151. Comment #427748 by gr8hands on October 28, 2009 at 8:53 pm

TheLilacPilgrim, it is clear that you are confused about what Dawkins wrote. Here it is:

I have frequently inveighed against the evils of Islam, and I do so under my own name. You, Twatsworth, choose to hide your identity under a pseudonym. Who is the coward?

Notice how this is different from what you claim is a quote:

"NO YOU ARE!"

Please note Dawkins did not use all caps, nor an exclamation point. He was calm and rational.

Dawkins did not say that a pseudonym automatically equals cowardice, but only points out that it is braver to write publicly without the anonymity of a pseudonym. ([Edit: Salmon] Salman Rushdie was braver than if he had used a pen name.)

You are also confused in believing that defending yourself is somehow "retaliating."

Other Comments by gr8hands

152. Comment #427749 by TheLilacPilgrim on October 28, 2009 at 9:01 pm

¬_¬ I never said it was a quote. I said that it was how that particular response came across. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

Other Comments by TheLilacPilgrim

153. Comment #427752 by Sally Luxmoore on October 28, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Comment #427738 by Corylus

Thanks for those links, Corylus!

Heresy corner was excellent and the comments on both articles were fascinating.

From Heresy:

Thompson's house style of triumphalist, sneering, ultra-papalist camp - in which he is joined, day after day, by a claque of equally mean-spirited groupies and hangers-on - does more damage to the image of Catholicism than Richard Dawkins ever could.

My favourite funny comment on the Heresy article, re Damian Thompson:

And he has a face I would dearly love to hit with a cricket bat.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

154. Comment #427760 by seals on October 28, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Yes, one thing that the pseudonym user would do well to be wary of, is accusing the real real name user of cowardice! However though at times I might feel a bit sheepish about my pseudonym, many apparent real names on the internet could for all I know also be pseudonyms; whereas at least an obvious pseudonym is upfront about being a pseudonym. Giving up anonymity doesn't affect everyone equally, as an unusual name combination will pinpoint its owner on google unlike more frequent combinations. It's google which makes using one's own name so scary!

Other Comments by seals

155. Comment #427771 by Jos Gibbons on October 28, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Donohue displays the typical tendency of religious bigots to being called on it to claim that THEY are the ones who are victims of bigotry for ... well, being called on THEIR bigotry. I am frankly tired of people who think it's OK for Christians to be anti-gay but not OK for anyone to be anti-Christian, or even anti-anti-gay, an extension of this line of "logic" often born of a view that Christianity is inexorably anti-gay. And similarly with anti-woman, anti-Jew and so on.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

156. Comment #427787 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 28, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Yes, I agree Richard was being a little harsh in his exchange with Twatsworth. I suppose that, like the rest of us, he's not perfect. ;)

While we're on the subject of message board exchanges-- and I've been waiting for an appropriate moment to bring this up-- I've noticed that when people chat-- or even argue-- here, it's among intelligent people who actually know how to construct a coherent sentence and are aware that "a lot" is two words. (And, of course, people who argue here are more likely to admit if they are wrong). A nice break from this kind of thing:

LOOOOLLL OMG You fucking ideot dont' you no anything eerything is a consperasy vaxinashuns are bad and r the goverment tring to kil u LOOOL yu r so stupid cocksuker i hope u barf alot tomorow and u dye tomorow of poisining LOOOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

(Sorry, couldn't resist that)

-Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

157. Comment #427790 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 12:20 am

On the topic of using pseudonyms:

I would love to use my real name and would not mind someone approaching me on the street to give me a tongue lashing or whatever blows-up-their-skirt, but...

I have a surname that is unusual in the U.S. The last time I checked there were only a half dozen or with our name. Which wouldn't bother me, but...

I have a wife who works for an organization who might fire her if they saw her surname on a site like this. Really! I also have two children who attend a very right-wing high school in a christian dominated town. Should I expose them to the abuse that I myself am not hesitant in receiving? I decided that the answer is "no".

I wear my atheist shirts around town and I speak my mind (short sentences to be sure), but I don't write letters to the editor (name required) and I don't post my name online.

My name has been changed to protect the innocent.

Other Comments by mordacious1

158. Comment #427791 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 12:34 am

157. Comment #427787 by InYourFaceNewYorker

I use alot alittle.

Other Comments by mordacious1

159. Comment #427792 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 12:37 am

mordacious1...

Use it when talking to me and I'll drop kick you into the East River. ;)

Seriously, though... it's one of my pet peeves. Every time somebody does that, I'm tempted to put my fist through something... I wouldn't actually do it, but for some reason it really ticks me off more than any other spelling/grammar error.

-J.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

160. Comment #427793 by Frankus1122 on October 29, 2009 at 12:43 am

"Alot" has always bothered me.

Irregardless, it seems so prevalent that it may work its way into the 'official' lexicon.

See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Other Comments by Frankus1122

161. Comment #427794 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 12:45 am

I've thought about that, and I fear that it will happen. Seems like the lowest common denominator will always get its way instead of actually learning basic grammar. I never, ever thought "a lot" was one word, and I suspect most people on this website never did either.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

162. Comment #427803 by Shuggy on October 29, 2009 at 2:29 am

Dominion Post, Wellington, NZ, October 28


Other Comments by Shuggy

163. Comment #427874 by Lisa Bauer on October 29, 2009 at 7:59 am

I couldn't help but go out and look at the reaction to this article on Catholic and other religious blogs (I guess because I'm a masochist, or something). It's about what you'd expect-- the Telegraph article mentioned above ("Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is vicious and crazy. The man needs help") is typical of the tone. Some of these people are truly deranged, though.

I don't know whether one should be offended and hurt at these kinds of remarks, or proud to be hated by such people (and amused at their utter inanity). Honestly, the emotion I felt most often was pity, when I wasn't tittering over the sheer stupidity of remarks like "I won't even get into Dick's 'pimp' reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in 'The New Colossus', perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church." (Real quote, in a post titled "Richard Dawkins, kiss my misogynistic, bigoted, Anglo-Catholic arse." I hoped this was a Poe or at least a joke...no such luck.)

Other Comments by Lisa Bauer

164. Comment #427948 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm

162. Comment #427794 by InYourFaceNewYorker

I never, ever thought "a lot" was one word, and I suspect most people on this website never did either.

But what about "an other"? ;)

Other Comments by lordpasternack

165. Comment #427965 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 3:09 pm

"Another" is one word. :P

BTW while I'm talking to you... I see you post a lot... and every time I read your posts, I have to look at the festering sores in your mouth. I wager I speak for others when I ask you to change your avatar. Obviously, it's up to you... but blegh...!

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

166. Comment #427981 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm

166. Comment #427965 by InYourFaceNewYorker

"Another" is one word. :P

Says who, though? And do you think it's always been one word? Do you think it's likely that there were people who scoffed at it as much as you scoff at "alot"?

BTW while I'm talking to you... I see you post a lot... and every time I read your posts, I have to look at the festering sores in your mouth. I wager I speak for others when I ask you to change your avatar. Obviously, it's up to you... but blegh...!

Hehe - the tonsilitis has since passed, so the avatar is kind of past it's relevance. Give me a moment and I'll upload something or other sweeter.

(And for the record I do have a boot-shaped uvula.)

Other Comments by lordpasternack

167. Comment #427986 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm

As long as you don't upload pictures of hemmoroids or herpes or anything of the sort...

As for "another," I will have to look into that.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

168. Comment #427994 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm

As long as you don't upload pictures of hemmoroids or herpes or anything of the sort...

Oh - for avatars as stomach-churning as that, one would best consult The Dawktor. (His current one here is fairly 'tame', compared with the others in his collection.)

As for "another," I will have to look into that.

Dictionaries are good places to start. :)

Other Comments by lordpasternack

169. Comment #427997 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Don't get me started on some of the art projects that people at my college did... Somehow an unspoken rule was that if it involved genitals it was automatically considered art. One girl did something with a bunch of dead mice surrounding a bloody tampon.

Art is 1% inspiration, 99% bullshit.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

170. Comment #428000 by TheLilacPilgrim on October 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm

LOOOOLLL OMG You fucking ideot dont' you no anything eerything is a consperasy vaxinashuns are bad and r the goverment tring to kil u LOOOL yu r so stupid cocksuker i hope u barf alot tomorow and u dye tomorow of poisining LOOOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

e_e OW. The worst part is that it looks almost exactly like a PM I received on YouTube once about how vaccines are really bad for kids and vaccines are designed to kill everyone really slowly.

dead mice surrounding a bloody tampon.

If you can find it in any given rubbish bin, alley or student dorm, it's obviously art. Like bodily fluids on a festering canvas or an unmade bed. My room is clearly a masterpiece! ¬_¬

[I am also relieved at lordpasternack's avatar change. Made my throat sore just looking at it.]

Other Comments by TheLilacPilgrim

171. Comment #428004 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 4:42 pm

My room is clearly a masterpiece! ¬_¬

My bedroom is a room-sized artist's depiction of Chernobyl.

[I am also relieved at lordpasternack's avatar change. Made my throat sore just looking at it.]

I'll probably never know whether it was strep throat or infectious mononucleosis. If it was the latter though, you could always consider it a warning against the dangers of unprotected kissing.

We should probably take leave or get back on topic, now...

Other Comments by lordpasternack

172. Comment #428009 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread... sometimes I go into tangeants without meaning to do so... I think I just like telling stories a little too much. Okay, I'll stop now.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

173. Comment #428015 by Sciros on October 29, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Salmon Rushdie was braver than if he had used a pen name.

Though what's the difference if you confuse his name with a fish anyway? :-P

Other Comments by Sciros

174. Comment #428016 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Salmon Rushdie was braver than if he had used a pen name.

Though what's the difference if you confuse his name with a fish anyway? :-P

I LOL'd. :-D

Other Comments by lordpasternack

175. Comment #428050 by Veronique on October 29, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Hahahahahahaha.

Very good Sciros

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

176. Comment #428057 by Richard Dawkins on October 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm

I've added the following to my Washington Post 'On Faith' piece:-
Note added, October 29th
Readers might be amused to see a bizarre report of this article in the London Daily Telegraph, by someone called Damian Thompson:-

Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is worthy of a dribbling loony on the top of a bus. He calls the Church "the greatest force for evil in the world", "an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture" and describes it "dragging its skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp". (Pimps in skirts - that's a new one.) And all in The Washington Post.
The peg for this piece? The Pope's offer to make special arrangements for Anglicans converting to Rome, a matter I would have thought was none of Prof Dawkins's business. But I'm not going to bother to argue with any of his points, because these are the ravings of a man who appears to have lost all sense of proportion. Seriously: is there something wrong with him?

I didn't describe the RC Church as the greatest force for evil in the world. I said it was 'surely up there with the leaders', which is rather different. It wasn't pimps' skirts that I had in mind as dragging in the dirt but priests' skirts. The claim that Anglican church affairs are none of my business will ring hollow to any British citizen, where 26 Bishops are, by law, unelected Members of the Upper House of Parliament. Neither Mr Thompson, nor any of the Catholics who have attacked me for 'raving' or 'hate speech' etc have actually denied any of the charges that I made. The RC Church really does teach the dotty notion of transubstantiation, it really does teach that only men, not women, are capable of performing the trick, it really does tell lies about the alleged inefficacy of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, it really does promote prejudice against homosexuals, and it really does cover up the crime of sexually molesting children. If any apologist wishes to deny any of these factual claims, let them do so. Simply to hurl abuse at me is not good enough. Deny the charges or shut up.

Even more amusing than Damian Thompson's tirade is the following satire on him, published at Platitudes.org.uk

Smelly poos with knobs on to Richard Dawkins. He's a complete loony. I, on the other hand am a Catholic, with the following perfectly sensible beliefs.
1. Everything requires an explanation, including the observable universe.
2. The observable universe was created by an unobservable Invisible Magic Friend. This explains the observable universe.
3. The Invisible Magic Friend has existed for all eternity and therefore requires no explanation. This is entirely consistent with point 1.
4. The Invisible Magic Friend comes in three lumps: Father, Son and mum Holy Ghost.
5. There is an Invisible Magic Baddy called the Devil, who's constantly tempting people to do bad things and stop being Catholics.
5. Every baby is born a sinner, stained with the sin of Eve, who ate a piece of fruit on the command of the Devil, then disguised as a talking snake.
6. The Invisible Magic Friend revealed himself to a bunch of Middle Eastern Semitic tribes starting about 700 B.C.E. All the other gods of the Persians, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Norse and Indian were just made up. Only the god of Abraham is the real Invisible Magic Friend.
7. We were all condemned to eternal damnation by the all loving Invisible Magic Friend because of the talking snake incident and it's too good for us if you ask me.
8. The Invisible Magic Friend sent an Invisible Magic Messenger, with invisible magic white wings, called Gabriel to tell a young woman in Palestine that she was pregnant thanks to the third lump of the Invisible Magic Friend who had impregnated her with the extra chromosomes needed to conceive, and the child would be called Emmanuel, so she called him Jesus.
9. Mary's fiancé, Joseph was a bit miffed at Mary being pregnant and having to remain a virgin for the rest of her life, but she explained about the third lump of the Invisible Magic Friend so he married her anyway.
10. Jesus did all sorts of amazing things: turning water into wine, walking on water, redoing the Elisha feeding thousands trick, spitting on people to cure them, transforming into something, raising from the dead.
11. Jesus got a bit too uppity so the Romans crucified him.
12. Two days later, he rose from the dead in accordance with the prophecy that he'd rise three days later.
13. Jesus' death was actually a sacrifice of the second lump of the Invisible Magic Friend to all three lumps of the Invisible Magic Friend. This sacrifice was adequate compensation for the talking snake affair and you now only had to spend eternity in agony if, on average, you aren't terribly nice while you inhabit the observable universe or until recently, you weren't a Catholic.
14. Before going up into the sky on a cloud, Jesus said, "Peter, I'm leaving you in charge of the observable universe. Here are some magic powers."
15. Peter went to Rome and gave his magic powers to lots of other people.
16. Only people with external genitalia can have magic powers (obviously).
17. The magic powers consist of: turning ordinary water into magic water, turning ordinary oil into magic oil, forgiving people's sins by saying three Hail Marys as an alternative to eternal damnation, turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the second lump of the Invisible Magic Friend, consuming him, thus recreating the original sacrifice 2,000 years ago, and in the case of being top priest, being infallible. All this, is best done in the language of the Roman Empire.
18. Deliberately not having as many children as possible is a sin, unless you're one of the men with magic powers who mustn't ever touch anything hairy, wobbly or dangly, or even think about touching anything hairy, wobbly or dangly.
19. Having sex for fun is a sin.
20. When men with magic powers are discovered buggering altar boys, the appropriate action is to move them where there are some new boys and make the victims promise never to tell anyone because it was all their fault anyway, the little teasers. This turns you from just being Most Reverend into being Eminent.
21. Poofs are an inherent moral evil and a greater danger to the planet than global warming.
Thank the Invisible Magic Friend I'm not one of those dribbling loonies like Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

177. Comment #428062 by Steven Mading on October 29, 2009 at 7:52 pm

Well, no. "Semitic" is actually a linguistic designation for a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic. It's not really a racial/ethnic label. (The only way it would fit is if you count all native speakers of Semitic languages as "Semites," but they're of every race and color.)

You are correct that it is technically describing the language of a people rather than their biological genetics, but then again, so is the word "Hispanic", and yet it gets used as a racial term too. But your point still doesn't contradict my main point, which is that "anti-Semite" is the wrong term to use when "Semite" is the term for both peoples on both sides of the conflict. That still holds true regardless of whether or not the word is describing their race or their language. The relevant point is that it's describing BOTH sides and yet only gets used as if it was describing one side.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

178. Comment #428066 by Steven Mading on October 29, 2009 at 8:02 pm

This is practically a textbook example of a tu quoque fallacy being effected: A logical fallacy whereby one tries to infer that an opponent's argument is illegitimate because they don't act consistently in accordance with that argument themselves - that they are also guilty of what they've argued against. It implies that the merits of arguments are dependent on the individuals they come from - rather than standing or falling on their own merit - and as such is a form of argumentum ad hominem.

You are incorrect. Had Richard's argument been of the form "the reason I am not a coward is because you are one yourself." then he would have committed the fallacy you describe. But that's not the form his argument took. He countered it by describing his OWN behavior, which is a perfectly valid approach to countering the claim of him being a coward and not a fallacy at all. The fact that he ALSO added the jibe against the opponent does not change this. You made the mistake of taking a side jab that was not part of the argument and treating it like it was. (It's a bit like when people incorrectly label all insults as "ad hominem fallacies" without checking first to see it the insult was being used as a foundation of the argument or not. If the insult was not part of the argument but rather a side comment, then technically it's not a fallacy at all.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

179. Comment #428075 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 29, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Richard Dawkins: Simply to hurl abuse at me is not good enough. Deny the charges or shut up.

It seems when some people disagree, insulting, twisting words around, and acting defensive is all they know how to do. Maybe because they know on some level that they're wrong? The only difference between those who responded to you and those who go to flame wars on, say, YouTube, is that the former actually know how to construct a coherent sentence and know how to spell.

Recently, I left a comment on a video about the Duggar Family (who has 19 children) and said that I thought it was irresponsible of Mrs. Duggar to just pop out one baby after another. That was all I said. Then, someone responded with something to the effect of, "What? So you think she should be forcefully sterilized?" I didn't say that; I wouldn't say that. Then he went on to say that the UN is conspiring to forcefully sterilize the population.

Seriously, talk about putting words in my mouth! Talk about reaching! Where do people come up with these things???

--Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

180. Comment #428077 by Sally Luxmoore on October 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Comment #428057 by Richard Dawkins

Well coming from a dribbling looney, that's not bad at all!

Damian Thompson has an unerring ability to shoot himself in both feet. I actually wonder why there don't seem to be any quiet, reasonable catholics seeing the damage he is doing to their side and telling him to shut up.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

181. Comment #428081 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm

177. Comment #428057 by Richard Dawkins

It wasn't pimps' skirts that I had in mind as dragging in the dirt but priests' skirts.

Yes - but you said that the RCC was dragging its skirts through the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp. There is more than enough room there for ambiguity, and for it to be inferred that you were implying that common pimps drag their skirts through the dirt while touting for business. A bit of a curious and incongruous notion.

178. Comment #428062 by Steven Mading

(Thanks for bringing this up, by the way, I'd been meaning to go back and address this)

"Semitic" is actually a linguistic designation for a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic. It's not really a racial/ethnic label. (The only way it would fit is if you count all native speakers of Semitic languages as "Semites," but they're of every race and color.)

You are correct that it is technically describing the language of a people rather than their biological genetics, but then again, so is the word "Hispanic", and yet it gets used as a racial term too. But your point still doesn't contradict my main point, which is that "anti-Semite" is the wrong term to use when "Semite" is the term for both peoples on both sides of the conflict. That still holds true regardless of whether or not the word is describing their race or their language. The relevant point is that it's describing BOTH sides and yet only gets used as if it was describing one side.

Actually, if you look the word up in the dictionary, it gives a definition based on the geography of this proposed group of people, as well as the linguistic definition.

It also states the meaning that stems from the original root of the word - which actually comes from the name 'Shem' - the mythical eldest son of the Biblical Noah. Semites are all supposed to be the descendants of this one man. Which is of course in all realistic likelihood bollocks - but it is still a definition of the word which clearly appeals to genealogy, rather than just geography or linguistics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite

Semite

–noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

In fact even the first definition could perhaps be tentatively construed as implying a genealogical as well as geographical grouping.

And as for this statement:

133. Comment #427497 by Lisa Bauer

I personally prefer the German Judenhass, "Jew-hate," which at least says straight out what it is.

It still doesn't quite say what it means straight out. There's still the ambiguity left of whether it implies that you hate those who hold to ideologies of Judaism, or hate those who are considered to be 'ethnically' Jewish.

Other Comments by lordpasternack

182. Comment #428086 by gr8hands on October 29, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Steven Mading, thank you for your points. I quite concur.

Other Comments by gr8hands

183. Comment #428090 by gr8hands on October 29, 2009 at 9:29 pm

lordpasternack, according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: pimp
Pronunciation: \pimp\
Function: noun
Etymology: probably akin to British dial. pimp small bundle of sticks, Middle English pymple papule, German Pimpf young boy, kid, literally, little fart, Pumpf, Pumps fart
Date: 1600
: a man who solicits clients for a prostitute

I think that should end the confusion about the accuracy of Richard's use of the word. (I always envision priests wearing the long black dress-like robe, so I wasn't confused by the sentence.)

Other Comments by gr8hands

184. Comment #428097 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm

179. Comment #428066 by Steven Mading

Had Richard's argument been of the form "the reason I am not a coward is because you are one yourself." then he would have committed the fallacy you describe. But that's not the form his argument took. He countered it by describing his OWN behavior, which is a perfectly valid approach to countering the claim of him being a coward and not a fallacy at all. You made the mistake of taking a side jab that was not part of the argument and treating it like it was. (It's a bit like when people incorrectly label all insults as "ad hominem fallacies" without checking first to see it the insult was being used as a foundation of the argument or not. If the insult was not part of the argument but rather a side comment, then technically it's not a fallacy at all.

It is only an ad hominem fallacy if the actual argument is made against the person rather than their ideas. I am fully aware of this.

On looking over Richard's words again, I now see that his stating that he had addressed Islam in a critical manner was addressing the accusation of cowardice directly - thus absolving him of the clear fallacious use of tu quoque charge.

And in light of Richard having briefly addressed the argument - the rest does indeed form a side jab. It remains however a side-jab with fallacy added on. Namely the fallacy of implying that simply sticking to a pseudonym amounts to cowardice on Twatsworth's part.

I could continue to argue that there are still tangible elements of a fallacious use of tu quoque being implied in Richard's words - that he uses the counter-accusation to (fallaciously) further diminish the potency of the accusation made against himself - instead of elaborating on the argument that mattered, about him having addressed Islam in the manner Twatsworth suggested. But I really can't be bothered dissecting every syllable of Richard's statement...

I concede that it wasn't a pure example of a fallacious use of tu quoque, though.

Edited because I realise I very likely misunderstood Steven Mading on a semantic point in the first drafting...

Other Comments by lordpasternack

185. Comment #428099 by lordpasternack on October 29, 2009 at 9:59 pm

184. Comment #428090 by gr8hands

lordpasternack, according to Merriam-Webster:

pimp

: a man who solicits clients for a prostitute

Yes, I did see that myself, after I'd posted, and didn't take the time to amend my post. The fact remains that so far as I know - and you may well correct me on this - pimps do the 'soliciting' mainly behind the scenes these days, through advertising, or through word of mouth within a finite circle.

They don't to the best of my knowledge, in this day and age, patrol the streets - "dragging their clothes through the mud", so to speak, while touting for business (as I'd taken Richard to mean) - which is the sentiment I wanted to express, and worded a bit cack-handedly.

Other Comments by lordpasternack

186. Comment #428122 by Richard Dawkins on October 29, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Mistaken post removed
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

187. Comment #428130 by Sally Luxmoore on October 30, 2009 at 12:11 am

Comment #428099 by lordpasternack

I thought I was a bit of a pedant - until I came across this site and discovered people who can argue about one word for several hours! 'Enough with the pimp'! PLEASE...

That new avatar is going to have to be short-lived. It's VERY funny when first seen, but only then...

OK - I've 'done' my grumpy old woman bit now.
(Gets coat).

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

188. Comment #428184 by Twatsworth on October 30, 2009 at 4:06 am

Lordpasternack, please change your avatar. It is annoying, and pretty repulsive. I'm sure many other posters would agree with me.

Other Comments by Twatsworth

189. Comment #428188 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 30, 2009 at 4:26 am

A gif animation of Dawkins making fun of Ray Comfort is repulsive but the photo of her festering sores weren't? ;) Come to think of it, she clearly enjoys posting photos of people's mouths.

XD

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

190. Comment #428213 by Hossain Salahuddin on October 30, 2009 at 9:06 am

Just read-"Give us your misogynists and bigots" by Richard Dawkins at The Washington Post.

An excellent piece...a honest and courageous article.

Other Comments by Hossain Salahuddin

191. Comment #428214 by SaintStephen on October 30, 2009 at 9:13 am

177. Comment #428057 by Richard Dawkins on October 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Well, I certainly lost my bet -- big time. I had no idea who Damian Thompson was, but now I do!

Thanks for the information, Richard, and also please accept my sincere apology for the presumptuous wisecrack in #144. It is still incomprehensible to me that a man with the title of "Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group" could possibly say, with respect to any significant piece of religious news, that it's "none of Prof Dawkins’s business".

Other Comments by SaintStephen

192. Comment #428227 by Peacebeuponme on October 30, 2009 at 11:00 am

Richard Dawkins

The claim that Anglican church affairs are none of my business will ring hollow to any British citizen, where 26 Bishops are, by law, unelected Members of the Upper House of Parliament.

Yes! It's just hit me how inconsistent I've been being to simultaneously hold that:

a) the 26 Bishops are an affront to my democractic rights; and
b) the row over female bishops, while unpleasantly representative of religious idiocy, is really none of my business.

Everything the Anglican Church does is my business, while those Bishops sit where they are, and as atheists we should be entitled to campaign for church reforms wherever we see fit.

If the bishops do not like this, then they know what they can do.

Thanks for that little bit of enlightenment.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

193. Comment #428232 by hungarianelephant on October 30, 2009 at 12:04 pm

193. Comment #428227 by Peacebeuponme

If the bishops do not like this, then they know what they can do.

Does it involve a big stick and a purple hat?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

194. Comment #428234 by Peacebeuponme on October 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm

hungarian

Who is that pic? When I looked quickly I thought Craig Bellamy, which would've been strange, but it's not.

Looks Irish though.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

195. Comment #428235 by hungarianelephant on October 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

PBUM - It is indeed your countryman in characteristic pose*. It is a rare photo when you can tell exactly what someone is about to say, though sadly I had to cut off the hand gesture, which deals with any remaining doubts.

*for him. I am not casting aspersions on the country at large. That's AA Gill's job.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

196. Comment #428236 by lordpasternack on October 30, 2009 at 12:42 pm

189. Comment #428184 by Twatsworth

Lordpasternack, please change your avatar. It is annoying, and pretty repulsive. I'm sure many other posters would agree with me.

Annoying, I could grant you quite reasonably - but repulsive? Repulsive?!

190. Comment #428188 by InYourFaceNewYorker

Come to think of it, she clearly enjoys posting photos of people's mouths.

I have an oral fixation...

Other Comments by lordpasternack

197. Comment #428241 by Peacebeuponme on October 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm

hungarian

Ah weird. One of theose pics where I was less sure who it was the more I looked at it. He can do whatever hand-gestures he wants in my book, after his performance against Italy in 2002.

*for him. I am not casting aspersions on the country at large.

Yes, tender souls like Robbie Savage and John Hartson may get offended.

Now, about those bishops...

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

198. Comment #428244 by hungarianelephant on October 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Yes, about the bishops.

It occurs to me that by the same line of reasoning, there's no need for us to have any rational positions on the Anglican church at all. Since church and state are inexorably intertwined, and since the UK is a democracy - well, sort of - there's no need for us to argue from principles of sexual equality. We could equally mandate that every church service ends with a rendition of the Okey-Cokey, or that it begins with a disclaimer - "the events portrayed in this service are fictional, and no similarity to any person, living, dead, temporarily dead or resurrected, is intended".

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

199. Comment #428246 by Peacebeuponme on October 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm

hungarian

It occurs to me that by the same line of reasoning, there's no need for us to have any rational positions on the Anglican church at all...We could equally mandate that every church service ends with a rendition of the Okey-Cokey

Hey, whatever the majority want. It seems fair though that all voters have a say in the Church's affairs given the way the House of Lords is set up.

My inertia will win out, but in my initial burst of excitement I harboured crazy thoughts of making a nuisance of myself at Church gatherings and forums on these grounds. However, Friday night is approaching, and those thoughts are soon to be replaced with pictures of pints of Hoegaarden.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

200. Comment #428279 by SaintStephen on October 30, 2009 at 3:15 pm

196. Comment #428235 by hungarianelephant on October 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

From Craig Bellamy's Wikipedia entry:

"Although a very productive and effective player when fit and at the top of his game, he has been accused by many of acting flamboyantly and in an arrogant, idiotic manner, both on and off the pitch.

I guess soccer players aren't strident and shrill like atheist biologists.

Other Comments by SaintStephen