A Dawkins No-No

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:08 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:28 am
You have raised my curiosity, and it's my only reason for asking but:
"who is TBH," and what is his ideology.

It's curious to me, especially since I do not have an ideology and regard all ideologies, especially political and social ideologies, philosophies, and religions forms of irrational superstitions.
TBH is shorthand for 'to be honest'.
Thanks Henry.

I don't have much use for acronyms. I still read books with paragraphs running on to more than one page. The fact that all communication these days has to be done in, "sound bites," and, "paradigms," is, to me, a reflection of the short attention spans and shallow thinking that dominates the intellectual world.

If thinking were a race, I'd always lose, but have no interest in the useless trivia which is the prize of the winners.
I'm no fan of all those shortcuts either...besides, I'm fully capable of butcherin' the language on my own...I got no need to adopt someone else's crap.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:38 am It wasn't that long ago that it was considered impossible to have rape within a marriage, and the laws reflected this. Was that 'moral'?
Well, I would say "NO" -- but then, I can, because I believe in universal morality. Rape is always wrong, whether the laws say it is, or not.

But somebody who says "X is against the law" is equivalent to saying "X is wrong," would have to concede that rape was not wrong when the laws did not say it was wrong. So I'm just asking if you want to leave it there.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:55 pm Richard Dawkins has been stripped of his 1996 Humanist of the Year Award for posting the following on Twitter:

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.

Discuss.


Discuss?
It seems like a good point to me. I don't see where a person with white skin can't identify with having black skin any more than a person with a penis can't identify as being a woman. *So are we going to entertain all manner of "identities" or are we not? It seems to me that the "humanists" need to make a consistent choice in this case. Or does it simply come down to which incident will generate more boos or hurrays depending upon what the most people happen to be in favor of?
*I won't. If you're a black man it's impossible to be or become a white woman. You can pretend, or actually believe, you are, but you're not.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:06 pm *I won't. If you're a black man it's impossible to be or become a white woman. You can pretend, or actually believe, you are, but you're not.
I'd add that it's much easier to posit a fuzzy line between being black and being white than it is to blur the distinction between male and female.

The genetic fact is that, for historical reasons both savoury and unsavoury, blacks in America are rarely purely black, and many whites have black genetic material in their DNA. This is not just a matter of intermarriage, which would be fine, but of traditions like "comfort women" and other vile elements of slavery. And this is why the old "one drop rule" was invented by the Southern Democrats -- the theory that "one drop" of black blood made one black. The Dems didn't want to get caught allowing somebody with even one drop of blackness to marry somebody 100% white.

So it's very hard to say, merely by appearances, that white and black don't mix. They certainly do. Many people who are taken as "black" are more white; and many whites have black ancestors. Is Dolezal one of those? I don't think she is, but has she been genetically tested? And if she passes the Democrats "one drop" rule, is she really black, and does the NAACP owe her an apology and reinstatement?

But put that over and against Bruce Jenner's attempt to "become" female. Has he any question of DNA? I don't think so. Every indicator, other than, possibly, his own mind, says he's male. Heck, anybody who just looks at the guy knows he is, despite all efforts to doll him up. But the genetics are 100%...the guy's male, no matter what he thinks.

So there's no grey area there, unless we say, "What you think you are, you are"; but if we do that, Dolezal wins again. Her "thinking so" is sufficient to constitute her as black.

I think Dawkins point is this: that we can't accept the Jenner case without accepting also the Dolezal case. And our reasons for rejecting Dolezal are purely political, as are our justifications for accepting Jenner. Neither has anything to do with the facts.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Oh, sure. Me, I'm a mongrel (a dash of Irish, a dab of Negro, a dollop of French, a smidge of Indian, and probably a whole buncha other strains). I've been mistaken for a Mexican or Jew. So, yeah, I can see the fuzzy racial line.

Here's the thing: Dolezal went out of her way to declare herself black, goin' so far as to darken her skin and change her hair color. Moreover, she out & out profited from portrayin' herself as black.

I don't court bein' called spic or hebe, and I've never tried to make a buck or reputation on it.

As for Bruce: I wonder how long it's gonna be before his dumb, disfigured keister is on tv recantin' and sayin' somebody shoulda stopped me from mutilatin' myself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:31 pm Me, I'm a mongrel (a dash of Irish, a dab of Negro, a dollop of French, a smidge of Indian, and probably a whole buncha other strains). I've been mistaken for a Mexican or Jew. So, yeah, I can see the fuzzy racial line.

As for Bruce: I wonder how long it's gonna be before his dumb, disfigured keister is on tv recantin' and sayin' somebody shoulda stopped me from mutilatin' myself.
I've got nephews whose genetic background you couldn't guess -- or get close to -- if you met them on the street. And that's all good. But playing race, like Dolezal did, doesn't do much damage...cutting yourself to pieces and poisoning your system with drugs sure does.

Those are the stories the media refuses to publicize. But there are apparently a lot of them, and they're pretty savage. When a person goes about to mutilate their body to make it something it's not, it takes horrible revenges on them...but especially when they realize the mistake, and can't really go back.

That's why the only place to help these folks is to stop them before they get started in the first place.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:31 pm Me, I'm a mongrel (a dash of Irish, a dab of Negro, a dollop of French, a smidge of Indian, and probably a whole buncha other strains). I've been mistaken for a Mexican or Jew. So, yeah, I can see the fuzzy racial line.

As for Bruce: I wonder how long it's gonna be before his dumb, disfigured keister is on tv recantin' and sayin' somebody shoulda stopped me from mutilatin' myself.
I've got nephews whose genetic background you couldn't guess -- or get close to -- if you met them on the street. And that's all good. But playing race, like Dolezal did, doesn't do much damage...cutting yourself to pieces and poisoning your system with drugs sure does.

Those are the stories the media refuses to publicize. But there are apparently a lot of them, and they're pretty savage. When a person goes about to mutilate their body to make it something it's not, it takes horrible revenges on them...but especially when they realize the mistake, and can't really go back.

*That's why the only place to help these folks is to stop them before they get started in the first place.
*At the very least, we mustn't encourage lunacy. We mustn't let ourselves be bulldogged into acceptin' lunacy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:00 pm At the very least, we mustn't encourage lunacy. We mustn't let ourselves be bulldogged into acceptin' lunacy.
Well, right. But Dawkins just rolled over and drooled when the Left said, "Bad dog."
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:00 pm At the very least, we mustn't encourage lunacy. We mustn't let ourselves be bulldogged into acceptin' lunacy.
Well, right. But Dawkins just rolled over and drooled when the Left said, "Bad dog."
Yep...like I say, he's a coward.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:00 pm I'm really not interested in discussing anything with you you told Mannie.

Then talk to me, Veg.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:50 am You said Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').

Why is it illegal? If it weren't illegal would that mean it was okay for a man to force sex on a woman, another man, a child?
It's not ok. It's vile, nasty, and vicious and no one wants it done to them or anyone they love, hence the fact that laws have evolved to reflect this.
People now realise that children, as one example, need to be treated differently from adults in many ways, while having the same legal protections. It's no longer considered ok to have them working in mines from the age of five. I'm sure there are many people around who still think those things are ok, but they have been superceded by laws. Humans are generally very slow to catch on to new ideas that change society.
Have you never had a sudden revelation, where something that had never occurred to you before became clear and obvious?
How strange. I managed to say all of that without once using the 'm' word :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:28 pm I'm sure there are many people around who still think those things are ok, but they have been superceded by laws.
Not in much of the world, actually. So you're back to the main point: laws don't make things right. In the ideal, they only reflect those things that are already right -- that is, in the case of good laws. But bad laws exist in many places, and in many others, no laws govern things like rape.

But now you've taken on another assumption: namely, that good laws automatically and inevitably "supersede" bad ones. But why would we think that's how it always happens? Is it not obvious that sometimes bad laws replace good ones, as in the case of a totalitarian crackdown?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:28 pm I'm sure there are many people around who still think those things are ok, but they have been superceded by laws.
Not in much of the world, actually. So you're back to the main point: laws don't make things right. In the ideal, they only reflect those things that are already right -- that is, in the case of good laws. But bad laws exist in many places, and in many others, no laws govern things like rape.

But now you've taken on another assumption: namely, that good laws automatically and inevitably "supersede" bad ones. But why would we think that's how it always happens? Is it not obvious that sometimes bad laws replace good ones, as in the case of a totalitarian crackdown?
Why are you talking to me? As usual you get everything arse about face and don't understand a word I say. What is this 'argument' about anyway? That your religioturd concept of 'morality' is the right one?

Where did I 'assume' anything? You are the one making assumptions. Of course laws can fucking well change depending on who is in power. Why the fuck would I even need to point that out?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:11 pm Where did I 'assume' anything?
You wrote: "...they have been superceded by laws."

The word "superseded" presumes that something lesser has been replaced with something greater. If you didn't mean that, you could have said something like "exchanged" or "replaced." So assuming you know what the word you used does, in fact, imply, you were implying that the laws were an improvement on the particular practice or social convention they "superseded."

And in order to know this, you'd have to know what the ultimately correct hierarchy of values was..that, for example, "rape" was objectively hierarchically lower than the "laws against rape" that "superseded" them. After all, some society's have laws in favour of rape...or at least in favour of actions you'd call "rape" but they wouldn't -- like child "marriage," sex trafficking and revenge rape.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

It's vile, nasty, and vicious

Technically speakin', forced intercourse is no more vile, nasty, and vicious than consensual intercourse.

Then, why is rape vile, nasty, and vicious?

It must have sumthin' to do with it bein' non-consensual.

But, why is that a problem?

The cattle industry, for example, seeks no consent from cows for artificial insemination.

If a woman has no natural claim to herself, if she doesn't belong to herself, then what justifies the claim rape is wrong?

Sayin' no one wants it done to them or anyone they love is a rather shallow declaration if, in the grand scheme, the woman is no better, or more than a cow (or my cat, when she goes into heat).

If ownness is a fiction, if a woman does not, can not, belong to herself, then the best we can muster is some hackneyed sentimentality that itself is just glands and electrochemicals and brain states.

Rape, slavery, murder, cannibalism are just sex, property usage, termination, and a gourmet meal.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:10 pm It's vile, nasty, and vicious

Technically speakin', forced intercourse is no more vile, nasty, and vicious than consensual intercourse.

Then, why is rape vile, nasty, and vicious?

It must have sumthin' to do with it bein' non-consensual.

But, why is that a problem?

The cattle industry, for example, seeks no consent from cows for artificial insemination.

If a woman has no natural claim to herself, if she doesn't belong to herself, then what justifies the claim rape is wrong?

Sayin' no one wants it done to them or anyone they love is a rather shallow declaration if, in the grand scheme, the woman is no better, or more than a cow (or my cat, when she goes into heat).

If ownness is a fiction, if a woman does not, can not, belong to herself, then the best we can muster is some hackneyed sentimentality that itself is just glands and electrochemicals and brain states.

Rape, slavery, murder, cannibalism are just sex, property usage, termination, and a gourmet meal.
Why are you focusing on rape in particular?

I don't even know what you are getting at? What does it matter what I think?

Some people have empathy, kindness, imagination, foresight, intelligence, education--others don't.

I'm not getting into one of your 'morality' religiodiscussions. If I wanted to do that then I would be on one of the multiple threads on the topic.

A few years ago it was made illegal here to assault children (about time). You should have heard the uproar from the religioturds. So no, I don't care what any religioturd has to say about anything. Their 'opinions' are irrelevant because their minds are fucked.
Post Reply