Sorry but that doesn't cut it - he may have a longer-winded response to the woman's question but he didn't say in his tweet 'it's too complicated for 140 chrs' - he knee-jerked a response and is now seeking to have a pop at those who criticised him for it. I am pro-choice too, but I wouldn't in a billion years say to someone 'abort it' or that it would be 'immoral to bring it into the world'.
The rape example is just as bad - his use of logic might be correct, but the example he used to demonstrate it was factually *wrong*... there is nothing to suggest that 'stranger-rape' is worse than 'date-rape' because the perception of how bad it was depends on the victim not the observer.
If he wants to be a 'sound-bite scientist' then he needs to watch what he says, because he is alienating people and, people being the illogical and emotional beings they mostly are, many will stop listening to anything he says that might have validity.
note that what dawkins is famous for - the extended phenotype -is a hypothesis which has never been demonstrated. im not sure it isnt pseudoscience (memetics certainly is!).
In fairness much of evolutionary biology is difficult to demonstrate, but still has an internal logic. I agree about memetics however... that gives me a rash every time I hear it.
He should stick to schooling creationist godbotherers.
When he ventures into other areas he gets himself in trouble, usually because he tries to express complicated moral opinions via Twitter, which is never a good idea.
I believe that's what's known as a "politician's apology"...
Dawkins is increasingly becoming the Morrissey of evolutionary biology. Because he is and has been capable of great things, he has a fanbase who will defend to the hilt anything he says which, coming from anyone else, they would condemn.
Emotion is part of what makes us human. But my, or your, emotional response to anything should not automatically (as some here seem to desperately crave) trump thought-out, rational argument.
Emotion is part of what makes us human. But my, or your, emotional response to anything should not automatically (as some here seem to desparately crave) trump thought-out, rational argument.
Dealing the idea of 'what is worse' between rape scenarios is dealing NOT with logic but with personal emotion and experience.
Trying to reduce this complicated and personal thing to some 'logical' judgement of what is 'worse', is illogical and rather stupid.
Emotional response is about the person emotionally responding, rather than about the issue. Emotional response can be so strong that the person feeling it can only see themselves as right on the issue - no question about it. This should not trump rational, reasoned thought.
I respect the man as an atheist. When he is tearing down God bothering nonsense and religious bigotry he is a sight to behold. However I do not know what he is looking to accomplish with this stuff about "types of rape" and which is worse (seriously wtf?) and saying it's immoral to bring a child with DS into the world is going too far in a direction I really don't like....
I respect the man as an atheist. When he is tearing down God bothering nonsense and religious bigotry he is a sight to behold. However I do not know what he is looking to accomplish with this stuff about "types of rape" and which is worse (seriously wtf?) and saying it's immoral to bring a child with DS into the world is going too far in a direction I really don't like....
The stuff about types of rape is the kind of nonsense I would expect from backward ass ultra conservative religious hell holes like Uganda.
He should stick to schooling creationist godbotherers.
When he ventures into other areas he gets himself in trouble, usually because he tries to express complicated moral opinions via Twitter, which is never a good idea.
He's not going to school anyone though by suggesting that a first complex defies nature.
Sorry but that doesn't cut it - he may have a longer-winded response to the woman's question but he didn't say in his tweet 'it's too complicated for 140 chrs' - he knee-jerked a response and is now seeking to have a pop at those who criticised him for it. I am pro-choice too, but I wouldn't in a billion years say to someone 'abort it' or that it would be 'immoral to bring it into the world'.
The rape example is just as bad - his use of logic might be correct, but the example he used to demonstrate it was factually *wrong*... there is nothing to suggest that 'stranger-rape' is worse than 'date-rape' because the perception of how bad it was depends on the victim not the observer.
If he wants to be a 'sound-bite scientist' then he needs to watch what he says, because he is alienating people and, people being the illogical and emotional beings they mostly are, many will stop listening to anything he says that might have validity.
Thank you, jesaya. That's what I was trying to get at last night but you've summarised it better.
The stuff about types of rape is the kind of nonsense I would expect from backward ass ultra conservative religious hell holes like Uganda.
Exactly. It's also very similar to what some idiot misogynist Republicans spout over in the US. I bet Dawkins' fans would lose their shit if a religious leader spoke about the differing severity of sexual assaults.
I don't agree with his views on rape or post genetic screening but this is not going to suddenly make me start believing in God.
Atheism isn't like a religion where every utterance of the leader must be treated with reverential respect so hope posters don't try to use this to tar atheists with the same brush.
The media aren't twisting his words though. He is actually saying these things. Whatever else he says or adds to his original statements later on the damage has been done at that point. Someone close to him should advise him to get away from Twitter, it's obviously not doing him any good.
Emotion is part of what makes us human. But my, or your, emotional response to anything should not automatically (as some here seem to desperately crave) trump thought-out, rational argument.
It's not so easy to just switch the emotions off and go with the rational argument though, however sensible the rational argument may be. Most of us just aren't programmed in that way and it's nothing people like Dawkins should be making anyone feel ashamed of.
As a pro-choice woman, I still find what he said abhorrent. You just don't go around saying things like that, espcially on a platform like Twitter. It simply isn't on even if Dawkins is right or not.
The media aren't twisting his words though. He is actually saying these things. Whatever else he says or adds to his original statements later on the damage has been done at that point. Someone close to him should advise him to get away from Twitter, it's obviously not doing him any good.
What he said was profoundly insensitive and, indeed, compassionless. He should stick to evolutionary biology* and for everything else he should STFU.
*As far as academic biologists go, I'd rate Steve Jones, E O Wilson, the Odum brothers and Stephen Jay Gould as being more significant anyway.
I respect the man as an atheist. When he is tearing down God bothering nonsense and religious bigotry he is a sight to behold. However I do not know what he is looking to accomplish with this stuff about "types of rape" and which is worse (seriously wtf?) and saying it's immoral to bring a child with DS into the world is going too far in a direction I really don't like....
Indeed, Namira and it's heading towards Neu Reich territory . Actually, the way things are going, Dawkins would make a good, very short term, gaffe-prone UKIP candidate!
What he said was profoundly insensitive and, indeed, compassionless. He should stick to evolutionary biology* and for everything else he should STFU.
*As far as academic biologists go, I'd rate Steve Jones, E O Wilson, the Odum brothers and Stephen Jay Gould as being more significant anyway.
I'd have a longer list than that to be honest. RD is a very good popularist of science and he writes interestingly on the philosophy of science at times (when he isn't over-simplifying religion as a means to attack it) , but he isn't one of the 'greats' in evolutionary biology at all.
I'd have a longer list than that to be honest. RD is a very good popularist of science and he writes interestingly on the philosophy of science at times (when he isn't over-simplifying religion as a means to attack it) , but he isn't one of the 'greats' in evolutionary biology at all.
It's much worse than that; outside his area of expertise, his highly controversial tweets indicate that he's a reactionary and mysogenistic aR$3.
Reading through this thread, I'm astounded by the arrogance of some posters. No names, no pack drill, but hold on just one cotton pickin' moment here........ why shouldn't Citizen Dawkins say what he thinks, and what makes anybody else here so superior that they should tell him not to do so..?
Sometimes, some things that, on the surface might sound daft, are aspects of a discussion that nobody has said yet. By coming out and saying these things, rather than posturing and seeking attention, perhaps he is actually adding to the debate by saying things that nobody else has dared to yet.
"Rape is bad, m'kay." That sort of blanket "one size fits all" statement is the general consensus and I'd go along with that..... Up to a point. I wouldn't do rape myself and I wouldn't want it done to me. All rape is bad regardless of degree, but that doesn't mean that there is no level of degree involved. I can imagine scenarios where some rapes really ARE more traumatic than others.
So, what has he achieved with his comments...? Well, at the very least, he has stimulated the discussion on another dimension of an awful crime that needs to be fully understood so that it can be more effectively tackled.
I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins. He puts himself out there. He says a lot of things other people haven't got the balls to say.
He has put his thoughts out there where they will be discussed, thought about, examined, evaluated and either accepted and acted upon or discredited and discarded.
Comments
Sorry but that doesn't cut it - he may have a longer-winded response to the woman's question but he didn't say in his tweet 'it's too complicated for 140 chrs' - he knee-jerked a response and is now seeking to have a pop at those who criticised him for it. I am pro-choice too, but I wouldn't in a billion years say to someone 'abort it' or that it would be 'immoral to bring it into the world'.
The rape example is just as bad - his use of logic might be correct, but the example he used to demonstrate it was factually *wrong*... there is nothing to suggest that 'stranger-rape' is worse than 'date-rape' because the perception of how bad it was depends on the victim not the observer.
If he wants to be a 'sound-bite scientist' then he needs to watch what he says, because he is alienating people and, people being the illogical and emotional beings they mostly are, many will stop listening to anything he says that might have validity.
In fairness much of evolutionary biology is difficult to demonstrate, but still has an internal logic. I agree about memetics however... that gives me a rash every time I hear it.
When he ventures into other areas he gets himself in trouble, usually because he tries to express complicated moral opinions via Twitter, which is never a good idea.
I believe that's what's known as a "politician's apology"...
Dawkins is increasingly becoming the Morrissey of evolutionary biology. Because he is and has been capable of great things, he has a fanbase who will defend to the hilt anything he says which, coming from anyone else, they would condemn.
Dawkins is to atheism what Westboro are to Christianity or ISIS are to Islam.
Dealing the idea of 'what is worse' between rape scenarios is dealing NOT with logic but with personal emotion and experience.
Trying to reduce this complicated and personal thing to some 'logical' judgement of what is 'worse', is illogical and rather stupid.
The stuff about types of rape is the kind of nonsense I would expect from backward ass ultra conservative religious hell holes like Uganda.
He's not going to school anyone though by suggesting that a first complex defies nature.
Thank you, jesaya. That's what I was trying to get at last night but you've summarised it better.
Exactly. It's also very similar to what some idiot misogynist Republicans spout over in the US. I bet Dawkins' fans would lose their shit if a religious leader spoke about the differing severity of sexual assaults.
Atheism isn't like a religion where every utterance of the leader must be treated with reverential respect so hope posters don't try to use this to tar atheists with the same brush.
The media aren't twisting his words though. He is actually saying these things. Whatever else he says or adds to his original statements later on the damage has been done at that point. Someone close to him should advise him to get away from Twitter, it's obviously not doing him any good.
It's not so easy to just switch the emotions off and go with the rational argument though, however sensible the rational argument may be. Most of us just aren't programmed in that way and it's nothing people like Dawkins should be making anyone feel ashamed of.
As a pro-choice woman, I still find what he said abhorrent. You just don't go around saying things like that, espcially on a platform like Twitter. It simply isn't on even if Dawkins is right or not.
What he said was profoundly insensitive and, indeed, compassionless. He should stick to evolutionary biology* and for everything else he should STFU.
*As far as academic biologists go, I'd rate Steve Jones, E O Wilson, the Odum brothers and Stephen Jay Gould as being more significant anyway.
Indeed, Namira and it's heading towards Neu Reich territory . Actually, the way things are going, Dawkins would make a good, very short term, gaffe-prone UKIP candidate!
No he isn't.
The comparison is ludicrous.
I'd have a longer list than that to be honest. RD is a very good popularist of science and he writes interestingly on the philosophy of science at times (when he isn't over-simplifying religion as a means to attack it) , but he isn't one of the 'greats' in evolutionary biology at all.
It's much worse than that; outside his area of expertise, his highly controversial tweets indicate that he's a reactionary and mysogenistic aR$3.
Including religion.
Sometimes, some things that, on the surface might sound daft, are aspects of a discussion that nobody has said yet. By coming out and saying these things, rather than posturing and seeking attention, perhaps he is actually adding to the debate by saying things that nobody else has dared to yet.
"Rape is bad, m'kay." That sort of blanket "one size fits all" statement is the general consensus and I'd go along with that..... Up to a point. I wouldn't do rape myself and I wouldn't want it done to me. All rape is bad regardless of degree, but that doesn't mean that there is no level of degree involved. I can imagine scenarios where some rapes really ARE more traumatic than others.
So, what has he achieved with his comments...? Well, at the very least, he has stimulated the discussion on another dimension of an awful crime that needs to be fully understood so that it can be more effectively tackled.
I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins. He puts himself out there. He says a lot of things other people haven't got the balls to say.
He has put his thoughts out there where they will be discussed, thought about, examined, evaluated and either accepted and acted upon or discredited and discarded.
He's a scientist and that's what scientists do.
He says nothing more profound than the average intelligent atheist. ( If that's not a contradiction)