Furze99 wrote: » Heard it in the moment - thought O'Connor was being pretty passive aggressive. He obviously was set on point scoring even though he insisted he wasn't. Rude, even to the point of alleging on air that Dawkins had hung up at one stage to avoid a question. He knew Dawkins is too clever to be boxed in but still tried to bully him. Unlikable as a host.
Beechwoodspark wrote: » Just listened back Minor quibble - BOC was overly emotional (in my opinion) when the discussion went to Down’s syndrome Otherwise it was a very pleasant conversation Chapeau to both
Beechwoodspark wrote: » BOC told him about his family situation during the interview.
plodder wrote: » It was very uncomfortable listening and could have been worse if O'Connor had pressed him on some of the questions he asked. Personally, I have a lot of time for Dawkins, but it was interesting to hear him row back on his most strident claims that it could be "immoral" to allow a foetus with Down's Syndrome to live. I wonder if Dawkins was aware of O'Connor's situation. I suspect not, and I think they both handled it quite well.
Shelga wrote: » This has suddenly become extremely uncomfortable listening. Whatever you think of Brendan, and I’m not his biggest fan, he’s handling this well. He asked exactly what I was thinking- “Do you know anyone personally with Down’s Syndrome?” Dawkins replied- “no.” Says it all really.
Cole wrote: » It doesn’t have to be one or the other …you can ‘spout theory’ and also know what you’re talking about or ‘spout’ theory and not really know. I’m in the same game, so I know all about lecturers who are spoofers. In fairness to Skehan, I don’t think he’s the typical PhD and research only academic; he’s done a lot of ‘real life’ stuff too. So there were no assumptions or suggestions to revere someone just because of being a lecturer, but I also wouldn’t go to the other extreme of calling him a “clown”. His background suggests that he might know “just a little” (my words) but maybe not everything about the topic…i.e. I’d be prepared to listen carefully to what he’s saying and maybe then agree/disagree. As for any quotation, there’s the minor inconvenience of having to interpret them in the context of the words that become before or after…putting them in bold and underlining them doesn’t change that.Anyway, we can agree to disagree. We could go back and forth, but it would just end up like pulling teeth.
blackvalley wrote: » You are making the assumption that because he is a lecturer ( jenuflect at this point ) he knows what hes talking about rather than being a spouter of theory.
blackvalley wrote: » OK so what he said exactly and I quote is " The normal rules of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market " And in relation to anti social behavour. "Go down to that village green and tell the sixty , fifty , forty thirty year olds to stop drinking in public BEFORE tackling those kids " So take the pint off grandad because what he is doing is causing little Johnny to throw people under trains.
Ahwell wrote: » Nah, I'd give him a pass on this...in fact, I'd applaud any presenter who got "miffed" at these particular views.
Cole wrote: » That's not exactly what he said. It was challenged by BOC. I think you are kidding us because that's not what he said. I'm not defending what he actually said, as I don't really know enough about the topics. He did seem a bit overly dismissive at times, but I'm guessing that a lecturer in environment and planning knows just a little about housing, so I wouldn't dismiss him as a clown and just (mis)represent what he said because I don't agree with him. But hey, why break this forums habit of just selectively listening/reading/interpreting and then making assumptions about broadcasters/politicians/posters to fit a preferred narrative on an issue.
secman wrote: » Thought the interview was handled very well by BOC, Dawkins tripped himself up on the use of the word morally and in the ended withdrew it. BOC outboxed Dawkins. Laughable how people genuinely believe he's as thick as a plank they must be looking in the mirror too often
blackvalley wrote: » He also went on to say that building more houses was not necessarly the answer as the laws of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market .
blackvalley wrote: » That extraordinary assertion went unchallenged by the host .
blackvalley wrote: » By the way the same clown dismissed the anti social behaviour of toerags at railway stations and on the streets because ( i kid you not ) " adults were having a pint in the town center " during lockdown and showing bad example . :eek:
RandomViewer wrote: » O Connor has a Downs child,
john123470 wrote: » Dawkins original point was that a foetus shown to have abnormalities and thereby live a life of suffering should be aborted. His point being that the Church should not be the adjudicator in such matters. A fair enough point until you come up against a brick wall like O Connor I heard nothing about the new book although Dawkins did try to steer the interview back on course twice .. it was all about O Connor and his perceived grievance Thick as a plank, as they say
Ahwell wrote: » "pet foibles" is hardly apt given the subject matter. The first eight minutes were about the book. I doubt the end of Dawkins goodbye being cut was deliberate. These things happen on live radio quite often.
B2021M wrote: » Yes it will all be dismissed as 'right wing' and not considered on its merits - there may be even a snide reference to Trump thrown in too as a slam dunk. Plus nobody with those views will be allowed on for another 6 months or so.
john123470 wrote: » Its understandable that he might challenge Dawkins statement but not to make the whole interview about Brendan O C being upset Dawkins was asked onto the programme to talk about his book not about O Connors pet foibles and upsets. Also, he cut Dawkins off abruptly at the end before the man could even say goodbye. No doubting Brendan's anger here Brendan O Connor is - how to put it delicately - a jumped up Yahoo
Cole wrote: » I had stopped listening on a Sunday, but I heard the line up at the beginning and thought I'd listen as Conor Skehan was on...and he didn't disappoint. It was so telling to hear the (literal) stumbling over words from BOC to counter him calling out the narrative on the recent housing story. The absolute silence from Niamh Hourigan was the most telling...just reflects the absolute ideological echo-chamber that her broad academic area has become (humanities/social sciences). Neither of them were expecting anyone to actually pose a different position on the story...had never even considered it. And just as some listeners were probably screaming "right wing neoliberal capitalist" at Skehan, he showed a more 'left wing' socially liberal view on the apparent increased anti-social behaviour of the younger generation. Now I'm not expert enough on either of the topics to really counter either of his positions, but he does seem to judge each issue on its merits/facts/evidence. That's how it should be done and not this ideological echo-chamber kind of thing that's so widespread now...sometimes on these forums too.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » No it’s not, he should have ignored it, as a presenter you really cannot bring your own circumstances into an interview or debate. I totally disagree with Dawkins, but O’Connor should have taken him on on facts and logic rather than getting personally involved. A lot of this kind of stuff creeping into radio programmes recently. Not a good trend, this poster would opine.
Infoanon wrote: » Wonder will Conor get invited on again after calling out Brendan and the rest of the media and their use of terms eg 'generation rent ' to exaggerate a non story in the bigger picture. We haven't heard from Paul Sommerville since he called out Brendan, RTE and the rest of the media over Covid.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d290c7df69a5f031e01b26c4e297c4c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7eb61b90d43b6a9f2815c2a58d0f497f.svg)
