On Ridicule, Bullying, and Whining Hypocrisy

Reppert says:

You can debate and discuss, or you can use other means. But debate and discussion involve following certain rules, in particular, the principle of charity. So some people can debate and discuss, and some people can ridicule, but they don't mix, if not in theory at least in practice, because argument requires the principle of charity and ridicule precludes it.

Pardon me, but since when has charity been practiced on his blog?  He moans and groans incessantly about Dawkins for saying atheists should "sharpen our barbs", yet he and his cultists are blind to the fact that their fellow theists have had their fangs bared for centuries.  Since the days of Constantine, they have wasted no opportunity to bully and ridicule non-believers, not to mention imprison, torture, murder, and any other kind of punishment they can come up with.

As soon as Christians gained political dominance in the Roman Empire, they began persecuting and mistreating non-believers with a vengeance.  This far exceeded any kind of persecution they were subjected to in earlier times.   And they never looked back.

In more recent times, the more violent tactics of Christians have been curtailed by secular law, but their attitudes have not changed.  There is no shortage of Christians who are arrogant, rude, foul-mouthed, and hateful.  Some of them are Victor's cultists.  People like crude are far more caustic than any atheist Victor has banned from his blog.  Even many of those who have more of a veneer of civility wouldn't give an atheist the courtesy of listening to his argument, no matter how well-reasoned it might be.

This gem from Augustine appeared on Victor's blog some time ago.

Even after the plain truth has been thoroughly demonstrated, so far as a person is capable of doing, the confirmed skeptic will insist on maintaining belief in his own irrational notions. This is due to either a great blindness, which renders him incapable of seeing what is plainly set before him, or on account of an opinionative obstinacy, which prevents him from acknowledging the truth of what he does see. Thence arises the woeful necessity of going to ridiculous lengths to expound yet more fully on what we have already made perfectly clear, in hopes that we might get through to those who close their minds to reason.

And yet how shall we ever profit from our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we forever fall to the temptation of replying to those who reply to us? We must acknowledge that those who are so hardened by the habit of contradiction will never yield, but would rather reply out of stubbornness, even when they recognize their own error.

Victor thought this arrogant, obstinate refusal to listen to non-believers' arguments was sage advice for theists, and his cultists are in unanimous in agreement.  Where's the debate?  Where's the discussion?  Where's the charity?  Victor has never been willing to apply the "principle of charity" to anything Dawkins has said, and the same thing goes for many other atheists.

They fuss and whine about atheists who advocate ridicule, but they do plenty of it themselves, and Victor never has a problem with that.  Victor cries about comments made to him on John Loftus' blog.  But  those comments are quite tame in comparison to some the things his own cultists say to atheists.  What a bunch of sniveling, whining hypocrites.  They love to dish out their own brand of vitriol, but they can't take their beliefs being the butt of ridicule without whining and crying about how nasty those atheists are.