My view is rather obvious. There is either right or wrong. There are no middles in there.

It was an unneeded use and one that had no reason to be there.

I can't use it for work-work - my iPad isn't approved for the office network - but on mine I do some hobby software development (via Textastic, which can access Dropbox and SFTP servers), sysadmin-type stuff (via Control, the SSH client), read and markup journal articles (via Notability, but I'm looking for something…

Doesn't matter how right you are when your every professional move is aimed at alienating those you disagree with rather than try to persuade them of the superiority of your arguments.

Not coincidentally, "analcities.com" was the worst free web-host of the 90's.

I can understand the objection to citing Hitler - dude's awful - but I don't understand your objection to merely referencing Hitler as the absolute nadir of bad-ness. I'm pretty sure it's far from a controversial opinion that he was a bad guy.

Your words, your citation of Hitler as a level of bad, your choice.

Sexual assault and pedophilia are always reprehensible and there are not degrees of reprehensible.

That's taken out of context. In the context of when he actually said it, it's pretty clear that he's talking only about his own abuse.

They can both be reprehensible without being the same degree of reprehensible.

Seems to me that pedophilia is always pedophilia

Dawkins seriously used the "you can't judge actions from different times" argument? I wonder how he'd look on people saying "Oh, you can't judge laws against women driving in Saudia Arabia, it's a different culture."

He's not, though. He's making a judgement about who he, personally, can and can't condemn.

Except that he "basically" didn't say that at all. Seriously, go read the Times piece. You'll be surprised by the enormous gulf between what he actually said and what is being reported that he said.

He does, actually, make it pretty clear. Did you go read the Times piece, or are you just going by the reporting on it?

You can, actually, have a partially broken leg. It's called a "greenstick fracture."

My big beef with it is that Atheism that itis a religion.

I'm not saying he did an exhaustive survey, but he's certainly in a better position to know that they weren't harmed than you or I are in a position to know that they were. And he didn't say "I know for an incontrovertable fact that they did not suffer harm", he simply stated that he wasn't harmed and he doesn't think…

Well, you can't condemn them. They're dead, so there's nobody to condemn.

I disagree. I think it's quite unlikely he both knows all the possible victims and communicates with them frequently and intimately enough to speak to deeply personal aspects of their lives on their behalf.