This is very stupid, but since Richard Dawkins thinks this is a defense to his original claim:
"How could you think I was likening a hoaxer to a killer? I just meant ‘Only a kid’ is not a knockdown defence. Remember poor James Bulger?”The "kid" is not suing anyone. Under Texas law, he can't, since he's a minor. Suit may be filed in his name (full legal nerd: the lawyers have only sent demand letters so far; no suit has been filed), but it will be filed by his parents on his behalf. Is Ahmed any more than aware of this? Probably, but he has no real choice in the matter. So likening him to a child trained by ISIS to decapitate a prisoner is not only tasteless and brutal and shameful, it's not an apt comparison.
Unless the comparison is that neither child is culpable for their acts, absent a showing that the disabilities of minority should be removed. Either way, Ahmed's family's attorneys sending demand letters is in no way comparable to the James Bulger murder.
Except in Dawkins' mind. Can I ask again why anyone considers this guy smart? Or Twitter worth the trouble it stirs up?
Link courtesy of Thought Criminal