It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionRichard Dawkins is an idiot(139 posts)(139 posts)
(139 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 23, 2015
low rated
avatar
WBGhiro: What's wrong with this quote?
avatar
grimwerk: I suspect that though the analogy is sound, he may object to the Islam-Nazism comparison swimming below the surface. (Just by virtue of proximity, really.) I do think that it is possible to make such an analogy without implications, even exactly as stated. At the same time, I can imagine Dawkins intending more here than a pure analogy.

Just a guess.
Yep, that's it. The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies, which is what I criticized. But I gather that both WBGhiro and tinyE was already fully aware of this. I don't buy into the idea that analysing this simple tweet is beyound their mental skill level.

Dunno what they hope to archive by feigning ignorance.
Posted November 23, 2015
avatar
KasperHviid: The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies,
It says very poor things about your "mental skill level" that you think that's what the quotation was about. In fact, it seems to suggest you're practising some pretty willful ignorance yourself here. Maybe you can answer your implicit question with some self-reflection.

But then, you've been posting the same stuff for a year or more. Shame you aren't Antimateria - level drunk. I think it would improve your posts immeasurably.
Posted November 23, 2015
avatar
KasperHviid: Yep, that's it. The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies, which is what I criticized.
I certainly understand your criticism. I did consider other possible comparisons Dawkins may have made, but none delivered his intended point as well. In fact, I felt that making a parallel point with Judaism or Christianity undermined his point a bit. But everyone knows Nazis are bad, and we don't need to read no boring books to know that.

Left me scratching my head whether the comparison you mentioned was intended, or if Dawkins couldn't find an alternate basis for comparison that rang true.

I'm getting out of my depth. I'll leave it to the resident politically-adept wordsmiths.

All that said, I didn't really twig the comparison you mentioned until Ghiro asked about it, so color me... unobservant(?) as well.

edit:
Now that I've spent time dissecting a tweet, I don't think I like myself as much as I did this morning.
Post edited November 23, 2015 by grimwerk
Posted November 23, 2015
avatar
grimwerk: I suspect that though the analogy is sound, he may object to the Islam-Nazism comparison swimming below the surface. (Just by virtue of proximity, really.) I do think that it is possible to make such an analogy without implications, even exactly as stated. At the same time, I can imagine Dawkins intending more here than a pure analogy.

Just a guess.
avatar
KasperHviid: Yep, that's it. The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies, which is what I criticized. But I gather that both WBGhiro and tinyE was already fully aware of this. I don't buy into the idea that analysing this simple tweet is beyound their mental skill level.

Dunno what they hope to archive by feigning ignorance.
I was not completely aware of anything, you posted some contextless tweets that you interpreted one way and I interpreted in another.

What I got from his tweets is "It's okay to have opinions on things you are not a complete expert about" , because i assumed he probably got into some internet argument over religion and i guess some muslims, just like christians, like to make the argument that unless you've read their religious book of choice you can't criticize their faith.

I didn't get the "Qu'ran=Mein Kampf" vibe from ti, I got a "using the same logic, nazism couldn't be criticized either" vibe from it.

But thank you for making assumptions about my mental skills, you'd be surpised how much you might be overestimating them.
Post edited November 23, 2015 by WBGhiro
Posted November 23, 2015
Irony is Dawkins has become as bigoted and obnoxious as the "religionist" he hates.
Posted November 23, 2015
avatar
dudalb: Irony is Dawkins has become as bigoted and obnoxious as the "religionist" he hates.
I'll be dipped in shit, "religionist" is a real word. XD

I thought for sure you were pulling my lariat!
Posted November 24, 2015

Richard Dawkins: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.”
avatar
Klumpen0815: Although many here seem to agree with this, it is one of his opinions that I personally disagree with.
Everybody should read the Quran before judging if what IS does "isn't true Islam" and it won't hurt to read "Mein Kampf" either, although some brain cells may die in the process. Imho you can't properly discuss any religion/sect without knowing the most basic foundations. I've had some weird discussions with self proclaimed "buddhists" too and could never face-palm as often as I would want to on those occasions. At least those seem to be open minded although usually quite uneducated.
Why open minded Buddhist are usually uneducated? Is that a German thing?
Posted November 24, 2015
avatar
Ghostbreed: Before I begin, let me point out that I am in no way, shape or form a religious person. I was raised by atheist parents and they decided to let us children chose what we wanted when we were old enough to understand.

Now that we got that out of the way, I still think Richard Dawkins is a fucking idiot.

But sitting in a chair and bitching with people who are religious, trying to make them look like idiots and trying to take away what they believe, that's just an asshole thing to do.
Does not your own (arguably unfair) down-reAnd p tell you?

I remember the era when there would be a pro-Jesus member here - whom would have tried to win me over to (I think catholic) orthodoxy - when I nonetheless read gospels because I admire Jesus. Whomever He is. (with a capital, because I admire Jesus, that is).

And I miss this fellow fora member - however blasphemous I might be in his/her eyes.

But he/she would not be here, really, now? And that is a pity, I find.

More than Dawkins whom has the opinions he is entitled to.

The point being: I know Dawkins is smart and interesting, and maybe not wrong - but I miss my Jesus-loving fora member more than I am bothered about Dawkins.

Pity it should be so.
Posted November 24, 2015
avatar
Gnostic: Why open minded Buddhist are usually uneducated? Is that a German thing?
Yes, it seems to be a German thing.
Around here, it's hip to be a bit esoteric and those people often mix certain insignia of various ancient eastern religions together and call themselves buddhists without knowing anything about it. When I show them things Siddharta said (if the written records are somewhere near what he actually said way earlier) and compare it with their lifestyle, they are always surprised.
In Germany, there's some kind of hipster wellness-buddhism for people that want to feel a bit spiritual and good about themselves without having to abdicate from the things they should if they knew anything about it.
It's not so far off from the Japanese pseudo-buddhism I got to know either, although this one just has more aspects of shintoism integrated.
I would probably have been burned at the stake for discussing the ten commandments with inquisitors in medieval times, because I just can't stand all this hypocrisy.
Post edited November 24, 2015 by Klumpen0815
Posted November 24, 2015
avatar
TStael: Does not your own (arguably unfair) down-reAnd p tell you?

I remember the era when there would be a pro-Jesus member here - whom would have tried to win me over to (I think catholic) orthodoxy - when I nonetheless read gospels because I admire Jesus. Whomever He is. (with a capital, because I admire Jesus, that is).

And I miss this fellow fora member - however blasphemous I might be in his/her eyes.

But he/she would not be here, really, now? And that is a pity, I find.

More than Dawkins whom has the opinions he is entitled to.

The point being: I know Dawkins is smart and interesting, and maybe not wrong - but I miss my Jesus-loving fora member more than I am bothered about Dawkins.

Pity it should be so.
Uhm, okay...
Posted November 26, 2015
avatar
TStael: Does not your own (arguably unfair) down-reAnd p tell you?

I remember the era when there would be a pro-Jesus member here - whom would have tried to win me over to (I think catholic) orthodoxy - when I nonetheless read gospels because I admire Jesus. Whomever He is. (with a capital, because I admire Jesus, that is).

And I miss this fellow fora member - however blasphemous I might be in his/her eyes.

But he/she would not be here, really, now? And that is a pity, I find.

More than Dawkins whom has the opinions he is entitled to.

The point being: I know Dawkins is smart and interesting, and maybe not wrong - but I miss my Jesus-loving fora member more than I am bothered about Dawkins.

Pity it should be so.
avatar
Ghostbreed: Uhm, okay...
A Swede you - purportedly - and so little opinion? Fy fan!

We finnjävlar always would rather love you have some - other we can agree, or disagree - but it is neighbourly.

I personally think Sweden is our aspirational closest friend. U agree? I truly hope we might have moved forward from WW2 - and I perso think that we Finland should take on 5k to 10k from Sweden because of Scandinavian solidarity.


And Ghostbreed - u questionable Scandinavian - your "Uhm, okey..." is because u assume me faithful; or because you hate me for regretting the past era when even the faithful might post here?

They do not do so now. Is it better or more enjoyable so?
Posted November 26, 2015
Lets recap. Gender is another term for sexual orientation. Sex is the physical characteristics(of the genitals) of a person's body.

Gender dysphoria or transgenderism / transsexualism comes about when a baby in the womb receives unbalanced level of sex hormones to his / her brain and body. So the brain may receive testosterone and the body, estrogen. This will lead to a feeling of a person being trapped in the wrong body, a la gender dysphoria. Basis IS biological. Effect is lifelong.

Hermaphrodites / intersex people are born with whatever body and sex but are chromosomally not XX or XY. They are a third sex (3rd sex, not gender). Basis is biological. Effect is lifelong.

Homosexuality is not a less-aggravated form of transgenderism. The person feels comfortable in their body and feel like normal persons of their sex who are just attracted to the members with their own sexual features. People can very rarely shift from homo to straight, although it is very rare, it does happen. Basis is probably biological because trying to force someone to change their orientation has never worked. But natural change back to straightness is also possible so it may be biological but its necessarily needn't be from birth itself. The basis on which straight person changing into a homo(if it can really happen) is doubtful though, since as before, changing someone's orientation forcefully never worked other than when it happened automatically as a result of ''straightening out'', and I haven't read anything on the opposite happening.

So a M-F transsexual undergoes castration and (estrogen)hormone therapy to make her body match her brain. But this person cannot have a full set of female sex organs transplanted into them, and are hence incapable of direct reproduction.

An F-M transsexual undergoes (testosterone)hormone therapy but may retain female reproductive organs. Again, to make the body as similar to the brain as possible. They are incapable of male reproductive functions.

So if someone wants to classify persons based on reproductive roles, and and they see transsexual persons as as incapable of it (which is true), then how is that person ''transphobic'' is he /she is only speaking the truth?
Post edited November 26, 2015 by Shadowstalker16
Posted November 26, 2015
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Lets recap. Gender is another term for sexual orientation. Sex is the physical characteristics(of the genitals) of a person's body.

So if someone wants to classify persons based on reproductive roles, and and they see transsexual persons as as incapable of it (which is true), then how is that person ''transphobic'' is he /she is only speaking the truth?
This has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins - as far as I know he imagines all of us as "human." And would like us to be secular and rational about it.
Posted November 26, 2015
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Lets recap. Gender is another term for sexual orientation. Sex is the physical characteristics(of the genitals) of a person's body.

Gender dysphoria or transgenderism / transsexualism comes about when a baby in the womb receives unbalanced level of sex hormones to his / her brain and body. So the brain may receive testosterone and the body, estrogen. This will lead to a feeling of a person being trapped in the wrong body, a la gender dysphoria. Basis IS biological. Effect is lifelong.

Hermaphrodites / intersex people are born with whatever body and sex but are chromosomally not XX or XY. They are a third sex (3rd sex, not gender). Basis is biological. Effect is lifelong.

Homosexuality is not a less-aggravated form of transgenderism. The person feels comfortable in their body and feel like normal persons of their sex who are just attracted to the members with their own sexual features. People can very rarely shift from homo to straight, although it is very rare, it does happen. Basis is probably biological because trying to force someone to change their orientation has never worked. But natural change back to straightness is also possible so it may be biological but its necessarily needn't be from birth itself. The basis on which straight person changing into a homo(if it can really happen) is doubtful though, since as before, changing someone's orientation forcefully never worked other than when it happened automatically as a result of ''straightening out'', and I haven't read anything on the opposite happening.

So a M-F transsexual undergoes castration and (estrogen)hormone therapy to make her body match her brain. But this person cannot have a full set of female sex organs transplanted into them, and are hence incapable of direct reproduction.

An F-M transsexual undergoes (testosterone)hormone therapy but may retain female reproductive organs. Again, to make the body as similar to the brain as possible. They are incapable of male reproductive functions.

So if someone wants to classify persons based on reproductive roles, and and they see transsexual persons as as incapable of it (which is true), then how is that person ''transphobic'' is he /she is only speaking the truth?
First, there is a mistake in the very first sentence. Gender (and in particular, gender identity) is not another term for sexual orientation. The way to think of it, as I have read elsewhere, is that sexual orientation is who you want to go to bed *with*, while gender identity is who you want to go to bed *as*.

Second, some intersex people do have XX or XY chromosome configurations. In fact, there has even been a case of an XY person becoming pregnant and even giving birth (to an XY daughter, incidentally):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

It's also worth noting that not all cells in a person's body will necessary have the same genes. (In the case above, apparently some of her cells are 45,X.)

Third, never say never in terms of reproductive functions. (Actually, never say never is a good rule in biology, and even science as a whole, in general.) There has been some research suggesting that transplanting a womb into someone born with male anatomy may be possible.

As for your final question, the problem is that classifying people by their reproductive roles is rarely necessary, and it invalidates the identites of those who can't reproduce.
Posted November 26, 2015
avatar
dtgreene: The way to think of it, as I have read elsewhere, is that sexual orientation is who you want to go to bed *with*, while gender identity is who you want to go to bed *as*.
Sigh.
Small children don't want to have sex, usually aren't romantically attracted to any gender (and don't know who, of anyone, they will be attracted to when they grow up), and often don't want to go to bed fullstop. And yet they tend to know what gender they personally are. Gender isn't limited to sexual relationships. If it was, the issue of transgender rights wouldn't be nearly as important.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionRichard Dawkins is an idiot(139 posts)(139 posts)
(139 posts)