what a nasty irrelevant twat he is and his pitiful petty response is not even scientific or logical either

If you're alluding to me here I didn't say anyone was blind or blinkered, you did.

...?

See I did not say 'blind' or 'blinkered' please don't misquote me.

"conditioned into a mindset" and "ignorant" aren't synonymous with "blinkered"?...

OK, if you insist, I have edited the post. As you can see, it now reads completely differently. Or alternatively, exactly the same, because it still means the same thing.

Well I could consult a thesaurus and reconstruct your posts but I won't.
If you are blinkered to facts you can't see them even when looking.
If you're ignorant to facts you just don't know about the facts yet...

Very different.

socialisation and religion can condition a person into a mindset, it's not a slur to highlight that.

I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists who are given God-like status. I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists... full stop.

I find your last sentence very strange. You begin "the trouble with Dawkins" and continue with a rather insulting summing up of everyone who doesn't agree with him, and by extension, with you. And now the debate has degenerated into the usual argument about semantics.

As for his "apology"... it's just one of those "I'm sorry that you feel that way" apologies that mean nothing.

Do you mean personally...then no, I don't in reality how many do?

I haven't insulted anyone, I'm sorry you feel that way.
The trouble with dawkins is that he goes against everything some have been taught, is that a better description, not sure I can make it any clearer.

TS misunderstood my inference and I corrected it, no semantic drama.

I didn't misunderstand it, you were inferring that anyone who takes issue with what Dawkins had to say on the issue simply doesn't understand it (or even is incapable of understanding it).

Which is rather a bold statement to make, and you can't really be surprised that people aren't particularly happy about it.

"Don't worry, it's not YOUR fault that you are incapable of understanding the flawless reasoning of this great mind".

It's nonsense.

Nope, you did that....

'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.'

Again please don't put words in my mouth.

And you did this:

"...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'm referring to his academic works, not his "moral reasoning". His science is niche, it doesn't appeal to a mainstream audience, and he knows this. Banding around controversy on Twitter, as always, DOES sadly have mass appeal. Therefore, he now mostly does just that.

He at some point has decided that he values his fame over his academic integrity. Completely understandable and I'm not even saying he's wrong to do so.

But the point stands: his twitter comments are deliberately designed to spark outrage and further his notoriety. They are his opinion, overinflated and bluntly stated for effect. It is NOT SCIENCE.

That has been my one and only point. His ethical opinions are not somehow more weighted because he is a scientist. They are just a man's opinions. Just another squawk amongst the tweets.

If the question being debated was actually to do with the ins and outs of genetic science, that might be different. But it isn't. It's human interest musings.

Yes I did, what's your point?

The original tweet was a reply to another user, so not intentionally provocative.
You may not feel his opinion as an academic carries any more weight than yours or mine but I do. Simply due to the fact he and his contemporaries have wrestled with moral and ethical considerations due to their branch of science on this issue.

you may put your own worth beneath that of the evil dawkins, thankfully the majority have greater self worth and see him for what he is , a nasty attention seeking idiot. if you believe that the masses of people would allow a psycho like him carte blanche to effectively murder all disabled babies , you must be from another planet.

LOL this is hard work. If you've got time to go round and round in circles, I haven't.

At least we have time to waste livia, these disabled babies wouldnt get any chance to live and would all be killed off if dawkins had his way. I can honestly say ive never heard anything so evil since that austrian psycho took over europe.

Well, I disagree that a reply can't be intentionally provocative, e.g.

"Hello, would you like me to get you anything while I'm at the shop?"

"No, go and **** yourself :) "



... On the rest of it, I have absolutely no problem with us disagreeing on the weight that his reply should be afforded. You are perfectly entitled to give it more credence. Just... Be wary of implying that when people don't agree, it's down to ignorance or a failure in comprehension. It's arrogant.

No it isn't arrogance, I suggested that we masque our own ignorance, as in we are ignorant of facts... Not once did I infer anyone personally was ignorant.

so if you were in charge how many more babies would you want to see murdered ?

I don't mind applying reason to my logic, anytime.

what reason is there for murdering millions of disabled babies?

:facepalm:

'Sentient beings in the present can suffer, and so can those who love them. Future potentially sentient beings can't.'

Richard Dawkins latest tweet on the subject.

Thank you all for such a good debate on this thread.

Whilst I have some time for Richard Dawkins and his very well researched views on atheism and the futility of religion, I find him ultimately conceited, egotistical and smug in the extreme.

His comments about aborting babies that may have Down;s syndrome as I have said earlier are outrageous as they suggest further down the line we could abort any baby with any type of deficiency or abnormality.

And if I remember correctly a certain Austrian madman had the same sort of ideas.

Mr Dawkins should keep his nasty ill-conceived views to himself.




.