ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   'Down's syndrome babies should be aborted before birth', says Richard Dawkins (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262482)

the truth 25-08-2014 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 7209183)
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.

theres nothing logical about anything he is saying nor is it moral or decent. In fact I think he should be arrested for inciting hatred of the disabled and encourage their mass extinction. Can he accurately and scientifically evaluate the entire life of all the millions of unborn children who may potentially develop downs syndrome in the future? FOREVER AND EVER? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he?

NO HE CANNOT SO HE SHOULD SHUT THE HELL UP

Livia 25-08-2014 02:31 PM

Academics can sometimes be very stupid. As Sandy Toksvig said, Cambridge is full of people who can split the atom but can't change a light bulb. How true... yet in their field some academics - scientists especially - have a God-like status. I think that's the trouble with Dawkins: for an intelligent man he's a ****ing idiot.

user104658 25-08-2014 02:36 PM

Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

the truth 25-08-2014 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7209538)
Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

complete and utter rubbish. everything deals with opinions and judgements and moral issues, even science, in fact science moreso than anything
do we test the drugs on the animal? do we risk £10 billion studying new treatments? do we spend billions on journeying further into space? do we allow a man to live or die? do we terminate pregnancies? do we have enough public money to afford each sick and disabled child all he/she needs ? to get around to assist their daily living? should we clone? what should we clone? how much often often and why?

its an endless journey into the unknown, most of which is based on trial and error and a faith that some progress and breakthroughs will be made. the majority of scientists down the centuries have been religious men too. as are many surgenons and doctors.....go to any hospital in the world, visit the hospital church and watch the surgeons pray between surgeries

MB. 25-08-2014 03:03 PM

The only thing I've learnt from this is that The Truth's copy and paste function works quite well

Marsh. 25-08-2014 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MB. (Post 7209653)
The only thing I've learnt from this is that The Truth's copy and paste function works quite well

:laugh2: :clap1:

the truth 25-08-2014 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7209661)
:laugh2: :clap1:

yeah hilarious
you laugh as millions of babies get burned?
you dont even possess a sense of humour

Marsh. 25-08-2014 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 7209707)
yeah hilarious
you laugh as millions of babies get burned?
you dont even possess a sense of humour

You're just like Dawkins aren't you?
You don't even possess common sense or a capital letter.

the truth 25-08-2014 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7209739)
You're just like Dawkins aren't you?
You don't even possess common sense or a capital letter.

Clearly a capital letter is more important to you than the mass murder of innocent babies , nice set of priorities on you mArSh:conf:

Tom4784 25-08-2014 03:43 PM

You can't murder what isn't alive in the first place.

Marsh. 25-08-2014 03:43 PM

Yes, that's right truth. :thumbs: Obviously I love a bit of mass murder. :idc:

the truth 25-08-2014 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 7209793)
You can't murder what isn't alive in the first place.

? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

Redway 25-08-2014 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 7209891)
? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

I think you missed his point about not being able to kill what isn't alive.

the truth 25-08-2014 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7209794)
Yes, that's right truth. :thumbs: Obviously I love a bit of mass murder. :idc:

Tasteful so called humour as ever. So in your mind marsh clearly mass murder of babies is far less important than the use of capital letters. :facepalm: I pity you.

the truth 25-08-2014 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redway (Post 7209899)
I think you missed his point about not being able to kill what isn't alive.

No you missed my point.

Tom4784 25-08-2014 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 7209891)
? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.

the truth 25-08-2014 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 7209948)
Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.


saying that is itsnt is ridiculous and ignorant and immoral.
you dont even bother to consider the timescale, shame on you:nono:

Kizzy 25-08-2014 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7209538)
Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

So because his work makes no sense to you it's pointless? that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'd say there were moral and ethical considerations to gene science you can't place the two on separate sides or that really would be nazi territory.

Kizzy 25-08-2014 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 7209519)
Academics can sometimes be very stupid. As Sandy Toksvig said, Cambridge is full of people who can split the atom but can't change a light bulb. How true... yet in their field some academics - scientists especially - have a God-like status. I think that's the trouble with Dawkins: for an intelligent man he's a ****ing idiot.

I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

Helen 28 25-08-2014 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 7209948)
Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.

Absolutely correct.

Marsh. 25-08-2014 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 7209903)
Tasteful so called humour as ever. So in your mind marsh clearly mass murder of babies is far less important than the use of capital letters. :facepalm: I pity you.

Yes, as I've already said, I love mass murder. Can't get enough of it.

If Hitler was alive I'd love to serve him.

I pity you for not engaging in such a fun hobby.

user104658 25-08-2014 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 7210329)
I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

...I've been accused of plenty, but I can't say that includes being socially conditioned in mindset or ignorant of the facts.

I also read The Selfish Gene cover to cover when I was 15 and found it utterly fascinating, and agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what he has to say in the media.

I just know the difference between Dawkins the academic and Dawkins the attention *****. If he doesn't make statements like this one to deliberately shock and cause controversy, then he is an idiot. And he is not an idiot. Therefore, it is his intention. For recognition, for notoriety, to maintain his status as a "household name". Failing to see what's right in front of your face whilst accusing others of being ignorant, is utterly baffling.

Anaesthesia 25-08-2014 09:13 PM

Of course embryos are not babies, that's a given, surely.

The question is one of eugenics, a tetchy subject at the best of times. You have to balance emotion, economics and evolution and subsequently question a contribution to future society.

I have two healthy children. Was I tested for downs and other birth defects? Yes. Would I have aborted if it was shown I was carrying a downs or other severely disabled child? Yes.

I realise I am likely to be hated on for this post but if I am I think it will be emotion-based rather than anything. One of the greatest things about humanity is its ability to empathise, sympathise, and protect. In evolutionary terms, this is a weakness.

The next evolution will be a human / technological hybrid. There will be little room for emotion. There will be massive wars between the humans and the androids. The ones that will survive will be those that still have some semblance of control over the hybrids.

Does this sound like SF? The more we develop AI, the more it will become reality. Birth defects will become a thing of the past, and inhumanity (not meaning evilness) will prevail. It's up to us to keep a lid on that if we can.

the truth 25-08-2014 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 7210329)
I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

the trouble is dawkins is conditioned in an evil mindset and clearly hes affecting your mindset too

Kizzy 26-08-2014 12:51 AM

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 12h
I apologise for impugning the morality of the approximately ten percent of women who deliberately choose NOT to abort a Down's fetus.

Well there we have an apology, let's hope that keeps the twitterati happy...


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.