'pharisaical crassness' for speaking from a scientific perspective this is what I meant, we are not scientists so his blunt logic is shocking seemingly.
Mind you the use of the word 'immoral' is where it gets a bit sticky for me, I can see it from the perspective of the amount off suffering and quality of life, but if it was wholly the impact on the parents and/or society then it falls down.
It could too be his own view, don't I agree with it no but he has the right to say what he feels I guess.

Scientists should be excused from planting their foot in their mouth because generally they can't express themselves well verbally? What a strange argument to make for someone who has published so many books and knows as well as any of us, the power of the written word.

He knew what he was doing when he put this on Twitter. And it's worked.

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm saying he was speaking in his tweet as a scientist would, and as someone who extols the virtue of applying logical thought.
He expressed himself very well,nobody was in any doubt as to his stance were they?
Is this a debate that anyone could have in 140 characters?.. No.
He elaborated due to the perceived offence he caused.

If he's so logical, then why did he tweet something that pretty much everyone would find offensive?

15 members vs Kizzy.... who will win? I wonder

There are a lot of normal people out there who are healthy and cause much more distress than a Down's person would do. It's up to the mother herself. If she wants to keep it then fine. If she wants to get rid then that is also fine.

I rather our tax money goes more to the disabled of the country rather than capable people sponging off the system with their XX amount of kids sitting on their fat arses watching Jezza Kyle.

slagging off a good third of the forum, there

Leave Jezza out of it.

Matthew Wright on the Wright Stuff >>>>>>> Graham >>>>>>> Jezza Kyle.

People spend too long being offended by everything these days.

Well during an adult debate I don't usually look around to see how many people agree with me I just have an opinion.
Nobody 'wins'.

livia wasnt talking about your opinion? she was talking about this evil bigotted idiots discriminatory nonsense
as for your claim that scientists are the sole arbitrator of logic? logic works in 1001 different ways. what about the logic of how much potential an unborn child has, how much disabled children achieve, how much love they give and receive, how much talent, how much they develop skills to counter their inabilities etc etc logically how can this immoral fool possibly try and quantify that for all the millions of unborn disabled children he wants to see aborted....wheres the mathematical scientific equation for that? its attention sekeing bigotted immoral nasty illogical drivel from an evil twat

a baby is a life its not an it:nono:

His tweet ventured into "morality" which is as subjective and unscientific as it gets, to be honest.

The tweet was opinion based and not factual. Ergo; not science.

He's established a bit of celebrity for himself and ventured into areas with opinions which Katie Holmes probably steals. His anti-religion stance is as stale as an old loaf, he has nothing new to say and very often looks as bad as religious fanatics in his blinkered atheist fervour.

I'm afraid I can't respect that he's "simply giving an opinion" when he uses such insulting and derogatory language.

Including "I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort" how insulting to the Downs people and their parents.

Bringing a child into the world and caring for them, loving them and enjoying life with them is somehow immoral? Coming from someone who's proposal is to murder them? :think:

I agree fully with him

:clap1: not imo either Cherie.. it's a hideously ridiculous thing to say.. he clearly opens mouth before engaging brain.

Well exactly. "it's the parents choice but if that's what they choose then they are immoral and not sensible :)."

It is an opinion but it's a very pointed, and deliberately inflammatory opinion. It's like saying "in my opinion you are an idiot and you smell like ****. But you can't get angry, it's just my opinion!"

Are scientists not entitled to an opinion based on moral and ethical reasoning?
His opinion has been formed during a career working in ethology so he is qualified to comment on the impact on the children and families affected I would say.

How is it immoral to bring a child with down syndrome into the world? People with down syndrome are the sweetest, kindest people you will ever. We NEED more people with that inner loving light in this world.

Yes, they are entitled to that, but opinions based on moral and ethical reasoning are not scientific. If Wayne Rooney goes out for a game of tennis, he cannot be described as playing football just because "he's a professional footballer".

A scientist Dawkins may be... But he did not have his scientists hat on when he made this tweet. As you say: it's an opinion based on ethics and morals. It is not a theory based on experimentation or scientific observation. It isn't science.

It's a scientist giving a bog-standard human opinion and dressing it up as anything else is just false.

In many people's eyes (including my own) , the opinion he is offering absolutely stinks and is perfectly fair game for criticism.

Whatever you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant here, we're not discussing what the general consensus on twitter/forums are.

You have reduced it to a 'bog standard opinion' which based on his career I don't think it could be.
How you can differentiate what 'hat' he was wearing is as a man or as an evolutionary biologist, where is it written that in place of moral/ethical debate science only has logic?

I don't know how Wayne Rooney fits in even as an analogy, Again I think that unlike maybe other branches of science biologists are more likely to include moral and ethical considerations as they're sometimes accused of 'playing god'?

I get what you're saying. Sometimes there's just no argument left, and yet people will still argue for the sake of it. It turns from a debate to a really tedious battle that gets further and further away from the point.

Dawkins knew what he was doing when he posted that comment. He knew exactly which words he would choose and the reaction they'd get. It's the trouble with the Internet, it gives a platform for free speech to the stupidest, the cruellest, the most ill-informed people on the planet in a way no other medium has ever done before and there are an army of people determined that those stupid, ill-informed, cruel people have a right to spout their bullshyte however ridiculous it might be. Pre-Internet those people would be reduced to standing on a box in Speaker's Corner so we can all laugh at them, now, they're taken seriously and their "opinion" must be protected. Protected on a forum which is moderated and where we're not allowed to give our full and unbiased opinion on some things. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse.

As Richard Dawkins held the 'Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford 95-08 I'm sure you can't mean him there?
If some are upset, offended or misunderstand his logic for whatever reason then logic dictates that's just to be expected given the diversity of users.