Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
#51

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 02:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 06:14 AM)Chas Wrote: I'm not sure what your use of 'commentator' encompasses, but he's quite an erudite and entertaining speaker.

Outside his scientific specialty, he seems to have more than his share of these moments. As Frank would say:


Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. But ...


Sure, he has fans. So did Pol Pot Tongue
Reply
#52

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-17-2020, 02:22 PM)SYZ Wrote: The Friendly Atheist wilfully misrepresents what Dawkins was getting at, and tried to paint him as a supporter
of eugenics—which is absurd.  

Dawkins said, "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.
I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.   Just as we breed cows to yield more
milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven [sic ] forbid that we should do it."


Showing once again that reading comprehension rarely prevents anyone from grinding their favorite axe.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#53

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-17-2020, 07:15 PM)Dom Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 06:57 PM)Free Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Anyway” is an adverb meaning regardless. Simply put, “anyway” without an S is correct.
Always use it without the S. “Anyways” with the S is considered slang, and is a part of nonstandard, colloquial, or informal English."

Lexicon is the rule.

But, you know, I don't really care anyways.

Dance

I ain't got no issues with "anyways" anyways.


English:  if you're not bending it to some degree you're not doing it right.  Try French if you like constancy.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#54

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 05:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:58 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy...

Um... what the...?    I never claimed you were "jealous" of Dawkins' status.  Please don't put
words in my mouth.

Seems to me that jealousy is implicit in tall poppy syndrome:

You may've misunderstood me when I said  "I'm not quite sure of late why attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport. Tall poppy syndrome maybe?"

Nothing to do with you personally, at all.     Smile
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#55

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 03:04 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 02:37 AM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 12:58 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I don't want to assume I know what you mean, could you clarify?  What do you mean by discrimination on the basis of genetics?

Just by definition, any eugenics program would be discriminatory.  Such a program would be designed to eliminate the bad genes and promote the good ones.  How would it work without discrimination?

Eugenics:
Quote: the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

Okay true by definition one characteristic is being discriminated in favor of another.  I thought for the purpose of hypotheticals the ethics of it were off the table and we were just imagining whether it "works" which it surely would (and does when applied to the plant and animal kingdom).  Taking out the negative connotation, "discrimination" can be neutral, we certainly want to discriminate against severe birth defects.

Indeed nobody likes birth defects among many other traits that someone could reasonably find undesirable.
 
But it's one thing to advise someone not to have children.  It's quite another to have a program that restrain certain cohorts from having them(through sterilization or otherwise) if they disagree.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
Reply
#56

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 03:23 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 05:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:58 PM)SYZ Wrote: Um... what the...?    I never claimed you were "jealous" of Dawkins' status.  Please don't put
words in my mouth.

Seems to me that jealousy is implicit in tall poppy syndrome:

You may've misunderstood me when I said  "I'm not quite sure of late why attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport. Tall poppy syndrome maybe?"

Nothing to do with you personally, at all.     Smile

Well, I was criticizing him online, which kinda puts me in the category you've drawn, obviously.
Reply
#57

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 06:33 PM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 03:04 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 02:37 AM)tomilay Wrote: Just by definition, any eugenics program would be discriminatory.  Such a program would be designed to eliminate the bad genes and promote the good ones.  How would it work without discrimination?

Eugenics:

Okay true by definition one characteristic is being discriminated in favor of another.  I thought for the purpose of hypotheticals the ethics of it were off the table and we were just imagining whether it "works" which it surely would (and does when applied to the plant and animal kingdom).  Taking out the negative connotation, "discrimination" can be neutral, we certainly want to discriminate against severe birth defects.

Indeed nobody likes birth defects among many other traits that someone could reasonably find undesirable.
 
But it's one thing to advise someone not to have children.  It's quite another to have a program that restrain certain cohorts from having them(through sterilization or otherwise) if they disagree.

No one's doing that.  As SYZ pointed out:

(02-17-2020, 02:22 PM)SYZ Wrote: The Friendly Atheist wilfully misrepresents what Dawkins was getting at, and tried to paint him as a supporter
of eugenics—which is absurd.  

Dawkins said, "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.
I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.   Just as we breed cows to yield more
milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven [sic ] forbid that we should do it."
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#58

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 04:06 AM)Tres Leches Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 01:21 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 01:13 AM)Tres Leches Wrote: +1

@SYZ I haven't heard of tall poppy syndrome (edit: I see the definition quoted above) but I'm guessing it means shooting down people who raise their heads above the parapet (to use another phrase)? If so, yes, I'll fully own that with Dawkins. I'm on board with discussing evidence-based, peer-reviewed science but he veers way off that into personal viewpoints. Better that he keeps his head down and stays quiet as I have no use for his opinions. 
And he's not the only or the best evolutionary biologist out there. Perhaps he's the most famous or loudest after Darwin but fame means little to me when it comes to science.

-Teresa

All due respect Teresa but "keep your head down and stay quiet" is the worst fucking advice any earthling has ever given to another.

Thanks, jerry. Without even realizing it or intending to, I've reached peak "fuck you 40s". It took me a few years but I finally got here. Not fuck *you*, of course, but like this:

Cranky

And a little of this:
Girl_devil


I'll now complain loudly to the grocery clerk about not using the coupon that expired in 2009 and to those dang kids next door about turning down the racket that they think is music. 
Lest Dawkins is lurking and thinks I've forgotten about him, I'll get back to him too.

I wonder what the 50s will bring. What a world we live in! Wink

-Teresa

Sorry Teresa I was a tad hyperbolic on my reply.  Very unlike me. Angel
Reply
#59

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
@jerry mcmasters , no need to apologize, hon, everything's cool.

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
Reply
#60

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 01:57 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 06:33 PM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 03:04 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Okay true by definition one characteristic is being discriminated in favor of another.  I thought for the purpose of hypotheticals the ethics of it were off the table and we were just imagining whether it "works" which it surely would (and does when applied to the plant and animal kingdom).  Taking out the negative connotation, "discrimination" can be neutral, we certainly want to discriminate against severe birth defects.

Indeed nobody likes birth defects among many other traits that someone could reasonably find undesirable.
 
But it's one thing to advise someone not to have children.  It's quite another to have a program that restrain certain cohorts from having them(through sterilization or otherwise) if they disagree.

No one's doing that.  As SYZ pointed out:

(02-17-2020, 02:22 PM)SYZ Wrote: The Friendly Atheist wilfully misrepresents what Dawkins was getting at, and tried to paint him as a supporter
of eugenics—which is absurd.  

Dawkins said, "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.
I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.   Just as we breed cows to yield more
milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven [sic ] forbid that we should do it."

Pretty sure anyone with a smidgen of neurons knows that species may be bred. What is his purpose bringing this up now? If he wants to speak against, say, the Chinese experiment with twins, then why not simply say so? If not, why belabor the obvious?

Next thing you know he'll be complaining about plastic pollution in the oceans as if we haven't heard of that, either.

I doubt he supports either -- I also doubt he's the first person who's been worried about this stuff.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • tomilay
Reply
#61

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 03:54 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 01:57 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 06:33 PM)tomilay Wrote: Indeed nobody likes birth defects among many other traits that someone could reasonably find undesirable.
 
But it's one thing to advise someone not to have children.  It's quite another to have a program that restrain certain cohorts from having them(through sterilization or otherwise) if they disagree.

No one's doing that.  As SYZ pointed out:

(02-17-2020, 02:22 PM)SYZ Wrote: The Friendly Atheist wilfully misrepresents what Dawkins was getting at, and tried to paint him as a supporter
of eugenics—which is absurd.  

Dawkins said, "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.
I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.   Just as we breed cows to yield more
milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven [sic ] forbid that we should do it."

Pretty sure anyone with a smidgen of neurons knows that species may be bred. What is his purpose bringing this up now? If he wants to speak against, say, the Chinese experiment with twins, then why not simply say so? If not, why belabor the obvious?

Next thing you know he'll be complaining about plastic pollution in the oceans as if we haven't heard of that, either.

I doubt he supports either -- I also doubt he's the first person who's been worried about this stuff.

He probably did it just to watch the internet nannies get their tushies puckered.
Reply
#62

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 12:52 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He probably did it just to watch the internet nannies get their tushies puckered.

Another vote for "troll", then.
Reply
#63

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:52 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He probably did it just to watch the internet nannies get their tushies puckered.

Another vote for "troll", then.

copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.
Reply
#64

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 01:08 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:52 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He probably did it just to watch the internet nannies get their tushies puckered.

Another vote for "troll", then.

copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.

Yeah. Trolling. <shrug>
Reply
#65

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 01:52 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 01:08 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Another vote for "troll", then.

copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.

Yeah. Trolling. <shrug>

<shrug> Sorry you got trolled, snowflake.
Reply
#66

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 11:36 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: <shrug> Sorry you got trolled, snowflake.

If seeing it for what it is is "getting trolled", you might have a point.

You should have gone with the coffee-cup instead of copying my "<shrug>".
Reply
#67

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 07:32 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 02:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Outside his scientific specialty, he seems to have more than his share of these moments. As Frank would say:


Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. But ...


Sure, he has fans. So did Pol Pot Tongue

Yabut, how many books and peer-reviewed papers did Pol Pot publish?  Huh? Huh?? Whistling
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#68

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-20-2020, 01:08 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:52 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He probably did it just to watch the internet nannies get their tushies puckered.

Another vote for "troll", then.

copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.

If by "free speech" you are referring to lying and libeling, yes, people get upset. Consider
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#69

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-21-2020, 04:40 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 07:32 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote: Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. But ...


Sure, he has fans. So did Pol Pot Tongue

Yabut, how many books and peer-reviewed papers did Pol Pot publish?  Huh? Huh?? Whistling

Look, I'll make hyperbolic comparisons if'n I want to, damn it.
Reply
#70

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-21-2020, 04:44 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 01:08 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Another vote for "troll", then.

copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.

If by "free speech" you are referring to lying and libeling, yes, people get upset. Consider

I didn't refer to lying and libeling.
Reply
#71

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-21-2020, 01:11 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-21-2020, 04:44 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-20-2020, 01:08 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: copy and pasting if you missed my earlier explanation:

"I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish."

The only thing that makes it a big deal is making a big deal out of it.

If by "free speech" you are referring to lying and libeling, yes, people get upset. Consider

I didn't refer to lying and libeling.

Apparently, you did it unknowingly.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#72

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-21-2020, 05:49 PM)Chas Wrote:
(02-21-2020, 01:11 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-21-2020, 04:44 AM)Chas Wrote: If by "free speech" you are referring to lying and libeling, yes, people get upset. Consider

I didn't refer to lying and libeling.

Apparently, you did it unknowingly.

Lol.  Okay, oh terse one.  You keep your mysterious secrets.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)