Open Letter to a Dysfunctional Couple: Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins


Hello Rebecca and Richard,
Nobody likes child abuse, especially if the parents fight in
front of their children and traumatise them daily.

Dysfunctional parents fight in front of their children because they care more about their egos than about their children.
They misplace their priorities and create enormous damage.
Richard Dawkins and Rebecca Watson remind us all of a dysfunctional couple that cares little for their child: The Skeptical movement.

It was a shared, vulgar display of low impulse control by both of you, Watson & Dawkins.


They could have settled their differences in private before their confrontation stemming from”elevatorgate”, but both chose the dysfunctional couple/impulsive approach instead.

Their egos replaced their critical thinking then attacked each other and made an online circus out of themselves then of the skeptical movement.

Two leading skeptics getting into a public fight?  Not surprising with drunk folk, but with people of their caliber? Where was their critical thinking?

Possibly, you would both agree with most people that functional couples settle differences in private and NOT by making a circus out of their conflicts.

ESPECIALLY when the whole creationist neighborhood already wants to get rid of their child.


*Did you broadcast an image of unity ? Matureness? Did you stop to think?

*How much has your shared error of judgement changed  the world’s opinion on the skeptical movement?

*What, in your opinion, should have been done differently?

At this point taking sides would be wasteful, supporting either of you would only add to the damage you both have inflicted to our collective credibility.

Your shared lack of of judgement makes it easier for the creationists to take for granted that we all fail to value priorities & disagree all the time, just because of you:

2 people who were too self centered to behave as mature leaders. The damage was done by both of you.

It would be very easy for both of you to say “you don’t understand, rules do not apply to me” with colorful excuses tangents and fallacies but both of you ran out of them months ago.


IF RULES APPLY TO BOTH OF YOU, OWN UP TO YOUR SHARED PUBLIC MISTAKE AND MAKE IT ALSO PUBLIC YOU APOLOGIZE:      M – U – T – U – A – L – L – Y 

TEST YOUR EGO AND YOUR CRITICAL THINKING, YOU MAY STILL THINK YOU DO NOT SHARE THE SAME MISTAKE.


YOU BOTH BUILT THIS CIRCUS, NOW OWN UP TO IT.

WHY THIS LETTER

You wanna know why I started this blog? It was all because of a damn creationist who said this On September 08 2011 during a debate:

“Oh you are an “Atheist”? Like Dawkins and the girl with the glasses? That is such a joke, you guys can’t even get along…boy, you guys can’t be trusted you can’t agree on anything…that is perfect critical thinking…kudos to your public credibility…”


A damn creationist, who cannot possibly get reality any more wrong, suddenly has the gall to tell me something…correct.

That, my fellow Skeptics is a sublime defeat.

Why do I have to bend logic and and excuse two leaders who behaved so immaturely in the worst possible public scenario and harmed the credibility of this dwindling community?

Why do I have to ignore logic and try to excuse them?

Why do I have to give them concessions to try to justify their immature behavior?

Why do I have to excuse both because of their body of work and pretend they did not fail the test of thinking ahead of time, of deferred gratification, that they should have placed the needs of this community BEFORE the apocryphal gratification of publicly showing what gender was better?

That is all it comes down to brothers and sisters in arms, neither Watson nor Dawkins could wait a test even toddlers pass, they are given two extra cookies if they wait long enough before eating the first, Watson and Dawkins’ cookies were made of common cheap dough made of fictitious gender supremacy and personal gratification, same principle but in orders of magnitude more complex and in orders of magnitude more damaging in its consequences. That gigantic cookie they had to wait for was this movement’s credibility.

I started the blog fully intending not to let the issue die down & shame them both (as they started it so well) for as long as it takes, and the appeal to emotion is in  full disclosure. It is an analogy and was chosen because it would draw the most fervent ones to comment and to highlight the issue itself: Impulse & pride instead of logic

Come on, “appeal to emotion”, brothers and sisters in arms, it was written all over and some of you still fell for it (I am looking at you Brian). You were NOT supposed to imitate & react like your garden variety fervent theist (I am looking at you PZMyers) unlike them, dear brothers and sisters and sisters in arms we are supposed TO KNOW BETTER THAT REASON COMES BEFORE EMOTION (ha! nice caps ). Wanna test it?

Take any math problem & yell at it, it will not solve itself. (yeah not impossible but you would be trolling if you tried to come up with anything)

Everything is a throwaway: The Facebook, Twitter & WordPress accounts were conceived as a provocation piece to make a point: The failure of two leaders due to their inflated egos & their coward avoidance. The site is not going away.

(it is backed up daily, if it gets shut down will pop back up, do not deal with it, get very, very upset)

WHY DO I HAVE TO EXERCISE THAT WHICH I KNOW CREATIONISTS DO ALL THE TIME, ONLY APPLYING LOGIC WHERE IS CONVENIENT?

THAT IS COMPROMISE AND I WILL NOT ACQUIESCE TO IT BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC.

Go on, shoot the messenger, take sides, go on nitpick it all, give them a pass, downplay it, bring the logical fallacy list to the table dear brothers and sisters in arms, we are no strangers, neither of us has the right to be offended nor bypass logic.

Go over the math first. Watson and Dawkins immature decisions helped the creationists. All of this could have been prevented.

 I FIND YOUR SITE OFFENSIVE: TAKE ME TO THE FORMAL COMPLAINT SECTION.


PS

MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE:

As I said, I am the lowest of the low, no degree, no media exposure, no microphone, no budget, (look, I’m even on WordPress.)

I also have the moral obligation of telling you: I will not compromise logic to excuse neither Dawkins nor Watson, I have no right to be offended & neither do you.

I defy you all. First to civil discourse then, if you throw a tantrum/bring up fallacies, I have the moral obligation of NOT taking you seriously and taking you to parody town, intelligence is universal to both genders if you choose not to use it, do not expect any respect, just parody.

In other words, if you wanna play chess do not throw a tantrum & throw away your pieces (leave pride & your Disney book at home).

Get upset, very, very upset, call me troll, crack your best yo-mama jokes at me. But if you take sides (defending either Watson or Dawkins) you are either delusional, a creationist, a troll or a combo. Face the music: This started because Watson and Dawkins took sides: Their own, not the community’s . BTW I answer your hate filled comments with great pleasure because of wisdom from people like this woman who endured tremendous hostility and succeeded:

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Margaret Thatcher

and a certain thinker that never gave a fuck about personal attacks and laughed them off …

“Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things… one of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority.”

Christopher Hitchens

See? No need for sexism, No right to get offended and no need to respect senseless impulsive babble. Applies to me and everyone else. If you think rules do not apply to you, I am really sorry,it is my most sincere intention to inform you to fuck off. Effective immediately.

I will answer your comments when I am off work, I work mostly on demand not impulse if you demand me to answer to your impulses, no wonder why you posted. Get very, very angry while you wait or GTFO.

Lastly, I am gonna leave you with the easiest laugh of your day:

THE TWITTER EGO ANAL PROBE CHALLENGE!!!

Tweet-bombard Rebecca Watson & Richard Dawkins this dumb question on their respective Twitter/Facebook accounts /their sites:

“Can both of you guys just say sorry and hug it out?”

You will find the most amazing byzantine mountain of arguments & obstacles from them and their side-taking audience ranging from disbelief all the way to contempt & derision. But you wanna know a little “secret”? What really is on top of that tall tall mountain of elegant reasons, the real reason why that question is so laughable and “corny” and unthinkable?

Answer: Their egos. 

IMPULSIVENESS

Yes, some visitors got upset (aka Skeptojihadis), self detonated and then the charred remains of their reasoning had to be taken to parody town, right  here:

https://dysfunctionalwatsondawkins.wordpress.com/skeptojihadis/

http://twitpic.com/photos/WatsonvsDawkins

One of the disadvantages of  low impulse control in the Skeptic community is that it lends itself to parody automatically:

Rules are Universal: Psychology, Civil Discourse, Discipline & Parody apply to everyone. Skeptics included. 

A RAGE TANTRUM IS LOGICAL SUICIDE IN 3 STAGES

STAGE 1: DISBELIEF

SKEPTIC 1  STARTS GETTING UPSET AT SKEPTIC 2

STAGE 2

DENIAL

SKEPTIC 1  STARTS SWEARING AND/OR USING LOGICAL FALLACIES WITH SKEPTIC 2

STAGE 3

CONFIRMATION

CALM SKEPTIC & AUDIENCE  LOSE CREDIBILITY/RESPECT FOR  THE ANGRY SKEPTIC

WHO IS TOO EMOTIONAL TO REALIZE THEY ARE EMULATING

THE MISTAKES WE SKEPTICS, NORMALLY  CRITICIZE FROM THEIST/CREATIONISTS

RESULT: CONFIRMED FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

(USELESS TO REMIND ANY SKEPTIC ABOUT THEIR OWN SELF CONTROL AFTER THEY FLEW INTO A RAGE.

THE REMINDER HAD TO COME BEFORE THE RAGE AS AN INTERNAL HABIT.)

Problem is, Theists and Creationists are parodied in exactly the same way by the Skeptics themselves.

So, a site that criticizes two skeptic leaders (Watson & Dawkins) and their  low impulse control by displaying

exactly the same mistake exercised by the non leaders/visitors only underlines the tautology itself.


“Logically”, Skeptojihadis react to blasphemy.

Here is some,

“Because we, Skeptojihadis ALSO have the right to be offended just like the Creationists, Mormons, Anglicans, Muslims, Scientologists…etc “

Surprising fact: PZMyers’ low impulse control allowed him to tweet the infamous “WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU” message: 

THEN, when told to control his impulses he retaliated with pure gold: 

THEN he effectively provided 2k of unique  mostly angry visitors: You were NOT supposed to promote it but to comment privately PZmyers.

Not sure if you should be thanked, you exercised exactly what was being criticized: IMPULSIVENESS

(Imagine if you yelled “I NEVER fucking swear!” when someone says someone else swears too much, yeah…so much for that.)

THEN guess what? the 2 throwaway twitter accounts were banned, apparently skeptics know how to suppress dissent in groups 

but also apparently not THAT many people know the soccer player  “magnusdasilva” outside Brazil  

Then the visits: 2000 visitors containing several Skeptojihadis.

Yes, believe it or not some Skeptojihadis got too angry and self-detonated like any fundamentalist.

Self righteous, indisputably-self-justified, fervent, impulsive Skeptics: Skeptojihadis

Any disagreement is an act of disrespect, a blasphemy!  Because rules do not apply to the Elders and SkeptoJihadis.

Any suggestion of impulse control makes no sense: Psychology, discipline and civil discourse DO NOT apply to Skeptojihadis or  their elders.

They go like this:

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM NOT A FERVENT SKEPTIIIIIIC!!!!!!

DO NOT DISAGREE WITH MEEEEE!!!!!!!!YOU ARE MORE IGNORANT THAN MEEEEE!!!!!

I SHALL FLING MY HOLY LOGICAL POOP AT YOUUUU!!!! I AM A HIGHER APE NOT YOUUUUUUUU!!!!!

(and then they start swearing and calling you ignorant you know nothing about the Kor…erm logical fallacies…that your spelling “poisons the well”, etc).

Here you have some of them parodied:



because critycal thinking is :”BLASPHEMY!” when applied to two golden cows: Watson and Dawkins. “Question everything” also means “everyone”,  golden cows included.

Check the comments below, where the Skeptojihadis loudly claim their right to be “offended!”

NOTE TO ANGRY SKEPTOJIHADIS: I will answer your comments when I am off work, I answer mostly on demand not impulse, if you demand me to answer to your impulses, no wonder why you posted. Get very, very angry while you wait or GTFO.

You can also follow me on twitter: @skeptocouple

Enjoy the paradox:

BTW after you finish with the comments below, there are other sites we recommend on the same subject :

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/

http://greylining.wordpress.com/

http://theotheratheists.net/

Visitors: Still don’t like your site: Please take me to the formal complaint section.