Because beyond that he flounders between absurdity and outright dishonesty.
A few points:
1) This isn't 2010 anymore. Richard Dawkins has been tweeting increasingly regressive codswallop for about five years now. Since he has been confronted more times than I can count and seems to have learned exactly nothing from the experience, I have to assume that the sort of bullshit we've been seeing recently isn't outside the norm for him. He might actually be a regressive ass.
2) There are ideas with which I disagree or find distasteful which are nevertheless grounded in fact, and then there are stupid opinions completely divorced from reality. I can tolerate the former, but the later can go forth and heartily fuck themselves. I will not treat Dawkins' lame-brained comparison of feminists to jidhadis as a legitimate idea worthy of debate, because it's not. It's fucking stupid, and worthy of ridicule.
And seeing as that it is Dawkins' official policy to ridicule the ridiculous, he is really no fucking position to complain.
3) It's hard not to laugh out loud when he starts going on about purity tests, exclusion, and division within the movement. Because tossing feminists into the same box as murderous jihadis isn't divisive. Throwing PZ Myers beneath the weight of the Global Atheist Council (or whatever the fuck they are calling it this week) isn't exclusionary. What a load of shit.
4) Judge a person by the totality of their contributions? A fine idea, but it's hard to ignore the subjectivity of the proposition. Two people could think they are doing precisely that and arrive at opposite conclusions. In fact, that is exactly what people are doing.
Other than all of that, Mr. Deity is correct. Richard Dawkins and I were definitely not dating.
= new reply since forum marked as read
