As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Yeah, BITCH!

Rinchard Dawkins is nuts. Whatever important contributions to discussions he has made in the past he has degenerated to an agressive materialistic jihadist. His remarks on trisomy 21 are in my opinion repulsive and beyond discussion.

Volker

who is this dude?
Tom

I did beforhand. Regrattably he also said:

'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to bring it into the world'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl … 81549.html

That makes all the nice things he sais above worthless.

I do not deny any woman the right of choise. I do not blame her what ever her decision. But to say appodictically that it is immoral not to abboard a child that is handicapped is out of bounds. It means to say that a handicapped unborn child has objetively (!) a lesser right to live than others. This is social Darwinism in its most dangerous form. It makes ther term "human being" fuzzy. It puts into quetion to whom human rights apply and to whom they don't. It's an argument along the line of Peter Singer.
I know that I see things in th light of German Idealism. But that is just the way I see things. I strongly reject utilitarian ethics.

Volker

I agree that to put it that bluntly is simply asking for trouble. No one is going to ask you to elaborate on such a statement, and you know you'll incur the seething wrath of thousands.
140 characters is not the way to discuss these matters, I think.
That's utterly on him. He should have thought this one through.

That said, I do find a lot of sympathy with his explanation and reasoning in the link I posted above though.
But if you are indeed as dead set against utilitarian ethics as you state, I can perfectly see where this might cause as much offense as it does. Me, I can find no fault in his reasoning. Bringing a person in the world as debilitated as all that will cause a massive strain on all concerned, including the child.

To immediately label that Social Darwinism (a very dodgy container concept in itself) though seems too harsh to me.
As Dawkins says: at the end of the day it's a PERSONAL choice.
There are excellent arguments to bring against it (as he does).
I'm sure from other points of view there may be excellent arguments to bring in favour of it.
But it's not a discussion that simply by being there per se offends or repulses me.

You are aware that the atricle was based on a BBC interview in which he was SEVERELY misquoted, for which the BBC has since apologised, right?

I'm getting a little concerned about both the laziness of journalists and the lengths anti-rationalists will go to to discredit those they find objectionable (To be sure: not having a go at you, Volker! This is a generic concern!).

The very topic title already compels me to dig deeper as it simply makes NO sense (although I'm frightfully sure the religious right in the US will quote this "fact" for many decades to come. "It's on the internet, see, so it must be true". )



Of course he's bloody not, as he's clearly stated several times.

Are you sure?
I didn't find that on the internet.

I did find he eats babies though.

I was thinking like Oysters with a dash of salt and lemon.

Indeed, it's a funny thing about people. They're so quick to jump to conclusions!

I too agree with all of his points on abortion.

I'm not entirely convinced this isn't hoax trailer.

Because it looks ridiculous. It looks like a parody.

My but you've lived a sheltered life ( lucky you ) if you've not been exposed to the plethora of shit films Cage has been forced to star in to pay bills.

It's Cage . Natural.