Agreed. PZ is a bit like Ezra Levant that way, even though the two of them are so divergent in their actual opinions – they both seem to be incapable of seriously disagreeing with others without denigrating them in the process. It occurred to me as I was reading your comment that this kind of attitude might be self-reinforcing, in that people who conflate disagreement with attack are going to feel attacked in turn when someone expresses disagreement with them. And then, naturally, they’re going to want to hit back.

There are things I like about PZ, though. He’s a good writer, he has a gift for explaining science (especially evolution and development), and even his more unhinged rants are often eloquent and punchy enough to make amusing reading. Some of PZ’s targets pretty much deserve the wrath of his flamethrower, too, although I wouldn’t put Stedman in that category.

It’s true that my only exposure to PZ Myers has been through his FTB and a few Youtube videos. I’m willing to concede that they alone may not fully represent the whole PZ story, but I haven’t been impressed by his constant need to attack his ‘opponents’ character. That’s a clear lack of humility I find unattractive. Plus, l so loathe the term “douchebag”. Aways thought it odd coming from a feminist.

You say you are not a fan of PZ. Have you heard him speak have you had the opportunity to meet the person, not the text. Online persona can be deceptive. Please consider checking out the Canadian Atheist posts on Eschaton or check out http://eschaton2012.ca/

Please consider attending Eschaton; I would like to meet you.

The second paragraph details what I consider a logical inconsistency, a blind spot, if you will, and I make it clear that PZs behaviour in this regards is ongoing…. PZ being PZ. He usually avoids logical inconsistencies, but not in this case…. but this inconsistency IS pure PZ.

So… strawman.

It bothers me greatly when people… non-sequitar.

If you weren’t being sarcastic, the second paragraph doesn’t match the title.

So, If you don’t think something is possible does that mean it isn’t? Because THAT would be ridiculous.

It bothers me greatly that religion is taught as divine truth. That doesn’t mean I want to slaughter the believers.

Like I mentioned, in terms of statistics, women are more religious and more pro-life than men. So depending on your definition, one could even claim that men, in terms of numbers, are ‘more feminist’ than women. Of course, a feminist might counter saying this is ‘because of privilege’, men are more free to choose…. patriarchy….. misogyny…etc..

I don’t think there is a simple answer, identity is complicated, and definitions of feminism are many.

At this point, I generally ask people: Do you think someone like Sarah Palin, is a feminist? She would certainly fit the bill, in some ways, although most of the self-identified feminists I ask.. cringe at the very idea.

Is there some particular part of the post that you didn’t understand?

As to Dawkins, he claims to do that. I don’t think that is really possible. It’s similar to Christians who claim to love the sinner but hate the sin. Its more than a little ridiculous.

Dawkins has always been able to separate the ‘belief’ from the ‘believer’. It is only the accommodationists and the religious who are unable to do that.