Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Clinton Huxley]

No, you are using your biases to decide what Dawkin's meant

I am using what Dawkins has said to decide what he meant. What bias are you using to decide what he didn't mean?

I've not stated one way or the other what I think DAwkins meant. This is your hobby-horse, old chap. If you think you are free of bias, though, you have deluded yourself.

[DaveD]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Dawkins isn't characterising the women who wear the niqab as rubbish - that's why he objects to the niqab. It's not difficult to understand, unless you're determined not to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Dawkins isn't characterising the women who wear the niqab as rubbish - that's why he objects to the niqab. It's not difficult to understand, unless you're determined not to.

He can't back off it, even after you point out the error. Because he's NEVER WRONG.

[Jason]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Sorry, chuckles, but he's pointing out that the Islamic system puts the women in the bin liners, demonstrating their attitude toward women. You, on the other hand, are lying about Dawkin's position to support your own agenda. In the process you make fauxlosphers look even worse than normal. Thanks for the help with that, I'll save your shite for future use.

Question: What exactly is his agenda?

[Exi5tentialist]

I've not stated one way or the other what I think DAwkins meant. This is your hobby-horse, old chap.

Oh no old chap, you only went and state that Dawkins's use of English is "entirely correct"

Alien - inconsistent or incompatible with, according to my battered old Chambers.
In which case, when talking about science and Islam, the DAwk's use of English is entirely correct.

Please don't waste our time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Question: What exactly is his agenda?

His agenda is "I am right, you are wrong." Nothing more.

[Jason]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Dawkins isn't characterising the women who wear the niqab as rubbish - that's why he objects to the niqab. It's not difficult to understand, unless you're determined not to.

Exi5 makes a very good point. I believe he's pointing out the salient issue of perspective, but I think you know that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Dawkins isn't characterising the women who wear the niqab as rubbish - that's why he objects to the niqab. It's not difficult to understand, unless you're determined not to.

Exi5 makes a very good point. I believe he's pointing out the salient issue of perspective, but I think you know that.

It's a gross mis-characterization of Dawkin's position, so it's invalid from the start.

[Clinton Huxley]

I've not stated one way or the other what I think DAwkins meant. This is your hobby-horse, old chap.

Oh no old chap, you only went and state that Dawkins's use of English is "entirely correct"

Alien - inconsistent or incompatible with, according to my battered old Chambers.
In which case, when talking about science and Islam, the DAwk's use of English is entirely correct.

Please don't waste our time.

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

[Exi5tentialist]

Sorry, chuckles, but he's pointing out that the Islamic system puts the women in the bin liners, demonstrating their attitude toward women. You, on the other hand, are lying about Dawkin's position to support your own agenda. In the process you make fauxlosphers look even worse than normal. Thanks for the help with that, I'll save your shite for future use.

Gawdzilla - your position is the biggest fauxlosophy going. You are happy to make the supposition that muslim women wearing the niqab do not take responsibility for doing so. It sounds to me as if you haven't read any Sartre at all, let alone enough to call him a fauxlosopher!

I'd love to know what lies you think I've stated about Dawkins. I think I've described his two-faced use of language rather accurately.

[Jason]

I've not stated one way or the other what I think DAwkins meant. This is your hobby-horse, old chap.

Oh no old chap, you only went and state that Dawkins's use of English is "entirely correct"

Alien - inconsistent or incompatible with, according to my battered old Chambers.
In which case, when talking about science and Islam, the DAwk's use of English is entirely correct.

Please don't waste our time.

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

You've chosen a denotation that suits your argument and ignored others - never mind the ugly connotations of the word in the context.

[Clinton Huxley]

I've not stated one way or the other what I think DAwkins meant. This is your hobby-horse, old chap.

Oh no old chap, you only went and state that Dawkins's use of English is "entirely correct"

Alien - inconsistent or incompatible with, according to my battered old Chambers.
In which case, when talking about science and Islam, the DAwk's use of English is entirely correct.

Please don't waste our time.

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

You've chosen a denotation that suits your argument and ignored others - never mind the ugly connotations of the word in the context.

Gosh, that makes me unique.
I've just illustrated that a different interpretation of his words is possible. It's not my problem if some people dislike having alternatives pointed out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, chuckles, but he's pointing out that the Islamic system puts the women in the bin liners, demonstrating their attitude toward women. You, on the other hand, are lying about Dawkin's position to support your own agenda. In the process you make fauxlosphers look even worse than normal. Thanks for the help with that, I'll save your shite for future use.

Gawdzilla - your position is the biggest fauxlosophy going. You are happy to make the supposition that muslim women wearing the niqab do not take responsibility for doing so. It sounds to me as if you haven't read any Sartre at all, let alone enough to call him a fauxlosopher!

I'm not calling Satre a fauxlosopher, Chuckles, I'm calling you one. If he signs up here I'll call him one too.

I'd love to know what lies you think I've stated about Dawkins. I think I've described his two-faced use of language rather accurately.

You have to read the thread instead of just posting, sweetie.

[Exi5tentialist]

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

I am not the slightest bit interested in Dawkins's linguistic competence. You said his use of English was correct in talking about science and islam. You clearly agree with what he said, hence your reason for affirming its correctness in that context. Your position is becoming as two-faced as Dawkins. I suppose this is not surprising.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still locked on "I'm right!" I see.