I prefer, "science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can **** off."

That was really a pretty dumb thing to say.

Not sure why. It was funny, and not stupid at all. The editor wasn't interested in converting those not interested in science to get them to subscribe to his magazine. If you were not interested at all in science, you were an idiot, and he had no interest in convincing you. He wasn't publishing for idiots.

I think you missed his point. Dawkins conceded what Tyson said was correct, but just said he's far from the worst offender. That quote was just to show someone worse than him.

I think you missed his point. Dawkins conceded what Tyson said was correct, but just said he's far from the worst offender. That quote was just to show someone worse than him.

He often misses the point.

Dawkins' point is silly.

Yes, it was silly. this was also part of the point. It was humor.

And before you say it wasn't funny, just remember, you're like, the only person on earth who doesn't find George Carlin funny. Your sense of humor isn't quite in line with most of us. It was VERY funny, to his target audience.

Carlin, however, was not funny. He was an arrogant turd who should ahve been dragged out of the comedy club and had his face slammed into the concrete a few times. I'd listen to Dawkins over him any day. Dawkins, at least, actually is a bona fide scientist and intellectual, even if he wildly oversteps his bounds. Carlin was a pompous windbag trying to make social commentary by denigrating his betters (his betters being practically everyone else).

See, and I consider Carlin petty much everyone's better. (In fact, he's right up there with great philosphers like... uh... **** it. No philosopher ever came close. The man was a **** genius.)

But that's kinda my point. Every comedian in the business considers George Carlin to have been a brilliant man, and an incredible inspiration. The best Late Night Talk show host ever (Johnny Carson) adored George Carlin. You won't find anyone in the business with a bad thing to say about him. And the continued popularity of all his comedy, long after his death, puts you in the minority. You just don't get it. That's fine, but it leaves you singularly unqualified to discuss comedic value.

He was an arrogant turd looking down on people in general for no better reason than A) it gave him material and

B) he had some imaginary standard people ought to adhere to because he said so. **** him and his material.

You just described every comedian ever. All comedy is either schadenfreud, or else making fun of stupid **** people do. All of it.

B) he had some imaginary standard people ought to adhere to because he said so. **** him and his material.

You need a standard in order to be able to claim people are being stupid. Stupid relative to what?