1
2

Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation? (theguardian.com)

mini_cooper_JCW が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]mrsamsa -1ポイント0ポイント  (51子コメント)

It's pretty embarrassing how bad he's gotten. It's reached the point where I think I remember him being fairly logical and rational but now I'm doubting that. There's a good timeline of events here.

[–]puntinbitcher 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

2015 - Found in a park, naked, fighting a swan.

I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing.

[–]mrsamsa -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure some diehard Dawkins' fans would still defend him and claim he was doing important ethological research.

[–]EtherMan 2ポイント3ポイント  (48子コメント)

A timeline that is simply wrong on all accounts.

First of all, Dawkins hasn't been an active scientist for many years now, so saying that he in 2012, four years after he retired, was the most respected in that, is simply pure bullshit.

Second of all, Dawkins have to this day, still not posted a single xenophobic or sexist comment on Twitter. If you think he has, you simply do not understand what those terms even mean.

Thirdly, regarding rapes, he did not say some rapes are better than others, because that suggests that it's a positive scale. He said some are WORSE than others. And most people agree, as do the courts, as do lawmakers, as do virtually all jury members and so on and so on. A brutal rape that ends in the taking of the victims life... Is rules much MUCH MUCH harsher, than someone groping a woman in the subway. Both things are legally rape, but there's a HUUUUGE difference in terms of severity of the two.

And yea the last one is just simply made up so not really anything else to say about that...

[–]mrsamsa 4ポイント5ポイント  (47子コメント)

First of all, Dawkins hasn't been an active scientist for many years now, so saying that he in 2012, four years after he retired, was the most respected in that, is simply pure bullshit.

This is true, he was certainly not respected as late as 2012 but I think it's there for dramatic effect - it builds up what follows.

Second of all, Dawkins have to this day, still not posted a single xenophobic or sexist comment on Twitter. If you think he has, you simply do not understand what those terms even mean.

Seriously? Or are you saying he saves those comments for non-Twitter places?

Thirdly, regarding rapes, he did not say some rapes are better than others, because that suggests that it's a positive scale. He said some are WORSE than others.

Hold on, so you're telling me that X is worse than Y, but Y isn't better than X. That doesn't work.

And most people agree, as do the courts, as do lawmakers, as do virtually all jury members and so on and so on. A brutal rape that ends in the taking of the victims life... Is rules much MUCH MUCH harsher, than someone groping a woman in the subway. Both things are legally rape, but there's a HUUUUGE difference in terms of severity of the two.

Sure but the problem with his tweets wasn't that he suggested that there was a difference between the two, it was that he went on to say that people who experienced the former should essentially be grateful that they didn't experience the latter.

Also, the specific example he chose isn't necessarily true which is why many rape victims were so upset. There is no reason to think that date rape isn't as bad as stranger rape at knifepoint. It depends on how the person reacts to the situation - for many it can definitely be worse to be attacked by someone you love, even if it's not at knifepoint.

And yea the last one is just simply made up so not really anything else to say about that...

The last one was a future prediction, the image was made last year I think. Only a few more months to go, I can't wait to see if it comes true!!

[–]TroutFishingInCanada 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hold on, so you're telling me that X is worse than Y, but Y isn't better than X. That doesn't work.

You'd think a Dawkins fan would be better at logic.

[–]mrsamsa -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pretty crazy, right? A guy below suggests that "more deaths" is the logical inverse of "better". Is there something in the water around these parts?

[–]mrburnhollywood 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Most historians agree that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Ergo, Hitler is a better person.

Probably better not share that notion with your Jewish neighbors...

[–]mrsamsa -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

How did you reach that conclusion? "Better" isn't a logical inverse of "More deaths".

If you were to say "Stalin is worse than Hitler, therefore Hitler is better than Stalin" then the statement is true. But then you run into the same problem Dawkins did in that making a value judgement in that way is going to be hugely controversial and make a number of untrue assumptions.

[–]EtherMan -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Funny how you can see the problem of your claim when it was applied to something else... But not when it was Dawkins. It just proves you're a troll.

[–]mrsamsa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No problem has been shown.

The example he's given could only work if he presents the actual logical inverse - i.e. "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, therefore Hitler was responsible for less deaths than Stalin".

His example proves my point. It's really, really, really simple. This is a very basic logical point, I'm not saying anything controversial or debatable here.

This is hilarious. I love it when people pretend to be "skeptics" in order to promote their own personal ideological view, where 'skepticism' gets dropped in favour of defending whatever they personally like.

[–]EtherMan -2ポイント-1ポイント  (40子コメント)

This is true, he was certainly not respected as late as 2012 but I think it's there for dramatic effect - it builds up what follows.

He has always been respected, and still is. The problem is your attribution to why. He was respected as a scientist, but as of 2008, it's as an educator and debater, not as a scientist since he stopped doing science back then.

Seriously? Or are you saying he saves those comments for non-Twitter places?

No. I'm saying he's not saying those comments at all.

Hold on, so you're telling me that X is worse than Y, but Y isn't better than X. That doesn't work.

No. I'm saying it's the suggestion by using the positive name as a comparison. By careless use of language you are trying to suggest that he's linking a positive trait, "better", with a negative act, rape. When in fact, he did not use that positive term. While it's true that if A is worse than B, then B is better than A, but it's the implication that is the problem of the claim.

Sure but the problem with his tweets wasn't that he suggested that there was a difference between the two, it was that he went on to say that people who experienced the former should essentially be grateful that they didn't experience the latter.

No he did not make ANY such suggestion. That was a story that was COMPLETELY MADE UP. The whole history of this story is well documented had you cared about the facts. But you're clearly showing that facts is not something you're interested in. You're just trying to demonize Dawkins, even if the price is truth.

Also, the specific example he chose isn't necessarily true which is why many rape victims were so upset. There is no reason to think that date rape isn't as bad as stranger rape at knifepoint. It depends on how the person reacts to the situation - for many it can definitely be worse to be attacked by someone you love, even if it's not at knifepoint.

Sorry you feel that way but we actually have hard science on which of those two is objectively worse. On an individual level, there may be people that are hit worse by a close perpetrator than a stranger, but objectively, we know that when it's a stranger, the psychological damage is far greater, and that's one of the reasons why the punishment is also worse in law.

The last one was a future prediction, the image was made last year I think. Only a few more months to go, I can't wait to see if it comes true!!

That's not how timelines work mate. It's either a timeline or a prediction. Make up your mind. Either way though, as I said, it's simply made up...

[–]mrsamsa 3ポイント4ポイント  (39子コメント)

He has always been respected, and still is. The problem is your attribution to why. He was respected as a scientist, but as of 2008, it's as an educator and debater, not as a scientist since he stopped doing science back then.

I'd have to disagree with that. He never really did much in his field of science so I don't think he earned much respect there. He was just the old guy who argued with Wilson over the unit of selection. He was mostly respected as a popular science writer and educator.

No. I'm saying he's not saying those comments at all.

But that's insane, surely the most ardent Dawkins fan couldn't deny that he's said xenophobic and sexist things? What about all his Islamaphobic tweets?

No. I'm saying it's the suggestion by using the positive name as a comparison. By careless use of language you are trying to suggest that he's linking a positive trait, "better", with a negative act, rape. When in fact, he did not use that positive term. While it's true that if A is worse than B, then B is better than A, but it's the implication that is the problem of the claim.

The fact that his use of language was careless is precisely the problem. And whether he used a positive term or not is irrelevant. He purposefully set up a situation where the relative "value" of rape was displayed and that necessarily designated one kind of rape to be "better" than the other.

It was a crazy thing to say.

No he did not make ANY such suggestion. That was a story that was COMPLETELY MADE UP. The whole history of this story is well documented had you cared about the facts. But you're clearly showing that facts is not something you're interested in. You're just trying to demonize Dawkins, even if the price is truth.

He did, he compared it to his pedophilia comments where he said that being molested is something which sucks but you should just get on with because it's not as bad as "real" child rape.

Come to think of it, he has a serious problem with the relative privation fallacy as he made the same error with his "Dear Muslima" comment.

And nobody is trying to "demonise" Dawkins. All I'm doing is pointing to the evidence and facts, and suggesting that they aren't all that positive.

Sorry you feel that way but we actually have hard science on which of those two is objectively worse. On an individual level, there may be people that are hit worse by a close perpetrator than a stranger, but objectively, we know that when it's a stranger, the psychological damage is far greater, and that's one of the reasons why the punishment is also worse in law.

Oh really? Can you link to that evidence?

I mean, it doesn't really matter because even Dawkins himself in his apology admitted that there was no basis to his comment. He wasn't making a factual claim and it was a hypothetical to try to demonstrate the form of his logical argument. He said that you can reverse the two and get the same result.

That's not how timelines work mate. It's either a timeline or a prediction. Make up your mind. Either way though, as I said, it's simply made up...

It's a timeline with a prediction, that's how timelines work when they extend into the future.

[–]EtherMan 0ポイント1ポイント  (38子コメント)

I'd have to disagree with that. He never really did much in his field of science so I don't think he earned much respect there. He was just the old guy who argued with Wilson over the unit of selection. He was mostly respected as a popular science writer and educator.

If you truly believe that, you REALLY need to study more... I hope you at least know that he held the position of "Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science", which at first glance seems like a title for just educating, but what is less known is that that position was created for Dawkins specifically. You don't create titles like that for people that isn't respected for their contributions.

But that's insane, surely the most ardent Dawkins fan couldn't deny that he's said xenophobic and sexist things? What about all his Islamaphobic tweets?

Yea now you just prove you don't actually understand what those words mean. His tweets are no more Islamophobic than they are "christianiphobic" or whatever... Criticism is not a phobia so you're just destroying the language by using that term like that.

The fact that his use of language was careless is precisely the problem. And whether he used a positive term or not is irrelevant. He purposefully set up a situation where the relative "value" of rape was displayed and that necessarily designated one kind of rape to be "better" than the other. It was a crazy thing to say.

No it's actually very relevant what term he used because again, using a positive term is a suggestion of the scale being positive, which it is not nor did he suggest it... By your usage, you are even making the claim that he was using a positive trait, and thus suggests a positive scale which is simply a lie. That you fail to see that speaks volumes of your irrationality. And no, it was not a crazy thing to say, since IT'S VERY MUCH TRUE that some types of rape are worse than others, which as I pointed out to you, is something virtually everyone agrees on to be objectively true.

He did, he compared it to his pedophilia comments where he said that being molested is something which sucks but you should just get on with because it's not as bad as "real" child rape.

No that was NOT what he said... Again, the tweets are well documented. Actually READ THEM before making shit up about what's in them.

Come to think of it, he has a serious problem with the relative privation fallacy as he made the same error with his "Dear Muslima" comment.

Ok so you have not even read the comments you're talking about AT ALL. You're going by the accounts of his opponents of what he has said. Seriously, READ BEFORE MAKING SHIT UP. Because the only thing the comment says, is that it's a huge overreaction to, as Watson did, compare the elevator incident, of someone simply inviting someone else for coffee, and that of the situation of female rights in the muslim countries.

And nobody is trying to "demonise" Dawkins. All I'm doing is pointing to the evidence and facts, and suggesting that they aren't all that positive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... You're funny man... What drugs are you on? Because that comment is so far devoid of reality it's hilarious.

Oh really? Can you link to that evidence?

Why waste the time when you already know it to be true, and you've proven that you're not willing to read it anyway?

I mean, it doesn't really matter because even Dawkins himself in his apology admitted that there was no basis to his comment. He wasn't making a factual claim and it was a hypothetical to try to demonstrate the form of his logical argument. He said that you can reverse the two and get the same result.

No. That's not what he apologized for. You're yet again proving that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Actually READ THE APOLOGY before making shit up...

It's a timeline with a prediction, that's how timelines work when they extend into the future.

No. Again, that's not how timelines work. A timeline is a documentation and does not contain predictions which are random guesses. You do not make timelines into the future unless you know with a fair degree of certainty what will happen. This is just completely taken out of thin air. So no, it's not a timeline at all.

[–]mrsamsa -2ポイント-1ポイント  (37子コメント)

If you truly believe that, you REALLY need to study more... I hope you at least know that he held the position of "Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science", which at first glance seems like a title for just educating, but what is less known is that that position was created for Dawkins specifically. You don't create titles like that for people that isn't respected for their contributions.

He was given that position precisely for his contributions to the popular understanding of science. You don't give a position like that to a brilliant researcher - you give that person a research position.

To be clear, I'm not saying he wasn't respected as in he was laughed at or considered a joke, just that he wasn't known for being a brilliant researcher. He did decent enough work but what made him stand out was his public outreach work and his philosophy of science (i.e. The Selfish Gene).

Yea now you just prove you don't actually understand what those words mean. His tweets are no more Islamophobic than they are "christianiphobic" or whatever... Criticism is not a phobia so you're just destroying the language by using that term like that.

I think you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what those terms mean. The problem with Islamaphobia is that people use "Islam" as a mask to make xenophobic comments. So it's like when racists complain about "thugs" or "urban youths", and when questioned they say they aren't being racist because they're just talking about thugs and urban youths.

The same applies with Islamaphobia in that often the comments will look like they're directed at a religious group like Muslims, but then they'll talk about needing to clamp down on immigration. If the comment isn't about race, then why would immigration be relevant?

No it's actually very relevant what term he used because again, using a positive term is a suggestion of the scale being positive, which it is not nor did he suggest it... By your usage, you are even making the claim that he was using a positive trait, and thus suggests a positive scale which is simply a lie. That you fail to see that speaks volumes of your irrationality.

But it's a necessary and unavoidable consequence of what he's saying. It is logically and necessarily impossible to set up a sliding scale of value, state one is worse than the other, and not say that the other is better. That makes no sense.

It is literally irrational to argue that. By definition ignoring the logical consequences of his statement is illogical.

And no, it was not a crazy thing to say, since IT'S VERY MUCH TRUE that some types of rape are worse than others, which as I pointed out to you, is something virtually everyone agrees on to be objectively true.

It's a crazy thing to say for a number of reasons. For starters, it's not true that one is worse than the other and even trying to devise a scale to compare the two leads us into a fairly weird realm.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he made a statement about one kind of rape being better than the other just to make an abstract point about a logical relationship. That's naked swan fighting level of insane.

No that was NOT what he said... Again, the tweets are well documented. Actually READ THEM before making shit up about what's in them.

We're not talking about his tweets here, we're talking about his comments on pedophilia where he said:

"He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm.""

and

""I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said."

and

"He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called "just mild touching up.""

You really should have looked it up before trying to defend him.

Ok so you have not even read the comments you're talking about AT ALL. You're going by the accounts of his opponents of what he has said. Seriously, READ BEFORE MAKING SHIT UP. Because the only thing the comment says, is that it's a huge overreaction to, as Watson did, compare the elevator incident, of someone simply inviting someone else for coffee, and that of the situation of female rights in the muslim countries.

It was a textbook example of the fallacy and he got the piss taken out of him for years. Many people even refer to it as the "Dear Muslima fallacy" now because of it. Even if we agree that people have it worse elsewhere it doesn't mean we have to deal with shitty situations in our own lives.

Fortunately even Dawkins later realised that he had fucked up and apologised for it, saying: "There should be no rivalry in victimhood, and I’m sorry I once said something similar to American women complaining of harassment, inviting them to contemplate the suffering of Muslim women by comparison".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... You're funny man... What drugs are you on? Because that comment is so far devoid of reality it's hilarious.

I'm the only one pointing out evidence at the moment. So far your defence is making illogical comments like, "Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean that Y is worse than X"....

Why waste the time when you already know it to be true, and you've proven that you're not willing to read it anyway?

So no evidence then? Thought so.

No. That's not what he apologized for. You're yet again proving that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Actually READ THE APOLOGY before making shit up...

What are you talking about? The paragraph you quoted doesn't have me saying anything about what he apologised for. What are you talking about?

No. Again, that's not how timelines work. A timeline is a documentation and does not contain predictions which are random guesses. You do not make timelines into the future unless you know with a fair degree of certainty what will happen. This is just completely taken out of thin air. So no, it's not a timeline at all.

No, timelines also account for future events. When companies set up milestones that need to be achieved with the chronologically-ordered dates that they need to be achieved, they use a timeline to display that information.

Is this really what this sub has come to? Denying the existence of timelines and suggesting that being worse than something doesn't mean that something is better?

[–]wokeupabug 2ポイント3ポイント  (21子コメント)

He was given that position precisely for his contributions to the popular understanding of science. You don't give a position like that to a brilliant researcher - you give that person a research position.

Did Oxford appoint him, or did Simonyi?

[–]mrsamsa 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Simonyi himself picked Dawkins.

[–]wokeupabug 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's the impression I had... it does make the chair a bit suspicious. I mean, /u/EtherMan seems to have in mind that it implies Dawkins' impeccable scientific credentials that the chair be "created for Dawkins specifically"--but it looks rather more like he had a wealthy fan outside academia who was willing to throw oodles of money at Oxford in exchange for Dawkins having a chair there in perpetuity. Which is hardly the way academic accomplishment is normally tallied.

This is not to say, of course, that his academic work isn't noteworthy.

[–]EtherMan 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

Oxford appointed him. Simonyi funded the position with the demand that Dawkins would be the first to have it. But the point is, that's not something you do for someone not respected for their achievements, regardless of amount of money. Money only gets you honorary doctorates if you're not respected for your achievements. Also, they obviously could have kicked Dawkins at any time had there been a question of doubt from Oxfords side.

[–]wokeupabug 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Oxford appointed him. Simonyi funded the position with the demand that Dawkins would be the first to have it.

It sounds like we have different ideas about what "appointed" means, since as I understand the term what you've said here is self-contradictory.

[–]mrsamsa 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

No Simonyi appointed him, it was a condition of the grant. And Oxford couldn't have kicked him out otherwise they would have lost out on their funding, and universities love money.

[–]EtherMan 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

He was given that position precisely for his contributions to the popular understanding of science. You don't give a position like that to a brilliant researcher - you give that person a research position.

Yes you do give it to a brilliant researcher. You cannot teach what you don't know.

To be clear, I'm not saying he wasn't respected as in he was laughed at or considered a joke, just that he wasn't known for being a brilliant researcher. He did decent enough work but what made him stand out was his public outreach work and his philosophy of science (i.e. The Selfish Gene).

You see him as being respected for teaching because that's YOUR "relation" to him. But that actually speaks more about you than it does about him. He has made a number of very big impacts on evolutionary biology for which he is very well respected, such as the concept of the phenotypic effects of a gene influencing more than just the body of the organism.

I think you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what those terms mean. The problem with Islamaphobia is that people use "Islam" as a mask to make xenophobic comments. So it's like when racists complain about "thugs" or "urban youths", and when questioned they say they aren't being racist because they're just talking about thugs and urban youths.

If they are talking about thugs and urban youths, why would they be racist? Is thugs a race now? Is urban youths? Ofc not, so no, not racism. So yea, you don't know the meaning of those words it seems.

The same applies with Islamaphobia in that often the comments will look like they're directed at a religious group like Muslims, but then they'll talk about needing to clamp down on immigration. If the comment isn't about race, then why would immigration be relevant?

Well first of all, race does not come into it because humanity is all one race. There are not multiple races of people. Your ethnicity is not a race. Just as religion isn't. Secondly, it's not inherently racist (even in the ethnic sense) to want to clamp down on immigration. It would only be racism in that sense if you were accepting immigrants from say europe, but not from the middle east, or having a higher requirement for those from there. You just proved you don't know what racism means since you seem to think of races are somehow related to countries.

But it's a necessary and unavoidable consequence of what he's saying. It is logically and necessarily impossible to set up a sliding scale of value, state one is worse than the other, and not say that the other is better. That makes no sense. It is literally irrational to argue that. By definition ignoring the logical consequences of his statement is illogical.

It's a consequence yes. BUT, as I've said now 5 times already, there's a difference of claim. You're doing an argumentative fallacy called appeal to emotion by using the reverse claim and attribute that rather than the word he actually used. You're trying to link him saying a positive grade with the negative act in order to get an emotional link. It's simply dishonest and I've explained this to you now multiple times and you keep ignoring it without any sort of actual response to the problem. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that you KNOW you're wrong and just refuse to admit it because that would mean you can't demonize him for it...

It's a crazy thing to say for a number of reasons. For starters, it's not true that one is worse than the other and even trying to devise a scale to compare the two leads us into a fairly weird realm.

So you're saying molestation is on equal severity as a rape in an alley that ends in a murder? Are you serious? Well you're free to your opinion but the rest of society does not agree with you on that.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he made a statement about one kind of rape being better than the other just to make an abstract point about a logical relationship. That's naked swan fighting level of insane.

No he didn't. He made a statement about one kind of rape being worse than another, which it objectively is and you know it.

We're not talking about his tweets here, we're talking about his comments on pedophilia where he said:

Right. The fact that you link to a third party of what he said just proves what I said earlier that you're looking at what his opponents say he has said, rather than what he actually said.

You really should have looked it up before trying to defend him.

I have read your quotes before... They're all very much true.

It was a textbook example of the fallacy and he got the piss taken out of him for years. Many people even refer to it as the "Dear Muslima fallacy" now because of it. Even if we agree that people have it worse elsewhere it doesn't mean we have to deal with shitty situations in our own lives.

There is no Dear Muslima fallacy, and anyone that calls anything that, is just simply a moron. I'm sorry but it really is. And no, you yet again prove that you do not understand the comment at all. It's wasn't about that they should not complain. It was that they should not compare it to the suffering of the women in the muslim countries. It's also a scale thing. Their suffering, while it may very well be real, is not as big as that of those in the middle east. That does not mean that their suffering is not real and that is what he apologized for, that it was written as if it was a scale because he does not want there to be some sort of competition for who has it worse. But the objective fact is that they do have it worse. That someone has it worse does not mean that you are in some way required to shut up nor was that what he said nor was it what he apologized for as you claim, yet again incorrectly.

I'm the only one pointing out evidence at the moment. So far your defense is making illogical comments like, "Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean that Y is worse than X"....

No you have not produced ANYTHING even relating to evidence. At best, you've produced hearsay which is not evidence. Not even a court of law accepts hearsay as evidence. And there's a major difference between. "He said X is worse than Y, so the logical conclusion is that Y is better than X" and "He said that Y is better than X". Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time.

What are you talking about? The paragraph you quoted doesn't have me saying anything about what he apologised for. What are you talking about?

So now you're saying you can't even read your own comments... Wow... "even Dawkins himself in his apology admitted that there was no basis to his comment" is from YOUR OWN comment. And that's not in his apology AT ALL.

No, timelines also account for future events. When companies set up milestones that need to be achieved with the chronologically-ordered dates that they need to be achieved, they use a timeline to display that information.

Yes they use timelines for future events. WHEN and ONLY WHEN they actually have such a time for such milestones... No company would put "2020, invent timemachine" on their timeline. It's just silly to claim that a completely made up story with no relation to the real world, is part of a timeline. You have a timeline only if the things on it are compatible with the evidence and that goes for both future and past. You put past events on a timeline in relation to the evidence to that those events have happened. You put future events on a timeline in the relation of the evidence that those events WILL happen. There's ZERO evidence that any such event would happen, hence it's not put there from any evidence perspective, and hence, it's not a timeline. It's a bunch of years, with made up stories attached... Nothing more...

Is this really what this sub has come to? Denying the existence of timelines and suggesting that being worse than something doesn't mean that something is better?

No one has denied the existence of timelines, nor has anyone said that something being worse does not mean that something is better. You're just further proving that you do not understand middle school English.

[–]mrsamsa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll be honest, I can't be bothered reading your whole comment as you seem to be slowly losing your grasp of what little logical thought you had.

So now you're saying you can't even read your own comments... Wow... "even Dawkins himself in his apology admitted that there was no basis to his comment" is from YOUR OWN comment. And that's not in his apology AT ALL.

Hold up, don't shift the goalposts here. You tried to correct me because you thought I was saying he was apologising "for" that. You didn't claim that it wasn't in the apology.

He clearly did say it in his response though, and here it is:

Actually, it’s rather plausible that some people might find date rape WORSE than being raped by a stranger (let’s leave the “at knifepoint” out of it). Think of the disillusionment, the betrayal of trust in someone you thought was a friend. But my logical point remains unchanged. It applies to any hypothetical X and Y, which could be reversed. Thus:-

“Being raped by a stranger is bad. Being raped by a formerly trusted friend is worse.” If you think that hypothetical quotation is an endorsement of rape by strangers, go away and learn how to think.

I wasn’t even saying it is RIGHT to rank one kind of rape as worse than another (that caused an immense amount of agony and a scarcely creditable level of vitriolic abuse in the Twittosphere).

Again, why are you so fervently defending his comments when you clearly haven't even read them?

Also I see that you haven't been able to find that evidence you claimed existed. That's a shame :(

You could at least drop your hilarious misunderstanding of what a timeline is. That's really the icing on the cake on how irrational you're being over this whole thing. I get it, you like Dawkins, but you don't have to defend every single thing he does and represents - it's okay to admit even our idols have faults. You don't have to try to redefine language just so a bit of light poking at his expense goes away.

[–]standardbearer1492 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (12子コメント)

I think you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what those terms mean. The problem with Islamaphobia is that people use "Islam" as a mask to make xenophobic comments.

Really /u/EtherMan , don't you know all words mean whatever leftists say they mean, neither more nor less? Do you even Newspeak?

So it's like when racists complain about "thugs" or "urban youths", and when questioned they say they aren't being racist because they're just talking about thugs and urban youths.

"Urban Youths" is the Left's own euphemism for black criminal thugs. And it seems you are the one being "racist" (whatever that word means this week) by implying all blacks can be described as "thugs".

The same applies with Islamaphobia in that often the comments will look like they're directed at a religious group like Muslims, but then they'll talk about needing to clamp down on immigration. If the comment isn't about race, then why would immigration be relevant?

Because Islam isn't growing in the West because so many Westerners are suddenly converting, it's growing thanks to uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries and the high birth-rates of those Muslims. The rise of Islam is directly tied to the treasonous immigration policies of the past 50 years.

[–]mrsamsa 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Really /u/EtherMan , don't you know all words mean whatever leftists say they mean, neither more nor less? Do you even Newspeak?

What do "leftists" have to do with this, or absurd references to 1984 for that matter?

"Urban Youths" is the Left's own euphemism for black criminal thugs. And it seems you are the one being "racist" (whatever that word means this week) by implying all blacks can be described as "thugs".

Ah, the old "you're a racist for criticising racists" line. Never gets old.

Because Islam isn't growing in the West because so many Westerners are suddenly converting, it's growing thanks to uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries and the high birth-rates of those Muslims. The rise of Islam is directly tied to the treasonous immigration policies of the past 50 years.

Ah I see, it's just the fault of those dirty foreigners, which isn't xenophobic at all.

EDIT: Dude above is a member of /r/whiterights, in case anyone is wondering why he's so angry about people criticising racists.

[–]standardbearer1492 -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

What do "leftists" have to do with this, or absurd references to 1984 for that matter?

What, we are not allowed to point out that the people whining about how Dawkins is a xenophobic, sexist, racist, islamophobe, etc. are the far left? You people sure don't like any light being shone on you and your activities.

The left loves to redefine the meaning of words, "racism" now means "power + prejudice" and is something only White people can be guilty of, "Islamophobia" now equals "racism" as well, and disagreement with a leftist is now "violence" and "aggression". A book could be written on the left's attempt to censor and alter language for political ends (aka Newspeak).

Ah, the old "you're a racist for criticising racists" line. Never gets old.

If the pointy hat fits.

Ah I see, it's just the fault of those dirty foreigners, which isn't xenophobic at all.

No, it's not their fault, they'd be foolish not to take advantage of the immigration policies our traitor bought politicians, greedy corporations, anti-Western Civilization leftists, the controlled media, and a short-sighted, easily manipulated public created.

[–]EtherMan 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Really /u/EtherMan , don't you know all words mean whatever leftists say they mean, neither more nor less? Do you even Newspeak?

No. Words mean whatever the one saying it means it to say. If it's understood that way is another question.

"Urban Youths" is the Left's own euphemism for black criminal thugs. And it seems you are the one being "racist" (whatever that word means this week) by implying all blacks can be described as "thugs".

No it isn't. SOME people might use it that way, but it's certainly not a euphemism for that.

Because Islam isn't growing in the West because so many Westerners are suddenly converting, it's growing thanks to uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries and the high birth-rates of those Muslims. The rise of Islam is directly tied to the treasonous immigration policies of the past 50 years.

Except it's not growing. The problem here is that you're comparing it to other religions, and most other religions are declining currently. So compared to christianity, islam is growing, but in relation to actual population, it's quite steady.

[–]standardbearer1492 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

No.

Sarcasm is lost on you.

Words mean whatever the one saying it means it to say. If it's understood that way is another question.

Words have mutually agreed upon meanings, if we just use words to mean whatever we say they mean like leftists and Humpty Dumpty we create chaos and confusion and make communication impossible.

No it isn't. SOME people might use it that way, but it's certainly not a euphemism for that.

Do you know what "euphemism" means? Are you using your own personal meaning?

Except it's not growing. The problem here is that you're comparing it to other religions, and most other religions are declining currently. So compared to christianity, islam is growing, but in relation to actual population, it's quite steady.

Come visit any mayor European city and tell me Islam isn't growing.