More Recycled Gnu Arguments

The other day, while searching for Dawkins’s mocking strategy, I stumbled across a blog entry by John Loftus entitled, “On Justifying the Use of Ridicule and Mockery.” As I read the blog entry, I experienced a profound sense of deja vu. Loftus wrote:

These people cannot be convinced by satire, so satire is not written to change their minds. It’s written to marginalize them by laughing at them. It persuades people who don’t yet have a settled opinion on the issue, in part by using social pressure. No one wants to be a laughingstock. No one wants to be the butt of a joke.

Hmmm. That sounded awfully familiar. In fact, it sounds just like Dawkins’s argument. Let’s compare.

1. Dawkins: But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable.

Loftus: These people cannot be convinced by satire, so satire is not written to change their minds.

2. Dawkins: I am more interested in fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt.

Loftus: It’s written to marginalize them by laughing at them. It persuades people who don’t yet have a settled opinion on the issue, in part by using social pressure.

3. Dawkins: Nobody likes to be laughed at.

Loftus: No one wants to be a laughingstock.

4. Dawkins: Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.

Loftus: No one wants to be the butt of a joke.

LOL! It looks like Loftus took Dawkins argument, changed the wording, and dropped it into his own blog entry as if it was his argument.

Okay, enough amusing myself. Let’s next take a look at this justification for ridicule and mockery in the next blog entry.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New Atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to More Recycled Gnu Arguments

  1. mechanar says:

    “It’s written to marginalize them by laughing at them. It persuades people who don’t yet have a settled opinion on the issue, in part by using social pressure”

    That right there is the Textbook definition of fascism Plain and simple.

  2. Pingback: Religion is Child Abuse and Other Silly Ideas | My Blog

  3. Pingback: Religion is Child Abuse and Other Silly Ideas | Geoff’s Miscellany

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s