Discussion in 'Non-Music Chat' started by Staypuff, Aug 21, 2014.
What a knob
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... ome-foetus
There is no logic whatsoever, in his defence of the inevitable criticism.
He says that what is prevalent in society is morally good just because the majority of people in that situation choose abortion of the unborn child.
There is no logic in relativist ethics, it's only merely normative custom and practice in society. Dawkins expects people to be convinced of the jump from the normative to what is considered normal and morally right in one bald statement on the Twitter.
He is a very bad knob alright!
Ironic that the author of The God Delusion is now passing judgement on who has the right to live
Dawkins' tweets are like an episode of Game of Thrones. They have about 140 characters and something unbelievably bad usually happens.
Youve nicked that from somewhere
Dawkins has no faith. So ultimately no conscience.
The words "abortion", "Down syndrome" and "Richard Dawkins" generate a lot of clicks, don't they.
I think Dawkins' main problem is that he always underestimates the media's desire to seek out any seemingly glib comment about any sensitive topic, then take it out of context and spin it into a horror show that doesn't in any way reflect the reality of the actual points being made. Twitter, not being a suitable platform for nuanced argument, is ripe for the pickings. He also underestimates the public's willingness to go along with the noisy charade too, again and again and again. If I was in his position I'd avoid it for this reason, but I think he continues tweeting anyway because he sees some value in the controversy, which is fine. Controversy, intentional or not, can be a useful tool for stimulating thought and discussion. Or perhaps he optimistically (and mistakenly, in my opinion) continues to presume people would be too decent and intelligent to stir up shit for their own ends.
If I was a woman and found out my unborn fetus had Down syndrome, I would probably abort it and I would have plenty of moral reasons for doing so, just as there are sound reasons for keeping and raising a child with Down syndrome. This is not the same as saying all people born with Down syndrome should have been aborted, or that they have nothing good to bring into the world. It would be my choice to make, and I would be in a better position than most people to make an informed decision about my own potential child because I know better than anyone else the context in which that child would be raised. My life, my choice - as with all abortions, Down syndrome or not. This should only ever become more of a moral grey area when the fetus is clearly able to think and feel as a little person, i.e. the closer the pregnancy gets to term.
Care to explain this?
I think hes joking
I liked the part of his apology where he said he just wanted to spread happiness.
Aye, that's why you've dedicated your life to winding religious people up, a vast majority of whom are just nice people who go to a church/mosque/synagogue etc one day a week with their mates/family and sometimes pray that their interview goes okay and their kids stay safe.
Like that he sees eugenics as "spreading happiness" tho.
:roll: I'll get my coat.
I've really grown to dislike twitter because so many famous people who were previously highly regarded in their field are embarrassing themselves and ruining their reputations. See also Ricky Gervais.
Dawkins very often makes good points, but he just puts them across like such an arrogant cock that it's hard to take him seriously.
I think his argument about down syndrome and abortion is interesting, because in a way, if you have the power to abort a fetus at an early stage, but you let it develop and be born with downs, are you not inflicting downs on that child? However, for him to outright call it immoral not to abort is ludicrous, because there are so many variables and things that will rely on context.
The blog posts on Dawkins' website can be very good, and I think he is often fighting important causes, but he should get off twitter asap.
I read The God Delusion last Summer. It was about 80% reasoned, well-informed and heavily researched information towards the argument against religion, 20% the bitter rantings of quite a horrible-seeming person.
I think this sums Dawkins up pretty well.
He's issued a semi-apology with his typically condescending claim that his critics are too thick to understand his [fallacious] logic.
Are you saying we shouldn't challenge someone's views about reality just because they are a nice person? I find that patronising. If I was wrong about something I'd want someone to tell me, whether I'm nice or not.
Down syndrome is not a heritable disease so eugenics is neither here nor there. But if we found a gene for happiness, eugenics could technically be the best way to spread the happiness. I wouldn't advocate that, obviously, but there is a distinction to be made between "morality" and "reality" that people frequently fail to grasp.
I think it's a bit unfair to say he's 'dedicated his life' to winding religious people up. If he's dedicated his life to anything then it would appear to be evolutionary biology by a considerable distance. The God Delusion was his first 'religion' book and it came out, what, thirty years or so after The Selfish Gene?
Also, his job for many years was Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. So it was sort of his role to champion the cause of scientific reason, which inevitably comes into conflict with religion due to the obviously unscientific things religion is based on.
I just think Twitter is a poor medium for this sort of thing. If you're asked a question about the morality of terminating a baby you know will be born disabled 140 characters isn't probably going to get near an answer regardless what your opinion is.
I wonder if he ever berates his wife at the dinner table for illustrating this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Astrology-Dogs- ... 0241103800
I think he's correct, in part. Twitter is absolutely full of people screaming their opinions, and if enough people take exception to something, the outpouring of bile that follows is often devoid of any logic or reason, and it destroys any chance or a reasoned debate. I just don't understand why someone of his status lowers himself to the level of arguing with faceless idiots on twitter. It all seems so peurile.
Separate names with a comma.