tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7458251474448166861..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Take note, Mr. Plait: This is "being a dick"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55157875757258367732010-12-19T15:51:58.193-06:002010-12-19T15:51:58.193-06:00I agree it is a hoax meant to originally bilk peop...I agree it is a hoax meant to originally bilk people out of their common sense. <br /><br />It turned into also a tourist trap.<br /><br />It was a dickish thing to do, yes.<br /><br />There is no reason to believe it was anti-Christian. (The article title reminds me of the South Park episode Cartman would say stuff like "Does Wendy like having her tits licked by the football team? I don't know! I'm asking questions!" to plant the false ideas.)<br /><br />Is it wrong to downplay the vandalism just because a bunch of nutjobs hypocritically used it as an idol? Yes, in my subjective book, I say it is wrong.<br /><br />And are the comments here at blogspot more entertaining than the actual article? Fuck, yes.<br /><br />But on the bright side, they can now sell the twigs for a profit. Look for "Holy Thorn Tree of Glastonbury Sprigs For Sale" next to the orthopedic shoe advertisements in the next Catholic Digest near you.HailSciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12487475017636771934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82316765453514243342010-12-12T15:32:07.930-06:002010-12-12T15:32:07.930-06:00While I have been waiting to see who is responsibl...While I have been waiting to see who is responsible for this crime so I can comment about the dickishness of their actions, I see more and more info that this type of tree is quite hardy, and the damage it suffered may even be a benefit for its health.<br /><br />It seems quite evident, and as Lukas just said, that this tree will flourish. How soon will it be until we hear about the "miracle" that the tree is re-growing?MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31936266162896371852010-12-11T14:32:17.992-06:002010-12-11T14:32:17.992-06:00Jeff: I really have no idea what's up your ass...Jeff: I really have no idea what's up your ass, but I've made the intent of the original post abundantly clear (criticism of religion = not dickish; vandalism = dickish) and have no interest at all in defending your or anyone else's bizarre distortions of it. At this point I think you may need to find a different blog to hang out at.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73259558314549583152010-12-11T11:38:07.147-06:002010-12-11T11:38:07.147-06:00I just had to comment on this:
"Remember wha...I just had to comment on this:<br /><br /><b>"Remember what happened when they cut off Samson's hair. Real strength is rooted in the heart... The tree will flourish."</b><br /><br />Samson lost his strength when his hair was cut and he didn't regain it until his hair grew out again.<br />His strength was rooted in his observance of an arbitrary rule. It had nothing to do with his heart. That guy would have known that if he had bothered to read the bible.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78849247198363798042010-12-11T09:18:12.020-06:002010-12-11T09:18:12.020-06:00@George from NY
One thing to look at is the headl...@George from NY<br /><br />One thing to look at is the headline as opposed to the actual copy.<br /><br />The Telegraph (rightish) and Guardian (leftish) do not have a screaming headline starting with "Were anti-Christians behind pilgrimage site attack?"<br /><br />The stories themselves are similar, but if you scan the headlines you get a different impression. And, as we know, these first impressions are usually what readers take away from articles.<br /><br />We have plenty of dickish people here in the UK. Most of them are NOT fueled by a particular "anti-Christian" sentiment. They're equal opportunity dicks...<br /><br />FWIW the associating of this incident with the 'Don't be a Dick' discussion isn't really valid. That discussion was in the context of arguing with religion, this incident, as a UKer, smacks more of plain old vandalism then a religious statement. And the Daily Mail are being dicks themselves but that isn't really anything that surprises me.<br /><br />YMMV etc.Hairy Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447200409981332335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45576426322881056492010-12-11T04:22:24.090-06:002010-12-11T04:22:24.090-06:00Martin:
If the vandalism was a religious hate crim...Martin:<br /><i>If the vandalism was a religious hate crime, then it's not a non-story.</i><br /><br />Jeff:<br /><i>You have ZERO reason to suspect this. You are talking out of your ass, with your only source being a tabloid newspaper who's ideology lays slightly to the right of Adolph Hitler(who incidentally, it supported), and who has never let the truth get in the way of it's fascist spin on things.</i><br /><br />"Fascist spin?"<br /><br />The coverage in the Daily Mail resembles that of every other UK source I have seen, for example The Telegraph:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/2eowgvk<br /><br />and The Guardian:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/33hjg5c<br /><br />The Guardian is, of course, famously Left yet its story reads just like that of the Mail.<br /><br />Would Jeff be sneering about "fascist spin" had Martin's initial post linked the Guardian piece instead?<br /><br />No story I have seen on this - including the Daily Mail's - states that anyone is certain why the tree was vandalized. The police are investigating, looking for witnesses, etc.<br /><br />However, let's just take a moment to look at the known facts of the event: A tree famous for its religious significance was vandalized the day after the annual ceremony featuring it was televised.<br /><br />Again, "fascist spin?" One hardly needs to be Oswald Mosley to suspect the motives behind such an act. <br /><br />These concerns may well turn out to be unfounded, should other motives be established through police investigation, or confessed. But a tentative classification of this as a religious hate crime is entirely reasonable.<br /><br />As for Jeff's most recent comment to Martin:<br /><br /><i>Once again, you are spouting completely unsupported assertions in a desperate attempt to cover your ass for posting this idiotic tripe. You have no idea what the average Sommersetian knows about this tree, or whether they even know it exists at all. Show your evidence, or retract your dumb ass story.</i><br /><br />The evidence is readily apparent from even a casual perusal of the news coverage.<br /><br />Nobody with even a basic command of the facts of this event would issue the above challenge. I don't think Martin is the one trafficking in "unsupported assertions."George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39317492081358579072010-12-11T00:43:05.476-06:002010-12-11T00:43:05.476-06:00I'm sorry.. the only thing I could think up is...I'm sorry.. the only thing I could think up is...<br />"Father, I can not tell a lie; I cut the cherry tree"<br /><br />I admit, I am a dick. This is a bit extreme though.DarkEternalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10993305707054859612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66605035910715388332010-12-10T23:25:38.678-06:002010-12-10T23:25:38.678-06:00"Nik touches what bothered me about the OP. T..."Nik touches what bothered me about the OP. The OP appears to be a "greater dick" argument. (Or "greater ho" argument as Nik presented it.) It seems to be saying, "We don't have to worry about being dicks because we haven't done what these real dicks did." That's not a good argument."<br /><br />I don't think that's what Martine was saying. I think he was merely pointing out that something like this truly exemplifies someone being a dick, and a firm expression of your skepticism as it is applied to religious belief is not, NOT that both are bad but this is worse so "hey, they did it too!"<br /><br />Not to speak for Martin, of course. Just my observation/presumption. Martin is too sharp to make such a basic error in logic, in my opinion.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72135090077152274752010-12-10T23:20:35.010-06:002010-12-10T23:20:35.010-06:00Oh, I forgot to add this:
I am sure I'm ot al...Oh, I forgot to add this:<br /><br />I am sure I'm ot alone with this one, but even if I am, let me forge ahead with a confession:<br /><br />From time to time, I get the urge to break things. To vandalise. To destroy. I don't follow up on these impulses (although I admit that I did a couple of times when I was a kid/teenager, although nothing serious) but when I have them they are pretty strong. <br /><br />I'm not sure why I have these inclinations. It may be related to the society in which I live, as it feels restrictive, and these feelings are a response to this? I dunno. Maybe there's some sort of biological reason? Like I am supressing my innate destructive 'manly' urges throughout my 21st century, 'cultured' 'modern' and 'civilized' lifestyle, and my inner caveman makes an attempt to break free every now and again, an attempt that manifests as an ure to tear down the social order, the 'establishment.' <br /><br />I am 29 (hard to fathom, I was supposed to be 21 forever...), married (also hard to fathom) and have a 2 year old (even harder to fathom). I have always been a free spirit, and I always thought I'd b single, and did not see myself as the domesticated type. Perhaps this is to blame? <br /><br />Maybe the fact that I went from living with my parents, which was like living in a house run by a fascist regime (seriously) to living with my then fiance, now wife (then had a kid) is a part of the problem? I never got to really let loose and enjoy myself for a while. Although you'd think that I'd get the urge to party, or see other people (both of which I do feel like doing from time to time, admittedly) not break shit. <br /><br />I know this might seem like a strange admission to everybody, but I guess I needed to get it off my chest. Is there ANYONE else out there who gets these urges? <br /><br />And again, keep in mind I DO NOT act on them.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1303327509249135202010-12-10T23:17:13.107-06:002010-12-10T23:17:13.107-06:00Sue: You're right, it's not a good argumen...Sue: You're right, it's not a good argument. But since it's not my argument at all, never mind.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63358990352624017342010-12-10T23:11:32.478-06:002010-12-10T23:11:32.478-06:00even if the motive was a vendetta against the prop...<i>even if the motive was a vendetta against the property owner, the vandals must have known (and not cared) that cutting the tree down would have amounted to an attack on a monument important to Christians, and would cause great distress to the whole community. Which is why I think the "religiously motivated harm" tag is apropos, whether it was the main motive for the crime or not.</i><br /><br />This would seem to me to be, at best, an incidental consequence of their actions (and you can't know that they would have known about the xian connection to begin with, although I'll grant you that it's certainly possible and perhaps probable, depending on the popularity of the tree/monument, and where the vandals reside). <br /><br />I don't see how knowing that there will be a secondary consequence to an action with a primary goal counts as a secondary motivation. Motive implies intent. Knowing about a possible consequence doesn't sound like intent to me, but, rather, an incidental occurence that they perhaps didn't give a flying **** about.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18197008656741587682010-12-10T19:36:51.095-06:002010-12-10T19:36:51.095-06:00Nik touches what bothered me about the OP. The OP...Nik touches what bothered me about the OP. The OP appears to be a "greater dick" argument. (Or "greater ho" argument as Nik presented it.) It seems to be saying, "We don't have to worry about being dicks because we haven't done what these real dicks did." That's not a good argument.Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09004693922783338240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59504582063531705532010-12-10T18:49:35.439-06:002010-12-10T18:49:35.439-06:00My first thought was that it was a dick move.
My...My first thought was that it was a dick move. <br /><br />My first dickish thought was, "Well, now they can count the rings and find out."Andrew Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10677477394248191725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62862952488369115152010-12-10T15:26:11.617-06:002010-12-10T15:26:11.617-06:00I never meant to suggest I thought this was an ath...<i>I never meant to suggest I thought this was an atheist attack against Christians.</i><br /><br />Then why did you link it to Phil's "Don't be a Dick" speech? Phil wasn't talking to the general population you know. He was talking to skeptics(and he was very wrong, but that's a whole nother matter)<br /><br /><i>it's hardly likely that anyone from the area would not have known what the tree was, that even if the motive was a vendetta against the property owner, the vandals must have known (and not cared) that cutting the tree down would have amounted to an attack on a monument important to Christian</i><br /><br />Once again, you are spouting completely unsupported assertions in a desperate attempt to cover your ass for posting this idiotic tripe. You have no idea what the average Sommersetian knows about this tree, or whether they even know it exists at all. Show your evidence, or retract your dumb ass story.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04956974121053552140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56921968699999616802010-12-10T13:57:01.395-06:002010-12-10T13:57:01.395-06:00Being a dick, can not be that bad, if you have a p...Being a dick, can not be that bad, if you have a point, shouting and naming the person dosent help, but if you make fun of theyr beliefs, to show how ridiculous it is, then you can make something of the situation.<br /><br />Destrying some religious figure, dont gona help in anything, just will help de believer in sink down even more in theyr religion: since the "enemy" is atacking us, sure your beliefs are true.<br /><br />Even if a cristian monument, gives me a urge to get a flametrower and finish it, i know i need to control my self, because anything that a atheist do, can be seen as "dickness", from the believers view, even if its something inocent, as comparing god with a pink unicorn....https://www.blogger.com/profile/05774854360116475084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15977353352915204972010-12-10T13:05:43.571-06:002010-12-10T13:05:43.571-06:00David Smith: Your second guess is the correct one....David Smith: Your second guess is the correct one. I never meant to suggest I thought this was an <i>atheist</i> attack against Christians. Though I do think, because it's hardly likely that anyone from the area would not have known what the tree was, that even if the motive was a vendetta against the property owner, the vandals must have known (and not cared) that cutting the tree down would have amounted to an attack on a monument important to Christians, and would cause great distress to the whole community. Which is why I think the "religiously motivated harm" tag is apropos, whether it was the main motive for the crime or not.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65149264066733792092010-12-10T11:52:52.209-06:002010-12-10T11:52:52.209-06:00I can't really tell if the OP is trying to con...I can't really tell if the OP is trying to connect this act to atheists being dicks. It does kinda sound like it, but I could read it also as saying that this would be dickish behavior, while simply arguing or making fun of religion is not. <br /><br />So which is it? are you trying to connect this to atheists being dicks?David Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12187097609500396446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61135119206017411582010-12-10T10:04:42.772-06:002010-12-10T10:04:42.772-06:00Long-time reader, first time commenter.
A drag qu...Long-time reader, first time commenter.<br /><br />A drag queen once told me, "Every whore knows a hooker who's a bigger slut than she. Stop comparing yourself to hookers to look like a saint."<br /><br />The context<br />She'd approached me and propositioned me in a club, to which I politely declined by referencing my dislike of hooking up. She said she'd let me buy her breakfast and that she bet I was really a "big 'ole ho". I laughed and said I was far more saintly than my friends (who she knew). It was to this she was replying with the above statement.<br /><br />The germaneness<br />Using an example of vandalism to imply that calling religious people idiots, treating them with condescension, etc. are not dickish behaviors (or at least not terribly bad ones) is logically invalid (and a cheap shot). The dick v. not dick is not and has never been about whether or not to commit crimes. It's about the efficacy of these approaches in changing minds and/or their moral rightness (or lack thereof).<br /><br />Making the comparison at all is an obfuscation of the intent of the discussion, is a non-sequitur, and calls into question either your grasp of the pro-dick justification or the legitimacy of the pro-dick position itself.<br /><br />All that said, I do like your blog, and subscribe to you on Google Reader. :) I just disagree with you on this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74358628102043434682010-12-10T09:36:07.500-06:002010-12-10T09:36:07.500-06:00Cutting up a tree like that isn't nice.
Howev...Cutting up a tree like that isn't nice.<br /><br />However, I kind of doubt that a particularly anti-Christian statement was behind it, more likely:<br /><br />1) Revenge against landowner<br /><br />2) Vandalism simply because it was there<br /><br />3) Done for a laugh to piss the hippies off<br /><br />Welcome to Merrie England.<br /><br />The church (in the widest possible sense) is seen as a type of authority here but cutting a tree down isn't really on the list of actions that are obvious. Vandalize monuments, etc, yes, but not this.<br /><br />FWIW The Daily Mail are professional trolls, and there's nothing they like more then stirring people up with self-righteous indignation. This article's a case in point: headline yelling about "anti-Christian" vandals, and at the end of their tl;dr screed mention that there could be a vendetta against the land owner.Hairy Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447200409981332335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2869542327258248412010-12-10T09:08:44.139-06:002010-12-10T09:08:44.139-06:00Jeff, you keep calling the tree a hoax. On what b...Jeff, you keep calling the tree a hoax. On what basis? It's grown from cuttings of what was at least locally believed to be an ancient tree. Do you find anything in the article to suggest that there was any deliberate misrepresentation of the tree as original?<br /><br />Or are you suggesting that the legend of the tree's planting by Joseph of Arimathea is a hoax? That would be a more challenging position to prove. Lots of places have their own local legends, without any need for outright fabrication.<br /><br />Even if I agree with everything else you say, that it was just a tree with no historical significance, I struggle to understand why its destruction is a "win," even if it was a hoax. Are you saying the proper response to hoaxes is vandalism, rather than skepticism? If someone destroyed the footprints you referred to would the response be, "Someone destroyed those footprints; I guess they were a hoax after all!" Or would it be, "Looks like the atheists couldn't stand to look at the evidence of creation any longer. Praise Jebus!"<br /><br />The proper response to hoaxes is skepticism, yes. Destruction of the subject of a hoax, or of any other irrational behavior, also destroys any opportunity for skeptical analysis. In what sense is that a "win?"soul_biscuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10017109360122087908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19767993610000716582010-12-10T08:58:48.876-06:002010-12-10T08:58:48.876-06:00All this posting about "dickish" atheist...All this posting about "dickish" atheists is lots of cart before horse. The conclusion of the article states that the tree is on the land of a man arrested for a multi-million dollar fraud. The article even states that this could be a vendetta against him.<br /><br />This is the Daily Mail saying this. One of the most unreliable, inflammatory papers there are. So they set the article up as "anti-Xian?", and then at the end say, "no, probably an attack against a criminal."<br /><br />Don't start apologizing for atheists when there is no indication this has anything to do with anti-religion.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392926210139673730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62566467730460892322010-12-10T07:56:28.021-06:002010-12-10T07:56:28.021-06:00Vandalization is dickish in and of itself.
So, Ba...<i>Vandalization is dickish in and of itself.</i><br /><br />So, <a href="http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=banksy&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=0xUCTerCNZGisQPZl7GVDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQsAQwAA&biw=1680&bih=790" rel="nofollow">Banksy</a> = Giant dick? If so, I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this one. <br /><br /><i>Currently we don't know if there was a motive beyond simple destruction for the thrill of it.</i><br /><br />Would you mind telling Martin that? Because if he had considered that point, he wouldn't have ever written this stupid post. <br /><br /><i>I find it hard to see this as "an overall win", as you put it in your first post.</i><br /><br />Like I said a while back, I wouldn't shed a tear if the Paulxy human footprints were vandalised either. The thing that the credulous attach significance to isn't actually there. It's a hoax. And unlike, say, the shroud of Turin, it has no historical significance either. They can grow a new tree and attach significance to that, or even better, they can transplant a tree that's older then 60 years old. I have a redwood that's well over 100 years old on my property(which, unlike the tree in question, does have a do not remove order on it). I would gladly donate some cuttings. <br /><br /><br />So yeah, I think it's an overall win. Unless we have Atheists going around claiming the vandalism as our own work. That might put a crimp in things.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04956974121053552140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1162416134399824582010-12-10T07:12:07.043-06:002010-12-10T07:12:07.043-06:00Perhaps the choice of words "for no good reas...Perhaps the choice of words "for no good reason" was poor. So let me rephrase.<br /><br />Vandalization is dickish in and of itself. The level of dickishness increases when you vandalize something that is important to many people. It further increases if you do it specifically because those people attach significance to it.<br /><br />Currently we don't know if there was a motive beyond simple destruction for the thrill of it. So for now I'll categorize the incident as level 2 dickishness. If it turns out it was done for anti-religious motives, it will increase to level 3 supreme dickishness.<br /><br />But all in all it's safe to say they're dicks. And I find it hard to see this as "an overall win", as you put it in your first post.trjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16306932855907832727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63596938873864304162010-12-10T06:52:14.015-06:002010-12-10T06:52:14.015-06:00I have to say (seeing as no-one else is :p) I'...I have to say (seeing as no-one else is :p) I'm leaning towards some of Jeff's arguments here. One of the tags for this article is: 'religiously motivated harm', and yet I see no evidence to back this up, other than the fact that the victim had religious significance. That isn't enough to cast it as religiously motivated harm in my eyes. Especially when there is the vendetta suggestion later in the article. <br /><br />I think you're making a bit of a leap to get to religious hate crime - and certainly you've danced around implying it was done by atheists by invoking the 'Don't be A Dick' speech/meme: even if it was religiously motivated, it could easily have been a different religion rather than atheists. (Although I may have inferred wrongly there, it was by no means clear) <br /><br />Also, I don't think the Godwinning suggestion is on - what he said is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_for_fascism_under_Rothermere. Also, no comparison whatsoever is being made here, be it to the people he's arguing with, or about the object of your disagreement. All that is being done is a historical claim is being made which shows his dislike for the use of said paper as a source. If the paper had been one that supported Stalin, or sympathised with known murderers, or was openly racist and homophobic, etc, and that same point had been made, would things have been any different? This is little different in my eyes to someone saying the things that the Fox News channel comes out with shouldn't be taken as fact.<br /><br />But then I've never liked Godwin's corollary. Godwin's law's good with me, because it says nothing about whether it is valid to talk about Hitler or not, but the corollary seems to try to make Hitler into a 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' sort of thing, as if we should avoid mentioning him at all costs.<br /><br />Anyway, the Daily Mail is not a reputable paper, by any stretch of the imagination, and so I think Jeff is justified in wanting more than an article by them to go on.<br /><br />Just a note - I do think that cutting this tree was a really nasty thing to do. Like I said, I don't agree with Jeff on everything.<br /><br />Anyway, just my two cents.<br /><br />I should probably take a cycle ride up to visit the crime scene actually, I live not far away from Glastonbury. Bizarre that I should find out about this via an atheist show in Texas, USA!Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10329941630584053342010-12-10T05:52:15.343-06:002010-12-10T05:52:15.343-06:00You've accused Martin of basing his views on a...<i>You've accused Martin of basing his views on a biased article. Now you're accusing him of basing his views on a faulty reading of that article.</i><br /><br />those positions are not mutually exclusive. I fail to see your problem. <br /><br /><i><b>It doesn't matter what the underlying motive was</b> for cutting down that tree.</i><br /><br /><br /><i>physically vandalizing something, especially something cherished by many, <b>for no good reason</b>, is being a dick</i><br /><br />I see. So the motive doesn't matter, but the reason why does. Would you mind explaining the difference there? I'm not quite following you. <br /><br />Incidentaly, I'm fairly certain that martin was not saying this. Surely this isn't the first, worst or most high profile example of dickishness in general he's seen since the "Don't be a dick speech". No, instead, he imagined the motive to be anti-religious in nature, and thus defined it as an example of being a dick. Motive is key to this process. But I'll wait until you expound on the reason v. motive issue to make my final judgement.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04956974121053552140noreply@blogger.com