# Richard Dawkins, we must not: "lump all paedophiles into the same bracket"



## Theisticle (Sep 7, 2013)

> _Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, has prompted outrage among child protection experts by suggesting that recent child sex abuse scandals have been overblown._
> 
> _He said that he could not condemn the “mild paedophilia” he experienced at boarding school. “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours,” he says in an interview published today in The Times Magazine._
> 
> ...



WTF


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 7, 2013)

Oh Christ.


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 7, 2013)

Only wrong if a priest does it


----------



## weltweit (Sep 7, 2013)

He is contentious enough in his normal utterances, I don't have a clue why he decided to bring this up!!


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 7, 2013)

He's trolling.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 7, 2013)

Jesus


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2013)

Wow, after his comments about how being raised Catholic was more traumatic than child rape... I wasn't sure if he could sink any lower but it looks like he has managed it.


----------



## bmd (Sep 7, 2013)

File along side mild rape


----------



## weltweit (Sep 7, 2013)

I don't really understand.

He seems to be saying that a boarding school teacher who fondles children in his care is not so bad.. but not so bad as what?

Surely children at boarding schools should not have to run the risk of lecherous paedo teachers any more than anyone else ..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2013)

Mary mother of God


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 7, 2013)

Amazing how many of those who work in the field are able to provide understanding for actions without belittling or creating a hierarchy of abuse. 

What an ill thought out comment.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 7, 2013)

Guess I'll spend this week browsing some of the more obscure subreddits...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Guess I'll spend this week browsing some of the more obscure subreddits...


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 7, 2013)

Is this a religious attack on Dawkins, Theisticle?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>



/r/atheism is gonna have nothing else


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

local paedophile trying on his disguise for slipping into a boarding school earlier


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 8, 2013)

It is interesting that the two single word responses to his statement have been Christ and Jesus.

I am inclined to agree with his "shifting  moral Zeitgeist theory " it is not new.

It baffles me. how many progressive thinkers find argument with Dawkins. Read what he says, not what his commentators say.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 8, 2013)

What counts as paedophilia? Is Jeremy Forrest a paedophile, or does it mean an abiding sexual interest in children? To me it implies a preoccupation.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 8, 2013)

Shakespeare had his "guilded youth", though he was probably a young man.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Sep 8, 2013)

DAWKINS said:


> ........_“I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage.”...._



that is fucking risible reasoning for a scientist.   ..



......... it was fine we were at a proper school with proper children, a little bit of in shorts interference never did us no harm. Proper peadoing before it got such a bad name.

can anyone identify the era when the man realised being in the news was good for the bankbalance? the self-interesed +or ignorant twat.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 8, 2013)

Superdupastupor said:


> that is fucking risible reasoning for a scientist.   ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But surely Dawkins was simply speaking for himself, rather than condoning paedophilia per se?  Yes, his views may be off kilter, and if so he should be criticised.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 8, 2013)

Jesus fuck. No, really, Jesus fuck.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 8, 2013)

Good. Hopefully this cunt will be utterly destroyed over this and us atheists won't have to suffer the embarrassment of his bigoted shite anymore.


----------



## killer b (Sep 8, 2013)

'us atheists'?

christ. it's enough to make a man go to church.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> 'us atheists'?
> 
> christ. it's enough to make a man go to church.



Yeah every poor fucker that's an atheist and has to deal with people associating you with a dick like Dawkins every time you mention you're one.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 8, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah every poor fucker that's an atheist and has to deal with people associating you with a dick like Dawkins every time you mention you're one.



You just need to tell them that atheism isn't a club that you join with a leader whose views you all share. Simple.


----------



## spliff (Sep 8, 2013)

Not wishing to pay Murdoch to read the full article I found this on Dawkins website.
I assume it's the complete article.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 8, 2013)

spliff said:


> Not wishing to pay Murdoch to read the full article I found this on Dawkins website.
> I assume it's the complete article.
> http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#



"Britain's top atheist"


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Sep 8, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> "Britain's top atheist"



A title fairly determined by audience vote in the "Britain's got atheism" final.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 8, 2013)

All paedos are scum. I guess Dawkins didn't get that meme.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Sep 8, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> But surely Dawkins was simply speaking for himself, rather than condoning paedophilia per se?  Yes, his views may be off kilter, and if so he should be criticised.



he decided to make a statement on behalf of the 'us'

out of sight, out if mind thinking.

"why are you making such a big fuss?"  

part of the culture.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 8, 2013)

A multi-millionaire with a dazzling career and social and home life trying to make judgements about how the same sort of things affected others.
I wonder if *all *of his fellow victims from school ended up so _apparently _unaffected.

I'm not sure if I'm more horrified by the groping master or the apparent attempted rape by fellow pupils.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2013)

Actually:



> Asked whether the uproar over recent abuse scandals was partly a result of what he called the “shifting moral zeitgeist”, Dawkins says: “I think we should acknowledge it ... But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”


 
I agree with that.

A fondler is not the same as a rapist and murderer.

Nuff said.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 8, 2013)

Dawkins is the classic biological scientist who has no understanding whatsoever of sociological or psychological sciences. So he says stuff that has a very "hard science" boundaried and delineated angle and does not consider the cascade of consequences that are part of a single human's thought processes, let lone a whole society.

So he comes out with this "never did me any harm" guff, and never stops to consider that maybe it *did* do him some harm, and that he just doesn't realise it, and that harm across a society is more than the result on a single individual.  He also doesn't consider the effect his message itself will have, particularly once it has been repackaged.  He can't, because he speaks "hard science truths" and it can't possibly be his fault about how those "truths" are interpreted and used.


----------



## killer b (Sep 8, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah every poor fucker that's an atheist and has to deal with people associating you with a dick like Dawkins every time you mention you're one.


must say, I rarely feel the need to tell people I'm an atheist. But when I have, Dawkins hasn't been mentioned.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 8, 2013)

I like Dawkins but this is a classic case of foot in mouth.
Sociololgy isnt a proper science. if you cant abuse it to threaten the world its not science

Dawkins can be a pratt but the sort of people he riles are always wrong ens


----------



## Thora (Sep 8, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> What counts as paedophilia? Is Jeremy Forrest a paedophile, or does it mean an abiding sexual interest in children? To me it implies a preoccupation.


Paedophilia is a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.  Jeremy Forrest isn't a paedophile as the girls he was interested in/had sex with were post-pubescent teenagers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 8, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Dawkins can be a pratt but the sort of people he riles are always wrong ens



If by 'riles' you mean 'defends and acts as an apologist for' then judging by his latest comments you'd be correct.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 8, 2013)

No I mean apart  form this latest bit of idiocy


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2013)

Latest?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-claim-atheist-professor-Richard-Dawkins.html



> Raising your children as Roman Catholics is worse than child abuse, according to militant atheist Richard Dawkins.
> In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.
> He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Good. Hopefully this cunt will be utterly destroyed over this and us atheists won't have to suffer the embarrassment of his bigoted shite anymore.


You shouldn't be going around doing atheist proselyting then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Mary mother of God



Don't you mean "Maryam, mother of Issa"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is interesting that the two single word responses to his statement have been Christ and Jesus.



I suspect that you're forgetting the legendary capacity for irony that some Urbanites have, and that they're tweaking the OP for having such an "interesting" username.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Actually:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not "nuff said", unfortunately.
Of course they're not "the same". However, one thing UK criminologists are aware of, given about 6 decades-worth of stats and research, is that sex offenders are prone to escalating their offending behaviours.  That is, today's fondler or flasher, especially if they're a minor at the time of their first offence, has a much greater likelihood (something like x4) of re-offending at a more serious level than someone who has committed no such offence while a minor.
While I'll happily concede that few of those offenders will go on to be murderers, a significant minority will go on to rape, some serially.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 8, 2013)

> *Martin Robbins* ‏@*mjrobbins*  19h
> Dawkins on child abuse scandals: "Although I’m no friend of the Church, I think they have become victims of our shifting standards"



Is Dawkins absolving the systematic cover up of thousands of cases of abuse in the Roman Catholic clergy because of this "shifting standard"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> What counts as paedophilia? Is Jeremy Forrest a paedophile, or does it mean an abiding sexual interest in children? To me it implies a preoccupation.



Legally, a paedophile is one that commits paedophiliac acts (as defined by statute), i.e. someone who acts out on a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.  I'm not interested in thought-crime - if you keep it in your mind and your pants, then you don't commit such acts.
Forrest is/was an ephebephile - his interest being in pubescent and post-pubescent female minors.  He's also an utter stain on the world of music, who should be liquidated for crimes against lyric-writing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Dawkins is the classic biological scientist who has no understanding whatsoever of sociological or psychological sciences. So he says stuff that has a very "hard science" boundaried and delineated angle and does not consider the cascade of consequences that are part of a single human's thought processes, let lone a whole society.



I have to disagree. Dawkins has an understanding of sociological and psychological sciences, he just has no interest in incorporating them into his tedious rantings on the subject of religious belief, because to do so would point up such rantings as the threadbare carpings of a man to whom atheism is in fact a "religious belief".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have to disagree. Dawkins has an understanding of sociological and psychological sciences, he just has no interest in incorporating them into his tedious rantings on the subject of religious belief, because to do so would point up such rantings as the threadbare carpings of a man to whom atheism is in fact a "religious belief".


I'm not interested in or going to defend Dawkins on anything else, but you're flat wrong to say that to him atheism is in fact a 'religious belief'.

ETA:

Dawkins would say, has said many times, that absence of belief is not equivalent to belief. Atheism is an absence of belief.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not interested in or going to defend Dawkins on anything else, but you're flat wrong to say that to him atheism is in fact a 'religious belief'.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> Dawkins would say, has said many times, that absence of belief is not equivalent to belief. Atheism is an absence of belief.



His arguments are redolent with belief. Arguing that what he holds is an "absence of belief" is risible in the face of his quasi-religious ranting and proselytisation of his "atheism", and the vigour with which he attacks those who admit their reliance of sky pixies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

What 'quasi-religious ranting'? And why shouldn't he promote his absence of belief as the right position? He thinks that religious belief is a mistake - it is belief in something without reason to believe it.

Problem is this word 'believe', which can mean more than one thing. For instance, I believe in the collective provision of public services - I 'believe in' the goodness of socialism - but this is not the same thing as religious belief, despite the same word being used. It is more like 'I judge that it is the best way to be based on the kind of world I would like to see'. Dawkins may 'believe in' atheism as a good thing that should be promoted, but that's really not the same kind of thing as the religious belief that he judges to be wrong and believes to be harmful.

Can you give me an example of his 'quasi-religious ranting'?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have to disagree. Dawkins has an understanding of sociological and psychological sciences, he just has no interest in incorporating them into his tedious rantings on the subject of religious belief, because to do so would point up such rantings as the threadbare carpings of a man to whom atheism is in fact a "religious belief".



Does he have such an understanding? I can't see someone with such an understanding coming up with something as inane as the "meme" concept.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 8, 2013)

I don't think he has any understanding beyond the very most basic. I have seen nothing in his writings that lead me to think he has studied either, whether formally or personally.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> His arguments are redolent with belief. Arguing that what he holds is an "absence of belief" is risible in the face of his quasi-religious ranting and proselytisation of his "atheism", and the vigour with which he attacks those who admit their reliance of sky pixies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Does he have such an understanding? I can't see someone with such an understanding coming up with something as inane as the "meme" concept.



As this paper from MIT shows Dawkins only ever intended 'memes' to be a metaphor for the spread of ideas


----------



## Fuchs66 (Sep 8, 2013)

weltweit said:


> A fondler is not the same as a rapist and murderer.
> 
> Nuff said.


Yep I can see that. All sexual exploitation of children is wrong, however there are degrees of wrongness and trying to describe all of these acts with a " one size fits all" term, such as paedophile can be misleading and dangerous. IMO obviously.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> As this paper from MIT shows Dawkins only ever intended 'memes' to be a metaphor for the spread of ideas



That's not how I remember the meme chapters from the Selfish Gene (a genuinély great book in fairness) - he was trying to identify a cultural analogue to the gene, whose effects on human behaviour would be determined by selection processes analogous to those which shape genes and their effects on the human animal.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> That's not how I remember the meme chapters from the Selfish Gene (a genuinély great book in fairness) - he was trying to identify a cultural analogue to the gene, whose effects on human behaviour would be determined by selection processes analogous to those which shape genes and their effects on the human animal.


Seriously, he has said so many times over the last 30 years that what has _become _the idea of memes has take what he suggested and ran with it far beyond what he thinks, and that if he could he would junk the term/concept.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, he has said so many times over the last 30 years that what has _become _the idea of memes has take what he suggested and ran with it far beyond what he thinks, and that if he could he would junk the term/concept.



Well, that just goes to show that he has  a bad habit of shooting his mouth off without thinking about the consequences.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> That's not how I remember the meme chapters from the Selfish Gene .


Yes, I remember it like you too, although I read it a long time ago. However, I think he himself has drawn back from the meme idea since. I think it was something he thought might be a powerful idea, but has since decided isn't. It is true, though, that others have taken the meme idea further. Dennett, for one, has been a bit too enamoured of it, imo, even speaking of such a thing as a memeticist who might study memes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, that just goes to show that he has  a bad habit of shooting his mouth off without thinking about the consequences.


Bad/good.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bad/good.



peas/beans.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, that just goes to show that he has  a bad habit of shooting his mouth off without thinking about the consequences.


He threw the idea out there to be tested. It was tested and found wanting, and he had the intellectual honesty to say that it had been found wanting. I'd say that reflects well on him.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He threw the idea out there to be tested. It was tested and found wanting, and he had the intellectual honesty to say that it had been found wanting. I'd say that reflects well on him.



If he'd bothered to listen to people who actually deal with symbols, culture and their role in human social life - anthropologists, linguists, social psychologists etc. - he wouldn't have thrown it out in the first place.

So, no, it doesn't reflect well on him.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 8, 2013)

dawkins gives about as much respect as belivers give non belivers i.e. less than zero hence the level of hate.

lets remember who burns books? Trys to kill cartoonists and novelists. Bans aborotions wants to deny girls life saving vaciations actively discriminates against women and the gays. Cant cope with science.

Hint its not the atheists new or otherwise.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2013)

likesfish said:


> dawkins gives about as much respect as belivers give non belivers i.e. less than zero hence the level of hate.
> 
> lets remember who burns books? Trys to kill cartoonists and novelists. Bans aborotions wants to deny girls life saving vaciations actively discriminates against women and the gays. Cant cope with science.
> 
> Hint its not the atheists new or otherwise.



Well let's compare Dawkins with an old atheist, Bertrand Russell. Russell was actually kicked out of a teaching job at a New York university when a God-Squad nutter sued the Uni authorities. Yet, if you read Russell's _Why I am Not a Christian _you don't get the golf-cub bore whinging you get with Dawkins, you get a calm, considered, coolly rational argument, that doesn't assume that any who believes in religion is a fool or a criminal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

I love Russell. 



> I don't admit the idea of a necessary being and I don't admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings "contingent." These phrases don't for me have a significance except within a logic that I reject.



From his debate with Copleston. 

Thing about that debate is that while I think Copleston is totally wrong - and Russell sums up for me why he's wrong in the above quote - Copleston is also calm and considered, and completely respectful towards Russell. Dawkins doesn't engage in the debate at the same level as Russell, I don't think, but he also doesn't debate with people like Copleston.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 8, 2013)

His worst take on sociology in The Selfish Gene wasn't the idea of memes. It was the idea that women painting their faces and glueing on eyelashes is somehow analogous to the male bird of paradise's bright showy feathers.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 8, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> You just need to tell them that atheism isn't a club that you join with a leader whose views you all share. Simple.



Lol what world do you live in?? It's never that simple, once people have someone like him as a frame of reference for things they don't understand or like its deeply frustrating to have to wade through the bullshit to get somewhere near a rational conversation about the ins and outs of why being an atheist makes sense.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 8, 2013)

likesfish said:


> dawkins gives about as much respect as belivers give non belivers i.e. less than zero hence the level of hate.
> 
> lets remember who burns books? Trys to kill cartoonists and novelists. Bans aborotions wants to deny girls life saving vaciations actively discriminates against women and the gays. Cant cope with science.
> 
> Hint its not the atheists new or otherwise.



That doesn't justify bigotry which gives cover and ammunition to neo nazis or cunts like the EDL.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> That doesn't justify bigotry which gives cover and ammunition to neo nazis or cunts like the EDL.


Where do he do this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2013)

smmudge said:


> His worst take on sociology in The Selfish Gene wasn't the idea of memes. It was the idea that women painting their faces and glueing on eyelashes is somehow analogous to the male bird of paradise's bright showy feathers.


I don't remember that, but yes, it's a poor comparison. All you have to do is point to one human culture in which women don't do that to show that something very different is going on.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is interesting that the two single word responses to his statement have been Christ and Jesus.
> 
> I am inclined to agree with his "shifting  moral Zeitgeist theory " it is not new.
> 
> It baffles me. how many progressive thinkers find argument with Dawkins. Read what he says, not what his commentators say.


It is interesting how paedophilia has gone from being a shameful hazard of childhood to being so prominently and determinedly attacked with such a united front. It's been a powerful and important social revolution of sorts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where do he do this?



You wrote that in your accent


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You wrote that in your accent


if i was Scottish i'd get an award.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> if i was Scottish i'd get an award.



you should insist Bristol council provide dialect versions of all their info leaflets and have bilingual signs everywhere.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 8, 2013)

> Peter Watt, director of child protection at the NSPCC, called Dawkins’s remarks “a terrible slight” on those who had been abused and lived with the effects for decades.
> 
> He said: “Mr Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way. But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”
> 
> Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and himself a victim of child sex abuse, said that Dawkins’s comments were worrying and unhelpful. He added: “Abuse in all its forms has always been wrong ... Evil is evil and we have to challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs.”


http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...his-lenient-view-of-mild-sex-abuse-the-times#


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 8, 2013)

Did Dawkins actually say the words in quotes? There may be varying degrees of noncery, but anyone who mixes their metaphors like that should be stoned by a mob.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 8, 2013)

I agree in general that all paedophiles shouldn't be all included in one group so far as scientific classifications go.  For example looking at the route causes as to why a paedophile is a paedophile may differ extremely from cases to case.  In one case you might have a paedophile adult that as a young child was abused by their parents and/or other people and could be a product of abuse as a child.  In another case it could be biological where a person becomes sexually aroused by looking at children which could be caused by genetic/biological reasons and/or social conditioning.  In another situation the underlying reason why the paedophile abuses children might not be sexually related at all but might be power related with regards to having power over others.  I think with regards to each paedophile you need to look at the underlying causes in each case, and agree that you shouldn't lump all paedophiles together in the same category.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 8, 2013)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it strikes me that Dawkins insinuates that because the abuse he suffered did him "no real harm" then it's not strictly paedophilia because it's just "mild touching". His dismissal of a form of a abuse is deeply problematic and troubling - I know people who've been "mildly touched" under a Dawkins definition - its had a profound impact on their life. Not everyone can shake it off. So how dare he assume people respond in the same way he will. 

"People have sensationalised the term by focusing on cases that involve murder and rape, in my day, it was just mild touching!"


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 8, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong, but it strikes me that Dawkins insinuates that because the abuse he suffered did him "no real harm" then it's not strictly paedophilia because it's just "mild touching". His dismissal of a form of a abuse is deeply problematic and troubling - I know people who've been "mildly touched" under a Dawkins definition - its had a profound impact on their life. Not everyone can shake it off. So how dare he assume people respond in the same way he will.
> 
> "People have sensationalised the term by focusing on cases that involve murder and rape, in my day, it was just mild touching!"



He makes sexual abuse sound like a slap on the wrist and trivializes the trauma thousands of children have suffered. The guys a cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 8, 2013)

his reaction suggested he was probably not being entirely accurate when he says it didn't do him any harm.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 8, 2013)

Is there anyone left who thinks Dawkins isn't a bit of a twat?


----------



## Kippa (Sep 8, 2013)

The problem with scientists is that if you ask a member of the public what they think of a scientist they will probably think of a person in a white coat, that is well educated, knowledgeable, knows a lot and that is a person who you can trust, is always right and are impartial.  The reality is that a scientist can be a cunt, someone who doesn't know as much as they think do, can be wrong and have extremely fucked up views.  With regards to Dawkins, I think the problem with him is the difference between what a member of public thinks a scientist is, compared what they are really like in reality, nothing more.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm a member of the public and if you ask me what I think of a scientist I think of Dr Frankenstein or that loon from Back to the Future


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

Kippa said:


> The problem with scientists is that if you ask a member of the public what they think of a scientist they will probably think of a person in a white coat, that is well educated, knowledgeable, knows a lot and that is a person who you can trust, is always right and are impartial.  The reality is that a scientist can be a cunt, someone who doesn't know as much as they think do, can be wrong and have extremely fucked up views.  With regards to Dawkins, I think the problem with him is the difference between what a member of public thinks a scientist is, compared what they are really like in reality, nothing more.


How is that problem with scientists?


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 9, 2013)

I have a vague memory of memes being a human artifact like webs are a spider's artifact. Or it might have been writing, or Popper.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How is that problem with scientists?


 
It has to do with the halo effect with regards to values which people *associate* and _*add*_ with a certain type of person, in this case a scientist.  Some people may assume because he is a high ranking prominent scientist that what he is saying is factual, the truth and unbiased.  People complying with scientists and taking their views as gospel truth can problematic.  There are two important experiments with regards to how scientists are perceived and how people believe and conform to them, being the Milgram experiment and the Zimbardo experiment.

Milgram experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Zimbardo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbardo_experiment

They're interesting reading. 

I have no problem with scientists, just saying that because he a scientist that some people will take his word for he says and won't question what he has to say.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 9, 2013)

People put a lot of store by reputation. If you have a reputation as a clever person, people listen. You have to make a spectacular blunder to scotch that reputation. James Watson was held in the highest esteem after discovering the structure of DNA, but has fallen from grace spectacularly after making some idiotic remarks. He is quoted as saying, "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."

Oops.

They say the that man with a reputation as an early riser can sleep till noon. Only so long, it seems.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

Kippa said:


> It has to do with the halo effect with regards to values which people *associate* and _*add*_ with a certain type of person, in this case a scientist.  Some people may assume because he is a high ranking prominent scientist that what he is saying is factual, the truth and unbiased.  People complying with scientists and taking their views as gospel truth can problematic.  There are two important experiments with regards to how scientists are perceived and how people believe and conform to them, being the Milgram experiment and the Zimbardo experiment.
> 
> <snip>


Again, why is that a problem with scientists?


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 9, 2013)

"False authority syndrome" - happens with randoms on the Interweb too.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some shrinks out there ready to counsel the prof about repressed childhood shit.
But I suppose just because some people were properly messed up by "paedophilia-lite", it doesn't mean that everyone is ..


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Again, why is that a problem with scientists?



Blimey, couldn't you have found an _even less_ significant point to pick at?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

It's a massively important point actually -  esp on this thread, and totaly relevant to the points made above. It's key to remember there's a two way process going on here and the main problem isn't with people being scientists but in people believing in the socially constructed significance of specialists. That's the problem, not scientists, and so saying _the problem with scientists_ helps to cover this up and make it appear as if it is them the fault lies with. Maybe there should be some sort of role for a professorship for public understanding of science.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2013)

Kippa said:


> I agree in general that all paedophiles shouldn't be all included in one group so far as scientific classifications go.  For example looking at the route causes as to why a paedophile is a paedophile may differ extremely from cases to case.  In one case you might have a paedophile adult that as a young child was abused by their parents and/or other people and could be a product of abuse as a child.



Abuse and neglect in childhood are well-researched potentiators for a whole range of behaviours.  



> In another case it could be biological where a person becomes sexually aroused by looking at children which could be caused by genetic/biological reasons and/or social conditioning.



There are no known genetic or biological predisposers to paedophiliac behaviours.  There are plenty of predispositions to be found in abberant socialisation.



> In another situation the underlying reason why the paedophile abuses children might not be sexually related at all but might be power related with regards to having power over others.



Psychologically-speaking, very few (about 15% or less, depending on whose research you follow) of child abusers have primarily non-sexual motives for what they do.  Most power-trippers prefer to do so with adult victims.



> I think with regards to each paedophile you need to look at the underlying causes in each case, and agree that you shouldn't lump all paedophiles together in the same category.



First of all, though, you should identify what is meant by all the different people using the label "paedophile", because it means different things to different people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2013)

Kippa said:


> The problem with scientists is that if you ask a member of the public what they think of a scientist they will probably think of a person in a white coat, that is well educated, knowledgeable, knows a lot and that is a person who you can trust, is always right and are impartial.  The reality is that a scientist can be a cunt, someone who doesn't know as much as they think do, can be wrong and have extremely fucked up views.  With regards to Dawkins, I think the problem with him is the difference between what a member of public thinks a scientist is, compared what they are really like in reality, nothing more.




That's not a problem for scientists, that's a problem for the noddies whose imagination doesn't go beyond "bloke in a lab coat".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> People put a lot of store by reputation. If you have a reputation as a clever person, people listen. You have to make a spectacular blunder to scotch that reputation. James Watson was held in the highest esteem after discovering the structure of DNA, but has fallen from grace spectacularly after making some idiotic remarks. He is quoted as saying, "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."
> 
> Oops.
> 
> They say the that man with a reputation as an early riser can sleep till noon. Only so long, it seems.



Inserts mandatory reference to Watson and Crick making their "breakthrough" off of the back of Franklin's work.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Is there anyone left who thinks Dawkins isn't a bit of a twat?


 

Me.

To clarify : I don't _always_ think he's a twat (but plenty of people on this thread seem consumed with hatred of anything and everything to do with him).

He was a complete blundering twat _in this latest instance_ (subject of the OP) I'd agree, no problem. Classic case of foot in mouth speaking ahead of thinking, and worse.

But I'm not going to write off everything he's ever said or (especially) written though -- I've still got respect for plenty of his writing and I doubt I'm alone in that.

Admittedly he's done plenty of disfavours to himself often enough, to say the least  ...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 9, 2013)

It's not just 'clever' reputations which give your views more weight: things like beauty, wealth and social standing do the same.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 9, 2013)

True. Funny, innit?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not just 'clever' reputations which give your views more weight: things like beauty, wealth and social standing do the same.


 

but a beautiful woman's views might carry less weight ...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but a beautiful woman's views might carry less weight ...



Yes. It's not always positive, I agree.

Beautiful people are more likely to have other positive characteristics projected onto them, like kindness. But yes, often thought to be less intelligent.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 9, 2013)

> *Richard Dawkins* ‏@*RichardDawkins*  15m
> This marriage was LEGAL http://huff.to/1fPBW88
> because law forbidding child marriage was "UnIslamic". Oh how Islamophobic to point it out!
> 
> ...




Considering this story has yet to be independently verified and has been denied by a Yemeni child protection NGO: http://t.co/PjaErEbJD0

Of course Dawkins can't help himself.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Me.
> 
> To clarify : I don't _always_ think he's a twat (but plenty of people on this thread seem consumed with hatred of anything and everything to do with him).
> 
> ...



You don't have to dismiss everything he has ever done or said to think that he is a nasty piece of work. I acknowledge that he is obviously a brilliant scientist who has done a lot to popularise genetics and evolutionary science and very often he is right about things that I agree are a problem like faith schools. However, he has just taken far too many positions I consider to be bigoted for me to regard him as a decent human being, his recent rationalisation of 'mild' paedophilia and argument that paedophilia is less bad than being raised Catholic are not the first instances of bigoted behaviour.

Take this for example,



> Dear Muslima
> 
> Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
> 
> ...



This whole women in the West can't complain about sexism because of Third World sexism schtick is pretty common amongst misogynist 'Mens Rights' activists.

Then there is the "who do these Muslims think they are?" comment and the fact that Dawkins just happens to keep retweeting members of the EDL 'accidentally'. His website sells Pat Condell videos (who buys this shit?), this being the same Pat Condell who is in love with the EDL.

So, yeah, I reckon he's a bit of a dick to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Considering this story has yet to be independently verified and has been denied by a Yemeni child protection NGO: http://t.co/PjaErEbJD0
> 
> Of course Dawkins can't help himself.


Have you read what the NGO said? Have you seen what they did to verify this story? Have you seen what they are actually concerned with?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 9, 2013)

I think Dawkins is a plant created by the catholic church to make it look like all atheists are intolerant, self-satisfied piles of twat meat.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not just 'clever' reputations which give your views more weight: things like beauty, wealth and social standing do the same.


Christ I'm funked, no one will every listen to a word I say.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2013)

I like Dawkins.
I plan to read at least another one of his books this year.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I like Dawkins.
> I plan to read at least another one of his books this year.


It's good to have plans welweit. I hope you are well.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm not sure how to read that "Muslima / Skepchick" thing.
I've seen it before ...

I probably assumed it's demonstrating just how hideous is the experience of women in the third world.

Language is a minefield.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 9, 2013)

Hilarious, Richard.


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm not sure how to read that "Muslima / Skepchick" thing.
> I've seen it before ...
> 
> I probably assumed it's demonstrating just how hideous is the experience of women in the third world.
> ...



And Dawkins seems to be in the habit of wandering around and getting his feet blown off...


----------



## elbows (Sep 9, 2013)

Without using phrases like '_shifting moral zeitgeist' _I'm still pretty sure that idea, related themes and examples of the phenomenon did come up in post-Savile threads about abuse on u75.

It can be a minefield but its quite possible to discuss all that stuff without exploding. All it really takes is to make comparisons between a range of offences, periods and attitudes in society, and victims without using certain words which crudely downplay stuff on one end of the spectrum. And, something seemingly tricky for some older members of what passes for the public debate of these issues, try not to sound nostalgic for that past, its values and blindspots.

Boarding school is certainly something that has some extra aspects of interest to a modern debate about sex abuse. It's a classic source of cultural works that feature humour about abuse of one kind of another. And it could be argued that it is not only an institution which attempts to instil relic values into a small subset of fresh generations, but that its continued existence is down to an abnormal degree of shielding from the values of the modern age. All manner of evidence, research, inquiries into shocking events, and not just ones related to sexual forms of abuse, has moved conventional wisdom and governmental practice away from having people live within relatively large institutions wherever possible. Yet for a number of reasons the concept of the boarding school lives on, and while various safeguards and changing levels of acceptance of certain behaviour has no doubt had some effect, the flaws in the fundamental concept of having kids board at school deserves some more attention.

After Richard Griffiths died earlier this year, I was looking for something to watch him in and stumbled upon the History Boys. The lightness with which it treated the subject Dawkins is on about was not surprising, but it was really an additional mind melt to watch it after the wake of the Savile revelations. Perhaps another sign that some attitudes and utterances have become suddenly dated. Or rather that they've been ageing and starting to stink very gradually for decades, but just experienced a rapid acceleration in their ageing thanks to the post-Savile explosion. Been lingering unpleasantly near the exit for decades but but we could hope that the Savile thing gives them a final push out the door. But oh look, we keep seeing relics hanging on by their fingernails from the plane door, trying to claw their way back in. Let us hope their flight continue to suffer from turbulence and they lose their grip rather than making it back in.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2013)

J Ed said:
			
		

> You don't have to dismiss everything he has ever done or said to think that he is a nasty piece of work. I acknowledge that he is obviously a brilliant scientist who has done a lot to popularise genetics and evolutionary science and very often he is right about things that I agree are a problem like faith schools. However, he has just taken far too many positions I consider to be bigoted for me to regard him as a decent human being, his recent rationalisation of 'mild' paedophilia and argument that paedophilia is less bad than being raised Catholic are not the first instances of bigoted behaviour.


 
Fair do's. Thats a pretty balanced take on it -- hard to disagree with your points. I could (perhaps?) question how full-on a bigot he really is in the detail, but I take your point.

I suppose, rather clumsily, I was trying earlier up to separate Dawkins the man/TV figure/self publicist from Dawkins the writer/scientist/secularist.

A lot of people do seem to want to dismiss _every_ aspect of him out of hand.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's good to have plans welweit. I hope you are well.


Thanks, I am well, new job is going well. Nice to be back working again.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2013)

There seem to be a lot of people of his generation who regard schoolmasters with affection who these days have what would be considered very dodgy predilections.  In the case of Savile et al (taking it that we know who 'et al' are), it's not like they were doing something that was legal at the time, though.

Boarding schools are especially weird since they were always a very rarefied sphere for the select few, and a lot of people these days would consider it child abuse to send your kids there in the first place.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Christ I'm funked, no one will every listen to a word I say.



Sympathy liked, so that it didn't look like you were accidentally uncovering a truth


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 9, 2013)

elbows said:


> After Richard Griffiths died earlier this year, I was looking for something to watch him in and stumbled upon the History Boys. The lightness with which it treated the subject Dawkins is on about was not surprising, but it was really an additional mind melt to watch it after the wake of the Savile revelations. Perhaps another sign that some attitudes and utterances have become suddenly dated. Or rather that they've been ageing and starting to stink very gradually for decades, but just experienced a rapid acceleration in their ageing thanks to the post-Savile explosion. Been lingering unpleasantly near the exit for decades but but we could hope that the Savile thing gives them a final push out the door. But oh look, we keep seeing relics hanging on by their fingernails from the plane door, trying to claw their way back in. Let us hope their flight continue to suffer from turbulence and they lose their grip rather than making it back in.



I remember being a little bit annoyed at how sexual abuse was portrayed in the History Boys, when I first saw it I thought it was weird how a flippantly the storyline of a sexually predatory teacher was dealt with, and that was before the Savile stuff. I found the whole film uncomfortable for that reason.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 9, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Blimey, couldn't you have found an _even less_ significant point to pick at?



It's Butcherspron, the guy lives for useful comments and nitpicking.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's Butcherspron, the guy lives for useful comments and nitpicking.


It's 'butchersapron'.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 9, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I remember being a little bit annoyed at how sexual abuse was portrayed in the History Boys, when I first saw it I thought it was weird how a flippantly the storyline of a sexually predatory teacher was dealt with, and that was before the Savile stuff. I found the whole film uncomfortable for that reason.



How about Rita Sue & Bob Too?

Middle-aged, middle-class man puts pressure on two schoolgirls, who he employs, in order to sleep with them. Which he does. And it's all done light-heartedly.

I suspect that film couldn't get made today.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> How about Rita Sue & Bob Too?
> 
> Middle-aged middle-class man puts pressure on two schoolgirls, who he employs, in order to sleep with them. Which he does. And it's all done light-heartedly.
> 
> I suspect that film couldn't get made today.



I dunno about light-heartedly, it's been a few years since I've seen it but it was a little bit more menacing than that. But your point's right, whatever you think of the film.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 9, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I dunno about light-heartedly, it's been a few years since I've seen it but it was a little bit more menacing than that. But your point's right, whatever you think of the film.



It's been a while since I've seen it too, and I think I might be wrong on the middle-aged and _perhaps _middle-class bit, but I'm fairly sure the relationship isn't portrayed as abusive, despite the age difference and employer/employee imbalances.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2013)

So is the consensus that we must lump all paedophiles into the same bracket, whatever bracket that is?

(all I can tell from that article is that apparently he has some dogs)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

It was the opposite. He never one menaced them - he wasn't middle class either. The only menacing was the dull compulsion of economics. The whole point of the film was he overturning of the idea that w/c women are slapper/baby machines/whatever they think this week. That what appears to the middle class viewer as pathological isn't. Bizzare reading of the film.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was the opposite. He never one menaced them - he wasn't middle class either. The only menacing was the dull compulsion of economics. The whole point of the film was he overturning of the idea that w/c women are slapper/baby machines/whatever they think this week. That what appears to the middle class viewer as pathological isn't. Bizzare reading of the film.



I haven't seen it since I was about 15, and all I was taking issue with was the idea that it was light-hearted. The humour in that film was pretty bleak if anything, at least that's how I remember it.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 9, 2013)

Dawkins has tweeted that Yemeni bride story 7-8 times today. I sense some level of joy that he can fire back at people about Islamophobia/racism.


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2013)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins has tweeted that Yemeni bride story 7-8 times today. I sense some level of joy that he can fire back at people about Islamophobia/racism.



Yeah, it's almost like he wants to argue that we shouldn't lump all religions together either...


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 9, 2013)

Rita, Sue and Bob too was Andrea Dunbar iirc. She did a powerful line in depicting the lives of the people in the area of Bradford she came from. Her stuff didn't pull any punches but it was something she knew a lot about.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 10, 2013)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins has tweeted that Yemeni bride story 7-8 times today. I sense some level of joy that he can fire back at people about Islamophobia/racism.


The point scoring is getting even worse now. He's still Tweeting about it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2013)

rosecore said:


> The point scoring is getting even worse now. He's still Tweeting about it.



This sort of obsessive, repititious focussing on a thoroughly foul crime is of course the sign of an emotionally healthy, undamaged individual.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2013)

And twitter. twitter sort of forces you to act in that way doesn't it? At least if you're a relatively well known intellectual type with polarisng views.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2013)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins has tweeted that Yemeni bride story 7-8 times today. I sense some level of joy that he can fire back at people about Islamophobia/racism.



It's a repeat of his previous women in the West should shut up about sexism since it's much worse elsewhere thing.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And twitter. twitter sort of forces you to act in that way doesn't it? At least if you're a relatively well known intellectual type with polarisng views.


He has enough of an audience to not need to do that. His first tweet about it got over 1,000 retweets. The rest is needless point scoring.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2013)

He has hundreds, maybe thousands, of people sending him loads of abuse and worse to each thing he says - why ever should he not respond in kind? And that's the point i was making, twitter limits the ways in which and depth of any responses - it sharpens them down to polemical kinfe jabs designed to gouge or pierce - nothing else. And Dawkins is good at playing that game and using it to draw attention to his wider or more substantive arguments elsewhere. He's winning this game, not the people who think he's a dick.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And twitter. twitter sort of forces you to act in that way doesn't it? At least if you're a relatively well known intellectual type with polarisng views.



That's bollox.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> That's bollox.


Thank you for your detailed explanation of why.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It's a repeat of his previous women in the West should shut up about sexism since it's much worse elsewhere thing.


He's something of a relativist, is our Dickie Dawkins. For all his apparent antipathy to Xtianity, he still views the world through its cultural prism. For him it seems to be a case of "our sexism is better than Muslim or Hindu sexism".


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2013)

Who cares if "raping an 8 year old to death" is worse or not worse than "mild <sic> touching up"?  Why draw the comparison at all?  What is the point?  Murder is worse than GBH, but so what?  If you have a specific context, such as the need to set a tariff of sentences, then you need to make those comparisons.  Otherwise, it just smacks of making excuses for the "lesser" crime.

This is what I mean by the fact that he takes the hard scientist view on the importance of proclaiming hard truths without any consideration of context or consequence.  He either doesn't care about subtext and the manner of the message and how it will be used, or he does care and is a total dick.  Either way, it's not good.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> He's something of a relativist, is our Dickie Dawkins. For all his apparent antipathy to Xtianity, he still views the world through its cultural prism. For him it seems to be a case of "our sexism is better than Muslim or Hindu sexism".



"But Ted, Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do".


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

I just wish he'd said 'we mustn't put all paedophiles in the same boat'

cos I've got at least three quality gags in response to that.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> "But Ted, Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do".


I randomly watched that episode just yesterday on 4OD whilst polishing the floor.  Good work.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I just wish he'd said 'we mustn't put all paedophiles in the same boat'
> 
> cos I've got at least three quality gags in response to that.


"Gags" lol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

kabbes said:


> "Gags" lol.



Bob Hope


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2013)

No hope.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 10, 2013)

I went and read up about "elevatorgate" and I ended up subscribing to Rebecca Watson's (skepchick) Youtube channel - what happened to her WAS creepy - though nothing like as vile as the comments she gets on her channel from out and out mysogynists.

I'm not brainy enough to know if Dawkins is correct to not respect her intellectually.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 10, 2013)

He's doing a good job of giving some insight into how his mind works, tbf:

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/377129336618237952

"Oh how silly of me, I was forgetting the cultural context. http://huff.to/1fPBW88. Besides, I'm white & male so not entitled to an opinion."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I randomly watched that episode just yesterday on 4OD whilst polishing the floor.  Good work.




ma on seeing that episode

'Why would a priest be sheltering an old nazi?'

dear oh dear


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> ma on seeing that episode
> 
> 'Why would a priest be sheltering an old nazi?'
> 
> dear oh dear



Why indeed?


----------



## rosecore (Sep 10, 2013)

> @*RichardDawkins*
> @*NoHopeForSome* @*RhysHorner94* @*Smitchalot* Yes. Raping an 8-year-old to death is worse than getting an adult woman drunk and taking advantage.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 10, 2013)

As someone above said, where is the use in trying to create a hierarchy of pain? All acts like that are horrific for those involved, regardless of where they fall on Dawkins' own Rape-o-Meter.

As someone pointed out elsewhere, he seems to believe that his opponents are flat out against any kind of criticism against Islam because they afford it some kind of special dispensation regardless of what might be done in its name. But that is wrong. When people call him racist and sexist it's because he's conducting his criticisms of Islam in racist, Imperialist, and sexist ways, usually with secondary arguments against certain types of people who disagree with him thrown into the mix. In this case, is he suggesting that every person who doesn't think he's amazing is an apologist for the rape of an 8 year old girl? I don't recall seeing a single person in the media saying, "A girl was raped and murdered? Oh well, it's just their way over there, it's not an issue." Perhaps I don't frequent the websites he might, where people rejoice in the raping and killing of young girls....

Frankly, he's become a bore.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2013)

Hierarchy of pain -- that's the phrase I was searching for!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2013)

Vintage Paw said:


> Frankly, he's become a bore.



He has become a bore, I agree. One thing about it that I find a bit comforting, though, is something DotCom pointed out on a previous thread - Dawkins spends just as much time as I do pissing around on the internet.


----------



## rosecore (Sep 10, 2013)

He has a book to sell.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 10, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> "Britain's top atheist"


 
I'm way better at atheism than him.

He spends ages banging on about God.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I'm way better at atheism than him.
> 
> He spends ages banging on about God.



fuck you, Dawkins is the _God _of Atheism


----------



## 8ball (Sep 10, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> fuck you, Dawkins is the _God _of Atheism


 
I don't even believe in the God of Atheism.

I win again.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I don't even believe in the God of Atheism.
> 
> I win again.



 

*Bows down to the new God of Atheism*


----------



## 8ball (Sep 10, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> *Bows down to the new God of Atheism*


 
I'm NOT the new God of Atheism - I'm a very naughty boy!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 10, 2013)

He's just gone a bit Starkey, really, hasn't he? 

Except it means that we (atheists, lefties, secular liberals, whatever) tie ourselves up in knots about it because he's meant to be _one of us_ and _on our side_, whereas Starkey clearly isn't. I'm certain some of the people who defend him wouldn't perform quite the same level of mental gymnastics to do so were the same things uttered by Starkey... but then of course, some would, because he'd be saying precisely what they wanted to hear.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 10, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Me.
> 
> To clarify : I don't _always_ think he's a twat (but plenty of people on this thread seem consumed with hatred of anything and everything to do with him).
> 
> ...



Brown Dawkins is the new black Guardian.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thank you for your detailed explanation of why.



Waste of my time, you clearly have such a remarkable ignorance of human beings and social media there isn't enough time left in this universe to get you to see otherwise...


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was the opposite. He never one menaced them - he wasn't middle class either. The only menacing was the dull compulsion of economics. The whole point of the film was he overturning of the idea that w/c women are slapper/baby machines/whatever they think this week. That what appears to the middle class viewer as pathological isn't. Bizzare reading of the film.


Yeah, Fez & Delroy both need to go back and re-watch the film that reading is miles off.


----------



## Left (Jul 29, 2014)

He's at it again! He just can't help himself!

Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
Follow
Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.
7:52 AM - 29 Jul 2014

Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
Follow
Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.
7:52 AM - 29 Jul 2014

Right now I feel like atheism should just fuck off, what a waste of a potentially good movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2014)

Doesn't really help to conceive of it as a movement.


----------



## Left (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I mean Movement Atheism, which is A Thing in which thing in which Dawkins is considered a luminary, and something I once naively thought was _the _hope for humanity.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 29, 2014)

I remember seeing on the news a while ago that there are 'Sunday Assemblies' organised by atheist groups in which they get together on Sundays, read Dawkins out loud and then sing Elbow songs together.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

Left said:


> He's at it again! He just can't help himself!
> 
> Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
> Follow
> ...


What's wrong with what he's said? Seems like he's just stating the obvious to me?


----------



## Theisticle (Jul 29, 2014)

> I should of course have said *RELATIVELY mild*. Obviously I don’t think any pedophilia is mild in an absolute sense. But I presume most victims would agree that being touched by an adult hand (though very unpleasant, as I know from my own childhood experience) is RELATIVELY speaking not SO unpleasant as being violently penetrated by an adult penis. But the logical point is, or should be, uncontroversial: no endorsement of the less bad option is implied.



Fucking hell! (the bolded part). You cannot define how other abuse survivors feel you dick. 

http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/response-to-a-bizarre-twitter-storm/


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> What's wrong with what he's said? Seems like he's just stating the obvious to me?



Is there really such a thing as a 'mild' pedophile?  I'm not sure how helpful creating hierarchies in these sorts of situations is and how that then makes victims feel about the abuse they have experienced.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 29, 2014)

He doesn't make those kind of distinctions about religious belief.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Is there really such a thing as a 'mild' pedophile?  I'm not sure how helpful creating hierarchies in these sorts of situations is and how that then makes victims feel about the abuse they have experienced.


Don't be daft. Some crimes are worse than others. That's just stating the obvious. In what way does it help to set up a clearly false situation that says they're all equivalent?


----------



## Left (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> What's wrong with what he's said? Seems like he's just stating the obvious to me?



Assuming by paedophila he means child sexual abuse, it's incredibly thoughtless to use a word like "mild" to describe it, especially given the furore last time he used that phrase.

The second statement is even worse. Who needs social science when you're a brilliant thinker like Richard Dawkins? Why is stranger rape worse than date rape? Because Richard says so. What is the fucking point in ranking different types of rape unless to minimise one/some of them?

There's also the tone and context - you'd think he'd learn to shut up and listen from the reactions he gets when he says things like this, but he just seems to take it as proof of his superior reasoning skills and the irrationality of his dissenters. Plus the fact that he often chums it up with the MRA crowd on twitter who will be gloating over this.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

I agree, mild is a bad choice of word. And stranger rape needn't worse than "date" rape. There is tho a difference between a fuck that's non consensual cos your girlfriends pissed and say, the gang rape of a woman as punishment in a war zone. You don't need to be Richard Dawkins to work that one out.


----------



## Left (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I agree, mild is a bad choice of word. And stranger rape needn't worse than "date" rape. There is tho a difference between a fuck that's non consensual cos your girlfriends pissed and say, the gang rape of a woman as punishment in a war zone. You don't need to be Richard Dawkins to work that one out.



But why even make the comparison unless to minimise the first one?


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

Left said:


> But why even make the comparison unless to minimise the first one?


What?  

I dunno if you are aware of this but if you're convicted of rape in this country it's not a 'one length fits all' sentence. There are severities of the crime. Surely this can't be the first time this has occurred to you?!


----------



## Left (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> What?
> 
> I dunno if you are aware of this but if you're convicted of rape in this country it's not a 'one length fits all' sentence. There are severities of the crime. Surely this can't be the first time this has occurred to you?!



We're not in a courtroom, we're on twitter. What possible motivation can someone have to make these kind of comparisons? I can think of a few, none of them benevolent.

What do comments like Dawkins' add to the discussion? What point does he think he's making and what does he think his critics are not understanding? He keeps making these bold assertions and expects everyone to accept them without evidence, and when they don't he just accuses them of not being able to think logically, without bothering to point out any faulty logic or show any sign of having understood the criticism at all. I think he's had too many decades of people telling him how brilliant he is, and thinks that anyone who disagrees with him just doesn't understand his brilliant logic.


----------



## Theisticle (Jul 29, 2014)

Holly Dustin, Co-Director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said his comments were an insult to survivors of rape.

"Richard Dawkins' comments about 'mild paedophilia' and 'mild date rape' are not merely ignorant but extremely offensive and damaging,” she said.

“Minimising abuse - what is 'mild rape' after all? - is not a clever, philosophical discussion but has a real impact on the many, many survivors of rape, sexual violence and child sexual abuse who are coping and living with the legacy of their abuse.

"At a time when abuse scandals are rarely out of the headlines, what public figures such as Dawkins should be doing with their power and privilege is calling for proper funding for specialist services for survivors of abuse, and for public education campaigns to tackle the very prejudicial attitudes that are still prevalent throughout society."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...kins-in-storm-over-mild-date-rape-tweets.html


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 29, 2014)

He knows his audience.


----------



## stavros (Jul 29, 2014)

Left said:


> He's at it again! He just can't help himself!
> 
> Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
> Follow
> ...



Richard Dawkins exalting people to follow him. Hmmm.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 29, 2014)

Richard Dawkins might be the stupidest man alive.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 29, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Richard Dawkins might be the stupidest man alive.



Not the stupidest, tbf.

But he's definitely one of the most stupendously, egotistically arrogant, cunts, on the planet.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 29, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Richard Dawkins might be the stupidest man alive.




Resigned from his fanclub have we now, phil?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 29, 2014)

Just pisstaking above  

More seriously : I've absolutely no intention of trying to defend (or even 'put into context') Dawkins' comments on this btw -- he's been utterly idiotic (and worse?) here clearly.

It's just that (IMO) plenty of regulars on Urban have a *massive* axe to grind against him _whatever_ he says and _whenever_ he says it, on _any_ subject. Just saying.

No argument that's he can be arrogant, and often highly annoying in manner, but don't dismiss/attack everything he writes or everything about him (I mean away from this thread topic, obs) is all I'm saying.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 29, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Just pisstaking above
> 
> More seriously : I've absolutely no intention of trying to defend (or even 'put into context') Dawkins' comments on this btw -- he's been utterly idiotic (and worse?) here clearly.
> 
> ...



Hitler probably said one or two non-horrific things in his life, I'd have remembered he was fucking Hitler when he did though.

/Godwin


----------



## stavros (Jul 29, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Richard Dawkins might be the stupidest man alive.



Maybe, but what about those no longer living, i.e. in which direction is stupidity evolving?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 29, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Just pisstaking above
> 
> More seriously : I've absolutely no intention of trying to defend (or even 'put into context') Dawkins' comments on this btw -- he's been utterly idiotic (and worse?) here clearly.
> 
> ...



He's a superb scientist, Will.

But _*fuck all*_ he says or writes on religion is worth hearing or reading.

I was I devotee at one point. Then I realised what pond-life (hur hur) I was allying myself to.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 29, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Just pisstaking above
> 
> More seriously : I've absolutely no intention of trying to defend (or even 'put into context') Dawkins' comments on this btw -- he's been utterly idiotic (and worse?) here clearly.
> 
> ...


New College of the Humanities


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 29, 2014)

Left said:


> Plus the fact that he often chums it up with the MRA crowd on twitter



He what? Does he?!


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

5t3IIa said:


> He what? Does he?!


What's the MRA crowd on twitter ffs? So out of touch!


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> What's the MRA crowd on twitter ffs? So out of touch!


Men's Rights Activists


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Men's Rights Activists


Oh thanks. Batman and that?


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Oh thanks. Batman and that?


Something like that, yes.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Something like that, yes.


I meant fathers for justice not the superhero


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I meant fathers for justice not the superhero


I know what you meant


----------



## toggle (Jul 29, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Don't be daft. Some crimes are worse than others. That's just stating the obvious. In what way does it help to set up a clearly false situation that says they're all equivalent?



because he is setting up an oversimplification and telling the victims how they should feel about their own expereince. that being attacked by a stranger is always worse than being attacked and betrayed by someone you trusted. 




5t3IIa said:


> He what? Does he?!



he's sneering at women who discuss harassment in western countries because they aren't completely focussed on abuse of women in muslim countries. same pattern as right wing extremists, using the abuse of women to attack islam without actually giving a fuck about the women.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2014)

Dawkins was a spectacular tool when he wrote the god delusion (particularly alongside his desire to define religion as child abuse, taking the time to say he didn't think a bit of public school noncery by teachers _was abuse_).  Since then his politics and the company he keeps have made him a full on cunt.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 29, 2014)

Thank fuck Einstein died before twitter was invented.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 30, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thank fuck Einstein died before twitter was invented.


E=MC ... fuck, how many characters have I got left?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 30, 2014)

136


----------



## kabbes (Jul 30, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Don't be daft. Some crimes are worse than others. That's just stating the obvious. In what way does it help to set up a clearly false situation that says they're all equivalent?


From 2013 on the previous page:


kabbes said:


> Who cares if "raping an 8 year old to death" is worse or not worse than "mild <sic> touching up"?  Why draw the comparison at all?  What is the point?  Murder is worse than GBH, but so what?  If you have a specific context, such as the need to set a tariff of sentences, then you need to make those comparisons.  Otherwise, it just smacks of making excuses for the "lesser" crime.
> 
> This is what I mean by the fact that he takes the hard scientist view on the importance of proclaiming hard truths without any consideration of context or consequence.  He either doesn't care about subtext and the manner of the message and how it will be used, or he does care and is a total dick.  Either way, it's not good.


----------



## toggle (Jul 30, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Oh thanks. Batman and that?



worse.

google for 'returnofkings'


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 30, 2014)

toggle said:


> worse.
> 
> google for 'returnofkings'


Fucking hell they're mental! When blokes say are you PMSing to me (or are you due on or whatever) when I'm cross it drives me wild. Even if it's true, it's kinda worse when it's true!

http://www.returnofkings.com/38553/how-we-can-win-through-language


----------



## toggle (Jul 30, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Fucking hell they're mental! When blokes say are you PMSing to me (or are you due on or whatever) when I'm cross it drives me wild. Even if it's true, it's kinda worse when it's true!
> 
> http://www.returnofkings.com/38553/how-we-can-win-through-language



yep.

there's one delightful article on there about the benefits of dating a woman with anorexia. i had a flick through a few months ago and I've blocked out the rest.



not saying Dawkins is specifically associated with that lot, but there's definate overlap between people who spout that shite and those who support his wibblings. because he is effectively telling women in western countries that because they don't have it as bad as women in saudi, they should put up and shut up.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 30, 2014)

http://www.returnofkings.com/40419/...warts-on-your-penis-using-apple-cider-vinegar

Pmsl


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Fucking hell! (the bolded part). You cannot define how other abuse survivors feel you dick.
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/response-to-a-bizarre-twitter-storm/



Yup.  He's assuming some sort of gradient of suffering that doesn't actually exist.  How traumatised a person is depends on many factors other than severity of abuse. R.D. is a knob.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Don't be daft. Some crimes are worse than others. That's just stating the obvious. In what way does it help to set up a clearly false situation that says they're all equivalent?



In terms of law, some crimes are worse than others.
In peoples' perceptions, some crimes are worse than others.
To the victim, though, what we think of as a "mild" crime can cause much more trauma than we might think is "right".  That's just how people are.  Dawkins was revolted by some bloke sticking a hand down his trousers.  I suspect there were other boys at his public school whose experience of such "mild" abuse would have been a factor in those boys becoming abusers in their turn.  We just can't know or predict how abuse will affect people, beyond saying "it will or it won't, depending on the individual".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Fucking hell they're mental! When blokes say are you PMSing to me (or are you due on or whatever) when I'm cross it drives me wild. Even if it's true, it's kinda worse when it's true!
> 
> http://www.returnofkings.com/38553/how-we-can-win-through-language


Lots of made-up ex-girlfriends in there.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Jul 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lots of made-up ex-girlfriends in there.


Haha yes 

Good article: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...wkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you?CMP=fb_ot


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 30, 2014)

I just looked at Dawkins twitter and it lead me to this turd from Sam Harris.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel


----------



## Left (Jul 30, 2014)

Unsurprising, but still appalling. The fact that Harris is still considered a prominent atheist thinker should embarrass atheists everywhere.
I finally dropped Jerry Coyne's blog after he endorsed that piece of crap from Harris, he was on thin ice anyway.
Why are the prominent atheists all so terrible when there are so many thoughtful intelligent atheists out there? Something to do with having the privilege to advocate for atheism over more pressing issues?


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2014)

Speaking of thoughtful intelligent atheists, this from Kenan Malik today was an interesting read (includes a little dig at Harris too)

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/the-death-of-god-and-the-fall-of-man/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

Sam Harris is vile. There are, of course, lots of 'prominent atheists' who say lots of thoughtful things - Noam Chomsky, for instance. But their thoughtful things don't centre on their atheism.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> lots of 'prominent atheists' who say lots of thoughtful things - Noam Chomsky, for instance. But their thoughtful things don't centre on their atheism.


Eh? There's plenty of enlightened (and enlightening) atheists who don't shit the bed every time they log onto the internet.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> Eh? There's plenty of enlightened (and enlightening) atheists who don't shit the bed every time they log onto the internet.


 
But the ones that say silly things make God exist a little bit more every time they say something!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> Eh? There's plenty of enlightened (and enlightening) atheists who don't shit the bed every time they log onto the internet.


Yeah, but if you're thoughtful about stuff, you're going at some stage to move on and talk about other things than the falsity of religious claims.

It's the absence of political awareness that marks out the likes of Dawkins and Harris. Others, like Chomsky, recognise that secular alliances with religious people who are on your political side are really important to build.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, but if you're thoughtful about stuff, you're going at some stage to move on and talk about other things than the falsity of religious claims.


of course. but an atheist can't really make arguments about morality (for example - see the Malik piece I linked to above) without their atheism being central to the argument. It can be done without belittling other people's faith, sure - but to say it shouldn't centre on their atheism is impossible.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> of course. but an atheist can't really make arguments about morality (for example - see the Malik piece I linked to above) without their atheism being central to the argument. It can be done without belittling other people's faith, sure - but to say it shouldn't centre on their atheism is impossible.


I'll give that a proper read when I have the chance. I've personally never had any problem with the idea of morality without a god to back it up. But yes, on a quick skim of that, Malik is right that Harris's idea that science can provide a moral system is absurd.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

This silliness is just what you expect to happen when people go in internet forums discussing their hobby horses and only speak to each other and end up with these group conventions, and then when they go out in the real world they just look ridiculous.

I am not implying anything about Urban here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2014)

Left said:


> Well I mean Movement Atheism, which is A Thing in which thing in which Dawkins is considered a luminary, and something I once naively thought was _the _hope for humanity.


Why not just be an atheist? Why do you feel you need to be tied (negatively or otherwise) to the positions or statements of other atheists on non-related issues? There is no problem here at all. Unless you want to make one that is, but then you should be challenging these positions and statements on the content rather than the atheist views of those who hold them.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

Movement Atheism sounds like some kind of exercise fad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why not just be an atheist? Why do you feel you need to be tied (negatively or otherwise) to the positions or statements of other atheists on non-related issues? There is no problem here at all. Unless you want to make one that is, but then you should be challenging these positions and statements on the content rather than the atheist views of those who hold them.


Yes, this. Atheism doesn't tell you how to live. Ayn Rand was an atheist, ffs!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 30, 2014)

I would imagine that many of the more vocal atheists have a lot of sympathy for objectivism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> I would imagine that many of the more vocal atheists have a lot of sympathy for objectivism.


Merely proving that absence of religious belief doesn't mean you're immune to falling for incoherent belief systems.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> I would imagine that many of the more vocal atheists have a lot of sympathy for objectivism.


 
Yes.  Many.  Exactly 'many' of them.  In your imagination.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Merely proving that absence of religious belief doesn't mean you're immune to falling for incoherent belief systems.


 
You can have religious beliefs without believing in a God too.


----------



## Left (Jul 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why not just be an atheist? Why do you feel you need to be tied (negatively or otherwise) to the positions or statements of other atheists on non-related issues? There is no problem here at all. Unless you want to make one that is, but then you should be challenging these positions and statements on the content rather than the atheist views of those who hold them.



I used to think that a worldwide secular movement was just coming together to fight the excesses of religion around the world. Don't worry, I've been thoroughly disabused of that notion over the past few years.
I do have a problem with the fact that the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (or even worse, the atheists of youtube and reddit) are the public face of atheism to so many people. People around the world are leaving religion, or having doubts, and want to find a supportive community but instead just find one-upmanship and hero worship. No interest in reaching out to anyone other than rich white boys. Rampant misogyny, libertarianism and scientific racism. It could be so much better.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2014)

I suppose it's shown you that the 'excesses of religion' aren't something unique to religion, if nothing else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2014)

Left said:


> I used to think that a worldwide secular movement was just coming together to fight the excesses of religion around the world. Don't worry, I've been thoroughly disabused of that notion over the past few years.
> I do have a problem with the fact that the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (or even worse, the atheists of youtube and reddit) are the public face of atheism to so many people. People around the world are leaving religion, or having doubts, and want to find a supportive community but instead just find one-upmanship and hero worship. No interest in reaching out to anyone other than rich white boys. Rampant misogyny, libertarianism and scientific racism. It could be so much better.


It's only atheism mate.  And the best way to challenge the excesses of religion is to attack what produces them - and that's not religion itself. It's material conditions and reactions to them. Atheism can't challenge that. Political and social movements (that may have atheists or atheism or religion/religious inside them) can do that. Look to them, not atheism. (non)Problem gone.


----------



## Left (Jul 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> I suppose it's shown you that the 'excesses of religion' aren't something unique to religion, if nothing else.





butchersapron said:


> It's only atheism mate.  And the best way to challenge the excesses of religion is to attack what produces them - and that's not religion itself. It's material conditions and reactions to them. Atheism can't challenge that. Political and social movements (that may have atheists or atheism or religion/religious inside them) can do that. Look to them, not atheism. (non)Problem gone.



Both correct, and it's something I should have realised a lot sooner.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

Left said:


> Both correct, and it's something I should have realised a lot sooner.


The important point, imo, is that secular political and social movements can, and need to, embrace both believers and non-believers. Focusing on the atheism can mean missing the wider contexts. It's often a very peculiar US standpoint to focus on the atheism - and there are important battles there still to be won wrt education - but the political commitment of those that do this ends at those specific battles: Dawkins is an excellent example of this - he's right to battle against religious intrusion in schooling, but wrong about more or less everything else of a political bent that he turns his brain to.


----------



## Lea (Jul 30, 2014)

Left said:


> He's at it again! He just can't help himself!
> 
> Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
> Follow
> ...


 
Wow! That Dawkins man sounds like a real prick. So the violence is to a differing degree but the psychological damage to the vicitm is still there nonetheless.


----------



## toggle (Jul 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> In terms of law, some crimes are worse than others.
> In peoples' perceptions, some crimes are worse than others.
> To the victim, though, what we think of as a "mild" crime can cause much more trauma than we might think is "right".  That's just how people are.  Dawkins was revolted by some bloke sticking a hand down his trousers.  I suspect there were other boys at his public school whose experience of such "mild" abuse would have been a factor in those boys becoming abusers in their turn.  We just can't know or predict how abuse will affect people, beyond saying "it will or it won't, depending on the individual".



and specifically, the idea that 'date rape' isn't all that bad is insidious; it isn't really seen as proper rape, because ti's not seen as being violent and the victim is usually believed to be much more complicit. which are a fucking nasty set of myths that allow a lot of rapists to get away with it.

I know that you know this shit vp, but I'm spelling it out because it really, really pisses me off that this shit is spouted as the only way to think, if you're not hard of thinking.

1. it's not less of a crime, it's still rape
2. it not less of a crime, it is a greater risk, far more common
3. it is not necessarily more or less violent than a stranger rape
4. it can be worse for some people because it involves a breach of trust
5. it can be worse, because the victim may not be able to avoid further contact with their rapist, or may have to give up their job, or study or move house to aviod them
6. an invite in for a coffee isn't consent anymore than a short skirt is consent.

my own personal view is that the breach of trust and subsequent questioning of your own judgement can make it worse. make it more likely for victims to see themselves as potentially complicit. as can the societal belief that it isn't proper actual traumatic rape unless it's a stranger with a knige in a dark alley.

it's more of his anti woman shit, unless you have it* THIS BAD *so that everyone can feel completely unambiguous about feeling all paternalistically sorrry for the poor little victim with tits (preferably also with bruises or a burka), then they should just stfu, cause it's not a problem. 

he's resorting to presenting everything in absolutes, as I think was said above, there are times when you can give a yes/no answer in study of science, but he dosen't have the ability to step outside of his very set thought patterns or the empathy to see that he can't apply that rule to everything. it's like he's trying to mimic aspie* logic, but only getting the bad parts of that, not the good ones. 



*with my most sincere apologies to any aspie who is offended by the suggestion they are anyhting like Dawkins.


----------



## cesare (Jul 30, 2014)

What did his role involve as Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2014)

long lunches


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

toggle said:


> and specifically, the idea that 'date rape' isn't all that bad is insidious; it isn't really seen as proper rape, because ti's not seen as being violent and the victim is usually believed to be much more complicit. which are a fucking nasty set of myths that allow a lot of rapists to get away with it.
> 
> I know that you know this shit vp, but I'm spelling it out because it really, really pisses me off that this shit is spouted as the only way to think, if you're not hard of thinking.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that Dawkin's own brush with abuse hasn't turned him into an abuser himself, at least into someone happy to perpetrate psychological abuse - although equally his being reared in the quintessentially-upper middle class environs of public school and Oxbridge, with the whole "stiff upper lip and being bummed never hurt anyone" attitude will not have helped.
And I think you're spot on about him couching everything as absolutes, and I don't think it's anything to do with "Aspie logic", I think it's everything to do with egocentrism and effectively having grown up where and when he did, and how much he absorbed the everyday sexism around him.  His mouthings suggest that he absorbed a lot of it.


----------



## toggle (Jul 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure that Dawkin's own brush with abuse hasn't turned him into an abuser himself, at least into someone happy to perpetrate psychological abuse - although equally his being reared in the quintessentially-upper middle class environs of public school and Oxbridge, with the whole "stiff upper lip and being bummed never hurt anyone" attitude will not have helped.
> And I think you're spot on about him couching everything as absolutes, and I don't think it's anything to do with "Aspie logic", I think it's everything to do with egocentrism and effectively having grown up where and when he did, and how much he absorbed the everyday sexism around him.  His mouthings suggest that he absorbed a lot of it.



I'm not trying to suggest he is aspie, just saying that his perspective reminds me of the (to me) bad/frustrating/annoying bit of aspie logic. cause the pattern is reminicent of that. 

and i don't doubt the upbringing can lead to the inability to empathise.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He's a superb scientist, Will.



He is an utterly crap scientist.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He is an utterly crap scientist.


 
Academia will let any old blowhard tool into their ranks nowadays.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He is an utterly crap scientist.


That's rather harsh. His idea of the extended phenotype is a good one. And his defence of his rigorously gene-centred approach is intellectually honest at least - indeed he is good at pointing out woolly thinking in others because of it, even if one might consider his approach to be overly limited and limiting.

That, and his books on popular science are decent - he's an able explainer.

His 'meme' idea doesn't really work. But that's ok. At least he tries things out.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, this. Atheism doesn't tell you how to live. Ayn Rand was an atheist, ffs!



Was Ayn Rand a vegetarian though? Or was Hitler an atheist? Or something.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> long lunches


 
I want that job


----------



## Wilf (Jul 30, 2014)

I'll bet the spiked lot have Dawkins at the very top of their wish list of guest commentators.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 31, 2014)

I'm willing to bet they do, and woud love to hire him. But given that Spiked are, among many other things, climate change denialists (sorry, 'contraraians'), and given that they've put up other counter-scientific, deliberately anti-rationalist shit on various occasions, I reckon even Dawkins would keep himself clear of them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 31, 2014)

Following that previous post of mine, I bet the above looks like I'm out to defend Dawkins come what may.

I'm not, certainly not (as I said before) on the subject matter of this particular thread.

I stick to my point though that the level of vitriol he gets on Urban is overgeneralised and much too far reaching, indiscriminate.

I repeat, judge him issue by issue/subject by subject. Judge him as much by by what he _properly_ writes as by what he he splurges on Twitter before even trying to engage thought (spectacularly stupid though the latter can be --  and in this thread's case, is).

I think some on here allow his undoubtedly annoying personality to wipe out any merit he might have in other areas as a scientist etc. Hate what he said in this thread's contexct is one thing, hating everything whatsoever about him come what may, is just OTT.

The fact that phil puts out a one-dwyer-liner about him being a 'crap scientist' says a lot  ... at least one or two on the thread had the gumption to argue against that, but others probably instinctively agree, because they hate him ...


----------



## Left (Jul 31, 2014)

I don't think he's a crap scientist (was dwyer just doing his anti-"Darwinist" thing)? I think he's a crap public advocate for atheism, and his ignorant statements have also undermined his reputation as a good science communicator.
My opinion of Dawkins over the last decade has gone from indifference to admiration to disillusionment to antipathy. I, and I guess lots of others here, have given him plenty of second chances but there comes a point where you have to give up. He has had plenty of chances to redeem himself - people have been more than generous - but he'd rather wallow in ignorance.
If "Dear Muslima" was his only misstep he would still fully deserve the vitriol he receives. Then there's also his support of "human biodiversity" (fancy new term for racialism), his comments about Muslims, his classism, his blackballing of Rebecca Watson (because she made him look bad by not shutting up when he wanted her to), his repeated paedophilia apologism, his attacks on social science and the humanities, his silence when his minions bombard his critics with death threats*

He may be a great biologist, but he's better known for his public persona as an advocate for atheism and science communication. Right now I think he's doing those causes far more harm than good. Frankly, as a human being, I think he's a miserable failure.

* to be fair, he did condemn this recently - _after three fucking years_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 31, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'll bet the spiked lot have Dawkins at the very top of their wish list of guest commentators.


 
I don't - they have criticised people "going on" about sex abuse in the Catholic church, or complaining about Catholic schools discriminating against non-Catholics, they would see Dawkins as being part of the liberal elite they like to criticise.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 31, 2014)

Left said:


> Then there's also his support of "human biodiversity" (fancy new term for racialism)



What is 'human biodiversity' exactly and what has Dawkins said about it?


----------



## Left (Jul 31, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What is 'human biodiversity' exactly and what has Dawkins said about it?



New term for "race realism" used by racists. I may have jumped the gun a bit- I don't think Dawkins has used that specific phrase, but he uses many of the same talking points and dogwhistles as the HBD crowd. The example that comes to mind is in the intro to The Ancestor's Tale where he muses about why people get so worked up about discussion of racial differences. Also his personal attack on Steven Rose when Rose pointed out that Dawkins' work was being promoted by white supremacists. More recently, he endorsed a talk by Steven Pinker about why Jews are just naturally intelligent (but it's not racist, because Jews aren't a race!)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 31, 2014)

Left said:


> More recently, he endorsed a talk by Steven Pinker about why Jews are just naturally intelligent (but it's not racist, because Jews aren't a race!)



I doubt Pinker stated that all Jews are naturally intelligent. More likely he claims there are some aspects of Jewish culture that produce a larger than expected proportion of academics and well-educated people. And he's right in the fact that Jews aren't a race.


----------



## cesare (Jul 31, 2014)

Races aren't just differentiated by phenotype.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

Left said:


> New term for "race realism" used by racists. I may have jumped the gun a bit- I don't think Dawkins has used that specific phrase, but he uses many of the same talking points and dogwhistles as the HBD crowd. The example that comes to mind is in the intro to The Ancestor's Tale where he muses about why people get so worked up about discussion of racial differences. Also his personal attack on Steven Rose when Rose pointed out that Dawkins' work was being promoted by white supremacists.


Does he? Do you have any links to specific examples?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Races aren't just differentiated by phenotype.


Isn't that half the point - that mostly 'race' is used to group particular phenotypes, underlying which it is assumed, mistakenly, that there is a shared ancestry marking off those displaying that phenotype from those not displaying it?

To give an example of the mistaken nature of this, having dark skin is a phenotype shared by many people in Africa and aboriginal Australians, but to assume a more recent common ancestor to these groups because of this is to be wrong - aboriginal Australians are more closely related to white Europeans than they are to most black Africans.

Yet this wrong assumption was made in the past by people who really should have known better.


----------



## cesare (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that half the point - that mostly 'race' is used to group particular phenotypes, underlying which it is assumed, mistakenly, that there is a shared ancestry marking off those displaying that phenotype from those not displaying it?
> 
> To give an example of the mistaken nature of this, having dark skin is a phenotype shared by many people in Africa and aboriginal Australians, but to assume a more recent common ancestor to these groups because of this is to be wrong.


Well, yes. My point was aimed at those stating that Jews aren't a race.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Well, yes. My point was aimed at those stating that Jews aren't a race.


Ah, I see. I misunderstood.


----------



## cesare (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, I see. I misunderstood.


No worries


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2014)

Left said:


> New term for "race realism" used by racists. I may have jumped the gun a bit- I don't think Dawkins has used that specific phrase, but he uses many of the same talking points and dogwhistles as the HBD crowd. The example that comes to mind is in the intro to The Ancestor's Tale where he muses about why people get so worked up about discussion of racial differences. Also his personal attack on Steven Rose when Rose pointed out that Dawkins' work was being promoted by white supremacists. More recently, he endorsed a talk by Steven Pinker about why Jews are just naturally intelligent (but it's not racist, because Jews aren't a race!)


You've really got to back this up now you know?


----------



## cesare (Jul 31, 2014)

Here's the Pinker paper, and it's specifically Ashkenazi Jews: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

I thought we'd had a thread on this but maybe I'm misremembering.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 31, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'll bet the spiked lot have Dawkins at the very top of their wish list of guest commentators.



Living Marxism. What a bunch of contrarian twerps turned corporate whores. Worth a read http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/jenny-turner/who-are-they


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 31, 2014)




----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What is 'human biodiversity' exactly and what has Dawkins said about it?


 
Back when I was in Uni "human biodiversity" was something discussed with no reference to this fuckwittery - I imagine a great many scientists are pretty livid at having the term stolen by racists.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that half the point - that mostly 'race' is used to group particular phenotypes, underlying which it is assumed, mistakenly, that there is a shared ancestry marking off those displaying that phenotype from those not displaying it?


 
That's just taxonomic quibbling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> That's just taxonomic quibbling.


Not really. IMO it goes to the heart of the confusion over the idea of 'race'. In that sense, cesare is right - it's as much a _social science_ category as it is one of the biological sciences.

I'm going to comment on the Pinker piece later, because that's another case in point of confusion between the two. See also 'The Bell Curve'.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. IMO it goes to the heart of the confusion over the idea of 'race'. In that sense, cesare is right - it's as much a _social science_ category as it is one of the biological sciences.


 
Now you seem to be getting the taxonimic quibbling confused with the social construction of race.  If the taxonomy and genetic lineages were all precisely worked out (as in the spiders and flies thing) you'd still have the social complexities.

edit:  It's all a bit messy given we use the word 'race' at different times and places to refer to quite different things...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't - they have criticised people "going on" about sex abuse in the Catholic church, or complaining about Catholic schools discriminating against non-Catholics, they would see Dawkins as being part of the liberal elite they like to criticise.


A flippant comment on my part, it was just in his 'mild paedophilia' comments he gets close to their agenda.  In some ways, at least in the way he positioned himself in the god delusion, he _was_ part of the liberal establishment - at least with his setting religion against women's rights and gay rights.  Again admittedly, not a perfect fit with his anti religious obsession, which isn't a feature of that establishment. Since then of course his trajectory has been illiberal, racist and authoritarian.  Hard to say whether his politics and persona have really shifted over that period. He's certainly got worse but I suspect the seeds of what he is today were present 10 years ago, at least in the sense that many on the right will use the cloak of liberalism to attack non-white cultures.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

Wilf said:


> ...since then of course his trajectory has been illiberal, racist and authoritarian.


 
Can you point to the authoritarian bit (not a good trait in any scientist imo)?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> Can you point to the authoritarian bit (not a good trait in any scientist imo)?


Not really!  I think I was grasping for a word that is used as the natural opposite of 'liberal'.  I did though pause as I wrote it.   More seriously, even if it's not quite the right word, I do see it in his promotion of science as a tool of decision making or public policy.  It's sort of there in him being a great scientist, but an appalling sociologist, his lack of awareness of why people do certain things - individually or collectively.

Edit: I should go with 'intolerance'.  He's also _astonishingly_ egotistical.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> Now you seem to be getting the taxonimic quibbling confused with the social construction of race.  If the taxonomy and genetic lineages were all precisely worked out (as in the spiders and flies thing) you'd still have the social complexities.
> 
> edit:  It's all a bit messy given we use the word 'race' at different times and places to refer to quite different things...


Yes, it is messy. Isn't that the whole point? My 'taxonomic quibbling' is hardly quibbling if certain phenotypes are confusedly isolated and seen as markers of group membership where there is no evolutionary basis for such groups. And yes, that's just one strand of what people mean by 'race'. And usually, all these things get mixed up together in a careless way - which is what Pinker appears to be doing.

I'm probably expressing this badly. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of something I think is rather crucial as 'quibbling'.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm probably expressing this badly. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of something rather crucial as 'quibbling'.


 
What I mean is that spiders and flies were once considered to have relatively recent common ancestry due to traits that have evolved in parallel.  With humans, I think making social judgements based on skin colour (as a really simplified example) is equally dumb regardless of whether that group trait has common ancestry. 

So I don't agree that that is a crucial thing, if I'm understanding you right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> What I mean is that spiders and flies were once considered to have relatively recent common ancestry due to traits that have evolved in parallel.  With humans, I think *making social judgements based on skin colour (as a really simplified example) is equally dumb regardless of whether that group trait has common ancestry*.


Ok, I think I understand you now, and yes, I agree with the bolded bit. It's a question of untangling the misconceptions one-by-one, perhaps. IMO the concept of 'race' as used by most people - me included sometimes - conceals a very messy web of unexamined misconceptions.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I think I understand you now, and yes, I agree with the bolded bit. It's a question of untangling the misconceptions one-by-one, perhaps. IMO the concept of 'race' as used by most people - me included sometimes - conceals a very messy web of unexamined misconceptions.


 
Agree there.  And sometimes the word is used very differently in different contexts.  We need better words, really.

This 'human biodiversity' stuff that I've been able to find looks like old racist stuff dressed up in scientific terms, with no evidence related to it whatsoever.  I can't see much from Dawkins on the subject, except for speculation in one essay that cultural differences in mate choice could lead to phenotypic differences between disparate groups, which is reasonable if you have a really stable culture for a really long time, I think, but it seems purely speculative in terms of its contribution towards explaining anything much.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> I'm not trying to suggest he is aspie, just saying that his perspective reminds me of the (to me) bad/frustrating/annoying bit of aspie logic. cause the pattern is reminicent of that.



I know.  Difference being, Aspies have no choice, Dawkins does.  He could be less of a twat if he wanted to be, but he can't be arsed.



> and i don't doubt the upbringing can lead to the inability to empathise.



In fact it's so common that many of us have first or secondhand experience of it.
Dawkins, though, he sometimes comes across (whether deliberately or not) like he's revelling in having the emotional range of a wooden leg.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Here's the Pinker paper, and it's specifically Ashkenazi Jews: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html
> 
> I thought we'd had a thread on this but maybe I'm misremembering.



I've given that a read now, and aside from the highly speculative nature of all seven of the hypotheses he identifies, and the unproven nature of any of them (it's a classic 'Just So' story of evolutionary psychology, really), I'd like to pick up on this:



> The CH&H theory can be divided into seven hypotheses. The first is that the Ashkenazi advantage in intelligence is genetic in the first place. Many intellectuals dismiss this possibility out of hand, having been convinced by Stephen Jay Gould's book _The Mismeasure of Man_ that general intelligence does not exist and that there is no evidence for its heritability. But a decade ago, the American Psychological Association commissioned an ideologically and racially diverse panel of scientists to review the evidence. They reported that IQ tests measure a stable property of the person; that general intelligence reflects a real phenomenon (namely, that measures of different aspects of intelligence intercorrelate); that it predicts a variety of positive life outcomes; and that it is highly heritable among individuals within a group. This does not imply that differences _between_ groups are also genetic, since one group may experience a difference across the board, such as in wealth, discrimination, or social and cultural capital.



I wish TruXta were here, as he has a link to a very very good piece that debunks this idea of a generalised 'q' for intelligence that can supposedly be deduced from partial correlations of different tests. The APA's report may have concluded differently, but this is far from undisupted territory, and a lot of this was debunked in the various responses to 'The Bell Curve'. Suffice to say that The Marshmallow Test is every bit as successful as the most sophisticated IQ test in predicting 'a variety of positive life outcomes'.

So I kind of fall at the first hurdle on this piece - I have to take issue with his simplistic and uncritical use of IQ before I can even deal with the other stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

I have to say that the dismissal by Pinker of the objections to IQ strike me as really very similar to the line the racist James Watson has taken in recent years in response to negative reactions to his pseudoscientific racist outbursts. 'I'm not racist - how can you even think that? I am merely going the way the evidence takes me.' But he's not. Not really. He's simply confirming all kinds of unexamined assumptions.

The worst of it is that he thinks he's doing the opposite:



> Scientists routinely avoid research that may have harmful consequences, such as injuring human subjects or releasing dangerous microorganisms. The problem with this line of thought is that it would restrict research based on its intellectual content rather than on its physical conduct. Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.



Nobly treading where others dare not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2014)

Here's that link debunking IQ. (Ta to someone!) It's not for the faint-hearted, maths-wise. 

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Here's that link debunking IQ. (Ta to someone!) It's not for the faint-hearted, maths-wise.
> 
> http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html


 
It's very like one of the most common criticisms of the_ Spirit Level.   _

I don't think it debunks IQ as such, but it is a good argument that you need better evidence and different arguments than are currently on offer to really expect people to accept the existence of 'g'.

late edit: I love the phrase 'myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions' (from the summary) - I can see myself unconsciously regurgitating that at some point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 2, 2014)

Just to come back to that Pinker piece for a second, this bit has been bothering me:



> The idea of innate Jewish intelligence is certainly an improvement over the infamous alternative generalization, a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.



It reveals a lot about Pinker and his ahistorical, apolitical approach to questions that he can think of no other 'alternative generalization'. How about looking at history in a different way, in a way that isn't already looking for some ill-defined genetic explanation of an ill-defined question? That might reveal to Pinker some new alternative generalizations as to why some groups and not others have ended up over-represented at the top of this particular intellectual tree. 

In this, Pinker and Dawkins have a lot in common - they ask the wrong questions about various social phenomena because they are lacking in any political or historical grounding. And they end up talking utter nonsense because of it. A counter-example of a scientist with a political and historical grounding would be British biologist Steven Rose. Rose co-edited a book with his wife Hilary (a sociologist) called 'Alas, Poor Darwin', which systematically rubbishes the claims of evo psych in general (and Pinker in particular, it has to be said - his name has 23 entries next to it in the index) from a variety of standpoints. I was surprised a little (my own prejudices showing!) that the essays by sociologists in the book prove the most devastating in their critiques of evo-psych, demonstrating again and again how evo-psychologists assume the answer before even looking at the evidence and then simply bend the evidence around their answer, usually without any hard evidence or falsifiable tests at all, and often in ways that show a simple ignorance of rather obvious flaws in their hypotheses - and that's exactly what Pinker is doing here.


----------



## Theisticle (Aug 21, 2014)

Dawkins: Racist, eugenicist, all round nasty piece of shit.

*Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to bring it into the world' *

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html?dkdk


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 21, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins: Racist, eugenicist, all round nasty piece of shit.
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to bring it into the world' *
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html?dkdk


Is he wrong or just blunt and potentially offensive?

Most would not bring a child into the world knowing they have an untreatable, painful and fatal condition (not Downs Syndrome obviously). That's eugenics as well. Eugenics in some form has been around since the dawn of time, the boundary of what's acceptable in a chosen society is all that's changed.


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2014)

Whatever your opinion of the ethics of aborting foetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, it's certainly the option overwhelmingly favoured by pregnant women - 92% of them in Europe.

What's he been saying that was racist, by the way?


----------



## toggle (Aug 21, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Is he wrong or just blunt and potentially offensive?



both IMo. 

trying to distill the decision into a one size fits all right answer is the dawkins way, but this isn't something that can be handled in that manner. it's too complex to discuss in twitter soundbites and IMO, the decision is usually a complex mix of very variable medical and social factors.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> both IMo.
> 
> trying to distill the decision into a one size fits all right answer is the dawkins way, but this isn't something that can be handled in that manner. it's too complex to discuss in twitter soundbites and IMO, the decision is usually a complex mix of very variable medical and social factors.


*shrug*
As you say it's twitter. The question was asked on there a short generic soundbite is all that should be expected or is practical.


----------



## toggle (Aug 21, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> *shrug*
> As you say it's twitter. The question was asked on there a short generic soundbite is all that should be expected or is practical.



but he still presents it as an absolute. not what he would do, but what is the right and moral choice, for everyone.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 21, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Is he wrong or just blunt and potentially offensive?
> 
> Most would not bring a child into the world knowing they have an untreatable, painful and fatal condition (not Downs Syndrome obviously). That's eugenics as well. Eugenics in some form has been around since the dawn of time, the boundary of what's acceptable in a chosen society is all that's changed.



Down's Syndrome is not an hereditary condition. It results from a glitch in the conception process in which the foetus acquires an extra chromosome.

Therefore, abortion of foetuses showing the condition is not a form of eugenics, as it would do nothing to change the overall genetic makeup of a population.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 21, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Down's Syndrome is not an hereditary condition. It results from a glitch in the conception process in which the foetus acquires an extra chromosome.
> 
> Therefore, abortion of foetuses showing the condition is not a form of eugenics, as it would do nothing to change the overall genetic makeup of a population.


Pish, you and your facts.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 21, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Pish, you and your facts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Is he wrong or just blunt and potentially offensive?
> 
> Most would not bring a child into the world knowing they have an untreatable, painful and fatal condition (not Downs Syndrome obviously). That's eugenics as well. Eugenics in some form has been around since the dawn of time, the boundary of what's acceptable in a chosen society is all that's changed.


He said it was immoral, so of course it's offensive to the families of children with Down's.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 21, 2014)

What's the state of play regarding how risky it is to do the tests, plus the chance of misdiagnosis ?


----------



## Theisticle (Aug 21, 2014)

His clarification is worse:

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.  I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/...logy-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> His clarification is worse:
> 
> “Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.  I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”
> 
> https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/...logy-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/


Just label anyone who does so as immoral. 
What a wally.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2014)

How does he know what sex the foetus is?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2014)

cesare said:


> How does he know what sex the foetus is?



I hate the cunt, but I saw that as nothing more than when people imagine a hypothetical person and stick a gender on them. We're used to that gender defaulting as male, but I've seen an upswing in the number of people who say 'she' these days, usually to counter the notion that male is default.

Not saying that's what he was doing, but it's a common practice.

I'd rather it default to 'they', personally, to avoid the binary trap, but I appreciate when 'she' is used.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I hate the cunt, but I saw that as nothing more than when people imagine a hypothetical person and stick a gender on them. We're used to that gender defaulting as male, but I've seen an upswing in the number of people who say 'she' these days, usually to counter the notion that male is default.
> 
> Not saying that's what he was doing, but it's a common practice.
> 
> I'd rather it default to 'they', personally, to avoid the binary trap, but I appreciate when 'she' is used.



Glad to see RD making efforts on the sexism front.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2014)

cesare said:


> Glad to see RD making efforts on the sexism front.



Well I know, he's not the likeliest contender for doing that, but it's what I assumed was going on when I read it, rather than him assuming all Downs kids are girls.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well I know, he's not the likeliest contender for doing that, but it's what I assumed was going on when I read it, rather than him assuming all Downs kids are girls.


The reason I asked was because I was wondering if there was any kind of back story to the question he was answering eg it was a specific situation rather than general "abort all the Downs" advice.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

I wonder what his views on other disabilities are?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2014)

cesare said:


> The reason I asked was because I was wondering if there was any kind of back story to the question he was answering eg it was a specific situation rather than general "abort all the Downs" advice.



Ah, I see. So perhaps his proclamation grew out of a specific conversation or run-in he had with someone who had a Downs daughter or something? Could be.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Ah, I see. So perhaps his proclamation grew out of a specific conversation or run-in he had with someone who had a Downs daughter or something? Could be.


That's what I was wondering, I cba to go and look at his twitter feed tbh


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I wonder what his views on other disabilities are?



It would be logical (Dawkins therefore would approve, since 'logic' is a word that gets him hard) to assume that if his reasoning is about any suffering or hardship then it would extend to quite a few other disabilities.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> It would be logical (Dawkins therefore would approve, since 'logic' is a word that gets him hard) to assume that if his reasoning is about any suffering or hardship then it would extend to quite a few other disabilities.


Quite. So his comments are beyond offensive.
He would do well to read this book:
http://www.farfromthetree.com


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Ah, I see. So perhaps his proclamation grew out of a specific conversation or run-in he had with someone who had a Downs daughter or something? Could be.



I took it how you initially did (using 'she' as default). He's always written like that, to my knowledge.

That elaboration of his views was quite shocking. To say 'I think it's sensible to abort' is one thing, but to say 'I think it's moral' and to put _that_ shite forward as your argument is quite self-damning. He's no good on anything outside of science.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Ah, I see. So perhaps his proclamation grew out of a specific conversation or run-in he had with someone who had a Downs daughter or something? Could be.





cesare said:


> That's what I was wondering, I cba to go and look at his twitter feed tbh



His latest 'apology'/'clarification':
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/...logy-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> His clarification is worse:
> 
> “Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. * I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.* I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”
> 
> https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/...logy-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/



So does Dawkins not think that people with Downs can experience happiness or a good life? In a loving, supporting environment there's no reason why they can't. If he truly is committed "to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" he'd do well not to reinforce negative stereotypes about those with Down syndrome by suggesting that they should never have been born and that their families are irresponsible for letting them.


----------



## jusali (Aug 21, 2014)

So are people consulting Dawkins (like they would a religion) for Moral guidance now?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 21, 2014)

Odd to use twitter for targeted communication ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2014)

However, as usual, Dawkins isn't as bad as the people he's (cack-handedly) arguing against. Religious and state authorities that want to force women to have children against their will are of course far more harmful than Dawkins could ever be.


----------



## jusali (Aug 21, 2014)

Yeah I'm sure Jesus was the same eh?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 21, 2014)

cesare said:


> The reason I asked was because I was wondering if there was any kind of back story to the question he was answering eg it was a specific situation rather than general "abort all the Downs" advice.



He does talk at length in one of his books* about us defaulting to "he" in situations and his reasons for choosing to use "she" so I expect is just to do with that.

*the selfish gene, iirc, though if is not that then if can only be the God delusion cos that's the only other one I've read.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2014)

Oh Richard. Why do you do this to us!

A sterling lesson to theists about the truth of atheism: we are not all the same. Atheism, unlike the misbegotten and edited shite in your holy books, is not a creed. Some of us are dicks.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2014)

*


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 21, 2014)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

**


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> *A while back Pete Singer suggested that parents of Downs syndrome children should have the option of euthanizing their children at the age of nine years old on the grounds that they would never be able to speak a foreign language, play a musical instrument or watch a movie and be able to discuss it.* Globally there are six million people with Downs. I work with and know at least fifty and a woman I know speaks French and another plays the harmonica and piano (amazingly) and others are full of all the drama and beauty humanity brings, their lives are rich and they have joy but what I've noticed over the years is they have no hate, no criminality (Alan sometimes steals Denises' bag, hides it in the garden and blames William, then they all accuse Tersea of looking at them funny and she talks about death, they understand grief and they understand life) They need support sure but of all the problems we have, they're not the problem. Dawkins can fuck off on this one. If we're getting into eugenics, let's abort the scum, the establishment, the filth, the nonces and their apologists. Abort the fucking lot of them.



Don't talk absolute bollocks ffs! 

Peter Singer has defended the ethics behind the decision of mothers to abort Down syndrome foetuses. That's it. It's a decision over 9 out of 10 pregnant women take.  

Dawkins took it in another direction and said it would be *immoral* for a pregnant woman to take a Down syndrome foetus to term and has offered nothing approaching a good argument to defend his view.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Andrew Solomon is a little more critical in his take on Singer's position, or at least the people he cites:


> Peter Singer has espoused the right of women to choose abortion through to the end of pregnancy and to commit infanticide on newborns if they so choose. He has defended this position with the utilitarian argument that most women who eliminate an unwanted child will produce a wanted one, and that the loss of happiness of the child who is killed (whose life would have been unsatisfactory) is outweighed by the happiness of the healthy child who follows. Although Singer’s position is extreme, it reflects the pervasive devaluation of people with Down’s syndrome and the assumption that their lives are displeasing to others and to themselves. One mother described being asked by a psychiatrist how she got on with her son with Down’s syndrome; when she replied, ‘Terrific,’ he said that there was no need to be defensive.  Marca Bristo, who chairs the National Council on Disability, said, ‘Singer’s core vision amounts to a defense of genocide.’


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2014)

The Boy said:


> He does talk at length in one of his books* about us defaulting to "he" in situations and his reasons for choosing to use "she" so I expect is just to do with that.
> 
> *the selfish gene, iirc, though if is not that then if can only be the God delusion cos that's the only other one I've read.



Why must he say something sensible and challenge my blanket hatred


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Andrew Solomon is a little more critical in his take on Singer's position, or at least the people he cites:


Andrew Solomon is a bullshitter and so are all of those others he cites if they parrot that fabrication. Singer has never taken that position with regards to Down syndrome children.

Singer's arguments are controversial enough, on so many issues, there's certainly no need to make up lies to have a go at him.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 21, 2014)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...dom-strangers-why-he-hates-them-2014082189774


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 21, 2014)

Ole said:


> Don't talk absolute bollocks ffs!
> 
> Peter Singer has defended the ethics behind the decision of mothers to abort Down syndrome foetuses. That's it.



No it's not fucking it. He's talking about euthanasia. So fuck off with yer absolute bollocks ffs. cunt.

What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion, but he has discussed a number of specific examples, both hypothetical as well as actual cases. The conditions he has explicitly named as sufficient justification for active infanticide include Down syndrome,


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

Ole said:


> Andrew Solomon is a bullshitter and so are all of those others he cites if they parrot that fabrication. Singer has never taken that position with regards to Down syndrome children.
> 
> Singer's arguments are controversial enough, on so many issues, there's certainly no need to make up lies to have a go at him.


Is this bullshit too?


> Peter Singer maintains that what is in question is personhood. He proposes that not all persons are human beings; sentient animals of higher awareness are also persons. He likewise opines that not all human beings are persons. In Practical Ethics he wrote, ‘Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.  Very often it is not wrong at all.’ Elsewhere he has contended, ‘If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.’ Singer in effect reverses cogito, ergo sum and says that those who do not think do not exist.


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> No it's not fucking it. He's talking about euthanasia. So fuck off with yer absolute bollocks ffs. cunt.


OK nobchops. Show me the quotes where he says that 9 year old down syndrome children should be killed because they would never be able to speak a foreign language etc.



Orang Utan said:


> Is this bullshit too?


No. That looks accurate to me.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 21, 2014)

Ole said:


> OK nobchops.



nobchops? Right, he's been putting it about longtime, it's his gig. He equates Downs with severe, multiple disability. He thinks that his assessment of what someone else's quality of life gives him the right to decide who dies. Personally, I think there's a lot of people should get a bullet in the head but not the people he thinks it's legit to whack. And even then, people with severe, multiple sensory disabilities, I learnt more from them than anyone. I'll get the quotes for you nobchops.

"What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion, but he has discussed a number of specific examples, both hypothetical as well as actual cases. The conditions he has explicitly named as sufficient justification for active infanticide include Down syndrome...."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

I don't know if this is the quote you mean - it's from Rethinking Life and Death:



> "To have a child with Down syndrome is to have a very different experience from having a normal child. It can still be a warm and loving experience, but we must have lowered expectations of our child's ability. We cannot expect a child with Down syndrome to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen movie, or to be a respectable athlete, basketballer or tennis player."


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know if this is the quote you mean - it's from Rethinking Life and Death:



yeah, that was it. cheers.
and it's bollocks. It just is.

" but we must have lowered expectations of our child's ability"

No, that's the point, we don't lower our expectations, we raise them.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 21, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins: Racist, eugenicist, all round nasty piece of shit.
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to bring it into the world' *
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html?dkdk



I certainly don't agree that it would be unethical to bring downs syndrome children into the world. I know families who have and as far as they are concerned the downs syndrome child is every bit their child as any other. I wonder what he means about it being unethical to bring a downs syndrome child into the world, unethical how exactly?

I wonder whether it could be ethical to abort a downs syndrome foetus given the chance to do so? I don't know at what stage one can learn that a pregnancy is downs, perhaps if very early it might be more ethical than at a later stage but one is still terminating a life because it does not somehow suit your expectations.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2014)

Christ, that peter singer guy is revolting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I certainly don't agree that it would be unethical to bring downs syndrome children into the world. I know families who have and as far as they are concerned the downs syndrome child is every bit their child as any other. I wonder what he means about it being unethical to bring a downs syndrome child into the world, unethical how exactly?
> 
> I wonder whether it could be ethical to abort a downs syndrome foetus given the chance to do so? I don't know at what stage one can learn that a pregnancy is downs, perhaps if very early it might be more ethical than at a later stage but one is still terminating a life because it does not somehow suit your expectations.



He doesn't actually say it would be unethical. He suggests it is immoral.
And I suggest you read the rest of the thread.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> He doesn't actually say it would be unethical. He suggests it is immoral.
> And I suggest you read the rest of the thread.


I might be able to read the rest of it tonight.
Indeed he says immoral rather than unethical, but these are similar no?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> nobchops? Right, he's been putting it about longtime, it's his gig. He equates Downs with severe, multiple disability. He thinks that his assessment of what someone else's quality of life gives him the right to decide who dies. Personally, I think there's a lot of people should get a bullet in the head but not the people he thinks it's legit to whack. And even then, people with severe, multiple sensory disabilities, I learnt more from them than anyone. I'll get the quotes for you nobchops.
> 
> "What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion, but he has discussed a number of specific examples, both hypothetical as well as actual cases. The conditions he has explicitly named as sufficient justification for active infanticide include Down syndrome...."



He's in favour of parents being able to choose infanticide up to a month after their child is born iirc. He thinks that where the child has a severe disability that will make that child's quality of life very poor and will impose significant burdens on the parents it would not be immoral of them to elect to kill the child. I think that's wrong, but he never said DS kids could be killed up to the age of nine. Butcher's quote even shows that Singer thinks raising a DS child can be 'a warm and loving experience'. I still think he's wrong and don't wish to defend his views of infanticide, but lets represent them for what they are.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I might be able to read the rest of it tonight.
> Indeed he says immoral rather than unethical, but these are similar no?


Similar, but different.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Why must he say something sensible and challenge my blanket hatred


Being annoying like that is just one more reason to hate him.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

btw, Dawkins post-tweet explanation is almost directly from Singer's practical ethics - except dawkins restricts it to pre-birth and singer extends it beyond:




			
				Dawkins said:
			
		

> Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.






			
				desiccated calculating machine said:
			
		

> Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. . . . When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.


----------



## Bobok (Aug 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I wonder whether it could be ethical to abort a downs syndrome foetus given the chance to do so? I don't know at what stage one can learn that a pregnancy is downs, perhaps if very early it might be more ethical than at a later stage but one is still terminating a life because it does not somehow suit your expectations.


Approximately 11 to 20 weeks gestation, for a _risk_ calculation from maternal blood. And from, I think, about 15 weeks up to close to the legal limit of 24 weeks for molecular-genetic follow up _diagnosis_ based on a high risk screen. 'High' varies nationally but is probably, generally, towards the region where risks approach 1-in-double figures. Diagnosis of a foetus is invasive and carries a risk of triggering spontaneous abortion.
Source: I do part of the test for Downs.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 21, 2014)

I always thought Singer was making the case for the ethical treatment of animals and questioning how we define and why we value all human life over other animals, especially our primate cousins. It's been a while since I read Animal Liberation though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2014)

He has written other books!


----------



## 8ball (Aug 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> He has written other books!



That bastard!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

Ole said:


> Whatever your opinion of the ethics of aborting foetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, it's certainly the option overwhelmingly favoured by pregnant women - 92% of them in Europe.



Dawkins appears to have bought into the opinion that Downs' Syndrome only ever means gross cognitive and physical issues.  It doesn't, necessarily - Downs' Syndrome is a spectrum that covers .  Unfortunately, it's that opinion that's also often proferred to expectant mothers, and which (sensibly, from an existential point of view, for many of them) they often base their decision of whether to continue the pregnancy on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So does Dawkins not think that people with Downs can experience happiness or a good life? In a loving, supporting environment there's no reason why they can't. If he truly is committed "to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" he'd do well not to reinforce negative stereotypes about those with Down syndrome by suggesting that they should never have been born and that their families are irresponsible for letting them.



Dawkins' clarification puts him across as some kind of _uber_-utilitarian, with the whole "increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" _schtick_.  What next, death lotteries so that "the sum of happiness" can be increased through the assiduous assignment of the "winners' " body parts to those in medical need?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> No it's not fucking it. He's talking about euthanasia. So fuck off with yer absolute bollocks ffs. cunt.
> 
> What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer?



Thinking that "Animal Rights" is a load of pish, presumably.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

Just as well philosophers are rarely kings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Christ, that peter singer guy is revolting.



He can be. It's hard to work out sometimes where argument (i.e. academic debate, where you take a position so as to examine it) shades into opinion in some of his books.  Same with a lot of the utilitarians, especially the bioethicists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He can be. It's hard to work out sometimes where argument (i.e. academic debate, where you take a position so as to examine it) shades into opinion in some of his books.  Same with a lot of the utilitarians, especially the bioethicists.


Utilitarian arguments always seem to be missing something crucial. I see where he's coming from with his 'postnatal abortion' idea - many adult animals appear to be far more cognitively advanced than even a healthy newborn. But has he never held a baby and felt the connection? Some of his ideas feel like those of a psychopath, tbh, stripped of emotion.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But has he never held a baby and felt the connection?


 I think that's projection tbf. Have you never stroked a cat and known it loves you?


----------



## captainmission (Aug 22, 2014)

My uncle's got downs. I think if anyone meet him they'd struggle to characterising him as suffering a deficit of happiness. 

I think his follow up tweet is quite telling



> @InYourFaceNYer People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.
> 
> Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2014



useless eaters, right?


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

everything he's said to attempt to clarify his point has clarified that he's a total prick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think that's projection tbf. Have you never stroked a cat and known it loves you?


I don't think it is projection. From the minute we're born we start trying to make connections. We do it long before we even know that 'we' exist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think that's projection tbf. Have you never stroked a cat and known it loves you?


They don't! We're just feeders to them!


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> They don't! We're just feeders to them!


 yes, that was kind of my point.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> yes, that was kind of my point.


I see. Yeah, we can suspect it, but we can't know for sure. 
And not everyone feels whatever connection littlebabyjesus claims we have with babies.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Utilitarian arguments always seem to be missing something crucial. I see where he's coming from with his 'postnatal abortion' idea - many adult animals appear to be far more cognitively advanced than even a healthy newborn. But has he never held a baby and felt the connection? Some of his ideas feel like those of a psychopath, tbh, stripped of emotion.


He is a bit of a cold fish. As my cousin said on FB: "Dawkins is like a Vulcan, he upsets people then tells them they're not allowed to be upset because it's illogical."


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I see. Yeah, we can suspect it, but we can't know for sure.
> And not everyone feels whatever connection littlebabyjesus claims we have with babies.


I think the 'connection' he speaks of is a mixture of hormones and sentiment and animal instinct, which is almost all on the part of the adult.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

which isn't to say that Peter Singers' arguments aren't revolting - just strikes me that to refute them using sentimentality puts us on very shaky ground.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> which isn't to say that Peter Singers' arguments aren't revolting - just strikes me that to refute them using sentimentality puts us on very shaky ground.


When i see a baby i see spmeone who is learning furiously about the world around them. Someone in the process of becoming a person. An amazing process that we have all been through. Sure i'm predisposed to feel a connection. Sure the baby's presence stimulates hormones. Those 'sentimental'reactions of recognition predispose me to value the baby. But my reaction is based on more than that. It is also based on knowing something about what is going on in the superconnected brain. It may not be fully conscious yet but it is already human.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

it's is all about _you_ though lbj. The connection you feel is all your reactions & understanding of it's brain chemistry and whatever. the baby just wants some fucking milk and then a nap, thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> it's is all about _you_ though lbj. The connection you feel is all your reactions & understanding of it's brain chemistry and whatever. the baby just wants some fucking milk and then a nap, thanks.


No. A cat may be. A human baby no. A human baby is learning every second. And trying things out. So much so that by age 6  months it will be able to discern 'good doll' from 'evil doll'. 

A baby that was satisfied with milk and a nap would remain a baby for ever.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

Certainly at 6 months they have shit going on. I thought you were talking about newborns for some reason - although looking back it seems not.

However - I still maintain that the connection you feel when meeting a small baby is mainly in your head, and that not feeling it isn't particularly unusual or weird.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

At six months they have shit going on that required all kinds of other shit to have gone on previously to get to that stage.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

yes. very little of which involves a 'connection' with you.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> which isn't to say that Peter Singers' arguments aren't revolting - just strikes me that to refute them using sentimentality puts us on very shaky ground.



I think its also potentially shaky ground if we write too broad a range of things off as simple sentimentality.

I could perhaps make a connection between the critique of utilitarianism with the sort of phenomenon that happen when bureaucracy meets real people in messy situations. But which word is the right one to use when trying to quickly identify the bad things that can happen with that mix. Cruel, cold, blunt, lacking in humanity, lacking in empathy, lacking soul? I suppose I could attempt to tackle this by running away from anything that involves emotion or sentimentality by instead suggesting that the problem is one of generalised rules and beliefs not making sufficient allowances for the reality of a particular situation.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

elbows said:


> I think its also potentially shaky ground if we write too broad a range of things off as simple sentimentality.


I agree. However, I think this


littlebabyjesus said:


> But has he never held a baby and felt the connection?


_is_ simple sentimentality.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Those 'sentimental'reactions of recognition predispose me to value the baby. But my reaction is based on more than that. It is also based on knowing something about what is going on in the superconnected brain. It may not be fully conscious yet but it is already human.



The question following on from that is 'so what?'  It's just adding speciesism to sentimentality.  The same mixture of non-logic that leads people to conclude that the sanctity of life justifies the death penalty.


----------



## CNT36 (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Certainly at 6 months they have shit going on. I thought you were talking about newborns for some reason - although looking back it seems not.
> 
> However - I still maintain that the connection you feel when meeting a small baby is mainly in your head, and that not feeling it isn't particularly unusual or weird.


And the fact that it is often considered weird or unusual can have a negative effect on a lot of parents.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

Esp for mothers with PND.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

yes, completely. the expectation that one must feel complete love for a baby can make it very difficult to deal with the range of actual feelings one might have that are outside that (but still completely normal).


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

I didn't really feel much of a connection to babies til people close to me started having them. Thought they were cute n all but in the same way kittens are.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dawkins' clarification puts him across as some kind of _uber_-utilitarian, with the whole "increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" _schtick_.  What next, death lotteries so that "the sum of happiness" can be increased through the assiduous assignment of the "winners' " body parts to those in medical need?


Gets be thinking, just how many people would be really happy to see Dawkins have his nuts bashed in with a hammer?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2014)

Not many. Eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> The question following on from that is 'so what?'  It's just adding speciesism to sentimentality.  The same mixture of non-logic that leads people to conclude that the sanctity of life justifies the death penalty.


Everyone keeps trying to use logic as a sensible basis for morality. It isn't and can't be. Even someone like Singer isn't merely using logic in his defence of animal rights. At some point in everyone's moral code is a judgement with no basis in logic. 

One of my non-logic-based judgements is that a baby human displays such a furious desire to learn, and also such a patently human range of emotions, that it crosses a certain crucial threshold to personhood even before it can be considered to be fully conscious. But that's not a judgement based on logic, and cannot be. 

Singer-style arguments seeking to overcome the need for such judgements, seeking an _objective_ basis for morality, can lead, imo, to abhorrent behaviour. Such as the behaviour that is still common among doctors to treat children born without a cerebral cortex as if they were unfeeling blobs unworthy of consideration, even where they clearly display human emotional responses. _Pah, the thing can't even think_, goes the reasoning, as pain is inflicted callously.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Certainly at 6 months they have shit going on. I thought you were talking about newborns for some reason - although looking back it seems not.
> 
> However - I still maintain that the connection you feel when meeting a small baby is mainly in your head, and that not feeling it isn't particularly unusual or weird.



They have shit going on from the beginning, preferring mother's voice at birth , for example, preferring parents faces, and faces that make eye contact.  Prosocial behavior, making a connection, is there from birth.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> <big snip, but then the whole quote is right there tbf>



Fair comeback, especially with regard to your not claiming every moral instinct to be based on logic.  I think at least Singer and Dawkins draw parallel situations to highlight where emotion is causing us to make 'special cases' in certain circumstances.

I can see where applying cold logic can lead to conclusions that are emotionally difficult, but emotion-driven reasoning is at least as bad in my opinion.  Utilitarianism starts with an emotionally-satisfying proposition and applies logic from there.  When the conclusions look iffy they're worth examining, but I think it's a case of examination rather than chucking them out immediately.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> They have shit going on from the beginning, preferring mother's voice at birth , for example, preferring parents faces, and faces that make eye contact.  Prosocial behavior, making a connection, is there from birth.


yeah, but it's tiny, subtle stuff. Not something so self evident that anyone would pick up on it on being handed a baby, which was what lbj seemed to be suggesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah, but it's tiny, subtle stuff. Not something so self evident that anyone would pick up on it on being handed a baby, which was what lbj seemed to be suggesting.


I put it in emotive terms. Partly on purpose. Partly because I was posting in haste. But I absolutely stand by the idea behind it - this is a philosopher we're talking about, a philosopher pronouncing on the legitimacy of postnatal abortion.


----------



## Ole (Aug 23, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I put it in emotive terms. Partly on purpose. Partly because I was posting in haste. But I absolutely stand by the idea behind it - this is a philosopher we're talking about, a philosopher pronouncing on the legitimacy of postnatal abortion.



God forbid philosophers pronounce on hypotheticals.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah, but it's tiny, subtle stuff. Not something so self evident that anyone would pick up on it on being handed a baby, which was what lbj seemed to be suggesting.



I don't agree. The eye contact made by a newborn is pretty powerful, not something that needs frame by frame video analysis.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2014)

they always look powerfully confused to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> they always look powerfully confused to me.



It must be a bit of a shock


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> Certainly at 6 months they have shit going on. I thought you were talking about newborns for some reason - although looking back it seems not.
> 
> However - I still maintain that the connection you feel when meeting a small baby is mainly in your head, and that not feeling it isn't particularly unusual or weird.



I think that "truth" lies somewhere between yours and lbj's views, and that while we as as a species are psychologically-predisposed to protect and nurture the young, and have developed physiological mechanism to reinforce such behaviour (basic species perpetuation behaviour). We also, however, tend to see a purpose in actively seeking connection with the young, because it's emtionally-beneficial to us as individuals *and* because it's socially-beneficial to us as communities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> yes. very little of which involves a 'connection' with you.



It requires a connection with *someone*, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Gets be thinking, just how many people would be really happy to see Dawkins have his nuts bashed in with a hammer?



Hmm, lets see:
2 people who would benefit from his corneas, 
2 people who'd benefit from his kidneys,
I person who'd benefit from his heart,
1 person who'd benefit from his liver,
2 people who'd benefit from his lungs

So, that'd be a minimum of eight people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> It must be a bit of a shock



Who w*ouldn't* be shocked by suddenly being faced with killer b 's fizzog looming over them?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2014)

Ole said:


> God forbid philosophers pronounce on hypotheticals.



G-d forbid philosophers pronounce on anything. It usually ends in tears.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

Wow... This is a new low for Dick:


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2014)

oh my days


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 13, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Wow... This is a new low for Dick:



 Problem is that despite himself he is right. That is the attitude of police and the courts. It is why victims are judged, examined and their lives dissected. It is the way things are. Pity Dawkins seems to feel that is how it should be.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

Dawkins also tweeted (then deleted):

The REAL rape culture: "all occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2014)

this is what he does with his saturdays now, troll twitter with his thoughts on rape.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2014)

He also posted






yesterday. Because being raped is like driving drunk.


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 13, 2014)

Christ.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 13, 2014)

Bloody hell.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

Scumbag.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 13, 2014)

Victims are behaving "appallingly" when they seek legal redress for rape if they were intoxicated?

Takes the term "wanker" to a whole new level. I suppose vulnerability isn't logical. Vulcan tosser.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 13, 2014)

He'll probably come out with his shit about applying the scientific method to courts by tea time.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 13, 2014)

I wonder if he's spent too much time in the USA - their legal system seems that much more "technical".


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2014)

christ almighty. I'd rather god existed than Dawkins


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 13, 2014)

I wonder if he's going a bit senile.
I think Twitter is definitely a young person's thing.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2014)

I'm now waiting for his lengthy Oxbridge academic plausibility statement to explain what he _actually_ meant and why he's so hard-done-by by the reaction to his tweets. Again.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2014)

Fucksake. Someone should really remind him of the the old adage 

"when you're in a hole, stop digging, you utter cunt"


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 13, 2014)

What a cunt. Obtuse, tendentious, baiting garbage. All that terrible learning, but he has acquired no wisdom.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 13, 2014)

Makes you wonder what his third wife thinks about the crap he comes out with.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 13, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Makes you wonder what his third wife thinks about the crap he comes out with.



Not really. Who cares?


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 13, 2014)

It's surreal that he comes out with this crap when this date rape case involving some rapper called Cee Lo Green is apparently in the news.
I only know about it because I subscribe to this Youtube Channel.



Spoiler: Youtube video


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 13, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> It's surreal that he comes out with this crap when this date rape case involving some rapper called Cee Lo Green is apparently in the news.
> I only know about it because I subscribe to this Youtube Channel.
> 
> 
> ...




What's surreal is that you would come out with this crap.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 13, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What's surreal is that you would come out with this crap.


Started early on the sauce today?


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Started early on the sauce today?



Ha! Not early for me.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2014)

It is somehow as if Richard Dawkins has suddenly come over all Katie Hopkins!

Why would he do that?


----------



## 8den (Sep 13, 2014)

Can we just break his fingers and cut out his tongue, and pretend he died just after finishing the "The God Delusion"?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is somehow as if Richard Dawkins has suddenly come over all Katie Hopkins!
> 
> Why would he do that?


Fnerk


----------



## 8den (Sep 13, 2014)

Working theory. Theologians are spiking his drinking water with Meow Meow.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2014)

Richard Dawkins: At Least He's Not Sam Harris*


* Though He Is Sam Harris' Mate


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

Sam Harris is also a nasty sexist (among other things):


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Richard Dawkins: At Least He's Not Sam Harris*
> 
> 
> * Though He Is Sam Harris' Mate


A 'friend' who has recently gone racist, has urged me to read long Sam Harris blogs when i called him out on his Islamaphobia. Was I right not to bother reading them?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> A 'friend' who has recently gone racist, has urged me to read long Sam Harris blogs when i called him out in his Islamaphobia. Was I right not to bothers reading them?


Yes, unless you want somebody new on the Internet to hate, and frankly he doesn't provide anything new over any of the other bigots.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

Sam Harris is a classic neo-colonial racist: "The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan." Rationalism as a cloak for disgusting views. Dawkins' loves him though.


----------



## toggle (Sep 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> I'm now waiting for his lengthy Oxbridge academic plausibility statement to explain what he _actually_ meant and why he's so hard-done-by by the reaction to his tweets. Again.



no doubt with the inclusion that the only reason he's having to explain is that everybody other than him is hard of thinking. rather than he's a cunt who thinks he's a fucking expert in everything. he's the sort of academic that other academics describe as a arrogant nightmare.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I think Twitter is definitely a young person's thing.


No. All ages use it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> no doubt with the inclusion that the only reason he's having to explain is that everybody other than him is hard of thinking. rather than he's a cunt who thinks he's a fucking expert in everything. he's the sort of academic that other academics describe as a arrogant nightmare.


What's academia got to do with it? He's a person talking crap.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 14, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No. All ages use it.


It seems to encourage shooting from the hip.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I wonder if he's going a bit senile.
> I think Twitter is definitely a young person's thing.


Is Dawkins doing twitter wrong because he's old then?


----------



## 8den (Sep 14, 2014)

I am troubled by the level of misogyny in atheist circles.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 14, 2014)

8den said:


> I am troubled by the level of misogyny in atheist circles.


I wonder how it compares with the level of misogyny in non-atheist circles ?
But I'm with you - one expects a lot more of people who supposedly make an effort to engage their brains.
I've only recently been actively seeking out atheist commentators and I am learning to search their material for keywords such as "feminist" before subscribing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 14, 2014)

Quite a lengthy piece on Buzzfeed recently about - Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?


----------



## 8den (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I wonder how it compares with the level of misogyny in non-atheist circles ?
> But I'm with you - one expects a lot more of people who supposedly make an effort to engage their brains.
> I've only recently been actively seeking out atheist commentators and I am learning to search their material for keywords such as "feminist" before subscribing.



Basically this.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Quite a lengthy piece on Buzzfeed recently about - Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?





> But according to PZ Myers, atheists and skeptics may be uniquely unable to recognize their own flaws. “You’ll find the atheists who say, ‘I’m rational, therefore I’m better than everybody else,’” Myers said. “They take it for granted that all of their beliefs and positions are founded on rational thinking.”


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

So where is the crossover with gaming/dressing up/fantasy stuff that seems to share many of the the same hideous traits? That's pretty irrational stuff.

(Of course, using the common sense use of rational).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> But according to PZ Myers, atheists and skeptics may be uniquely unable to recognize their own flaws. “You’ll find the atheists who say, ‘I’m rational, therefore I’m better than everybody else,’” Myers said. “They take it for granted that all of their beliefs and positions are founded on rational thinking.”


I think that's a big statement that's almost certainly untrue. Sure, anyone who thinks 'I'm better than everybody else' is likely not to recognise their own flaws. But Myers makes an equivalence here: 'atheists' and 'skeptics' think they are better than non-atheists and non-skeptics. I'm sure some do, but then some religious folk think themselves superior to non-religious folk too.

That piece fm linked to does seem rather weak in its central argument. Penn Jillette called a woman a 'cunt', and doesn't apologise for it. But Penn Jillette also says 'don't look at me for a role model'. And whatever you think about his position on gendered insults, it isn't coming from an anti-woman place.

The blog says:



> But movements cannot, if they are to continue growing, be led by men who talk like Penn Jillette or act like Michael Shermer. Their language and behavior would be a huge problem if they sought a political career, a Supreme Court nomination, or a college presidency, yet they are exalted as leaders of an ethical and philosophical movement.



Right, so the standard here is the hypocritical standard of established institutions? Does this 'ethical and philosophical movement' not exist in part in order to challenge that hypocrisy?


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 14, 2014)

The standard clearly needs to be higher. 

Sadly a lot of the people who would be calling them to task are young men brought up on "loaded" and "HM" and computer games who think the feminist fight is over.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> The standard clearly needs to be higher.


This isn't my movement, so it's not for me to say exactly what the standard needs to be, but it needs to be _different_, I would think, rather than higher. The hypocrisy of the standard applied to politicians is such that their private lives never live up to the public presentation. If I were in a movement like this one, I'd want there to be a standard that people could realistically live up to - and that would be one that doesn't ask people to be saints. 

Sexual harassment is one thing, but Penn Jillette makes a case for gendered insults. He should not be allowed to hog the stage. Those who disagree with him should be allowed their time on the stage too. And that is a difference, surely, in such a movement - that no one individual or group claims authority. Any group that calls itself 'freethinking' needs to allow for a fair bit of disagreement between its members.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

There are far more religious mysogynists than atheist as a percentage.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> There are far more religious mysogynists than atheist as a percentage.


Have you the official figures to hand?

Do you mean as a proportion?


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you the official figures to hand?
> 
> Do you mean as a proportion?



A percentage of each 'belief system'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> A percentage of each 'belief system'.


Not just as a percentage then. 

You have the official figures ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2014)

its not a competition


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Makes you wonder what his third wife thinks about the crap he comes out with.



Probably something along the lines of "hemlock or strychnine in his porridge?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's academia got to do with it? He's a person talking crap.



TBF Dawkins does use his academic and authorial status in order to project his views and lend them credibility (who'd listen to him if he were Joe Cunt down the pub?), so I can see why some academics might feel that his doing so is "bad" for academe. Dawkins, however, seems to be a member of the "all publicity is good publicity" school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> It seems to encourage shooting from the hip.



Only in people who usually shoot from the hip.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not just as a percentage then.
> 
> You have the official figures ?



Majority of religious teachings are patriachal, wether it be Islam or Chritianity, the word of God if you will, that is misogyny in itself, follow those religions and you adhere to those beliefs.

Take from that what you want.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

8den said:


> I am troubled by the level of misogyny in atheist circles.



Because it's higher than in the general population, or because our prominent atheists have a solid handle on self-publicising and promoting their views?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF Dawkins does use his academic and authorial status in order to project his views and lend them credibility (who'd listen to him if he were Joe Cunt down the pub?), so I can see why some academics might feel that his doing so is "bad" for academe. Dawkins, however, seems to be a member of the "all publicity is good publicity" school.


Too right, and he's good at using twitter to that end that - normally. I think he may have over estimated his talents this time though - as the rapid deletions indicate. There has to be good content the publicity points to - this time  lack of it, and how revealing it is about how he thinks, has become the content.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> Majority of religious teachings are patriachal, wether it be Islam or Chritianity, the word of God if you will, that is misogyny in itself, follow those religions and you adhere to those beliefs.
> 
> Take from that what you want.


Ok, i will. You don't have the figures - there are none - and made a glib unsupported and question begging assertion.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, i will. You don't have the figures - there are none - and made a glib unsupported and question begging assertion.



As is the assertion that Athiests are misogynists, also unsubstantiated, that doesn't deter people on this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> As is the assertion that Athiests are misogynists, also unsubstantiated, that doesn't deter people on this thread.


No one has said anything as daft as that though have they? And your claim that your daft post was just an inversion of such posts is nonsense - a) they don't exist and b) you made fresh new claims. You made a specific claim - and you cannot back it up except by circular logic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Quite a lengthy piece on Buzzfeed recently about - Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?



Interesting.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No one has said anything as daft as that though have they? And your claim that your daft post was just an inversion of such posts is nonsense - a) they don't exist and b) you made fresh new claims. You made a specific claim - and you cannot back it up except by circular logic.





> I am troubled by the level of misogyny in atheist circles.



For one, my statement was a reply to that, my shitty iPad didn't manage to quote it, there are others and I notice that you didn't ask for figures for those posts either.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

How would one quantify 'troubling' levels of misogyny?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> For one, my statement was a reply to that, my shitty iPad didn't manage to quote it, there are others and I notice that you didn't ask for figures for those posts either.


You meant to reply to a post that didn't say that atheists are misogynists in order to assert that the post said that atheists are misogynists?

i didn't ask for figures from any other posts because no other posters were daft enough to suggest they had figures to show that misogyny is more prevalent in the religious.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

Oh do fuck off Butchers, you know exactly what I was saying, stop being a twat for once.

Not being Mysogynist, or even racist, is not a prerequisite for being Athiest.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> Oh do fuck off Butchers, you know exactly what I was saying, stop being a twat for once.
> 
> Not being Mysogynist, or even racist, is not a prerequisite for being Athiest.


Who on earth, other than, you suggested that it was?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> How would one quantify 'troubling' levels of misogyny?



Ideally, by establishing a baseline of "zero misogyny", and treating any manifestation above that baseline as a "troubling" level.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ideally, by establishing a baseline of "zero misogyny", and treating any manifestation above that baseline as a "troubling" level.


Problem is, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes misogyny. Some think gendered insults by men at women are always misogynistic. Others don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes misogyny. Some think gendered insults by men at women are always misogynistic. Others don't.


Fair enough - but a scene where gendered insults are so common as to cause arguments suggests something is going on. There a line here for some people clearly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough - but a scene where gendered insults are so common as to cause arguments suggests something is going on. There a line here for some people clearly.


It does. I don't have a position on the specific case I brought up because it's not my argument and also not my culture - Americans use the word cunt quite differently from us. But in this case, as long as everyone gets their say on the stage and the argument is thrashed out in full, is there any need for consensus at the end of it?

A general principle along the lines of urban's 'don't be a dick' could apply during debates, no? That general principle doesn't detail every way it is possible to be a dick, and shouldn't have to. I'm far more inclined towards 'principle-based' guidelines, rather than 'rules-based'. Rules can never adequately cover every scenario.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes misogyny. Some think gendered insults by men at women are always misogynistic. Others don't.



I'm not sure the calculus here is particularly complex: *If* your male verbal interaction with a female "requires" the use of a gendered insult, it's "always misogynistic", unless the context specifically indicates otherwise.  This includes those areas usually excused, such as comedy.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who on earth, other than, you suggested that it was?



No I didn't. 8eden did in a roundabout way, alongside GG.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure the calculus here is particularly complex: *If* your male verbal interaction with a female "requires" the use of a gendered insult, it's "always misogynistic", unless the context specifically indicates otherwise.  This includes those areas usually excused, such as comedy.


I don't know that that works because we're stuck with the language we have. For instance, 'cunt' as used by me is primarily reserved for men. As are dickhead and wanker. Terms of insult for a woman might be 'bitch' or 'cow'. They are used because the target is a woman - but only really in the same way that 'she' is used for a woman and 'he' for a man. The misogynistic bit would come in through the implication that said woman was acting as she was 'because she's a woman, and that's what women do, the bitches'. But that's far from always the case, and many women will call each other 'bitch' or 'cow' without a trace of self-hatred.

So... context. General principles rather than prescribed rules.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

I just call women dickheads and wankers too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> I just call women dickheads and wankers too.



Although, to be fair, they usually call you much worse first.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> I just call women dickheads and wankers too.


ok. that's a good solution. But would you accept that there is not necessarily implied misogyny when a man uses a gendered insult towards a woman? Nor implied misandry when a woman uses one towards a man. I tend towards Penn Jillette's position that language-policing of this kind is in danger of being very patronising.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

It is in danger of being patronising, of course. That's the risk you run when you choose to tell someone you think something they are doing is wrong, and why. I don't think that necessarily means it's the wrong thing to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> It is in danger of being patronising, of course. That's the risk you run when you choose to tell someone you think something they are doing is wrong, and why. I don't think that necessarily means it's the wrong thing to do.


He thinks it's patronising _towards women_ to think that they need protecting in this way. This forum is an example of this imbalance - a man can be called any name you want, but call a woman a bitch and you're in deep shit. That was Jillette's point - that people are seeking to proscribe certain insults towards women while any insult towards a man still goes.

The blogger lumps Jillette together with an alleged sex-pest at the end. I don't think that is helpful at all.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

Is that true? I mean, I can't really think of that many gendered insults for men that have quite the same cultural weight of 'bitch', or 'slag', for example. Insults that rely on expectations of how someone of that gender should behave... not that are in regular use anyway. Can you?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

_Who _and _how_.

When it becomes so used that it's impossible to ask those  question then there's something else going on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> Is that true? I mean, I can't really think of that many gendered insults for men that have quite the same cultural weight of 'bitch', or 'slag', for example. Insults that rely on expectations of how someone of that gender should behave... not that are in regular use anyway. Can you?


I agree that slag carries expectations, but what expectations does the word 'bitch' imply? Or cow? 

It's all about context for me. An insult may imply that a woman isn't behaving correctly for a woman (patronising misogyny), or that a woman is behaving like all women do (woman-hating misogyny), or it may simply be directed at her and her behaviour (no misogyny). Thatcher the bitch, for instance.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> There are far more religious mysogynists than atheist as a percentage.



So perhaps we should just shut up about it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> So perhaps we should just shut up about it?


Until his figures show its level pegging at least.


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> How would one quantify 'troubling' levels of misogyny?



We could always get Dawkins to pronounce (pontificate?) on it. He'd probably be happy to make some helpful statement like



> We must not lump all misogynists into the same bracket


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Until his figures show its level pegging at least.



As has been asked, what is a troubling number?


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

that wasn't what I was asking.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> As has been asked, what is a troubling number?


Nah, you won't get me that way. I'm not making a specific claim that i can't back up - you did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure the calculus here is particularly complex: *If* your male verbal interaction with a female "requires" the use of a gendered insult, it's "always misogynistic", unless the context specifically indicates otherwise.  This includes those areas usually excused, such as comedy.


How about where the interaction didn't require a gendered insult, you merely chose to use one? Insults are intended to be insulting, after all, and I would judge that many people will choose gendered insults just because that's their normal language usage, with no wider implications intended about women in general at all.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

Of course they do. Does that mean it shouldn't be challenged?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> There are far more religious mysogynists than atheist as a percentage.



On the contrary, the reverse is the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> Of course they do. Does that mean it shouldn't be challenged?


If there is no misogyny intended, what is there to challenge?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If there is no misogyny intended, what is there to challenge?


The idea that intention equals action.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 14, 2014)

How do you know for certain what is intended? Challenging perhaps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> How do you know for certain what is intended? .


Context. Words on their own are not misogynistic. Sentiments are, expressed in context using a combination of words. You're in danger of alienating people if you try to police their language even when the sentiment is not there.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

I think 'policing language' is a very loaded term. Challenging people about their use of language isn't necessarily policing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Language _should _be policed. By us.

But language and content are two different things. That's how jimmy carr and others make their money. If your language is designed to be misogynistic racist etc - to support that sort of content - then yeah, time to get policed. And the use use of language that normalises that misogyny or racism, yeah,you're goingh to be policed by normal people too. This is how we can use other terms in different situations but not all situations. I shouldn't be typing this. We all live it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about where the interaction didn't require a gendered insult, you merely chose to use one? Insults are intended to be insulting, after all, and I would judge that many people will choose gendered insults just because that's their normal language usage, with no wider implications intended about women in general at all.



If we deconstruct your post, then it at the very least appears that you're sayiing that "many people" can make use of gendered insults in general conversation/interaction without being misogynist through doing so.
I'd conversely state that gendered insults aren't merely a subsection of insult, they're a specific addition to an insult with (disregarding contextual exceptions) a specific purpose.  That specific purpose is often misogynistic. Why else would you bother to gender it, if not to make an issue of gender?


----------



## 8den (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> There are far more religious mysogynists than atheist as a percentage.



A) I know that. 

B) One of the reasons I'm a atheist is because of the misogyny of the christian faith, it's troubling that sexism exists among the peer group I joined. I should add I'm a member of James Randi Education Forum, that TAM is the really world met up of. And the casual sexism among that group troubles me deeply.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

8den said:


> A) I know that.
> 
> B) One of the reasons I'm a atheist is because of the misogyny of the christian faith, it's troubling that sexism exists among the peer group I joined. I should add I'm a member of James Randi Education Forum, that TAM is the really world met up of. And the casual sexism among that group troubles me deeply.


Would you say the atheists are more or less sexist than non-atheists?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2014)

how often do you go on this athiest forum? once every sunday plus christenings and funerals?


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Language _should _be policed. By us.


OK, fair enough - I think the term is often used in a _PC gone mad / faminazis shutting down the discussion_ way though. I don't expect LBJ meant it like that though, so it's probably ok.


----------



## toggle (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know that that works because we're stuck with the language we have. For instance, 'cunt' as used by me is primarily reserved for men. As are dickhead and wanker. Terms of insult for a woman might be 'bitch' or 'cow'. They are used because the target is a woman - but only really in the same way that 'she' is used for a woman and 'he' for a man. The misogynistic bit would come in through the implication that said woman was acting as she was 'because she's a woman, and that's what women do, the bitches'. But that's far from always the case, and many women will call each other 'bitch' or 'cow' without a trace of self-hatred.
> 
> So... context. General principles rather than prescribed rules.




i think you're right in that 'cunt' doesn't tend to be a particularly gendered term over here, he's a cunt, she's a cunt, they're all cunts. in the US,  i assume that piece is mostly based on their perspective, it is almost exclusively aimed at women and most often is considered to be sexist abuse


----------



## 8den (Sep 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> how often do you go on this athiest forum? once every sunday plus christenings and funerals?



Dont be a dick Dotc. i joined the forum because its honest to god the finest place to debunk conspiracy theories like 9/11. Much of the stuff I've posted when debating with Jazzz or Taffy comes from posters on the JREF. Does anyone remember that fantastic take down of Jazzz's bullshit by a poster who turned up here called "The Architect"? JREF forum member I pm'd and asked him to contribute to that thread.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Would you say the atheists are more or less sexist than non-atheists?



I have no earthly idea. Its just I expected better behaviour from people who claim to be rational human beings who use critical thinking.


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> he's a cunt, she's a cunt, they're all cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok. that's a good solution. But would you accept that there is not necessarily implied misogyny when a man uses a gendered insult towards a woman? Nor implied misandry when a woman uses one towards a man. I tend towards Penn Jillette's position that language-policing of this kind is in danger of being very patronising.



"Language policing" tends to be a bit of a "moveable feast", though, in my experience. It's more often deployed as a general trope to excuse bad behaviour, i.e. "I can't take issue because that would mean policing someone's language", than as a politically-correct device preventing the expression of particular views or opinions.


----------



## toggle (Sep 14, 2014)

8den said:


> I have no earthly idea. Its just I expected better behaviour from people who claim to be rational human beings who use critical thinking.



unfortunately, there's more than a few that manage to combine going against the status qup in one area with desperately hanging onto it in others. hanging onto gender discrimination for dear life isn't uncommon, but i can think of others.


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2014)

8den said:


> A) I know that.
> 
> B) *One of the reasons I'm a atheist is because of the misogyny of the christian faith*, it's troubling that sexism exists among the peer group I joined. I should add I'm a member of James Randi Education Forum, that TAM is the really world met up of. And the casual sexism among that group troubles me deeply.



Really? I find that surprising to be honest. The reason I'm an atheist is simply because I don't believe in God.

I don't find it necessary or useful to consider I belong to a peer group as a result, and I don't assume other atheists are more likely to share any of my other beliefs or opinions simply because they happen to share that one.

It's troubling that sexism exists full stop, IMO, and I suggest you'll find it within more or less any group you examine, to a greater or lesser extent.



8den said:


> I have no earthly idea. Its just I expected better behaviour from people who claim to be rational human beings who use critical thinking.



Unfortunately, just because people claim to be rational human beings who use critical thinking, doesn't always mean they are.


----------



## 8den (Sep 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Really? I find that surprising to be honest. The reason I'm an atheist is simply because I don't believe in God.



I said *one of* I didn't say it's a major reason, I just said it's a reason. 



> I don't find it necessary or useful to consider I belong to a peer group as a result, and I don't assume other atheists are more likely to share any of my other beliefs or opinions simply because they happen to share that one.



Like I said I joined the JREF forum for a very specific reason. 

I don't consider urban to be a peer group but I belong to it. 



> It's troubling that sexism exists full stop, IMO, and I suggest you'll find it within more or less any group you examine, to a greater or lesser extent.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, just because people claim to be rational human beings who use critical thinking, doesn't always mean they are.



Yes but among a group of forum members in a forum that was created to "promote critical thinking?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> As has been asked, what is a troubling number?



He asked how you'd *quantify* a "troubling number", not what percentage or volume might constitute it.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He asked how you'd *quantify* a "troubling number", not what percentage or volume might constitute it.



_i _is quite a troubling number to a lot of people.


----------



## snadge (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, you won't get me that way. I'm not making a specific claim that i can't back up - you did.





phildwyer said:


> On the contrary, the reverse is the case.



Something stinks here.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

snadge said:


> Something stinks here.


You daft assertion? The one you have been unable to back up?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 14, 2014)

This latest Dawkins escapade is basically all about fellow skeptic/atheist  Michael Shermer.  Who was accused of taking advantage of someone by plying them with booze whilst hiding his own consumption.  

There wasn't enough evidence to stick. 

The 'atheist community' is full of awful misogyny.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm sure mr shermer will be delighted to have his case highlighted by Dawkins so publically.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 15, 2014)

.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This latest Dawkins escapade is basically all about fellow skeptic/atheist  Michael Shermer.  Who was accused of taking advantage of someone by plying them with booze whilst hiding his own consumption.
> 
> There wasn't enough evidence to stick.
> 
> The 'atheist community' is full of awful misogyny.




thats all covered in the buzzfeed article posted earlier.

I thought athiests just didn't believe in god- I didn't realise they had away days in conference halls like some modern day robespierrian cult of reason lol


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> thats all covered in the buzzfeed article posted earlier.
> 
> I thought athiests just didn't believe in god- I didn't realise they had away days in conference halls like some modern day robespierrian cult of reason lol



There is a 'Sunday Assembly' where they gather to read aloud from Dawkins and sing songs by Elbow. 

http://sundayassembly.com/


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2014)

'one of the observers top 50 new radicals'

there is no higher endorsment.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2014)




----------



## andysays (Sep 15, 2014)

8den said:


> ...Yes but among a group of forum members in a forum that was created to "promote critical thinking?"



I don't want to dismiss or even comment on this particular group, because frankly I neither know nor care enough about it to do so, but don't you think there's at least a possibility of claims of setting up a group to promote critical thinking actually meaning promoting particular individuals as (allegedly) critical thinkers?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> thats all covered in the buzzfeed article posted earlier.
> 
> I thought athiests just didn't believe in god- I didn't realise they had away days in conference halls like some modern day robespierrian cult of reason lol



I didn't realise that you'd posted it.  Was about to do it myself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I didn't realise that you'd posted it.  Was about to do it myself.



not I m8, Frdgemagnet!


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 15, 2014)

They get into difficulties when fundie Creationism is automatically linked with right wing politics. There are some pro-life atheists - presumably some atheists are Republicans.

Thunderf00t has more than a little of the Dawkins arrogance.

I'm not sure what AronRa's day job is ...



Spoiler: youtube video


----------



## two sheds (Sep 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't want to dismiss or even comment on this particular group, because frankly I neither know nor care enough about it to do so, but don't you think there's at least a possibility of claims of setting up a group to promote critical thinking actually meaning promoting particular individuals as (allegedly) critical thinkers?



Interestingly enough the ones on the Randi forum (or ex Randi forum, it's just been split off) who make the most vocal claims as being skeptics are the White Mens' Rights types who examine very critically claims that minorities are discriminated against but accept (for example) statements from the police as gospel. It's the sort of skepticism that Christians are comfortable with - skepticism of the opposing point of view but blind acceptance of their own: skepticism you can drive a bus through.

I prefer Metabunk for debunking type threads, very focused, all polite and very well referenced.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 15, 2014)

Thunderf00t has been banned from twitter.  Presumably he broke the TOS.

It's very amusing watching all the manbabies cry.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 15, 2014)

Was that for his virtual Koran (deleting) thing ?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 15, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Was that for his virtual Koran (deleting) thing ?



No it's cos social justice warriors hate free speech and love censorship.. .  Apparently. 

(dunno why..)


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> There is a 'Sunday Assembly' where they gather to read aloud from Dawkins and sing songs by Elbow.
> 
> http://sundayassembly.com/


 thing is, I can see what they're getting at with an idea like this - there's loads of social benefit to be had from attending a weekly community gathering, which is what a religious congregation is most of all, imo. But the practice, when it happens, is _always_ hideous.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 15, 2014)

I have this idea pencilled in about coming up with a secular "grace" before meals - without it being too hippy-dippy - if only something to help my overeating.
I probably watched the Waltons far too much.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2014)

' I hold this food to be self evident'


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2014)

killer b said:


> thing is, I can see what they're getting at with an idea like this - there's loads of social benefit to be had from attending a weekly community gathering, which is what a religious congregation is most of all, imo. But the practice, when it happens, is _always_ hideous.


They sound like the sort of people who'd draw up an agenda for a few pints and minute any discussion. Whilst saying _we are now in the pub having a pint and talking to each other._


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They sound like the sort of people who'd draw up an agenda for a few pints and minute any discussion. Whilst saying _we are now in the pub having a pint and talking to each other._


It always seems so po-faced and serious when I've come across groups like this. I'd love to hear about some examples who don't appear to be a load of pompous sneering arseholes, as in theory I'd like it to work. I'm not holding out much hope though...


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 15, 2014)

The only form of "religious" practice I've ever been drawn to is Buddhist - where there are few words spoken. Don't Quakers mostly just sit around quietly too ?


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

You don't even have to believe in god to be a quaker, apparently. However, they all look like Liberal Democrats to me.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 15, 2014)

The Quakers tremble in the way of the Lord. The Lib Dems tremble in the way of the Lord Rennard.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 15, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> The only form of "religious" practice I've ever been drawn to is Buddhist - where there are few words spoken. Don't Quakers mostly just sit around quietly too ?



Yes. One type of quaker service is as follows:



> Friends gather together in "expectant waiting upon God" to experience his still small voice leading them from within. There is no plan on how the meeting will proceed, and actual practice varies widely between Meetings and individual worship services. Friends believe that God plans what will happen, with his spirit leading people to speak. When an individual Quaker feels led to speak, he or she will rise to their feet and share a spoken message ("vocal ministry") in front of others. When this happens, Quakers believe that the spirit of God is speaking through the speaker. After someone has spoken, it is generally considered good etiquette to allow a few minutes pass in silence before further vocal ministry is given. Sometimes a meeting is entirely silent, sometimes many speak.



A Quaker wedding can be similar. You turn up, if anyone is moved to speak, they do. It can pass in silence, no vows need to be given, and at the end they are married in the eyes of God. I quite like the idea of that.

I am a Buddhist. I dont believe in God.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

sounds a bit like an AA meeting. similar roots, I expect.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 15, 2014)

killer b said:


> sounds a bit like an AA meeting. similar roots, I expect.



They are not similar at all in experience


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2014)

fair enough. I suppose sitting in a circle with silent bits and people talking sometimes can take a multitude of forms...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2014)

Oh dear.  Dawkins is now backing Christina Hoff Sommers from the American Enterprise Institute as a legit voice of feminism.

Will he be going to the Oil lobby for climate change "facts"?

Or the Tobacco lobby for "health facts"

A fall from grace indeed.


----------



## 8den (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Thunderf00t has been banned from twitter.  Presumably he broke the TOS.
> 
> It's very amusing watching all the manbabies cry.



I. I just. He's banned from twitter not because of what he said but because of people's reaction to what he said. 

Sarkeesian is a MONSTER


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)

Who is Thunderf00t?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Who is Thunderf00t?




some twonkwho needs to read more and play games less


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Oh dear.  Dawkins is now backing Christina Hoff Sommers from the American Enterprise Institute as a legit voice of feminism.
> 
> Will he be going to the Oil lobby for climate change "facts"?
> 
> ...



Why? Is Christina a man?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why? Is Christina a man?



No,  she's very outside the mainstream voice, and works for the American Enterprise Institute which is basically a neo conservative think tank, they worked very closely with the bush administration. An administration not very supportive of women's rights.  She's the David Duke of feminism basically - calls herself a "feminist" like David Duke calls himself a "civil rights activist" but supports everything that said group doesn't represent. Oldest trick in the book.

There's quite a good article on it here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/29/legitimate-differences-of-opinion/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Yes. One type of quaker service is as follows:



One thing that appeals to me about this is that there's no one person leading the service or setting the agenda.

 It's not the idea of spirituality or religious faith that causes so much trouble it's the cunts who set themselves up as intemediaries on behalf of the big yin; the better to pursue their own ends of holy war, child abuse, swindling large sums of money or simply feeling important despite being devoid of any actual importance.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think that's a big statement that's almost certainly untrue. Sure, anyone who thinks 'I'm better than everybody else' is likely not to recognise their own flaws. But Myers makes an equivalence here: 'atheists' and 'skeptics' think they are better than non-atheists and non-skeptics. I'm sure some do, but then some religious folk think themselves superior to non-religious folk too.



The problem does not lie with individual atheists imo, but rather with the particular icons that have emerged as key figures in the 'atheist movement' - a 'movement' of which most atheists are not part of. One of the central ideals that guides many of these 'new atheists' is the defence of 'reason'. There is a long history in Western philosophy of thinking of reason as opposed to emotion and associating men with the former and women with the later. Whilst this idea is rarely explicated these days, it still finds expression in an array of subtle and not-so-subtle contexts. Take this from Sam Harris that was posted earlier in this thread:  






Harris thinks that women are not attracted to the atheist movement because they confuse robust criticism with anger, i.e. they let their emotions get in the way of reason. Over the years I have noticed this sentiment being expressed in various social media platforms by new atheists, dismissing women as being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' in their arguments. Of course, this view point is held much more widely than by the new atheists, but I think it has particular salience for this group because they like to think of themselves as the torchbearers for reason.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Harris thinks that women are not attracted to the atheist movement because they confuse robust criticism with anger, i.e. they let their emotions get in the way of reason.


 
He more seems to be (clumsily) saying that it is _his _emotions that are getting in the way of reason.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> He more seems to be (clumsily) saying that it is _his _emotions that are getting in the way of reason.



I don't think so, he says that he is 'very critical of bad ideas' and that this '_can sound_ angry to people'. He's not saying that he is angry, merely that people misinterpret his criticism as anger.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I don't think so, he says that he is 'very critical of bad ideas' and that this '_can sound_ angry to people'. He's not saying that he is angry, merely that people misinterpret his criticism as anger.


 
Plenty of women report being put off politics by male adversarial posturing (though I'm sure some men do too)- looks like he's talking about the same thing here to me.

As for the 'vast majority of atheists being male', this seems like an iffy claim.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Why would Harris and people like that being cunts (or in their terms, _appearing _to be cunts) put women off especially?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Plenty of women report being put off politics by male adversarial posturing (though I'm sure some men do too)- looks like he's talking about the same thing here to me.



I don't think he is. He's presenting his adversarial posturing simply as rational engagement with ideas that women don't get because of their emotional way of thinking (they _mistake_ it for anger).


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)

Sam 'I'm not sexist' Harris uses his blog to qualify how he's not really sexist (rather miserably):

3. My work is often perceived (I believe unfairly) as unpleasantly critical, angry, divisive, etc. The work of other vocal atheists (male and female) has a similar reputation. *I believe that in general, men are more attracted to this style of communication than women are. Which is not to say there aren’t millions of acerbic women out there*, and many for whom Hitchens at his most cutting was a favorite source of entertainment. But just as we can say that men are _generally_ taller than women, without denying that _some_ women are taller than _most_ men, there are psychological differences between men and women which, considered _in the aggregate_, might explain why “angry atheism” attracts more of the former. Some of these differences are innate; some are surely the product of culture. Nothing in my remarks was meant to suggest that women can’t think as critically as men or that they are more likely to be taken in by bad ideas. Again, I was talking about _a fondness for a perceived style_ of religion bashing with which I and other vocal atheists are often associated.

4. I believe that a less “angry,” more “nurturing” style of discourse might attract more women to the cause of atheism.

"I am well aware that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society. However, they are not the only factors that explain differences in social status between men and women. For instance, only 5 percent of _Fortune_ 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families? How much is explained by normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes? I have no idea, but I am confident that each of these factors plays a role. Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be _entirely_ a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply."

No Sam, you evidently have not. 

"This malignant derangement of liberal ethics can be seen whenever a “feminist” expresses reservations about (my friend and hero) Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

Oh yes, must bash Islam too. With friends like that eh?

There is the occasional good point in there (domestic violence). But in typical fashion, his blog digs a bigger hole.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 17, 2014)

> ‘I’m rational, therefore I’m better than everybody else,’” ...“They take it for granted that all of their beliefs and positions are founded on rational thinking.”


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2014)

An example from a different era - Bertrand Russell in his debate with Coppleston. Russell does not cede any ground to Coppleston, nor hold punches in telling him how wrong he thinks his ideas are. But he attacks the ideas, not the man. He isn't setting himself up as better than anyone - he's attempting to explain how he thinks his ideas are correct, and the ideas of another incorrect. It is possible to do that without being arrogant.

As for Harris, I think he's a rare unifying figure on here. Don't we all think he's a twat?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I don't think so, he says that he is 'very critical of bad ideas' and that this '_can sound_ angry to people'. He's not saying that he is angry, merely that people misinterpret his criticism as anger.



We might want to critically examine his claim to be critical of bad ideas, though. Maybe it's that people are correctly recognising his "criticism" as not very substantial?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> ...As for the 'vast majority of atheists being male', this seems like an iffy claim.



That was one of the first things I noticed when I read the article. 

I suspect what is happening is that the Atheist Movement is being seen as identical with atheists in general (if you're not part of "the movement", you're not a proper atheist)


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)

Dawkins logic:


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Dawkins logic:




So are children not capable of deciding for themselves that they're Jewish, or Marxist or whatever?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

so raising children in a faith is child abuse. Which sort though? the sort of light noncing that dickie thinks is no big deal, or rotheram?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2014)

Just to refer back to the title of this thread, the more I see of Dawkins' pronouncements, the more I feel like giving him either a lumping or a punch up the bracket (apologies if someone has made that joke already...)


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No,  she's very outside the mainstream voice, and works for the American Enterprise Institute which is basically a neo conservative think tank, they worked very closely with the bush administration. An administration not very supportive of women's rights.  She's the David Duke of feminism basically - calls herself a "feminist" like David Duke calls himself a "civil rights activist" but supports everything that said group doesn't represent. Oldest trick in the book.
> 
> There's quite a good article on it here:
> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/29/legitimate-differences-of-opinion/


The local nut is a fan - 

http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so raising children in a faith is child abuse. Which sort though? the sort of light noncing that dickie thinks is no big deal, or rotheram?


In fact it is worse than child abuse. There was some religious kid from Northern Ireland in The God Delusion who said that being told a friend of hers was burning in hell for being on the wrong team was upsetting. She found this more upsetting than a bit of noncing. Logically from this anecdote all religion is worse than child abuse. It is a universal law.


----------



## toggle (Sep 17, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why? Is Christina a man?



what she promotes is a form of feminism that looks acceptable to social conservatives. the idea being that once you remove any legal impediment to women's achievement, then any further problems will dissapate in the face of good old fashioned hard work. it completely fails to recognise that the source of discrimination can be other than the state, ie, social attitudes towards women and differences in expectations and treatment by individuals. where women don't achieve well, this is because their talent lie elsewhere, in effect promoting the idea that men and women are 'separate but equal'.


----------



## toggle (Sep 17, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> The local nut is a fan -
> 
> http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/



oh fuck, not that one again.


----------



## toggle (Sep 17, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Harris thinks that women are not attracted to the atheist movement because they confuse robust criticism with anger, i.e. they let their emotions get in the way of reason. Over the years I have noticed this sentiment being expressed in various social media platforms by new atheists, dismissing women as being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' in their arguments. Of course, this view point is held much more widely than by the new atheists, but I think it has particular salience for this group because they like to think of themselves as the torchbearers for reason.



the underlying problem being that women are treated very differently when they stand their ground in debate. emotional and hysterical, yes. but also that women who stand their ground are more likely to be interpreted as overly aggressive.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> That was one of the first things I noticed when I read the article.
> 
> I suspect what is happening is that the Atheist Movement is being seen as identical with atheists in general (if you're not part of "the movement", you're not a proper atheist)


 
We're going to need a new word for those people who have no belief in a specific kind of postulated supernatural entity.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why would Harris and people like that being cunts (or in their terms, _appearing _to be cunts) put women off especially?



It doesn't put them off being atheists, but it likely has some effect on whether or not they want to be active in the same spaces as people like him.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> It doesn't put them off being atheists, but it likely has some effect on whether or not they want to be active in the same spaces as people like him.


But why disproportionately so? If that is the case.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why would Harris and people like that being cunts (or in their terms, _appearing _to be cunts) put women off especially?


 
It doesn't even have to be 'being cunts', it could just be the kind of group macho behaviour that lots of women find offputting and unappealing, similar to what was reported as putting women off party politics in that parliamentary report last year.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> It doesn't even have to be 'being cunts', it could just be the kind of group macho behaviour that lots of women find offputting and unappealing, similar to what was reported as putting women off party politics in that parliamentary report last year.


These are the same answers that harris gives. _Women like this/men like that._


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2014)

I've just started watching this:

A philosophical critique of new atheism.  It's quite good - but it's two hours long.  Might cut it down into 30 minute segments.  LOADS of information.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But why disproportionately so? If that is the case.



Because when the debate is framed around 'them' versus 'us' it creates an atmosphere that is hostile to women, one that mirrors the antagonisms and shite that patriarchy dumps at the door of women every day. It's not a separate issue, it's part of the same thing. He's being disingenuous to say it's merely 'robust debate' that keeps women away -- that 'robust debate' is Harris-speak for a whole host of behaviours that are sexist, misogynistic, bigoted. Why on earth would women want to be a part of a space that perpetuates the shit they want to get rid of?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Because when the debate is framed around 'them' versus 'us' it creates an atmosphere that is hostile to women, one that mirrors the antagonisms and shite that patriarchy dumps at the door of women every day. It's not a separate issue, it's part of the same thing. He's being disingenuous to say it's merely 'robust debate' that keeps women away -- that 'robust debate' is Harris-speak for a whole host of behaviours that are sexist, misogynistic, bigoted. Why on earth would women want to be a part of a space that perpetuates the shit they want to get rid of?


Well, why can't it just be said because_ the thing is shot though with sexism_ instead of essentialisms that mirror the sexists logic?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Because when the debate is framed around 'them' versus 'us' it creates an atmosphere that is hostile to women, one that mirrors the antagonisms and shite that patriarchy dumps at the door of women every day. It's not a separate issue, it's part of the same thing. He's being disingenuous to say it's merely 'robust debate' that keeps women away -- that 'robust debate' is Harris-speak for a whole host of behaviours that are sexist, misogynistic, bigoted. Why on earth would women want to be a part of a space that perpetuates the shit they want to get rid of?



Why would anyone?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, why can't it just be said because_ the thing is shot though with sexism_ instead of essentialisms that mirror the sexists logic?



Women are saying that though, aren't they? It's Harris et al who aren't. And you would expect them not to, right?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Women are saying that though, aren't they? It's Harris et al who aren't. And you would expect them not to, right?


They are - but why then say it's because women are put off by _us and them_ - that's a mirror of harris' estrogen logic.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I've just started watching this:
> 
> A philosophical critique of new atheism.  It's quite good - but it's two hours long.  Might cut it down into 30 minute segments.  LOADS of information.


 
You could maybe do a cassetteboy-esque mash-up that gets all the key points in.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> You could maybe do a cassetteboy-esque mash-up that gets all the key points in.



No, It's not mine and to be honest it's all pretty relevant and it would do it a disservice.  The whole video is basically a mash up with loose commentary.  Just watch 15 minutes when you can.  Or have it in the background.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No, It's not mine and to be honest it's all pretty relevant and it would do it a disservice.  The whole video is basically a mash up with loose commentary.  Just watch 15 minutes when you can.  Or have it in the background.



Yeah, got it on while farting about doing other stuff.  Very mixed in terms of the quality of its arguments and the sound editing is awful.  Persevering though...


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I've just started watching this:
> 
> A philosophical critique of new atheism.  It's quite good - but it's two hours long.  Might cut it down into 30 minute segments.  LOADS of information.




Good watch, thanks for the link.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Yeah, got it on while farting about doing other stuff.  Very mixed in terms of the quality of its arguments and the sound editing is awful.  Persevering though...



Well it's NOT a "professional" documentary by any standard.  I think the guy has a full time job,  would love to see a professional one.  It's well observed IMO.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well it's NOT a "professional" documentary by any standard.  I think the guy has a full time job,  would love to see a professional one.  It's well observed IMO.



There are some good bits so far, but it filled my logical fallacy bingo card 30 mins in (after 7 barren minutes of Candy Crush Saga and Scottish independence thread while waiting for the false dichotomy).  It does give a particular "New Atheist Youtuber" (NAY) caricature a sound kicking, but that's not really hard to do.

I'm onto the stuff about meta-ethical foundations at this point, he's spotted that lots of NAYs don't have one - waiting to see where he goes with the self-awareness...

edit: from about 45 mins in it's got a lot better - or, well, I'm enjoying it a lot more.  Might be because he's weaving together arguments made succinctly by other people.  The bit about INAH3 was pretty funny and enlightening.

Edit2: second half was a lot better IMO


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They are - but why then say it's because women are put off by _us and them_ - that's a mirror of harris' estrogen logic.



Not too sure what point you're trying to make here - are you trying to say that when women taken as a whole show a generally different set of interests to men, or even different styles of presentation of the same subject matter to men, that that means the subject matter itself or the style of presentation has an inherent sexist bias?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Not too sure what point you're trying to make here - are you trying to say that when women taken as a whole show a generally different set of interests to men, or even different styles of presentation of the same subject matter to men, that that means the subject matter itself or the style of presentation has an inherent sexist bias?


I'm saying that arguments that start from daft essentialisms (_women don't like us and them - black people drive like this, white people drive like this_) are employing the same logic as Harris. When the answer is more obvious - the room is full of sexists and the debate full of sexist assumptions.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm saying that arguments that start from daft essentialisms (_women don't like us and them - black people drive like this, white people drive like this_) are employing the same logic as Harris. When the answer is more obvious - the room is full of sexists and the debate full of sexist assumptions.



What, the 'does God exist' debate is full of sexist assumptions? 
It certainly has a very male God if they're going for the Abrahamic God, I'll grant that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> What, the 'does God exist' debate is full of sexist assumptions?
> It certainly has a very male God if they're going for the Abrahamic God, I'll grant that.


No, the atheist movement and the spaces they manifest themselves in. Not debate about atheism.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2014)

I think it's reasonable to say that members of group X who get publicly attacked and ridiculed as a group by the claimed leadership of group Y, apparently with the support or at least acquiescence of many non-X members of group Y, might feel uncomfortable about being in group Y more often than if they weren't in X. It would certainly be daft to say "women don't like being discriminated against, must be the oestrogen".


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, the atheist movement and the spaces they manifest themselves in. Not debate about atheism.



They may well be.  I'm a good bit through that video - it's a bit scary that someone can publically threaten to attack someone at a meeting and still be let in.

I think with all sorts of movements it only takes a very small coterie of scumbags to taint things horribly.  Maybe I'm being too generous.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2014)

The Graun joins in the fun:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

I think this pretty much nails it:

"Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery."


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm saying that arguments that start from daft essentialisms (_women don't like us and them - black people drive like this, white people drive like this_) are employing the same logic as Harris. When the answer is more obvious - the room is full of sexists and the debate full of sexist assumptions.



I think we're coming at this from the same direction, butchers, but missing each other somewhere in the middle. I'm not suggesting there's something inherent to women that makes them not like an us and them structure or whatever. I'm saying that patriarchy and sexism are a real thing in wider society, and that those things create the impression that it's women against men, and men against women -- that's part of sexism. I'm saying that some people within these atheist movements appear to be quite taken with that essentialist notion, and use various things (like their call to rationalism) to back up their sexist, patriarchal views. Is it any wonder that a group that suffers at the hands of sexism might want to stay away from spaces that are rife of sexism?

I'm not saying women are driven away from atheism. I'm saying I would not be at all surprised nor blame any woman (nor any man, but for different reasons, since sexism is something that happens to women and society is patriarchal) for wanting to not go to atheist conferences or be a member of atheist message boards where this kind of sexism is prevalent. So my argument isn't that women aren't atheists because they believe in us and them and believe men are this and women are that, or they are naturally averse to combative debate, or because they agree with Harris' et al and their breakdown of power relations and 'rationality'. My argument is that if there are places where sexism is known to be widespread it would not be surprising for people who are victims of sexism to not want to take part. I make no claim about women inherently being averse to a certain kind of debate. In fact I'm squarely against that notion. I speak only to what it is like to be subject to sexism day in day out, and why you might as a result want to avoid being subjected to more of it. You don't have to be fighty and up for shouting directly back in sexists' faces in order to be seen to be pro-equality or anti-essentialism or anything else. Some people can't handle it. How you deal with sexism is both a personal and a social/group thing, but sexism itself has a very personal effect on people, and you get worn down. 

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough (I'm very tired at the moment). I can only reiterate, I am in no way suggesting any essentialist idea that agrees with Harris' notion that women don't think in the same way as men. My argument is that if it is true that women aren't vocal in atheist movements, and those movements are known to be bastions of sexism and bigotry, then it stands to reason that the victim may want to avoid their abuser. My argument is, for all intents and purposes, the same as yours: _the room is full of sexists and the debate full of sexist assumptions. _Harris seems to assume there are fewer female atheists, and maybe there are statistically, I have no idea what the gender breakdown of religious and non-religious thinking is. But that is neither here nor there, because the main issue he's diverting attention away from is that there are fewer women attending New Atheism events or being active in that community. He's diverting attention away from the effect his and others' sexism has on that participation. And it would be a conversation he really wouldn't want to have, for obvious reasons, but also because it would involve spreading it out further to acknowledge the ways in which women are positioned and constituted by society and patriarchy. It would be a discussion he would try to root in essentialist thinking, suggesting that women are more nurturing by nature and so on, but he would avoid all and any discussion of how if _some_ women do display nurturing emotions to a greater degree than men it is as a result of how both men and women are conditioned by patriarchy, and not because of some natural order of things. 

I'm waffling. But no, in my mind the argument I'm making is staunchly anti-essentialist, I'm just sorry I'm not able to be clearer.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 18, 2014)

Here's another example: Bill Maher, one of the leading American New Atheists, compares Hamas to a 'crazy woman trying to kill you'. 'You can hold her wrists for so long before you have to slap her' 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...long-before-you-have-to-slap-her-9614329.html

Here he is contrasting the 'feminine values' of sensitivity and feelings to the masculine values of truth and facts:


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 18, 2014)

I found rather disturbing footage of him going on about mercury in fillings and the hazards of vaccination.





Spoiler: youtube video








/derail


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 18, 2014)

Not sure why I thought Maher was alright when I was a teenager... Is Jon Stewart going to turn out to be an MRA or something?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

As atheists/atheism more generally, as well as just Dawkins, seems to be getting quite  a hard time in this thread, here (for balance!) is what Nick Cohen had to say a fortnight ago about The phantom menace of militant atheism

I know who my main enemy is and it isn't Dawkins, however much of a knob he can be/come across as sometimes. I disagree with Nick Cohen about plenrty of stuff, but on this particular subject he's spot on IMO.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 19, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> As atheists/atheism more generally, as well as just Dawkins, seems to be getting quite  a hard time in this thread, here (for balance!) is what Nick Cohen had to say a fortnight ago about The phantom menace of militant atheism



I would say that  this article shows exactly what the problem with nu-athiesm is.

It glosses over the fact that perhaps the main reason for "Islamic terrorism" isn't the fact that these people are mainly poor, disenfranchised, on the receiving end of an aggressive US foreign policy, countries have been invaded for 100 years with the west meddling in it.  Nope, it's none of that, it must be ISLAM.

It can't be politics... it must be religion.  And the religion has to be fundamental.  There can be no secular religious people - they too must be thrown on the bonfire.

The problem with nu-athiests is exactly that they pretend to be progressive but are as about as reactionary as you can get.  Their political stance (if you look closely at it) is exactly one that perpetuates the Islamism  they wish to eradicate.  Religion is handy to hide behind when you have horrible conservative politics, but nu-athiests fail to realise that it's not the religion that needs picking apart, but the politics.

The reason why it's so easy to attack nu-atheists is that they have nothing to hide behind but their egos and shitty "scientism" and terrible ethical stance.  The stuff they spread about race and sex is just as nasty as some of the most fundamental religious fanatics - it's just as dangerous, if not even more so becuase it's trying to hide behind a veil of supposed rationality.  The honest religious know that their beliefs are irrational - it's why they make the distinction between faith and evidence. At least we know religious nuts are irrational.

They are both sides of the same coin.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 19, 2014)

Richard Dawkins doubling down after reading this horrific article (warning contains graphic descriptions):
*I was raped when I was drunk. I was 14. Do you believe me, Richard Dawkins?*



He is a very stuipd, insensitive man.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

What an utter cunt.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 19, 2014)

Dawkins fans now dismissing the heartbreaking story of a sexually abused child as "clickbait". Fuck the lot of them.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Not enough words can some up what a cretinous and slippery shit this man is:


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2014)

covering himself in glory here


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think we're coming at this from the same direction, butchers, but missing each other somewhere in the middle. I'm not suggesting there's something inherent to women that makes them not like an us and them structure or whatever. I'm saying that patriarchy and sexism are a real thing in wider society, and that those things create the impression that it's women against men, and men against women -- that's part of sexism. I'm saying that some people within these atheist movements appear to be quite taken with that essentialist notion, and use various things (like their call to rationalism) to back up their sexist, patriarchal views. Is it any wonder that a group that suffers at the hands of sexism might want to stay away from spaces that are rife of sexism?
> 
> I'm not saying women are driven away from atheism. I'm saying I would not be at all surprised nor blame any woman (nor any man, but for different reasons, since sexism is something that happens to women and society is patriarchal) for wanting to not go to atheist conferences or be a member of atheist message boards where this kind of sexism is prevalent. So my argument isn't that women aren't atheists because they believe in us and them and believe men are this and women are that, or they are naturally averse to combative debate, or because they agree with Harris' et al and their breakdown of power relations and 'rationality'. My argument is that if there are places where sexism is known to be widespread it would not be surprising for people who are victims of sexism to not want to take part. I make no claim about women inherently being averse to a certain kind of debate. In fact I'm squarely against that notion. I speak only to what it is like to be subject to sexism day in day out, and why you might as a result want to avoid being subjected to more of it. You don't have to be fighty and up for shouting directly back in sexists' faces in order to be seen to be pro-equality or anti-essentialism or anything else. Some people can't handle it. How you deal with sexism is both a personal and a social/group thing, but sexism itself has a very personal effect on people, and you get worn down.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry i missed this VP. I wasn't ignoring you. And you actually make it very clear there a) about what you're arguing and b) why/where we are actually agreeing. Thank you for that post.


----------



## nogojones (Sep 20, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I would say that  this article shows exactly what the problem with nu-athiesm is.
> 
> It glosses over the fact that perhaps the main reason for "Islamic terrorism" isn't the fact that these people are mainly poor, disenfranchised, on the receiving end of an aggressive US foreign policy, countries have been invaded for 100 years with the west meddling in it.  Nope, it's none of that, it must be ISLAM.
> 
> ...


Spot on


----------



## 8den (Sep 20, 2014)

nogojones said:


> Spot on



So basically the christian right and and the atheist right want the same things for different ideological reasons.


----------



## 8den (Sep 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Here's another example: Bill Maher, one of the leading American New Atheists, compares Hamas to a 'crazy woman trying to kill you'. 'You can hold her wrists for so long before you have to slap her'
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...long-before-you-have-to-slap-her-9614329.html
> 
> Here he is contrasting the 'feminine values' of sensitivity and feelings to the masculine values of truth and facts:




I'm adding him to my asshole list.


----------



## nogojones (Sep 20, 2014)

8den said:


> So basically the christian right and and the atheist right want the same things for different ideological reasons.



I wouldn't necessarily say they wanted the exact same things, more that I hold them in fairly equal contempt


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I would say that  this article shows exactly what the problem with nu-athiesm is.
> 
> It glosses over the fact that perhaps the main reason for "Islamic terrorism" isn't the fact that these people are mainly poor, disenfranchised, on the receiving end of an aggressive US foreign policy, countries have been invaded for 100 years with the west meddling in it.  Nope, it's none of that, it must be ISLAM.
> 
> ...



Not a useful reply, but I'd 'like' this multiple times if I could. It gets right to the nub of the issue.


----------



## 8den (Sep 20, 2014)

nogojones said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say they wanted the exact same things, more that I hold them in fairly equal contempt



I was being glib, it's just troubling that there appears to almost fundamentalist atheism appearing in my world. My opinion on atheism as a personal philosophy  is that "I don't care what you believe in just as long as your beliefs don't hurt anyone else". This aggressive atheism is like  Anarcho-capitalism.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 20, 2014)

8den said:


> I was being glib, it's just troubling that there appears to almost fundamentalist atheism appearing in my world. My opinion on atheism as a personal philosophy  is that "I don't care what you believe in just as long as your beliefs don't hurt anyone else". This aggressive atheism is like  Anarcho-capitalism.



What you're describing is secular humanism.  There's already a movement for that.

Nu-atheism has it's roots in extreme libertarianism.  Just have a look at how they view free speech.  It's basically anarcho-capitalism repackaged.  

I think that's why it's so important to call them out as and when we can, cos they make us secular humanists look like cunts.


----------



## 8den (Sep 20, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What you're describing is secular humanism.  There's already a movement for that.
> 
> Nu-atheism has it's roots in extreme libertarianism.  Just have a look at how they view free speech.  It's basically anarcho-capitalism repackaged.
> 
> I think that's why it's so important to call them out as and when we can, cos they make us secular humanists look like cunts.



I'm this close to posting a peoples front of judea gif. 

I would class myself as someone whose a atheist and a gamer. But after the last few months I want to hide my X-Box and my copy of the God Delusion. Scratch that I want to donate my copy of the God Delusion to a charity shop.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2014)

Off topic somewhat, perhaps: my mother's family were all brought up Catholic, but her eldest sister, Margaret, became a humanist. I didn't know this - I don't think many people did - until Margaret died a couple of years ago. She had a humanist funeral, and it was by far the most beautiful funeral I've ever been to. It was very understated, but it focused on her, her loves and passions, her family, and it felt very positive. I am not a member of the humanist society or whatever it's called, and I don't really understand what makes a humanist, and if you can be a humanist and an atheist or if you have to identify with a set of principles and a political outlook or whatever, I admit I'm very, very uneducated on it (as I am on most things). But I decided when I was sat at her funeral that that's what I want when I die.

Her husband died last year, and although I couldn't attend, apparently his humanist funeral was even more beautiful. I'm sad I missed it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 20, 2014)

A friend of ours organizes non-religious funerals up in Manchester. When she isn't doing her angle grinding.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2014)

Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a 'rape manual' because 'science is a male rape of female nature'.

When you argue with the likes of sandra harding it stops being about real people and starts being about winning


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 20, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I am not a member of the humanist society or whatever it's called, and I don't really understand what makes a humanist, and if you can be a humanist and an atheist or if you have to identify with a set of principles and a political outlook or whatever, I admit I'm very, very uneducated on it (as I am on most things). But I decided when I was sat at her funeral that that's what I want when I die.
> 
> Her husband died last year, and although I couldn't attend, apparently his humanist funeral was even more beautiful. I'm sad I missed it.



I'm not a member either,  but I thought about joining.

You can take a "test" here to find out if you fit the mould.  I do.  It's also a good site for information:

https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/are-you-a-humanist/


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a 'rape manual' because 'science is a male rape of female nature'.
> 
> When you argue with the likes of sandra harding it stops being about real people and starts being about winning



does that mean all the show offs who buy it to stick on their shelves after reading the preface know how to cop a feel on the tube?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> does that mean all the show offs who buy it to stick on their shelves after reading the preface know how to cop a feel on the tube?


 Yes, they should also know to expect an opposite and far beyond equal reaction


----------



## chemicimbalance (Sep 20, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I would say that  this article shows exactly what the problem with nu-athiesm is.
> 
> It glosses over the fact that perhaps the main reason for "Islamic terrorism" isn't the fact that these people are mainly poor, disenfranchised, on the receiving end of an aggressive US foreign policy, countries have been invaded for 100 years with the west meddling in it.  Nope, it's none of that, it must be ISLAM.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you're saying about people confusing politics for religion but not sure what you mean by, 'the stuff they spread about race and sex is just as nasty as some of the most fundamental religious fanatics'. What kinds of beliefs are you referring to?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2014)

chemicimbalance said:


> I agree with what you're saying about people confusing politics for religion but not sure what you mean by, 'the stuff they spread about race and sex is just as nasty as some of the most fundamental religious fanatics'. What kinds of beliefs are you referring to?



Have you missed the rest of the thread? 

Islamaphobia tightly woven with racism, misogyny, gender essentialism... all there with a view to maintaining a particular power structure.


----------



## chemicimbalance (Sep 20, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Have you missed the rest of the thread?
> 
> Islamaphobia tightly woven with racism, misogyny, gender essentialism... all there with a view to maintaining a particular power structure.


I haven't read all of the thread but, even after going back a few pages, was still confused about how these issues are specifically connected to atheism. I'll read it all and see if that helps


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2014)

chemicimbalance said:


> I haven't read all of the thread but, even after going back a few pages, was still confused about how these issues are specifically connected to atheism. I'll read it all and see if that helps



They're not specifically connected to atheism, rather to some members of the new atheism movement who use rationality to mask some seriously dodgy ideas and basically act all bully boy.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> They're not specifically connected to atheism, rather to some members of the new atheism movement who use rationality to mask some seriously dodgy ideas and basically act all bully boy.



Atheism isn't even specifically connected to rationality in itself.  I enjoyed The God Delusion as a book tackling a very specific concept - it defined certain narrow limits of what "God" was and did a good job of dealing with this specific target and supporting people who had certain social pressures on them when they could not seriously support such beliefs.

I think it all went a bit astray with the idea of creating a 'movement'.  It gave a lot of room for a lot of silly unquestioned prejudices to fall into the mix.  Maybe there should have been a rule that any principle, whether connected with religion or otherwise, should be very carefully and critically examined before being used as a tool in any argument.


----------



## chemicimbalance (Sep 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> They're not specifically connected to atheism, rather to some members of the new atheism movement who use rationality to mask some seriously dodgy ideas and basically act all bully boy.


Thanks. I get it now. Also found this article helpful http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/sexism-and-the-new-atheism/


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a 'rape manual' because 'science is a male rape of female nature'.
> 
> When you argue with the likes of sandra harding it stops being about real people and starts being about winning



Where does Sandra Harding come into this? I haven't been following this really closely but I haven't seen any reference to her.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 21, 2014)

I think I thats where Dawkins gets his weird view of femminism sexual politics from if you argue with people who think maths is rape.
His comments actually make some sort of sense.
  Just not to normal people


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

of course, it's a woman's fault.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I think I thats where Dawkins gets his weird view of femminism sexual politics from if you argue with people who think maths is rape.
> His comments actually make some sort of sense.
> Just not to normal people



Are you actually familiar with Sandra Harding's work?


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm not going to wait for an answer. There's nothing I've read of yours on here that indicates that you've read Sandra Harding.

So.....lets get this straight likesfish, you're blaming a feminist philosopher of science, a philosopher you haven't read, for Dawkin's misogyny?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Still trying to get my head round why so many in this thread seem to think atheism, or at least _the niche version of it they most want to highlight and attack_** is as bad as, or even worse than, fundamentalist religion. The term 'fundamentalist atheism' has even been used once again. In my view that's a highly questionable term.

**while ignoring (deliberately?) the vast majority of mainstream, run of the mill atheism to which most atheists *in fact* subcribe? We're not all raving lunatics, nor are we uncritically-Dawkins-worshipping tubthumpers either.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

it isn't about you.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

Jesus, William, try reading the thread again.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 21, 2014)

Don't bother William. Read one of Dawkins' books instead. Far more interesting.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Still trying to get my head round why so many in this thread seem to think atheism, or at least _the niche version of it they most want to highlight and attack_** is as bad as, or even worse than, fundamentalist religion. The term 'fundamentalist atheism' has even been used once again. In my view that's a highly questionable term.



The thread's about Dawkins, Will.

Read some of his fuckwitted tripe on religion then compare it to everything you dislike about religious fundamentalism. He has never proven the non-existence of god/gods, though he seems to think he has, and his analysis effectively comes down to 'because I say so', 'believers are idiots' and he holds others in an extraordinarily arrogant contempt which parallels some of the worst religious fundamentalism.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 21, 2014)

Which is what I like about him religion is bollocks end of.
  No I'm blaming his stupidity on arguing with fuckwits who think science is raping nature argue with ponti's and it rubs off on you.
 dawkins should keep his mouth shut and not talk shit about stuff he doesnt understand or really care about.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Which is what I like about him religion is bollocks end of.
> No I'm blaming his stupidity on arguing with fuckwits who think science is raping nature argue with ponti's and it rubs off on you.
> dawkins should keep his mouth shut and not talk shit about stuff he doesnt understand or really care about.



Can you link to the paper where she says that science is male rape of nature?

And you're still arguing that Dawkin's stupidity is the fault of a woman. Like he's been contaminated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Still trying to get my head round why so many in this thread seem to think atheism, or at least _the niche version of it they most want to highlight and attack_** is as bad as, or even worse than, fundamentalist religion. The term 'fundamentalist atheism' has even been used once again. In my view that's a highly questionable term.
> 
> **while ignoring (deliberately?) the vast majority of mainstream, run of the mill atheism to which most atheists *in fact* subcribe? We're not all raving lunatics, nor are we uncritically-Dawkins-worshipping tubthumpers either.



You might find it a highly questionable term, but a case can certainly be made for a minority of atheists acting very much in the mode of people in the grip of a belief system, and of taking a militant view of how their belief system should address the world.


----------



## andysays (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Which is what I like about him religion is bollocks end of.
> No I'm blaming his stupidity on arguing with fuckwits who think science is raping nature argue with ponti's and it rubs off on you.
> dawkins *should keep his mouth shut and not talk shit about stuff he doesnt understand or really care about*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> The thread's about Dawkins, Will.
> 
> Read some of his fuckwitted tripe on religion then compare it to everything you dislike about religious fundamentalism. He has never proven the non-existence of god/gods, though he seems to think he has...



Rather like dwyer thinking he's proved the existence of G-d. 



> and his analysis effectively comes down to 'because I say so', 'believers are idiots' and he holds others in an extraordinarily arrogant contempt which parallels some of the worst religious fundamentalism.



In other words, 400 years ago, Dawkins would have been one of the hooded priests leading the _auto-da-fé_, rather than one of the heretics about to be burned.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 21, 2014)

Oh come on, the "God" of Leviticus (and Christ is conveniently quoted as saying every word of that shite still stands) doesn't actually _*need *_disproving - any more than we need to "_*prove*_" evolution - now we have DNA as well as fossils.
Might as well demand we "_*prove*_" that gravity will make it hurt if you drop a brick on your foot.

Clearly the religious nutjobs aren't the threat in the UK the way they are in the USA - where  thankfully we can have an Archbishop of Canterbury who openly doubts the existence of God ... but they're starting to sneak in under the wire - and we _*should *_be worried because the USA has its finger on the button and half of their citizens deny science because of religion.

And of course we can argue all day about whether the oppression of women and LGBT people around the world is cultural or religious in origin.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> And of course we can argue all day about whether the oppression of women and LGBT people around the world is cultural or religious in origin.



Imagine wasting a whole day!


----------



## likesfish (Sep 21, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Can you link to the paper where she says that science is male rape of nature?
> 
> And you're still arguing that Dawkin's stupidity is the fault of a woman. Like he's been contaminated.



No I'm arguing he's spent too much time arguing with people who say stuff 
Iike newtons book on maths is a rape manualDuring  what is known now as the "Science Wars", she was part of a debate regarding the value-neutrality of the sciences. This aspect of her work has been criticized by some scientists.[2] Harding referred to Newton's_Principia Mathematica_ as a "rape manual" in her 1986 book "The Science Question in Feminism", a characterization that she later said she regretted. Because it is fucking stupid.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I think I thats where Dawkins gets his weird view of femminism sexual politics from if you argue with people who think maths is rape.
> His comments actually make some sort of sense.
> Just not to normal people



Maths is rape?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He has never proven the non-existence of god/gods, though he seems to think he has, and his analysis effectively comes down to 'because I say so'.



Have you just completely made this up just now?


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> No I'm arguing he's spent too much time arguing with people who say stuff
> Iike newtons book on maths is a rape manualDuring  what is known now as the "Science Wars", she was part of a debate regarding the value-neutrality of the sciences. This aspect of her work has been criticized by some scientists.[2] Harding referred to Newton's_Principia Mathematica_ as a "rape manual" in her 1986 book "The Science Question in Feminism", a characterization that she later said she regretted. Because it is fucking stupid.



I know who she is but thanks for the wiki summary. That's so much easier to get my head around.

So, the link to her paper in which she claims that science is male rape of female nature? Do you have that? Maybe you read it so recently you can recall her argument - can you recap for us?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> it isn't about you.



Post 608 from me wasn't. It was about how (unreasonably? over generally?) high the dislike of atheism, or of a version of it, was amongst a lot of posters on this thread.

I do take the other point (Red Cat's) that it's more of a Dawkins-focussed thread than a more generally atheism focussed thread TBF.

All the same, I'm still seeing too much 'atheism's as bad as religion' type sentiment on this thread for my liking. I stand by my posting of Nick Cohen's article from a fortnight ago (see earlier).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Post 608 from me wasn't. It was about how (unreasonably? over generally?) high the dislike of atheism, or of a version of it, was amongst a lot of posters on this thread.
> 
> I do take the other point (Red Cat's) that it's more of a Dawkins-focussed thread than a more generally atheism focussed thread TBF.
> 
> All the same, I'm still seeing too much 'atheism's as bad as religion' type sentiment on this thread for my liking all the same. I stand by my posting of Nick Cohen's article from a fortnight ago (see earlier).


at least atheists don't say 'you're going to hell' for wanking or whatnot. or stand outside shopping centres handing out leaflets about how dead people love you (is that the opposite of necrophilia?).


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> at least atheists don't say 'you're going to hell' for wanking or whatnot. or stand outside shopping centres handing out leaflets about how dead people love you (is that the opposite of necrophilia?).




I've never seen many atheists intimidating women outside abortion clinics either.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You might find it a highly questionable term, but a case can certainly be made for a minority of atheists acting very much in the mode of people in the grip of a belief system, and of taking a militant view of how their belief system should address the world.




Don't essentially disagree with that (or not with all of it, anyway). but you're right to say minority. How much power/influence have that minority got really?

And how representative of atheism (overall) is that minority, of the version  subscribed to by your average atheist in the street**?

**An average that in any case is a massively smaller minority of everyone in the UK, anyway, than is the huge group (in most recent censuses) who prefer a 'agnostic'/'token C of E [or equivalent] cos my family always were'/'plain can't be arsed about religion' way of getting on with it.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> All the same, I'm still seeing too much 'atheism's as bad as religion' type sentiment on this thread for my liking.


where? posters are discussing issues with a specific strand of atheism, which - as you say - isn't representative of atheist as a whole. And your post is about you - it's about how you feel affronted because you think posters are criticising something you identify as. Which they aren't. So you needn't feel affronted.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Not so much personally affronted as more generally irritated/annoyed, but makes sense if I retire from the thread for the time being.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

_less later_


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> where? posters are discussing issues with a specific strand of atheism, which - as you say - isn't representative of atheist as a whole. And your post is about you - it's about how you feel affronted because you think posters are criticising something you identify as. Which they aren't. So you needn't feel affronted.



The language is kind of ambiguous.  But I'd blame certain groups for trying to monopolise the word 'atheism' for that.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I've never seen many atheists intimidating women outside abortion clinics either.



The internet and hotel lobbies, on the other hand...


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Hotel lobbies???


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> _less later_




I can very easily predict which posters will 'like' that post. But as you say, its not about me, so stop continuing to make it so.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Hotel lobbies???



You'll need to read back a bit.  In any case, it's more about certain attitudes than to do with atheism specifically.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> You'll need to read back a bit.  In any case, it's more about certain attitudes than to do with atheism specifically.




Fair dos. Will have a better look another time.


----------



## andysays (Sep 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> The internet and hotel lobbies, on the other hand...



Lifts are also popular, or so I hear...


----------



## chemicimbalance (Sep 22, 2014)

Pleased to hear you at least read the link I shared. Glad you both enjoyed it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Don't essentially disagree with that (or not with all of it, anyway). but you're right to say minority. How much power/influence have that minority got really?



I'd submit that given Dawkins displays many of the traits of religious mania, including the classic inability to admit fallibility, that minority has influence, and that *any* influence is too much.



> And how representative of atheism (overall) is that minority, of the version  subscribed to by your average atheist in the street**?



You tell me. I read the stuff that the National Secular Society puts out, for example, and the meme appears there, just as it does everywhere else.  That doesn't, of course, mean that it is *prevalent*, only that it is present.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> Have you just completely made this up just now?



Perhaps a bit unfair (if you can be unfair to Dawkins).

I was an avid follower of his for a long time and eventually realised that you have to try just as hard to agree with him as you would with some religionists to agree with them. Then I decided that the brand of atheism that states that there definitely is no god is as arrogant and closed-minded as ideologies that say there definitely is.

If individuals get something positive out of religion and the attendant cultures, and aren't harming anyone else, good luck to them. 

It's atheists like Dawkins who hold those of religion in some sort of contempt and are highly vocal about it (plenty on these boards) that can fuck off, imo. It's completely intolerant and none of their fucking business what other people want to get up to.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 22, 2014)

To be fair, he spends a lot of time in the states where creationist nutters are continually trying to take over the educational system.
He's dealing with creatards who see science's basic principle that theories never become "fact" as a weakness to be exploited.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Then I decided that the brand of atheism that states that there definitely is no god is as arrogant and closed-minded as ideologies that say there definitely is.


That's not Dawkins' brand.


----------



## Voley (Sep 22, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Then I decided that the brand of atheism that states that there definitely is no god is as arrogant and closed-minded as ideologies that say there definitely is.


I don't think Dawkins does say that. I seem to recall in The God Delusion that he says he can't categorically 100% deny the existence of God. He then goes on to make a number of compelling arguments about the total lack of evidence meaning it's fairly certain though.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not Dawkins' brand.





Voley said:


> I don't think Dawkins does say that.



It's what many _on here_ say. Take a look at any U75 thread on the subject and otherwise reasonable people completely lose their heads.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 22, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's what many _on here_ say. Take a look at any U75 thread on the subject and otherwise reasonable people completely lose their heads.


 
U75 is hardly a bastion of rationality, but then I don't think it really pretends to be.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 22, 2014)

Perhaps we're too restrictive in our embracing of others' faiths.



Spoiler: youtube video


----------



## andysays (Oct 5, 2014)

Little bump


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 6, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's what many _on here_ say. Take a look at any U75 thread on the subject and *otherwise reasonable people completely lose their heads*.




Including anti-Dawkinsists, may I remind you .... 

(Note that I said 'including'  )


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 31, 2014)




----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2014)

his hip-hop album would be the first ever to not include a thanks to god in the credits


----------



## J Ed (Nov 1, 2014)

He will still give a shout out to the honies


----------



## J Ed (Nov 1, 2014)

Not even god can judge me


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2014)

athiests with attitude


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2014)

Dawkins frequent comments on Islam have inadvertently placed him as the poster boy for the right. His facebook page seems to be consistently posting stuff about islam and some of it quite old too. Proper scaremongering Daily Mail stuff too


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Yeah he's a proper frothmouthed Islamophobe. An ex-mate uses his credentials to justify his own prejudices, although it seems now that Sam Harris is now the go-to guy for that kind of despicable shite.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Not even god can judge me


is that actually an accurate Dawkins quote?

For an evolutionary biologist that's a piss poor quote about evolution.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

I rather doubt it!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> is that actually an accurate Dawkins quote?.



It reads more like something off a creationist website.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2014)

After a quick google, I can't find any evidence of him saying it, just idiots attributing the quote to him. It's not on a fairly big list of dawkins quotes on wiki either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Why would you even think it was a real quote?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why would you even think it was a real quote?


I didn't really, but as someone had posted it on here attributed to him and nobody had said anything about it, I thought it worth checking as I've not really been arsed to read much that he has written.


----------



## Grace Johnson (Nov 4, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So does Dawkins not think that people with Downs can experience happiness or a good life? In a loving, supporting environment there's no reason why they can't. If he truly is committed "to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" he'd do well not to reinforce negative stereotypes about those with Down syndrome by suggesting that they should never have been born and that their families are irresponsible for letting them.



Perfect response.


----------



## MooChild (Nov 4, 2014)

Every time I see this thread bumped, I think "What has he done now?..." 
Sad really, should have stuck to what he was good at instead of spouting drivel on twitter.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2014)

not entirely off topic... E O Wilson was brilliant on Newsnight last night:

“There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.”


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

belboid said:


> not entirely off topic... E O Wilson was brilliant on Newsnight last night:
> 
> “There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.”




Fuck me that's cutting. After reading Wilson, Tarnita and Nowak's work on multi-level selection, I think Dawkins' stubborn clinging to ideas about inclusive fitness will show him up in the end. A bit like Fred Hoyle with the Big Bang. Wilson's a great example of a scientist willing to change his mind about even his favourite theories if the evidence shows he must.

Dawkins wrote a dreadful piece attacking Wilson and Nowak, which showed that he'd totally missed the point of what they were saying.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> After reading Wilson, Tarnita and Nowak's work on multi-level selection, I think Dawkins' stubborn clinging to ideas about inclusive fitness will show him up in the end.


 
I haven't read the 2010 paper in _Nature_ - is there any decent evidence in there?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> I haven't read the 2010 paper in _Nature_ - is there any decent evidence in there?


It's mathematical. Nowak and Tarnita have produced mathematical models using game theory to show how populations develop with various proportions of 'defectors' and 'cooperators'. They demonstrate that defectors tend to win in groups where those groups are not competing with other groups, but that cooperators can win if the group has to compete with other groups. They also show how simple selection at the level of the individual produces the patterns previously believed to have been produced by the unique nature of diploid-haploid reproduction. 

Basically, kin selection doesn't happen. And Hamilton's inequality is not evidence of kin selection, merely the result of 'ordinary' selection. 

I waded through some but not all of the maths (it's pretty hard), and it looked convincing to me. Nowak goes into some more depth about it in his book Supercooperators. 

My suspicion is that Dawkins' maths is not up to the mark and that he has not waded through any of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

Game theory is great.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's mathematical.


 
Like the 'trickle down' theory, then. 

I don't expect this one to be settled for a while...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Like the 'trickle down' theory, then.
> 
> I don't expect this one to be settled for a while...


Was that mathematical, with proper, working models?

My problem with kin selection is that I can't see any mechanism by which it would work*. Evolution, it seems to me, doesn't normally work like that. The good thing about modelling evolution, imo, is that the mechanism of selection is such a simple thing at base that models don't need to build in unrealistic assumptions.

As for Dawkins' rebuttal in Prospect magazine, it showed absolutely no evidence that he had understood the contention at all. He's going to be proven wrong on this imo. And I admire Wilson for changing his mind - he was just about the biggest advocate in the world of inclusive fitness theory until recently.

ETA: *and no proper mathematical model of how it might work has ever been produced, as Nowak points out


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was that mathematical, with proper, working models?


 
Insofar as group selection is, yes.  It was an idea that certain groups intuitively liked and they came up with models to back it up.  Which are nice, but no substitute for evidence and predictive power.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me that's cutting. After reading Wilson, Tarnita and Nowak's work on multi-level selection, I think Dawkins' stubborn clinging to ideas about inclusive fitness will show him up in the end. A bit like Fred Hoyle with the Big Bang. Wilson's a great example of a scientist willing to change his mind about even his favourite theories if the evidence shows he must.
> 
> Dawkins wrote a dreadful piece attacking Wilson and Nowak, which showed that he'd totally missed the point of what they were saying.


the sciencey stuff is well beyond me, tho the bits of Wilson I have read seemed convincing.  But that may well be simply because I'd rather he were right than Dawkins


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

belboid said:


> the sciencey stuff is well beyond me


And I think Wilson thinks it's beyond Dawkins too.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

belboid said:


> the sciencey stuff is well beyond me, tho the bits of Wilson I have read seemed convincing.  But that may well be simply because I'd rather he were right than Dawkins


 
I think this area is very fraught in terms of bias in favour of what we want to be true.  Also, defining the terms is very involved when you get into the nitty-gritty of units and levels of selection.  The debate has been going on for decades now. 

At times I wonder whether there is some commonality of understanding but the warring groups are very slightly at odds in their use of terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Like the 'trickle down' theory, then.
> 
> I don't expect this one to be settled for a while...


Science fact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

I admit that the idea of multi-level selection has always made intuitive sense to me. I don't quite see how it can't be true. So yes, I am probably predisposed to liking a model that shows its power. But the model is convincing, im (biased) o.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Book recommendation if you're interested in this: 
Martin Nowak's Supercooperators.

It's the best book on game theory I've read.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I admit that the idea of multi-level selection has always made intuitive sense to me. I don't quite see how it can't be true. So yes, I am probably predisposed to liking a model that shows its power. But the model is convincing, im (biased) o.


 
I think it depends on personal definitions of replicators, interactors and vehicles as to where people end up.  Multi-level selection looks pretty wooly to me, but stricter definitions lead to massive complexity where you have various fields of phenotypic and genotypic influence based on statistical associations between different levels of the system.

"This is being selected" is, I suspect, a massive oversimplification, and is itself an abstraction of emergent processes.

Intuitively I can see how you could view certain events through a lens of kin selection, group selection _or_ at the organism level, but it mungs the idea of the replicator to such a degree that I find it hard to say what it is actually saying in a unitary sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

I really don't think it is woolly. And as Nowak points out, selection happens at levels below that of the reproducing organisms, too._ Cancer cells_ are a result of Darwinian selection, where selection pressures have eventually produced cells that can't be made to die off.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Book recommendation if you're interested in this:
> Martin Nowak's Supercooperators.
> 
> It's the best book on game theory I've read.


 
Ooh - that's one for my Christmas list.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really don't think it is woolly. And as Nowak points out, selection happens at levels below that of the reproducing organisms, too._ Cancer cells_ are a result of Darwinian selection, where selection pressures have eventually produced cells that can't be made to die off.


 
Dawkins also had the replicator at a lower level than the individual organism - that was the whole point.
And with cancer cells you have a distinct replicator too, though they could also be defined as aberrant spandrel events.


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 7, 2014)

Put these comments together with his views on Islam and feminism and what you've got is the underpinning of the same bullshit I see peddled by extreme right-wingers and haters all over social media! He was good on evolution and how it undermined the arguments supported by believers but come away from that and he's a hateful little shit!


----------



## trabuquera (Nov 7, 2014)

belboid said:


> not entirely off topic... E O Wilson was brilliant on Newsnight last night:
> 
> “There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because *he’s a journalist*, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.”


 
 ooooOOOOOOoooo! Saw this as well and chuckled when he said that. There is no bitchery on earth as poisonous as that between very very clever men. And this is also such a classic putdown from an actual scientist... "my opponent might or might not be an idiot but he's certainly not in fact a scientist". see also: scientists liking to dismiss iffy or unsubstantiated theory as mere "arm-waving".

(and I agree with Wilson on this comment, if not on every other thing he's ever argued. I am not up on his latest works but he's been through the public-image wringer in his time as well - I don't remember all the details but his name was mud at many unis during the 60s-70s-80s because of perceived sexism and elitism in his thinking, iirc.)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

tbf Dawkins started it. He was _extremely rude_ about Wilson's latest book. But in the same article, he also demonstrated that he hadn't understood Wilson's argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

For those interested, here is Dawkins' article that started the spat. 

And here is the original paper. The main part is short and not too hard to follow. The supplementary information shows their workings, and is _hard_.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For those interested, here is Dawkins' article that started the spat.
> 
> And here is the original paper. The main part is short and not too hard to follow. The supplementary information shows their workings, and is _hard_.


 
Will be interested to have a proper look at the paper later, cheers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

What I'd like from Dawkins wrt the Wilson spat is a little bit of humility. Wilson has recognised that mathematicians like Nowak and Tarnita have a huge amount to offer biology by providing rigour to its theories. If you can't provide a mathematical model of your mechanism, that leaves it in a position where it cannot even try to prove anything. And if models show that your mechanism can't work, you'd better pay attention. That goes for all evolutionary biology, from what I can see, right back to Mendel.

But above all, if you don't understand the workings, admit as much and don't be so arrogant as to dismiss the findings out of hand. Dawkins isn't listening here, and I guess this is what Wilson is finding so exasperating. (And it's not just Dawkins - a fair few biologists have clambered on board to have a pop at Nowak.)

This reminds me of a quote from Max Planck:



> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.



I guess we'll have to check back in 20 years or so to see if I'm right.

ETA: And this new work is starting to back up much of what Stephen Jay Gould said about multi-level selection. Dawkins was also _extremely rude _about Gould, labelling him a pseudoscientist irrc, and Gould's reputation in some quarters isn't good. 

Note to Dawkins: Stop being extremely rude about colleagues. You might, just, find out that you were wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wilson has recognised that mathematicians like Nowak and Tarnita have a huge amount to offer biology by providing rigour to its theories.


 
I enjoyed reading Wilson and Gould at Uni - especially Gould.  You might be right that the old guard in this field are perhaps lacking some of the mathematical and computational chops necessary for the direction the field is heading in.  It would be ironic to see Dawkins on the wrong side of this given his pioneering work with computer modeling a few decades back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> It would be ironic to see Dawkins on the wrong side of this given his pioneering work with computer modeling a few decades back.


Yep. 

I'm guessing he collaborated with mathematicians and computer scientists to do that, though. Makes me wonder why he's so resistant to Nowak, in particular. He seems to take it personally that anyone would suggest that inclusive fitness theory is wrong - like they're personally calling him an idiot for accepting it and teaching it.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What I'd like from Dawkins wrt the Wilson spat is a little bit of humility.


I think you're more likely to get a visit from the Flying Spaghetti Monster


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm guessing he collaborated with mathematicians and computer scientists to do that, though.


 
He's had an obsessive interest in computers and programming for years - it was all his own work as far as I know.  I think his hostility to group selection comes down to the internal logic of his ideas about evolution.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> He's had an obsessive interest in computers and programming for years - it was all his own work as far as I know.  I think his hostility to group selection comes down to the internal logic of his ideas about evolution.


It might be best with Dawkins to try to remember him for the good stuff. Which book has the computer models of evolution at the back? Is it The Blind Watchmaker? I loved that book. 

The early albums were great...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It might be best with Dawkins to try to remember him for the good stuff. Which book has the computer models of evolution at the back? Is it The Blind Watchmaker? I loved that book.
> 
> The early albums were great...


I remember my dad having a copy of the meme program on his greenscreened Amstrad word processor. Thought it was awesome at the time..


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2014)




----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 13, 2014)

That quote sounds made up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 13, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> That quote sounds made up.



yes because it doesn't make any sense


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2014)

Especially as it kinda implies humans evolved from monkeys. Which we didn't


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 13, 2014)

belboid said:


> Especially as it kinda implies humans evolved from monkeys. Which we didn't


yeah different races evolved from different animals - white people from dogs, fish, cats, horses, and pigs. blacks from monkeys, bears, and leopards. Chinese from frogs, lizards and goats etc


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which book has the computer models of evolution at the back?


Climbing Mount Improbable, I think.


----------



## andysays (Nov 13, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Climbing Mount Improbable, I think.



If so, he's recycling his previous work

The Blind Watchmaker is the only one of his books I've read, and it's certainly in that


----------

