This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← 'Weasel' attack on Catholic spokesman in Hugh Dallas furore

'Weasel' attack on Catholic spokesman in Hugh Dallas furore - Comments

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 1 by aquilacane

I think it will be Richard's comments that go viral. Good.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:00:51 UTC | #556595

RDfan's Avatar Comment 2 by RDfan

In other news, 3rd World War is about to break out in the East...and Prince William is still set on marriage.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:03:33 UTC | #556596

Skeptic Jim's Avatar Comment 3 by Skeptic Jim

"In other news, 3rd World War is about to break out in the East"

No it isn't.

"...and Prince William is still set on marriage."

Who cares?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:09:03 UTC | #556598

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 4 by SaganTheCat

Last night Mr Kearney said: "Dawkins demonstrates again that his intolerance knows no bounds."

Maybe there should be a law against this sort of intolerance? "incitement to satire"?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:35:05 UTC | #556607

Rob Schneider's Avatar Comment 5 by Rob Schneider

OK... Let's see how honestly introspective and consistent we can be: Richard's ad hominem attack serves no ones interests but those who wish to portray him as "strident".

I'm quite serious in asking this question, as a fan/friend/advocate/teammate of Richard Dawkins in the war on irrational superstitions and their imposition on society. But really, does "weasel" do ANYTHING positive for us???

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:40:46 UTC | #556610

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

I love it when the word "intolerant" comes out. Suggesting readers find funnier jokes is a demonstration of boundless intolerance. Sacking a football referee for emailing a joke is actually a demonstration of behaviour not being tolerated. someone please explain that to Mr Kearney. Maybe by email with some more jokes attached

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:44:29 UTC | #556612

Anvil's Avatar Comment 7 by Anvil

Comment 5 by Rob Schneider

Actually Rob, I'm not too sure this is ad hom as it accurately describes the weasel Kearney. The man - and his actions.

I do agree, however, that the choice of action - spamming - and the choice of words, may have not been all too well thought out. That said, we are were we are, and, contrary to posters on both other threads who think that Richard Dawkins should possibly have avoided this quagmire, I for one, welcome the opening of this particular can of worms to the view of the outside world. It's about time.

Also. the amount of new posters (from Scotland, I imagine?) on this site is to be welcomed.

Apologies to any online weasels. Some of my best friends are weasels.

Anvil.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:46:33 UTC | #556613

Hideous Dwarf's Avatar Comment 8 by Hideous Dwarf

"Dawkins demonstrates again that his intolerance knows no bounds."

The overwhelming irony contained in that statement is only exceeded by Kearney's stupidity in not recognising it. But of course it is a particularly claim of the religious that their intolerance and desire to persecute should always be tolerated.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:54:27 UTC | #556616

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 9 by crookedshoes

WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL WEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASELWEASEL

Why are the words always overreacted to and the ACTIONS allowed to slide? Richard uses a word and he is a pariah, this WEASEL (don't get me started) costs someone their LIFE'S WORK and people rush to his side.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:00:06 UTC | #556622

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 10 by helen sotiriadis

Last night Mr Kearney said: "Dawkins demonstrates again that his intolerance knows no bounds."

precious.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:05:13 UTC | #556623

Letsbereasonable's Avatar Comment 11 by Letsbereasonable

Last night Mr Kearney said: "Dawkins demonstrates again that his intolerance knows no bounds."

Whaaaat!! Dawkins is being intolerant while the Catholic Media Office is being tolerant?

What am I missing here?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:15:04 UTC | #556627

Am I Evil?'s Avatar Comment 12 by Am I Evil?

I think Crookedshoes makes an excellent point. Which is greater - someone gets called a name (deservedly in my book) versus someone losing their livelihood for the most trivial of reasons?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:16:57 UTC | #556628

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 13 by Carl Sai Baba

When religion is in power, "intolerance" means imprisonment, torture, and death, for which endless excuses and moral relativism are now offered.

But when theocracy is overturned, the religious former bullies will cry out words like "assault" and "intolerance" at the drop of a joke.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:17:42 UTC | #556629

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 14 by -TheCodeCrack-

They don't just abuse the minds of children, they abuse the label of tolerance as well.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:23:37 UTC | #556631

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 15 by Steve Zara

Comment 11 by Letsbereasonable

Indeed. "Weasel" seems rather less strident to me than "Like a Nazi and having a tendency towards moral evil".

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:27:24 UTC | #556632

Rob Schneider's Avatar Comment 16 by Rob Schneider

I am reminded of the aphorism, "It's not a good idea to carve the stick with which others will be beating you."... or something like that.

Couldn't Dawkins' legitimate point be made firmly, pointedly and powerfully without handing the opposition the rhetorical cudgel that many will see as confirmation of their pre-conceptions, and hence will be no more likely to be sympathetic/aligned with Richard's position?

Granted... those looking to be offended will see offense in anything that is said, but what about the fence sitters that WANT to join, but refuse to side with people whose best rhetorical efforts involve name-calling? Must we stoop to the other side's tactics?

(BTW, I appreciate that... to this point... no one has bandied about the term "accommodationist." "I am not an accommodationist" need not be synonymous with "anything goes, as long as its for our side.")

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:30:46 UTC | #556634

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 17 by DocWebster

Being intolerant of intolerance, they want to vilify RD for that. They want us to allow them to rule the country with whinging to make up for the fact that they lost the ability to rule with a sword. I would say "man up, grow a pair" to the weasel but we all know how dangerous it can get for kids when the catholic clergy remember their testicles

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:33:49 UTC | #556636

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 18 by hungarianelephant

Come now, ladies and gentlemen. 15 posts in, and no one has mentioned that Richard has form for his pronouncements on weasels?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:34:49 UTC | #556638

Tryphon Tournesol's Avatar Comment 19 by Tryphon Tournesol

There are 2 very old Dutch expressions: 'De hand in eigen boezem steken' and 'met twee maten meten'.

meaning (loosely translated): 'compare your own actions with the other's' (literally: feel your own heart whether or not it beats like the other's)

and 'measuring with two yardsticks'

Forgive me my feeble attempt to translate and clarify these..if you want the real meaning, look no further than Rome

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:35:33 UTC | #556639

Anvil's Avatar Comment 20 by Anvil

Comment 13 by RightWingAtheist

When religion is in power, "intolerance" means imprisonment, torture, and death, for which endless excuses and moral relativism are now offered.

But when theocracy is overturned, the religious former bullies will cry out words like "assault" and "intolerance" at the drop of a joke.

I wrote the following down on a slip of paper a few days ago. It's been lying on my desk along with a million other similar bits of paper. Like the idiot that I am, I never bothered to attribute the quote, or to make a note referencing the actual point. However, it sounds like Hitchens...

"One of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is that the howls you will hear are from the Men of God"

Anvil.

Edit: Think it might have been Hari?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:39:11 UTC | #556641

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 21 by AsylumWarden

Probably nothing that hasn't already been said, but yes, Mr Kearney is an absolute hypocrite for labelling Dawkins intolerant when during his own intolerant bout he called for the sacking of someone for making a joke not to his taste.

Not to mention his hypocrisy in putting strain on a family through axing (at least) one half of the income (assuming Mr Dallas is living with a partner who is also professional). This from an organisation that generally seeks to promote strong, healthy families.

And isn't this man meant to be helping promote the Catholic image? (I would guess that's part of the CMO's job) So what's this saying? Cross us even slightly and we call for your job P.S. Jesusloveseveryone.

(Hopeful) Advice Mr Kearney: Brain first, then mouth!

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:40:02 UTC | #556643

David Millar's Avatar Comment 22 by David Millar

Wonder if it is possible to get Tim Minchin's "Pope song" to No. 1 for Xmas?

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:47:48 UTC | #556649

Rob Schneider's Avatar Comment 23 by Rob Schneider

Comment 23 by David Millar :

Wonder if it is possible to get Tim Minchin's "Pope song" to No. 1 for Xmas?

Only if you forward links to it from your SFA e-mail account and get fired, then get Richard to comment on it. :-)

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:02:09 UTC | #556667

Letsbereasonable's Avatar Comment 24 by Letsbereasonable

Comment 15 by Steve Zara :

Comment 11 by Letsbereasonable Indeed. "Weasel" seems rather less strident to me than "Like a Nazi and having a tendency towards moral evil".

Careful, some smartypants will accuse you of the Godwin thing.

I just can't fathom how even Catholic thinking could see the calling for the sacking of an individual on the grounds of an offensive joke as anything other than a position of intolerance, and in the next breath they level the accusation of intolerance at someone who identifies it as such. There's something missing from this whole equation.

This is a pointless post because everyone in the non-Catholic universe already understands this to be the case.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:09:17 UTC | #556673

Simon Templar's Avatar Comment 25 by Simon Templar

I just can't fathom how even Catholic thinking could see the calling for the sacking of an individual on the grounds of an offensive joke

That's because if you read Peter Kearney's letter properly he didn't actually call for his sacking.

In the body of the letter he states - 'I understand that an internal investigation has been launched by the SFA into the allegation.'

He them goes on to request that;

  • That once concluded the results of this investigation will be made public.
  • The SFA will treat the matter with some urgency in order to maintain the Association’s integrity and credibility in opposing sectarianism.
  • Should the allegation be proved against Mr Dallas he will be removed from his post.
  • Hardly a call for his head

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:23:55 UTC | #556686

    cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 26 by cheesedoff17

    I imagine the weasel is wincing.

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:33:39 UTC | #556694

    skeelo's Avatar Comment 27 by skeelo

    Comment 26 by Simon Templar :

    I just can't fathom how even Catholic thinking could see the calling for the sacking of an individual on the grounds of an offensive joke

    That's because if you read Peter Kearney's letter properly he didn't actually call for his sacking.

    In the body of the letter he states - 'I understand that an internal investigation has been launched by the SFA into the allegation.'

    He them goes on to request that;

  • That once concluded the results of this investigation will be made public.

  • The SFA will treat the matter with some urgency in order to maintain the Association’s integrity and credibility in opposing sectarianism.

  • Should the allegation be proved against Mr Dallas he will be removed from his post. Hardly a call for his head

  • Erm, in what way is this not a call for him to be sacked?

    The allegation in question was that he forwarded the email. It has been established that he forwarded the email - the allegation has been proved. Mr Kearney requests that:

    Should the allegation be proved against Mr Dallas [that] he will be removed from his post

    It's really pretty clear, which bit of it didn't you understand?

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:40:44 UTC | #556695

    The Plc's Avatar Comment 28 by The Plc

    Methinks it is like a weasel, that's not an ad hom attack, as he's not dismissing any argument he's making.

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:44:21 UTC | #556698

    Simon Templar's Avatar Comment 29 by Simon Templar

    It's really pretty clear, which bit of it didn't you understand?

    As Father Dougal once said - 'All of it'

    However, in plain English (or Scottish if you prefer) He made the allegation and asked that it be investigated. He didn't say 'you must find him guilty and sack him' but said 'should the allegation be proved'

    In other words 'Do your own invstigation and come to your own conclusion'

    Had the allegation not been proved then that would have been the end of the matter.

    Incidently I attended a regional English FA disciplinary meeting on Monday as a defence witness. We lost the case, I think they got it wrong but I abide by and respect their decision.

    God Bless You

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:48:38 UTC | #556703

    crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 30 by crookedshoes

    So Simon Templar,

    "Should it be found true, sack him" is not the same as "sack him"....

    Okay. Why aren't you stepping back and telling us all whether you think losing one's livelihood over forwarding a JOKE is the right thing to do? It was proved that he forwarded the joke. What my assertion is, is that unless there are specific statements in his contract that he not do this, being sacked is over the top punishment. Do you agree??? If not, why?

    Silliness be Upon you as well

    Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:57:16 UTC | #556712