's the point?

"However atheists are guilty of the same, their non-belief in God is a belief, which they also try to impose in public and private sectors as this book demonstrates."

You can't compare writing a book of opinion to legislation that prohibits atheists from holding public office. You can't compare it to elected officials saying atheists don't have the same rights as believers. Most Americans won't vote for an atheist and they're happy to say so because they know it's okay to be bigoted against atheists.

So let's not pretend that a few recent opinion books supporting the philosophy of atheism are anything like the government supported bigotry and discrimination towards atheists that has existed since the first atheist said, "Uh, that doesn't really make sense."

Look, I don't agree with Hitchens on very much at all anymore, but if you're going to disagree with the guy (or even ridicule his beliefs), you should stick to facts (his beliefs regarding Iraq are often ridiculous, after all). Short posts calling him a commie or a drunk are no different than the Free Republic posts on Al Gore that start off with cracks about his weight.

A "Marxist" is someone who adheres to the philosophy of Karl Marx. It's as simple as that. And Hitchens hasn't been part of the left for a long time, so he certainly hasn't portrayed himself as a savior of it.

Finally, a person can be a humanist while criticizing the spiritual beliefs of others. Especially when those beliefs cause (and call for) a lot of injustice towards humans who don't share them.

Israel exists precisely because of religious belief. They believe it's "The Holy Land." That's as terrible an example of "rationalism" as the rest of your examples. All of the negative things you listed were executed by religious people.

I don't share Hitchens' view that all religion should be condemned, but if you're going to suggest that rationalism and progress should be condemned (ironically, as you instantly communicate with strangers on a devise brought about by rationalism and progress), you should at least come up with some real examples of people doing bad things based on their belief that there is no God.

This legislation exists, where? In Afghanistan, maybe. But not in the U.S.

You're too confident.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

So, my original point stands.