[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

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.

[Ninastar]

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

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

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'.

[Beastie]

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Beastie

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.

a baby is a life its not an it

[Beastie]

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.

[Stu]

slagging off a good third of the forum, there

Leave Jezza out of it.

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by Stu

slagging off a good third of the forum, there

Leave Jezza out of it.

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

[Marsh.]

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?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?

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!"

[Christmas Dynasnow]

I agree fully with him

[iRyan]

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.

[Kizzy]

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

...I've been accused of plenty, but I can't say that includes being socially conditioned or blinkered.

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 blind, is utterly baffling.

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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 truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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'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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[user104658]

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.