The insidious thing about this line of reasoning is that it comes close to the good old tone argument. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that if I'd just engage, say, sexist assholes (like Dawkins) oh so gently and politely, instead of telling them "hey, that thing you said about how women aren't rational was kind of jerkish", I'd be "much more successful" in persuading them, and it's every bit as annoying as the initial provocation in most cases. So I had a reflexive reaction against saying Dawkins can't be direct and provocative if he likes.
On the other hand, the analogy is imperfect, because 1) Dawkins IS aiming to persuade Person A to his line of thinking, rather than just indicate to B, C and D that A's behavior is unacceptable, and 2) religious people don't hurt anyone. (At least not simply by dint of being religious.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-03-06 03:24 pm (UTC)On the other hand, the analogy is imperfect, because 1) Dawkins IS aiming to persuade Person A to his line of thinking, rather than just indicate to B, C and D that A's behavior is unacceptable, and 2) religious people don't hurt anyone. (At least not simply by dint of being religious.)