Quite a shame how people respond

[thesummerqueen]

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.

[ideologue08]

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.

[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 .

[thesummerqueen]

Well, that's where we have a difference of opinion. I don't get up in arms when I hear a congressman or president curse like the rest of the country. Why? Because words have assigned meanings, but they don't have 'power' and most people find cursing to be a form of blasphemy, something I obviously don't give two shits about, and neither do most prominent atheists, because...why? Why should we?

We're adults. We SHOULD be past the stage where someone saying the equivalent of "this is about as worthwhile as a pile of horse excrement" hurts us personally.

If the president came on and said "you're a bunch of fucking morons," I'd hope he'd explain why. If he didn't, and was acting like a drunken asshole without explaining it, then I'd lose respect. But if he said "this is why," I'd listen. But this is because I know I'm not a moron, but understand that according to the point he was trying to make I might have been either acting like one, or he could be absolutely mistaken. I don't take it personally.

I no longer believe in catering to theistic delicate sensibilities. To me, not offending them by not cursing is about the same as allowing creationists to "teach their controversy." It allows them to live in their little bubble for as long as they like, and not have to deal with the real world, which includes words people don't like (usually for stupid reasons).

The same people who say swear words are coarse also continue to use slang. What's the difference?

I'd argue that the theist who gets put out by a few 'bad' words probably isn't there to listen to what you have to say anyway, and grasping at that language as a reason not to listen, will strawman the fuck out of you in an attempt to stave off having to do any real mental work for their selves.

[ideologue08]

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 .

Not really, I don't think his message is tainted because of it, rather, in spite of it. But generally speaking I agree, a person's argument will be tainted if they decide to engage in a public discourse by attacking people's persona rather than what they have to say.

[little_monkey]

Well, that's where we have a difference of opinion. I don't get up in arms when I hear a congressman or president curse like the rest of the country. Why? Because words have assigned meanings, but they don't have 'power' and most people find cursing to be a form of blasphemy, something I obviously don't give two shits about, and neither do most prominent atheists, because...why? Why should we?

We're adults. We SHOULD be past the stage where someone saying the equivalent of "this is about as worthwhile as a pile of horse excrement" hurts us personally.

If the president came on and said "you're a bunch of fucking morons," I'd hope he'd explain why. If he didn't, and was acting like a drunken asshole without explaining it, then I'd lose respect. But if he said "this is why," I'd listen. But this is because I know I'm not a moron, but understand that according to the point he was trying to make I might have been either acting like one, or he could be absolutely mistaken. I don't take it personally.

I no longer believe in catering to theistic delicate sensibilities. To me, not offending them by not cursing is about the same as allowing creationists to "teach their controversy." It allows them to live in their little bubble for as long as they like, and not have to deal with the real world, which includes words people don't like (usually for stupid reasons).

The same people who say swear words are coarse also continue to use slang. What's the difference?

I'd argue that the theist who gets put out by a few 'bad' words probably isn't there to listen to what you have to say anyway, and grasping at that language as a reason not to listen, will strawman the fuck out of you in an attempt to stave off having to do any real mental work for their selves.

All well said, but I would like to draw your attention to another dimension: theists are in the majority, atheists aren't. Theists have been in power for centuries, and it was their agenda that prevailed all those years. We're just beginning to get out of the closet. And it will require finesse on our part rather than brutal tactics to reverse those roles. Dawkins did a lot of good work in regard to that, but his tactics have had their ups and downs. His decision to close down his website on account of all the vile things happening there is a lesson for the future. Had he monitored and eradicate the bad weeds from the beginning, that site would be running today. It was the most popular site for atheists of all color. Today, it's non-existing. And Dawkins is partly responsible, and I believe his own behavior as a person who likes to use that kind of language was no help.

[thesummerqueen]

It's not requiring a 'lot of finesse.' Merely education of young people, which includes exposing how hypocritical the older generations are and how stupid god-belief is.

We're not even going to have to breed them out. Their own children are 'turning against them.' Look at Westboro for prominent examples.

[ideologue08]

I don't think that's true at all, most young people in my experience are theists.

[little_monkey]

It's not requiring a 'lot of finesse.' Merely education of young people, which includes exposing how hypocritical the older generations are and how stupid god-belief is.

We're not even going to have to breed them out. Their own children are 'turning against them.' Look at Westboro for prominent examples.

I hope you're right, but we've only begun the war, it's hardly time to claim victory. Those things can easily be reversed. Back it in the early 80's, progressives and liberals thought they had won the war. Then came Reagan and Thatcher, and progressives have had to take more than two steps backward ever since. There's an old adage: "don't count your chicken before they hatch."

[thesummerqueen]

I didn't say most kids are atheists. It's a rising number, is all, and the tide will eventually turn.

---

I didn't claim victory either. I just said I wasn't going to toe the line to their feelings solely because they're frightened by a few words. They don't like "shit" in place of "worthless" because they ascribe magical meaning to a word.

If I wanted magic and words, I'd go play with the Kabbalah. Meanwhile, as I already said, I'll call a spade a spade.