Quite a shame how people respond

[little_monkey]

You pointed out their main issue, though. His cursing doesn't negate his argument. They concentrate on it because they have nothing else. That's their problem, not his, and empty ammunition. I'm sure Dawkins doesn't give a shit what they think about his cursing, except to point out that their objections to it highlight their inability to come up with something else. It's infantile.

But imagine the president of the USA coming on with: "You fucking morons, blah, blah, blah..." I'll bet you anything that even he had said the absolute truth, his message would be totally lost to the vast majority of people listening in. When people are offended, they are no longer acting with their rational abilities. They go into a defense meachanism, like a cat cornered, and now it's tooth and nail in survival mode. And if your intention was to get into a discussion on a rational basis, you have destroyed that frame.

---

Well, I have indulged myself in that. So, guilty I am. But just look at Dawkins, just because he often swears and uses cuss' word in his public discourse, theists have pounced on that to derail his message. It's bad strategy when you give your opponent live ammunition.

That's his strategy though, he uses ad-hom as a form of argument. He's a pompous xenophobic bigot.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm trying to point out to thesummerqueen. As an opponent, you see his behavior standing out, and from your perspective, his message is automatically tainted .