Dawkins controversial again.

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 2:06pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Same goes for his remarks on child sex abuse. If a bishop (or any prominent catholic) had made those remarks they would be devoured in the court of public opinion. Dawkins does it and it's "silly old Richard, sure we knew what you meant!"

and yet a very high up Cardinal says the Vatican has no responsibility for the sex abuse and I don't see posters here being too outraged by it

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pell-compares-priests-to-truckers-as-victims-given-apologies-20140821-3e3mk.html

Dawkins represents just himself, the Cardinal represents the Vatican and god...as such comments made by Cardinals are far far more damaging then anything Dawkins might ever say.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2014 2:09pm

GerB40 wrote: »

In the scientific community they tend to speak factually and more literally than in every day society when it comes to controversial topics.
The general population will often sugar coat or even avoid such topics.

What Dawkins does is speak in a scientific manner to the general population which sometimes doesn't translate well and makes him sound insensitive..

this doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all in this instance. he's acknowledged that his position is *not* what the tweet which kicked this off stated.
it proves the opposite of what you claim.

I Heart Internet · 22-08-2014 2:16pm

Cabaal wrote: »

and yet a very high up Cardinal says the Vatican has no responsibility for the sex abuse and I don't see posters here being too outraged by it

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pell-compares-priests-to-truckers-as-victims-given-apologies-20140821-3e3mk.html

Dawkins represents just himself, the Cardinal represents the Vatican and god...as such comments made by Cardinals are far far more damaging then anything Dawkins might ever say.

I read about that in today's Irish Independent, so I think there'll be plenty of outrage for Cardinal Pell as it gets digested.

Note that Cardinal Pell in no way sought to legitimise or minimise the awfulness of child sex abuse. Whereas Dawkins said, of a school teacher who sexually abused him and other boys:

"I don't think he did any of us lasting harm....
......I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2014 2:26pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I read about that in today's Irish Independent, so I think there'll be plenty of outrage for Cardinal Pell as it gets digested.

Note that Cardinal Pell in no way sought to legitimise or minimise the awfulness of child sex abuse. Whereas Dawkins said, of a school teacher who sexually abused him and other boys:

"I don't think he did any of us lasting harm....
......I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

I read the book and cant say I understand the major objection to the passage.
Was what Dawkins experienced 'pedophilia'? Yes.

Was it as severe as some other people experienced? No

Did it leave lasting damage? No

Is it worth pursuing the person who person now? No

I would say it's a nicely parced out expression of what happened to him in school. He didn't say his experience is representative all pedophilia, or representative of all pedophilia survivors. This was his experience and doesn't see the point in HIM launching a crusade against the pedophile in this instance.

If the same person abused another child and left lasting damage, that would be a different story.

What exactly is wrong with what he said?

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 2:26pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I read about that in today's Irish Independent, so I think there'll be plenty of outrage for Cardinal Pell as it gets digested.

Note that Cardinal Pell in no way sought to legitimise or minimise the awfulness of child sex abuse. Whereas Dawkins said, of a school teacher who sexually abused him and other boys:

"I don't think he did any of us lasting harm....
......I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

Thats his personal experience nothing more and again Dawkins only represents himself.
Brendan Gleeson also said he experienced abuse and it wasn't the worst thing in the world, again it was his personal experience and like Dawkins he can't judge other abuse victims.

Do you think Dawkin's shouldn't have his own personal opinion on his own personal experiences?
You don't have to agree with it, but he's certainly entitled to it just like Gleeson is.

in comparison we've seen the Vatican time and time again come out with some seriously stupid, ignorant and dangerous comments in relation to the sex abuse victims.

Including sending representatives over to victims of sex abuse who then told victims they were in it for the money and they made the stories up.

Lets remember that at the end of the day Dawkins words haven't caused people to under go untold years of mental health issues, to think about killing themselves or to have seriously issues with creating bonds with other human beings as they grew up.

This is why Dawkins comments are pretty meaningless in the scale of things, they have no real power behind them as they are from one person who just happened to write a few books. Thats nothing special in this day and age.

By comparison we have an organization that has billions of euro's behind it a long with a massive PR department and they still insult abuse victims on a almost weekly basis.

Dades · 22-08-2014 2:38pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Same goes for his remarks on child sex abuse. If a bishop (or any prominent catholic) had made those remarks they would be devoured in the court of public opinion. Dawkins does it and it's "silly old Richard, sure we knew what you meant!"

A victim can make those statements. A perpetrator can't.

robindch · 22-08-2014 3:20pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with what he said?

As elsewhere somewhere today, it was the fact that Dawkins made a comment on a controversial topic seems to have got peoples' backs up.

jank · 22-08-2014 3:25pm

Cabaal wrote: »

they did this by trying to blackmail TD's.

I am curious of this blackmailing? Can you elaborate? Did money change hands? Were there threats?

On the grand old master of A&A himself, well a first name has never been so appropriate.

I Heart Internet · 22-08-2014 3:28pm

jank wrote: »

I am curious of this blackmailing? Can you elaborate? Did money change hands? Were there threats?

On the grand old master of A&A himself, well a first name has never been so appropriate.

Individual priests/bishops publicly reminded individual catholics of the rules of the catholic church. This is considered blackmail by Cabaal.

Ralphdejones · 22-08-2014 3:40pm

robindch wrote: »

As elsewhere somewhere today, it was the fact that Dawkins made a comment on a controversial topic seems to have got peoples' backs up.

This is not correct. What people are objecting to is his pronouncement that it is immoral not to abort a child with Downs Syndrome.

kylith · 22-08-2014 3:41pm

jank wrote: »

I am curious of this blackmailing? Can you elaborate? Did money change hands? Were there threats?

On the grand old master of A&A himself, well a first name has never been so appropriate.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Individual priests/bishops publicly reminded individual catholics of the rules of the catholic church. This is considered blackmail by Cabaal.

I believe that what is being referred to is the threat by the Cardinal Brady to excommunicate politicians who did not vote in line with RCC teaching.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/cardinal-brady-says-threat-to-excommunicate-politicians-who-vote-in-favor-of-abortion-remains-206240341-237587061.html

This threat was later withdrawn, but it was made nevertheless

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 3:42pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Individual priests/bishops publicly reminded individual catholics of the rules of the catholic church. This is considered blackmail by Cabaal.

Individual priests? I think you'll find it was a cardinal, such a threat had far more sway down the ranks then just the local parish priest making a threat..

Do you consider it acceptable for representatives for another country to try force government officials to vote a certain way as acceptable behavior?

If the USA was trying to apply pressure on TD's to vote a certain way on something I'm sure you'd be the first to cry about it.,

I Heart Internet · 22-08-2014 3:45pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you consider it acceptable for another country to try force government officials to vote a certain way as acceptable behavior?

If the USA was trying to apply pressure on TD's to vote a certain way on something I'm sure you'd be the first to cry about it.,

No I wouldn't. It happens all the time. It's called diplomacy.

Irish catholic bishops reminding Irish Catholics of the rules of the RCC is not an international issue either.

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 3:54pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Irish catholic bishops reminding Irish Catholics of the rules of the RCC is not an international issue either.

Irish Bishops following Vatican guidelines when it comes to handling of sex abuse victims and sex abusing priests must also have nothing to do with the Vatican either.

That truck company comparison must be true after all....

I Heart Internet · 22-08-2014 3:57pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Irish Bishops following Vatican guidelines when it comes to handling of sex abuse victims and sex abusing priests must also have nothing to do with the Vatican either.

That truck company comparison must be true after all....

Cabaal's Debating Tips:
No.1: When loosing one argument, blame the church and continue to switch topics.

jank · 22-08-2014 3:58pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Individual priests? I think you'll find it was a cardinal, such a threat had far more sway down the ranks then just the local parish priest making a threat..

Do you consider it acceptable for representatives for another country to try force government officials to vote a certain way as acceptable behavior?

If the USA was trying to apply pressure on TD's to vote a certain way on something I'm sure you'd be the first to cry about it.,

Ireland lobbied the EU and Germany very heavily over the Promissory Notes deal of March 2012. Nobody seems to mind when things go for them but kick up a fuss when the same game is played against their own wishes. Don't hate the players hate the game hence why I am a libertarian, but I do find it amusing when those who viciously lobby government lose out and complain like babies when when other lobbyists win.

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 4:06pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Cabaal's Debating Tips:
No.1: When loosing one argument, blame the church and continue to switch topics.

Funny really,

You seem quick to condemn abuse victims for their personal opinions on their own abuse experiences. Thats pretty worrying.

But you'll make excuses for the church in general and the church's ignorant comments towards abuse victims.

Cabaal · 22-08-2014 4:10pm

jank wrote: »

well a first name has never been so appropriate.

You appear to be confused, you clearly think my name is Cabal. Very clearly it is not...

Dades · 22-08-2014 4:29pm

jank wrote: »

Ireland lobbied the EU and Germany very heavily over the Promissory Notes deal of March 2012. Nobody seems to mind when things go for them but kick up a fuss when the same game is played against their own wishes. Don't hate the players hate the game hence why I am a libertarian, but I do find it amusing when those who viciously lobby government lose out and complain like babies when when other lobbyists win.

There's a difference between lobbying and threatening.

The Iona Institute lobby the government, and while we bitch about them, that is their right. However threatening to excommunicate politicians whose primary responsibility is to the people who elected them, is not acceptable.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-08-2014 7:34pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

but it completely undermines his critique of the immorality arising from religion when he proves himself unable to vocalise his own morality without sounding like an idiot.

FWIW, i do believe that his position is as he outlined in the more considered piece, that he would not suggest that someone have an abortion they do not want.

When a theist uses the word 'immoral' they are absolutely indulging in condemning people, they imagine that morality is revealed in visions or texts by god(s) and is universally applicable even to those who do not subscribe to their religion or any religion

An atheist has no book or divine word to provide a moral framework for him or her self, so must devise their own. If I understand it correctly, Dawkins' view of morality would be along the lines of 'do not increase the sum total of human suffering'. and not bringing a child into the world with serious and incurable health difficulties is certainly compatible with that view of morality.

Whether anyone else subscribes to that view or not is entirely up to them.

It is very interesting however how a logical argument such as this can provoke so much illogical emotional reaction in others.

Edit: his longer statement is here https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:

“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.”

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2014 7:39pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

he probably doesn't realise the damage he may have done to the pro-choice movement. because the stance he has espoused has given pro-lifers exactly what they've been waiting for - a well known public figure who is propounding a pro-abortion as opposed to a pro-choice position.

His statement is not against pro-choice. He is not seeking legisation. He simply thinks that choosing to keep a fetus with a significant disability is immoral in his opinion. Being pro-choice does not mean you have to be OK with any situation that involves pregnancies or abortion.
I am pro choice but I concider it immoral to abort a child in late stages without a damn good medical reason. Nothing is a black and white issue.
If Dawkins sought to legisate against parents that want to keep a baby with DS, then I would oppose him, as THAT is anti-choice, but he is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on the matter. He is not a political authority or an expert in that area, so his opinion is that of a lay person (more or less).

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2014 7:49pm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Good health is temporary for everyone, who is Dawkins to pronouce from his ivory tower who should live or die like it's 1930's Germany ? Based on Dawkins 'suffering' criteria, why should Stephen Hawking be alive ? As if someone like Dawkings really gives a toss about anyone's elses health problems.

Hawkings was not born with his medical issue, it happened later on and (motor neuron disease) has grown progressively worse.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2014 7:54pm

Dades wrote: »

A victim can make those statements. A perpetrator can't.

CLAP CLAP CLAP. You hit the nail on the head.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2014 8:12pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

His statement is not against pro-choice. He is not seeking legisation. He simply thinks that choosing to keep a fetus with a significant disability is immoral in his opinion.

saying 'choosing not to abort is immoral' is condemning a choice not to abort, a choice a woman might make for many reasons. sure, it's not seeking any legislative control over the issue, but that doesn't mean it's not anti-choice. it's presuming a single moral action in a deeply complex and emotive issue, and as such, passes negative judgement on a woman caught up in that scenario.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2014 8:15pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is very interesting however how a logical argument such as this can provoke so much illogical emotional reaction in others.

interesting to the point of being trite?
the fact that a discussion/argument about whether it is immoral not to abort foetuses with disabilities ends up emotionally charged, is not in the least bit surprising.
and that very logic has to take emotions into account, or else it's not fit for purpose.

Czarcasm · 22-08-2014 8:31pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If understand it correctly, Dawkins' view of morality woud be along the lines of 'do not increase the sum total of human suffering'. and not bringing a child into the world with serious and incurable health difficulties is certainly compatible with that view of morality.

But when we refer to 'the sum total of human suffering', does that not imply an ethical position based on ones personal morality?

His personal opinion is based on the fact that due to his personal morality, he only sees the negative consequences of such a decision, when in fact, from the person's point of view, or indeed the child's welfare, anything which furthers their potential might be seen as a positive (Dawkins is allowed use the word 'might' when referring to the decision as a moral or immoral one).

Dawkins isn't viewing the decision objectively, from a balanced perspective, which is completely illogical. In order to be able to give a comprehensive answer (rather than just expand on the negative viewpoint), Dawkins should view the person as a whole, and not just focus specifically on any biological impediment upon their quality of life. By Dawkins standard, taking into account his moral stance, then sterilisation would prevent the necessity for abortion. See how illogical his position is now?

In fact, he rather surreptitiously alludes to it himself when he says "try again, if you still want to". Well of course they do if they wanted the first child but found out the child had downs and chose to abort. The thing is, each time they have to abort and try again, this is increasing the sum total of human suffering.

It is very interesting however how a logical argument such as this can provoke so much illogical emotional reaction in others

Basing an argument on morality, immediately renders the argument illogical. When Dawkins refers to 'increasing the sum total of human happiness' or 'decreasing the sum total of human suffering', how are happiness and suffering not based on an emotional reaction to an event, or a stimulus of some sort?

In the same way as Dawkins has increased the sum total of human suffering with his asinine, throwaway comments, he could so easily have increased the sum total of human happiness if he'd actually thought about someone else besides himself for more than a minute.

An informed perspective brings balance, something which in this case at least, Dawkins seems to be sorely lacking.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2014 9:10pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

saying 'choosing not to abort is immoral' is condemning a choice not to abort, a choice a woman might make for many reasons. sure, it's not seeking any legislative control over the issue, but that doesn't mean it's not anti-choice. it's presuming a single moral action in a deeply complex and emotive issue, and as such, passes negative judgement on a woman caught up in that scenario.

What he says in NO WAY stops someone from having the choice to keep a baby. His tweet simply states HIS opinion. Unless someone thinks Dawkins is the supreme arbitrar of what is right or wrong in the world, and last time I checked, no one does, his opinion has no more weight than if a comedian says so on a tweet.
He is perfectly entitled to consider it immoral, and based on his view on morality, he is consistent in his views as he explained in a later post.
There is nothing wrong with passing negative judgement on anyone over anything, as long as you don't FORCE them to obey. Life is not monotone, people differ on topics.

Brown Bomber · 22-08-2014 9:24pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats his personal experience nothing more and again Dawkins only represents himself.
Brendan Gleeson also said he experienced abuse and it wasn't the worst thing in the world, again it was his personal experience and like Dawkins he can't judge other abuse victims.

Do you think Dawkin's shouldn't have his own personal opinion on his own personal experiences?
You don't have to agree with it, but he's certainly entitled to it just like Gleeson is.

If you read the interview Dawkin's was not just speaking for himself but all victims (or non-victims according to Dawkins) he is aware of who have suffered what he disgustingly described as "mild paedophilia" - a virtual victimless crime.

Dawkins is paedophilia trivialiser and a bigot who promotes Der Sturmeresque anti-Muslim propaganda.

JihadistJoe-Islam-wants-you-tweet.png?zoom=1.5&w=100%25

recedite · 22-08-2014 9:33pm

Cabaal wrote: »

If a women becomes pregnant and she finds out the fetus will face constant pain and suffering when it comes to term and given she's the one that will have to raise and care for it she decides that an abortion is the best way to proceed then this is her decision.

Maybe, but "constant pain and suffering" is hardly a fair description of the Downs Syndrome condition. Certainly as kids they are as happy and perhaps happier than normal kids. I'm not sure Dawkins has factored this in to his "sum of human happiness" equation, he seems more fixed on the extra burden/responsibilities attaching to the parents. Maybe the parent's choice was between the Downs Syndrome baby and remaining childless or undergoing extensive/expensive fertility treatment. From their perspective, there may have been other "happiness" factors to take into account.

In fairness to Dawkins, he does say

..I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn..

so he is not trying to be dogmatic, he is open to debate and simply encouraging people to think for themselves before they act, which is always a good thing.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2014 10:05pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

What he says in NO WAY stops someone from having the choice to keep a baby.

You're countering an argument I'm not making. I'm saying his argument is anti choice by advocating choice and then declaring on of the two options is immoral, not that he is saying the choice should not be available.

What he is saying is 'women should be able to choose what to do but one of the choices is immoral '.

It's precisely the extremely emotive nature of the issue which means he should choose his words more carefully.

Dawkins controversial again.

Comments