http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bin-laden-has-won-they-confiscated-my-honey-outspoken-academic-richard-dawkins-in-airline-security-twitter-row-over-jar-of-honey-8919618.html
QuoteWorld famous English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and unrelenting critic of religion and the religious, Richard Dawkins, has turned his anger on airport security rules after he had a jar of honey confiscated.
Dawkins, who is no stranger to Twitter controversy following alleged anti-Muslim comments he made back in August, declared on the micro-blogging site that 'Bin Laden has won, in airports of the world every day' after security took away his jar of honey.
The outspoken atheist, who came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, criticised what he called 'dundridges' - his word for petty jobsworths - and described the confiscation of his honey as a 'STUPID waste.'
The latest outburst follows a tweet in August in which he said: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."
He was widely criticised by fellow twitter-users who claimed his comments were 'anti-Muslim'.
Last month the academic once again found himself at the centre of a row over an interview he gave to the Times Magazine in which he appeared to suggest he was the victim of 'mild paedophilia' at school and that current cases of historical child sex abuse had been overblown.
"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours", he said.
There was little sympathy today in response to the tweets regarding the confiscated honey.
I mean, I hate the NSA. Everybody hates the NSA. But it's like this man can't open his mouth without something monumentally stupid and offensive flying out.
That sums him up pretty neatly. Self centred to the point that he conflates complex world issues with the indignity of the fact he couldn't bring his sweets on the plane.
Also the reason there are so few Muslim noble prize winners is that the award only came into existence in 1901, and that the majority of it's lifespan they have been typecast as barbarians or as the villain of the day.
Having worked with BRILLIANT Muslim control engineers, including one of the most inspiring women in science I know has shown me how they are just as much an active part of the scientific community as any other religion or creed.
If it wasn't already obvious, their nuclear engineers are obviously capable enough, otherwise the west wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
Religion plays a very little role in science. In the creative atmosphere of scientific research people don't talk about religion, it's simply not important to the work being done.
It simply doesn't come up all that much.
Unless of course you are doctor dick, a pontificating windbag with nothing of worth to add to the scientific community, who once wrote a book that went for some low hanging fruit, that had mass appeal to the simpler minds of the atheist community.
He is a millstone around the neck of anyone who wants to seriously discuss the topics he is supposedly an expert in.
He is an awful man. I hate that when people think of atheists and science they most likely think of that giant douchebag and the fucktard sycophants who look up to him.
Oh bother. The heffalumps and woozzles stole richie the poohs honey.
The way he just loves to categorize and stick people in boxes with names he clearly thinks are cutesy-pie and clever, like "dundriges" and "faithfools" is particularly offputting. I get the strong impression that if he had the opportunity to round up the people in categories he finds undesirable and ship them off to "work camps", he'd leap at it.
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 02:55:02 AM
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
That doesn't seem very nice-ish.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 02:55:02 AM
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
The thing is, he has no idea whether it's "not true". Most religious people don't literally believe in their origin stories; most believe that they are mostly metaphorical. So then we are talking about an abstract "god" or "spirit" or "universe" or however you want to define the concept of life-generator, which exists on some level by default of life existing. So then we're talking semantics such as whether this life-generating force is conscious and self-aware and whether it gives a fuck about us, which is simply unknowable. For a man of science to say "nope" on that issue is really pretty much just as meaningless as a priest saying "yep".
Are religious institutions corrupt? Damn straight, I would hazard that every single institution ever created by humankind is corrupt, some more than others. Don't get me started on compulsory schooling, which is in my opinion a horrible thing to inflict on innocent children. Religions aren't exempt from that. Give humans a hierarchy and power system that they can manipulate to make other humans miserable, and they'll get right on it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 02:55:02 AM
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
That doesn't seem very nice-ish.
I don't think I've ever seen any words come out of his mouth or fingertips that were nice-ish. Other than his books, everything I've seen out of him has been straight-up shitbean.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 03:07:37 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 02:55:02 AM
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
That doesn't seem very nice-ish.
I don't think I've ever seen any words come out of his mouth or fingertips that were nice-ish. Other than his books, everything I've seen out of him has been straight-up shitbean.
No it's not nice at all. But, you know, aside from talking about religion he's probably a nice guy. Problem is, he knows that's all he's got for him, so that's all he talks about. If you catch him on a random Thursday afternoon and talk about gardening it'll probably go alright. As long as you don't stick around long enough to get started on the topic of where the plants came from and how there are these idiots out there who don't believe in evolution.
On second thought, no, he just
seems like a nice guy. You know, until he starts talking.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 03:11:07 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 03:07:37 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 02:55:02 AM
Richard Dawkins was on the talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. He seems to be a generally nice-ish guy, who seems to think he has figured out "all this religion stuff." Jon Stewart asked him if religion really is as bad as all that, given how much peace and happiness it brings into people's lives, and Dawkins' only response to that was basically "yeah but it still isn't true." Which, of course, completely misses the point of the question. Who cares if it is true or not? If it works for people, helps them to realize some kind of peace in the face of the chaos life can bring, then it's sort of petty to just go around poking people in the eyes and saying "ha ha you're wrong about something." Richard Dawkins has made a career and earned international fame from doing exactly that, which normally would make a person an asshole.
That doesn't seem very nice-ish.
I don't think I've ever seen any words come out of his mouth or fingertips that were nice-ish. Other than his books, everything I've seen out of him has been straight-up shitbean.
No it's not nice at all. But, you know, aside from talking about religion he's probably a nice guy. Problem is, he knows that's all he's got for him, so that's all he talks about. If you catch him on a random Thursday afternoon and talk about gardening it'll probably go alright. As long as you don't stick around long enough to get started on the topic of where the plants came from and how there are these idiots out there who don't believe in evolution.
On second thought, no, he just seems like a nice guy. You know, until he starts talking.
:lol: Yep.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 03:11:07 AM
No it's not nice at all. But, you know, aside from talking about religion he's probably a nice guy.
When he's not talking about rounding up fornicators and having them stomped, Pat Fagan is probably a nice guy, too.
I put Dawkins on the same level as Rick Warren and other similar assholes. He is to atheism what WBC is to Christianity.
I saw his tweets and giggled.
Someone on my feed reblogged them.
Brown person with muslim name? Well shit, that's going to be nasty with the TSA
Dicky Dorking _ WAAAAAHHHHH they took my jar of honey :sniff:
Fucknugget.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:13:36 AM
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 03:11:07 AM
No it's not nice at all. But, you know, aside from talking about religion he's probably a nice guy.
When he's not talking about rounding up fornicators and having them stomped, Pat Fagan is probably a nice guy, too.
I put Dawkins on the same level as Rick Warren and other similar assholes. He is to atheism what WBC is to Christianity.
Well, you know Humans. No philosophy can be taken seriously until there are at least a few assholes out there busting heads to spread the word. If atheism is ever going to be considered a superior alternative to religion, it has to become a religion first.
Dawkins needs to just stop talking. Forever.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 03:16:34 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:13:36 AM
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 03:11:07 AM
No it's not nice at all. But, you know, aside from talking about religion he's probably a nice guy.
When he's not talking about rounding up fornicators and having them stomped, Pat Fagan is probably a nice guy, too.
I put Dawkins on the same level as Rick Warren and other similar assholes. He is to atheism what WBC is to Christianity.
Well, you know Humans. No philosophy can be taken seriously until there are at least a few assholes out there busting heads to spread the word. If atheism is ever going to be considered a superior alternative to religion, it has to become a religion first.
No philosophy or movement is mature until the whackjobs and fanatics get ahold of it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-in-our-name-dawkins-dresses-up-bigotry-as-nonbelief--he-cannot-be-left-to-represent-atheists-8754183.html
The comments are interesting.
Quote from: Suu on November 04, 2013, 03:17:14 AM
Dawkins needs to just stop talking. Forever.
Agreed. He said some worthy things back in the 1970s, and now, 40 years later, he is speaking like he's senile and needs to /get out of the way/ before he destroys the last smigin of reputation he has. If he hasn't already.
The thing is, I can almost see where he is coming from. A modern secular society should be averse to endorsing imaginary friends for grown ups, if for no reason but because that kind of thing discourages critical thinking. But he goes way too far rhetorically and he apparently thinks getting rid of religion would get rid of stupid. The biggest threat to his reputation is that as a smart guy, he should know religious extremism is a symptom of stupid, not the cause of it.
Quote from: V3X on November 04, 2013, 04:08:54 AM
The thing is, I can almost see where he is coming from. A modern secular society should be averse to endorsing imaginary friends for grown ups, if for no reason but because that kind of thing discourages critical thinking. But he goes way too far rhetorically and he apparently thinks getting rid of religion would get rid of stupid. The biggest threat to his reputation is that as a smart guy, he should know religious extremism is a symptom of stupid, not the cause of it.
And yet as a religious extremist himself it's plain that he's not as smart as he thinks he is.
Holy shit, but this makes me almost like him. http://gawker.com/what-the-hell-happens-five-minutes-into-this-richard-da-560062576
Almost. WTF. :lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 04:28:38 AM
Holy shit, but this makes me almost like him. http://gawker.com/what-the-hell-happens-five-minutes-into-this-richard-da-560062576
Almost. WTF. :lol:
He's going to need better music if he's after the PsychFest crowd. :lulz:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 03:06:18 AM
Don't get me started on compulsory schooling, which is in my opinion a horrible thing to inflict on innocent children.
Well I realise I am not exactly qualified to do so, but I would like to get you started on that (unless it's already been discussed at length, in which case I would be grateful for a link), because I agree very emphatically and actually think compulsory schooling has become a bane of our civilization. The correct interpretation of "universal education' would also bear examination.
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 05:32:02 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 03:06:18 AM
Don't get me started on compulsory schooling, which is in my opinion a horrible thing to inflict on innocent children.
Well I realise I am not exactly qualified to do so, but I would like to get you started on that (unless it's already been discussed at length, in which case I would be grateful for a link), because I agree very emphatically and actually think compulsory schooling has become a bane of our civilization. The correct interpretation of "universal education' would also bear examination.
I'll start a thread.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 05:33:01 AM
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 05:32:02 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 03:06:18 AM
Don't get me started on compulsory schooling, which is in my opinion a horrible thing to inflict on innocent children.
Well I realise I am not exactly qualified to do so, but I would like to get you started on that (unless it's already been discussed at length, in which case I would be grateful for a link), because I agree very emphatically and actually think compulsory schooling has become a bane of our civilization. The correct interpretation of "universal education' would also bear examination.
I'll start a thread.
Thanks.
Somewhere on this forum is an essay I wrote on it last year, and ensuing discussion... I'll see if I can track it down.
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
I liked several of his books, but that wasn't one of them actually. I've skimmed it.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 06:06:13 AM
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
I liked several of his books, but that wasn't one of them actually. I've skimmed it.
Which ones did you like?
Greatest Show on Earth was the one I read and really enjoyed, haven't been through his other books.
The guy's almost always a dick, but I do feel weird making fun of him for this particular outburst of entitled white man speak. Airport security bullshit should be getting called out all the time by everyone for every stupid thing they do, not just the most egregious offenses. If they're doing 100 horrible things and you only talk about the one worst thing, then they can drop that one thing and still be doing 99 horrible things. And you look greedy if you start complaining about the next thing on the list all of a sudden.
Yeah but he phrased it like. Heffalumps and woozzles stole my honey! Thanks a lot brown people religion!
Its not about security at that point. Its about his enmity towards religion in general and muslims in particular.
Also who the hell takes honey on a plane?
Also vex- try telling a bunch of religious scholars that religion suppresses critical thinking. You may think that theyre debating is pointless but they are applying critical thinking to whatever body of religious texts and commentary are available to them
I can hate airport security and Dawkins at the same time. I'm skilled that way.
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
The Selfish Gene is /excellent/. I had the same opinion as you, after the first time I read it. A few years ago I reread it with a more critical eye. It was the first time I understood how cheaters could exist in equilibrium in a population, and how Mult-Level Selection was unnecessary to the retention of any trait, even apparent altruism. There's no "good of the group", and the title, as anthropomorphic as it seems, is a good summary of the book: Evolution is going on at the genetic level, and since their only impetous is continuation (as much as any bit of replicating hydrocarbons can said to be "teleological"), they are fundamentally selfish. In the genetic sense, the only thing that matters in evolution is what alleles/genes are carried forward in time, and what are not.
Maybe this isn't a big revelation for anyone else, but during my masters degree I had several mentors who were very much in the Steven Jay Gould Multi-Level Selection camp, and I was mired in that ideology until I realized it was unnecessary.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 12:21:48 PM
Yeah but he phrased it like. Heffalumps and woozzles stole my honey! Thanks a lot brown people religion!
Its not about security at that point. Its about his enmity towards religion in general and muslims in particular.
Also who the hell takes honey on a plane?
Actually, the comments about "brown people religion" were not part of this, unless you think Bin Laden is synonymous with Islam. He's
right. It's a stupid rule, enforced by stupid people, based on misguided fear of a bunch of violent nutbags. He is
also a colossal douche, but this seems like the wrong tweet to get mad about. I'd rather have a million douchebags complaining about the right things than one ideologically pure person complaining.
Quote from: :regret: on November 04, 2013, 12:30:54 PM
I can hate airport security and Dawkins at the same time. I'm skilled that way.
THIS.
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 06:06:13 AM
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
I liked several of his books, but that wasn't one of them actually. I've skimmed it.
Which ones did you like?
IIRC, "River Out Of Eden", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable". I also think I skimmed but probably didn't read "The Extended Phenotype". I was in charge of the science section of a large bookstore at the time so I skimmed a lot of books.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 04, 2013, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 12:21:48 PM
Yeah but he phrased it like. Heffalumps and woozzles stole my honey! Thanks a lot brown people religion!
Its not about security at that point. Its about his enmity towards religion in general and muslims in particular.
Also who the hell takes honey on a plane?
Actually, the comments about "brown people religion" were not part of this, unless you think Bin Laden is synonymous with Islam. He's right. It's a stupid rule, enforced by stupid people, based on misguided fear of a bunch of violent nutbags. He is also a colossal douche, but this seems like the wrong tweet to get mad about. I'd rather have a million douchebags complaining about the right things than one ideologically pure person complaining.
Actually, to me it's both a measure of his incredible hypocrisy after the way he treated Rebecca Watson, specifically his acerbic rebuke that she was overreacting because she doesn't have it as bad as Muslim women, combined with his apparent sense of exceptionalism "WAAAAAAHHHHH BUT I WANT TO BEING MY HONEY ON THE PLANE, NEVER MIND THAT FOR THE LAST 13 YEARS NOBODY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING JARS OF LIQUID ON THE PLANE" plus the fact that if you read back through his tweets, a disproportionate percentage of them mention Islam or Muslims, often rather irrelevantly, making it fairly obvious that the man has a particular bias against Islam. Which he has flat-out said; he thinks religion is evil and that Islam is the worst of the religions.
So essentially, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he's just another moronic, entitled turd in the bucket.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
So essentially, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he's just another moronic, entitled turd in the bucket.
BRB, Newsfeed.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 04, 2013, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 12:21:48 PM
Yeah but he phrased it like. Heffalumps and woozzles stole my honey! Thanks a lot brown people religion!
Its not about security at that point. Its about his enmity towards religion in general and muslims in particular.
Also who the hell takes honey on a plane?
Actually, the comments about "brown people religion" were not part of this, unless you think Bin Laden is synonymous with Islam. He's right. It's a stupid rule, enforced by stupid people, based on misguided fear of a bunch of violent nutbags. He is also a colossal douche, but this seems like the wrong tweet to get mad about. I'd rather have a million douchebags complaining about the right things than one ideologically pure person complaining.
Actually, to me it's both a measure of his incredible hypocrisy after the way he treated Rebecca Watson, specifically his acerbic rebuke that she was overreacting because she doesn't have it as bad as Muslim women, combined with his apparent sense of exceptionalism "WAAAAAAHHHHH BUT I WANT TO BEING MY HONEY ON THE PLANE, NEVER MIND THAT FOR THE LAST 13 YEARS NOBODY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING JARS OF LIQUID ON THE PLANE" plus the fact that if you read back through his tweets, a disproportionate percentage of them mention Islam or Muslims, often rather irrelevantly, making it fairly obvious that the man has a particular bias against Islam. Which he has flat-out said; he thinks religion is evil and that Islam is the worst of the religions.
So essentially, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he's just another moronic, entitled turd in the bucket.
NIGEL GET OUT OF MY HEAD...
:lol:
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
Quote from: holist on November 04, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
He is an unmitigated arsehole. Actually, I think he always has been - a smart one back in the day, but he's gradually lost that. The Selfish Gene is terribly overrated. The anthropomorphizing title itself does untold damage to the understanding of evolution.
The Selfish Gene is /excellent/. I had the same opinion as you, after the first time I read it. A few years ago I reread it with a more critical eye. It was the first time I understood how cheaters could exist in equilibrium in a population, and how Mult-Level Selection was unnecessary to the retention of any trait, even apparent altruism. There's no "good of the group", and the title, as anthropomorphic as it seems, is a good summary of the book: Evolution is going on at the genetic level, and since their only impetous is continuation (as much as any bit of replicating hydrocarbons can said to be "teleological"), they are fundamentally selfish. In the genetic sense, the only thing that matters in evolution is what alleles/genes are carried forward in time, and what are not.
Maybe this isn't a big revelation for anyone else, but during my masters degree I had several mentors who were very much in the Steven Jay Gould Multi-Level Selection camp, and I was mired in that ideology until I realized it was unnecessary.
Okay. In the cognitive science department where I was at the time I read it, it was no big deal, everyone seemed to take it as read and undergraduates had the book shoved at them by postgrads or faculty who were lazy to explain this. To be fair, I understood that when I read this book, too. It seemed a bit long, though, to make this point. I don't think I read it all the way through, perhaps it could do with a closer reading.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 04, 2013, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 12:21:48 PM
Yeah but he phrased it like. Heffalumps and woozzles stole my honey! Thanks a lot brown people religion!
Its not about security at that point. Its about his enmity towards religion in general and muslims in particular.
Also who the hell takes honey on a plane?
Actually, the comments about "brown people religion" were not part of this, unless you think Bin Laden is synonymous with Islam. He's right. It's a stupid rule, enforced by stupid people, based on misguided fear of a bunch of violent nutbags. He is also a colossal douche, but this seems like the wrong tweet to get mad about. I'd rather have a million douchebags complaining about the right things than one ideologically pure person complaining.
Actually, to me it's both a measure of his incredible hypocrisy after the way he treated Rebecca Watson, specifically his acerbic rebuke that she was overreacting because she doesn't have it as bad as Muslim women, combined with his apparent sense of exceptionalism "WAAAAAAHHHHH BUT I WANT TO BEING MY HONEY ON THE PLANE, NEVER MIND THAT FOR THE LAST 13 YEARS NOBODY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING JARS OF LIQUID ON THE PLANE" plus the fact that if you read back through his tweets, a disproportionate percentage of them mention Islam or Muslims, often rather irrelevantly, making it fairly obvious that the man has a particular bias against Islam. Which he has flat-out said; he thinks religion is evil and that Islam is the worst of the religions.
So essentially, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he's just another moronic, entitled turd in the bucket.
Exactly. He might have mentioned Bin Laden specifically, but taken in the overall context of things he's said in the past...
And then this happened. http://toys.usvsth3m.com/richard-dawkins-honey-defender/
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 10:27:23 PM
And then this happened. http://toys.usvsth3m.com/richard-dawkins-honey-defender/
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I like how when you fuck up it randomly pulls one of his twitter posts. and makes you wait (presumably to read it).
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 10:27:23 PM
And then this happened. http://toys.usvsth3m.com/richard-dawkins-honey-defender/
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz: That's fantastic!
This is as bad as cookie games
I just tweeted Uncle Dickie the heffalumps and woozzles song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLnADKgurvc
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 11:12:35 PM
I just tweeted Uncle Dickie the heffalumps and woozzles song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLnADKgurvc
:lulz:
Quote from: Pixie on November 05, 2013, 02:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2013, 11:12:35 PM
I just tweeted Uncle Dickie the heffalumps and woozzles song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLnADKgurvc
:lulz:
I really just liked the analogy too much to not bring it to his attention.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 05:12:49 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 04, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
So essentially, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he's just another moronic, entitled turd in the bucket.
BRB, Newsfeed.
Go Nigel go!
By the way, has this been?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI)
Quote from: holist on November 06, 2013, 07:19:15 PM
By the way, has this been?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI)
:lulz: That was actually alarmingly accurate.