As Dawkins said this morn.

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    Maybe your suffering from, "The DA Delusion"?
     
  2. Ok, btiw2, or whoever you have become.

    You asked above "Are there levels of how heinous awful crimes are? Using reason, yes."

    Which, I understand, is precisely what Dawkins posited.

    You go on to add "We have courts of law where judges, on a case-by-case basis, can determine the abhorrence of different crimes."

    So, can you answer the question I put to PJ that he failed to reply to - are all rapes of equal heinousness?

    You may recall the well-intentioned - but misguided - move by a PM some years back to introduce the 'victim statement' to a court before sentence was passed down? This was intended to allow the judge to reflect not only on the crime itself, but how badly the victim was affected by it - and possibly adjust his sentencing accordingly.

    As I said, it was probably well-intentioned (tho' possibly simply a 'populist' move, but let's not go there), but it's instantly flawed by the existence of the "Hanging is too good for him" and "Lock him up and throw away the key" contingent, both requests considered by the judge to be a tad harsh for the litter lout in question. (That's a joke...)

    Other victims have been known to declare (and I paraphrase, but I'm pretty sure you have read of such cases) "I forgive him, and I know he will live with the guilt of what he's done for all his life, so all I hope is that he reflects on this."

    Yes, such crimes are hugely emotive, but that is precisely why emotion should be kept out of the penal system.


    Anyhoo, btiw2 - or whoever you have become - to close with "What's certain though is that Richard Dawkins needs to "go away, and learn how to feel" is as shallow and self-righteous a criticism of the guy as any levelled at him. So, you weren't being ironic at the Tyson video after all? Man, you really got me there.
     
  3. Don't put words or thoughts into Dawkin's mouth that aren't there, PJ.

    It is pretty clear to me what he meant, and what you say there is your wilful distortion of it.
     
  4. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.”

    That's part of his apology for the Down's tweet. He went on to try and deflect attention from the obvious disconnect with a section about, when does a fetus become a person but it's a shallow effort
    Of course it's a sequitur. If you say the one the other follows.

    He might not ever say it to someone with Down's (cowardice?) but if you have Down's and you discovered someone had said to not have you aborted was immoral, you don't need him to say it to you. He's already said it!

    He has already said, you should have been aborted and your parents did an immoral thing in letting you be born.

    Shall I add 'coward' to the list?
     
  5. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    If you can show that what he said in that quote is quantatively different from how I previously paraphrased it, I'll concede that I must have wilfully distorted his words :)
     
  6. One does not follow.

    One refers to a fetus that is a fetus and is still a fetus, and one refers to a human being that has developed in to a human being and has been born a human being.

    He's blunt, yes, but that's to cut through the carp. The carp that's often being put up as a sanctimonious smokescreen.

    It is often the last resort of those who cannot argue the reason of what he says - they try to suggest they are more, what?, 'human' than he is? More emotionally involved? Act on behalf of a higher being? Are more in touch with their 'feelings'? More 'spiritual' in whatever sense they try to employ that term?

    I have not, in this thread, tried to defend Dawkin's turn of phrase in 'that' tweet - I totally get why its bluntness may have offended, and I would also agree that a limited-character 'tweet' may not have been the best outlet for making it in the first place. I am answering now after it was others - including yourself - who have tried to do the opposite.

    Don't presume you (et al) speak for the majority of even pregnant women.

    It is - of course - a hugely sensitive and delicate subject - how could it not be.

    Again, to make a point, we can try and take this to its logical conclusion - I don;t know if you recall from many years back a blind couple - both from an inherited and congenital condition - who had got married and wanted to have children. They tried to argue that they wanted their foetuses screened so that their child would be guaranteed to also be born blind - their condition was 'just as valid' as any other human being and to try and select against blindness would diminish their equality...

    Yes, Downs Syndrome children are 'equal' and valuable human beings. Except that many/most will require constant looking after and will be highly vulnerable if not. They will therefore require the life-long commitment of their parents as carers, or else that of professional carers - often on a 24-hour basis. However 'loving' (the usual euphemism employed in such cases) they apparently are, they will not have the full depth of emotional interaction of a non-syndrome child and adult. Relatively few will be fully self-sufficient, and - although huge advances have been made in this respect - they tend to have shorter life-spans, something their devoted parents will be constantly aware of.

    All this in a world where countless millions are starving, and very many in this country struggling to have basic mental health care (good news on that front this morning, by the way).

    Dawkins tweeted in response to a specific parent who was struggling with that moral dilemma.

    If it ain't a moral dilemma, then why do they screen for Down's at all?

    When we decided to have children, we discussed such issues and decided that if we were informed of any detectable condition that would significantly compromise our offspring's quality of life, we would terminate if it were at an early enough stage. I make no apologies for including Downs Syndrome in that list.

    It is a choice for each individual parent to make. I would fully support the right of any parent to make the opposite choice.

    I don;t, however, have a second of time for 'pro-life' groups, whether religiously-based or no.

    As far as our flawed human minds allow (and, my god, how they are flawed), this should be a reasoned and as emotion-free a decision as is possible. But I also know that isn't realistic.
     
  7. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Who have I become? That's quite funny. Hang on, let me take inventory. Yep. Still me (but how would I know for sure?).

    I answered your question - No. That's why we have judges.

    You seem to be deliberately missing the point (or trying to change it).

    PJ's comments are about Richard Dawkins' character, not the logical truth of the remarks (which is probably why he's ignoring your question).

    What Dawkins said was crass, insensitive and hurtful. Imagine a victim of a rape or paedophilia having the crimes against them described as "mild".
    Can you really not see that this is insensitive language?
    He chose to try and talk about complex issues in a medium that restricted him to 140 characters. What was he thinking?
    By restricting himself to 140 characters Richard's comments sounded like he was being a bit of a... Richard (that's a handy way of getting round the swear filter).

    Okay, I answered your question. Consider this one:
    What if the Catholic church said that their paedophilia cases weren't as bad as if the children had been murdered too?
    Logically true, but isn't there a sensitivity that's lacking?

    How do you sign sympathy cards, "I'm sorry for your loss, but it's not as bad as if a great humanitarian had died"?

    And on the subject of "it's immoral to bring a down syndrome child into the world".
    Defending this one seems bizarre.
    We no longer accept the Church as the final arbiters of what is immoral, and I'm certainly not prepared to put that power in the hands of Richard Dawkins!
    So I think this one fails both on logical grounds (unless Richard Dawkins really is claiming to have absolute knowledge of what it immoral), and on empathy.

    Is "go away, and learn how to feel" shallow?
    Yes. It's precisely just as shallow as "go away, and learn how to think".
    Is it self-righteous?
    No, I don't think so. I didn't claim that I was absolutely morally superior. I'm certainly prepared to admit that I can be hurtful and insensitive.
    Fortunately (for me) I don't have to moderate my language (as much) because my insensitive remarks aren't broadcast by the BBC.

    I've read at least five of Dawkins' books. The Selfish Gene completely changed the way I thought about genetics (those chapters on the intersection of genetics and game theory - loved them!). I thought The Ancestor's Tale was sublime.
    Intellectually, I think he's brilliant. But this isn't about his intellect. The measure of a human is surely in their humanity too.
    It's disappointing to me that Richard Dawkins failed to properly apologise for his crudely expressed remarks and that you want to condone, even applaud, them.

    I honestly have no idea what levels of meaning and irony you're bringing in to that video.
    I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is a brilliant and inspirational science educator. I thought his rebuke (which Dawkins accepted in good humour) was fair.
    Other science educators manage to get their complex points across without being a complete Richard about it.
     
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  8. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    If you want to cut through something then you need to be sharp, not blunt.

    That's good, we agree on something. But Dawkins chose to use twitter to make his point, no-one forced him to do it.
    Any sensible person would have thought that the subject was too nuanced to resolve in 140 characters.
    I don't know, perhaps he was drunk.

    Ummm, I don't think anyone is presuming this (except perhaps Dawkins when he pronounced something as "immoral" without qualification).
    But does your point mean I can't say racism is hurtful because I'm not black?

    You seem to be trying to substitute the point under discussion for a different one.

    Which is why it's irresponsible for a prominent academic to just slap the "immoral" label on this difficult decision.

    Neither do I. I don't have any time for evolutionary biologists who pronounce on the morality of it either.
     
  9. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    DA, you seem to have a great deal of confusion over sequitur and non sequitur.

    Of course it follows that if you say it's immoral not to abort you are saying that to go full term and give birth is an immoral act. Of course you are saying that abortion should have taken place. Durrrrr!

    Another sequitur goes....fetus - baby - adult.
    Or are you claiming that's a non sequitur too????

    You can be such a plank sometimes!

    And ftr, I have addressed your attempt to drag me into a discussion on mild vs serious crimes as expressed by Dawkins.

    Have a look back, I said as far as I'm concerned it's an irrelevance in this context. The issue is as btiw has laid out very well.
    That Dawkins has exhibited no empathy for humanity in any of these 'controversies'.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  10. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Ahh, so why do sentences vary so much for the exact same crimes up and down the country? Perhaps we should have "standard tariffs" for crime? ,,, Murder, an automatic 10 yr sentence (10 yrs to actually mean 10 yrs though) Child murder,, Is a child's life more important than an adult? Is a policeman's life more important than an ordinary member of the public? ,, Manslaughter? Whatcha reckon, does it depend on the circumstances or not? Most pleas go along the lines of "I didn't mean to kill him/ her" (yeah right) Rape cases where the attacker was unknown to the victim and rape cases where the attacker was known to the victim? Is there a difference or not? Rape is rape no matter how you try to dress it up.

    If emotion is to be left out of the legal/ penal system, then it has to be applied equally.. Might as well come up with a totally logical computer program to determine guilt and sentencing.. I can just see the future cases at the Old Bailey when someone's been found guilty.. The judge presses a button, looks up to the defendant and says "The computer says Noooooooooo".
     
  11. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I think the issue here is that its one thing applying criteria to a single crime e.g. a specific date rape case vs a specific violent rape case, but its different when applying it to a group - date rapes vs violent rapes in general.

    It can certainly be argued that one specific rape case it worse/not as worse as another, various factors are considered which is why we have different sentences in different cases. It could be argue that, for example, date rape cases are "not as bad" as violent rape case if the evidence points to it e.g. average sentences for date rape are more lenient that for violent rape. But that does NOT mean that all date rapes are "not as bad" as all violent rapes; this is where generalisation don't hold water. What can be said about specific cases can't be said for a collection of cases.
     
  12. Much of this I agree with. Significant points I don't.

    "PJ's comments are about Richard Dawkins' character, not the logical truth of the remarks (which is probably why he's ignoring your question)."

    That's very generous of you - it would help if PJ himself could clarify.

    PJ brought these tweets in to this thread after we had a discussion on whether Dawkins' remarks about the Brexit vote were valid - roughly that 'reason' should prevail in such events, and not emotion. PJ then introduced these somewhat unrepresentative 'tweets' with the clear intention of discrediting the guy - painting him as not a nice guy. If you follow the development of the thread, I don't think you can arrive at any other justification for his post.

    I thought my challenge to PJ - to counter what Dawkins was actually saying - was fair. PJ has not done so. (And what an easy thing it would be to do - far easier than using the 'personality' excuse to not.)

    So, what are you saying btiw2 - this is now a thread about personalities and not reason? Really? Blimey, plenty of options on this very forum in that case. Or we only have to glance at a bunch of Brexiteers - Banks, Fox, Johnson, Tebbit, Lawson, Farage, Nuttal - there simply doesn't exist enough pages on this forum to do that lot justice.

    Is that what this thread's about? Of course it bleedin' isn't!

    We can even look at what Dawkins actually said, I mean tweeted:"date rape is bad" and "stranger rape at knifepoint is worse". What a nasty person Dawkins is. But - hey - he's made a statement of the bleedin' obvious. But let's sl@goff his personality for being blunt, eh?

    Paedophilia? That's easy - he, himself, has been a victim of this in its 'mild' form - inappropriate touching by a schoolmaster, I believe it was? So, he has contrasted 'mild' paedophilia with "violent" paedophilia on titter too. A second statement of the bleedin' obvious - I wish he'd stop.

    What a nasty nasty guy he is.

    Pleased you've read some of his books, btiw2 - I thoroughly recommend 'Climbing Mount Improbable' too, especially the chapter on the evolution of the eye.

    Any nasty tweets in there? No? Phew.

    Let's focus on his 'two tweets' for the purpose of his supposed personality and this thread, then.
     
  13. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    So you're suggesting we discuss the message instead of the messenger; that we start playing the ball instead of the man?

    I thought this Brexit question had been resolved in the usual Screwfix fashion.
    You believed that the referendum should never have been offered. Everybody else (who expressed an opinion) thought you were wrong.
    The thread then descended into name calling and the standard pattern, you know, the one that goes: ...Lies...answer my question...Juncker....remoaner...Tony Blair...rolls eyes emoji...
     
  14. Yes. And seemingly only Dawkins and I are right *.

    (Although said in a flippant manner, I do mean that most sincerely.)



    * And obviously lots more rational and clear-thinking folk as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2017
  15. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    The whole thread is built on an appeal to authority. Ie, Dawkins is an authority, he backs up my view....so there.

    Logic fallacies are an inherent part of how DA approaches debate. Time after time, thread after thread and this thread started with one.

    And the authority DA appealed to?
    A man who, as we found out in the interview that DA couldn't even be bothered to link to in the OP, holds an undemocratic view. Which DA agrees with.
    A man who has shown himself to lack empathy, compassion and understanding of the effects of his words on people who have been through hell.
    A man who has on many occasions even alienated his natural 'allies' with this uncaring, hard line approach to expressing his views.
    A man who will do all of this again. And again. It's just who he is.

    And then as the thread has developed there has been yet more logical fallacies thrown in by DA, yet more attempts to divert the 'thread' of the thread into areas DA feels confident he can control. Usual DA stuff.

    I guess the moral is, if you're going to make lame appeals to authority, be careful about your choice of authority.

    Or summat like that.

    Probably best just to not rely on browbeating and logical fallacies in open debate in the first place.

    I eagerly await the day when DA realises this. :)
     
  16. You are seemingly every bit as knowledgeable of the Dawkins cove as I am - most likely more so. You've read a number of his books, and you've almost certainly read many of his other tweets and watched videos of him on t'tube. Perhaps you've even seen his televised documentaries.

    So you should have a pretty good grasp of the humanity of the guy.

    And yet you are happy to run with these two poorly-worded tweets, the actual content of which can be argued - even on a 'moral' ground - quite convincingly.

    Yet you condemn him in astonishingly powerful terms.

    I am truly gobsmacked, btiw2.
     

  17. And that is your truly honest and balanced assessment of Dawkins and all he has done?!

    I do not believe you. How much of Dawkins in conversation and discussion and argument have you actually watched?! It is often eye-watering stuff to be sure. And not from the direction you claim.

    And I've yet to see you claim you disagree with what he says.
     
  18. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    See, there you go again with the exact behaviour I highlighted.

    Not interested any more, I'm off to do important stuff like watch the cricket :)
     
  19. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    A couple of things. Just because I'm familiar with someone's work it doesn't mean I agree with them. Even if I agree with most of what they say it doesn't mean I defend everything they say.
    If I'm not prepared to give the pope infallibility then I don't see why Dawkins should get it by default.

    Actually I was trying to condemn the message more than the man. It's a difficult line to walk.
    I suppose that's kinda my point too - it's easy to misinterpreted comments. If you're an eminent professor it's even more important to be accurate.

    Additionally, I was trying to get you to admit that those comments were, on some level, inappropriate and hurtful.
    After PJ posted the links you backed the comments, then doubled down, then tripled down, then quadrupled down.

    That was frustrating. If you'd just started with
    then I'd have held back. But you appeared to be backing Dawkins the way that Harry backs(backed?) Prime Minister May.

    Good. Sometimes we all need a smack in the gob.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There's no doubt that Professor Dawkins is quite brilliant intellectually, and has argued for human rights and addressed humanitarian issues. I'm not denying that.
    ...but nor can I deny that over the last few years he's been getting clumsier and less nuanced with his language. He's getting dragged into controversies of his making.
    When he's called out on it he seems bemused, like telling a Granddad that "you can't call black people that any more".

    Old, yet brilliant biologists can have a bit of problem with incredibly insensitive, racist and sexist comments[1]. I'd hate to see Dawkins go the full James Watson.
    I suppose mathematicians have it worse - they just go full-on-batcarp-crazy[2].

    I can't help but think he should disable his twitter account before he really ruins his legacy.

    [1] Here are two Nobel Prize winners as examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_comments and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Tim_Hunt_controversy_at_WCSJ
    [2] Godel, Cantor, Nash, Grothendieck
     
  20. P J Thompson said:
    The whole thread is built on an appeal to authority. Ie, Dawkins is an authority, he backs up my view....so there.

    Logic fallacies are an inherent part of how DA approaches debate. Time after time, thread after thread and this thread started with one.

    And the authority DA appealed to?
    A man who, as we found out in the interview that DA couldn't even be bothered to link to in the OP, holds an undemocratic view. Which DA agrees with. You call it undemocratic because it doesn't suit you agenda on this Brexit issue. I call it rational and reasonable. And you will know that other political experts and commentators will also argue this point - there are some issues of such great complexity and of such great constitutional importance - and which is so open to abuse by populist rantings - that they are simply not fit for a simplistic democratic vote by largely uninformed folk.

    A man who has shown himself to lack empathy, compassion and understanding of the effects of his words on people who have been through hell. Yes, in these two incidences, and possibly others. Two tweets which you carefully sought out - why did you do this? How does it colour the content of his argument on the Brexit issue? I will also ask of you - what are the chances that his 'insensitive' tweets on Downs Syndrome actually gave reassurance to as many potential mothers who were going through this very dilemma, and who felt 'moral' pressure to not terminate? I wonder how many victims of brutal rape look on at newspaper column inches devoted to 'date rape' as the new evil, and being talked about as being 'just as bad'? I wonder how many victims of gross and violent abuse by paedophiles look on in despair at the headlines of the trauma suffered by little Billy because he was bounced a little too rapidly on the knee of a dodgy uncle? I can't believe how insensitive you and btiw2 are to these poor folk... (Sarcy - but point understood? However 'intensive' Dawkins' tweets may have been, he made valid and useful arguments.)

    A man who has on many occasions even alienated his natural 'allies' with this uncaring, hard line approach to expressing his views. Give me some examples. A man who will do all of this again. Give me some examples. And again. Give me some examples. It's just who he is. I think you are seriously over-egging the pudding.

    And then as the thread has developed there has been yet more logical fallacies thrown in by DA, yet more attempts to divert the 'thread' of the thread into areas DA feels confident he can control. Usual DA stuff. No, actually I (mis)understood the issue involved, which is why I repeatedly asked you to clarify where you stood on the points Dawkins raised, and was surprised (suspicious) when you wouldn't. I didn't realise you were out for character assassination based on his clumsiness & insensitivity, and not through any actual analysis of the validity of his points. Based on two tweets. Just because he diss'ed your Brexit. (Why else?).

    I guess the moral is, if you're going to make lame appeals to authority, be careful about your choice of authority.

    Or summat like that.

    Probably best just to not rely on browbeating and logical fallacies in open debate in the first place.

    I eagerly await the day when DA realises this. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2017

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice