Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man

Dawkins' insults do not weaken religionCon argues that "Dawkins protest against some religious aspects and ideals isn't unpleasant." This debate is not about Dawkins' scientific writing or his legitimate criticisms of religion. It is about his rude, belittling comments, his insults of religious people among others. Con has conceded that these insults are ineffective in promoting science or atheism. Even Richard Dawkins himself has conceded as much.To say that Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man means that he frequently makes gratuitous and unpleasant comments. It doesn't mean that he never does anything positive. If you say that someone is passionate, it doesn't mean they are always passionate or they're passionate about everything. It just means that they are frequently and noticeably passionate. Richard Dawkins is frequently and noticeably unpleasant - about religious people mostly, but also US gun owners, and women who complain about sexism. These unpleasant comments serve no good purpose. Therefore he is a gratuitously unpleasant man. subjectivityCon writes that "not everyone finds Dawkins unpleasant and that he has a lot of supporters." Actually, the worst of his supporters like him because he's unpleasant.For example, Rebecca Watson writes that after Dawkins sent his "Dear Muslima" letter, his fans were so inspired, they joined in the abuse:"Dawkins' seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape "jokes," threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page...Just a week after Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" comment, I was schedules to speak at...a skeptics' conference in Las Vegas..., a man tweeted that he was attending and that if he ran into me in an elevator, he'd assault me." (1)This is not an issue of "unpleasant" being subjective. This is about people enjoying abuse because it is unpleasant to the victim. Richard Dawkins did not intend his "Dear Muslima" letter to be kindly and supportive. The whole purpose of it was to ridicule Rebecca Watson and her concerns about sexism in the atheist community.The Dawkins "charity"Con has mentioned the word "charity" several times now. Of course, the Richard Dawkins Foundation is not a "charity" in the common sense of the word - it is not "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need." (2) "Charity" is a tax-related legal term, which means a non-profit organization that provides some benefit to a section of the community. Most religious organizations are charities in this sense, as are private schools (3). Some of these charities do help those in need, of course, but others maintain public buildings, improve armed forces efficiency, or do artistic activities (4,5). The advancement of science or education is sufficient to be registered as a charity in the UK(4) or the US(5).I have already conceded that Richard Dawkins does do positive things. He also makes gratuitously unpleasant comments.gratuitously unpleasantI have presented several examples of Dawkins being gratuitously unpleasant, and Con has defended only one example - that of the abuse of Caroline Sparks' family. Con said "it wasn't gratuitous since he said the family was foolish, because the family was foolish."Dawkins never said the family was foolish. He said the family was "deeply stupid," "idiots," and "cretinous." Foolish means lacking good sense or judgement (6). It's referring to the family's decision to have a gun in the house and to teach their son to use it. However, none of the words Dawkins used refer to judgement; they are terms of intelligence. Intelligence is not something people have control over. It's as gratuitous to insult someone's intelligence as it is to insult their looks. As Con has already conceded, "you wouldn't call a retarded person a retard."Dawkins insults people because it amuses him to do so. Con quotes him as saying, "I don't think we want to use offensive language...We want to win arguments by cogency. I think ridicule is a weapon, but it must be witty ridicule and not just abuse."It's hardly "witty" to say an elderly check-in worker "has one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen." (7) It's a child's insult, completely without sophistication.Dawkins added, "She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian." (7) Actually, it was the European Court of Human Rights that was "too stupid to see the difference," but Dawkins didn't direct his remarks that way. It might have been interesting to do so. The laws related to freedom of religion are interesting and complex. The judges' decisions were controversial. But he didn't; he made an empty and rude comment about the worker herself. Nobody was surprised, because Dawkins is famous for being a gratuitously unpleasant man.Thank you, Legitdebater, for debating with me.(1) http://www.slate.com...(2)http://oxforddictionaries.com...(3)http://www.mondaq.com...(4) http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk... (5) http://www.irs.gov...(6) http://oxforddictionaries.com...(7) http://old.richarddawkins.net...