Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
#26

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 01:43 AM)Minimalist Wrote: I guess you have to define "works."  They tried the one-child policy in China and it resulted in a staggering demographic bubble where there are too many boys and not enough girls because parents "selected" for boys.  But, technically it did "work."

I suppose the one thing you can say about eugenics of any sort is that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.

The Chinese example is singular, and not enough of a sample size to draw your conclusion (that unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time).  With manipulating animal and crop populations, it has bitten us on the ass rarely.
Reply
#27

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 01:46 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:16 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 01:02 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020...ics-works/

I don't know enough about Eugenics, but I should, considering I was born with a genetic disorder and therefore am "genetically inferior".

Did Dawkins use the words "genetically inferior"?

Fact based speculations shouldn't be taken personally.  Saying eugenics would result in certain outcomes in the speculative realm is the same as saying "Here is what would have happened if Hitler had won WWII" or something like that.

I never claimed Dawkins supported Eugenics.  Tongue

Was sarcasm. Sheesh.

Sorry!
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#28

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 01:18 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions.

-Teresa

He's one of the most interesting and insightful experts in his field, I would encourage you to reconsider and check out some of his work.

I have. There are plenty of other insightful, non-gasbag intellects out there who are worth my time.

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
The following 2 users Like Tres Leches's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Alan V
Reply
#29

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions.

-Teresa

Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Tres Leches, GenesisNemesis
Reply
#30

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
Selective breeding of humans would function just as well as selective breeding has on all of the other organisms we have done it to.

We already do it consciously or unconsciously with mate selection. Angel 
All that's missing is not letting <fill in your hated group> breed. Dodgy
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#31

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions.

-Teresa

Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

I'm not sure what your use of 'commentator' encompasses, but he's quite an erudite and entertaining speaker.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#32

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
Quote:With manipulating animal and crop populations,


I'll give you a chance to check out genetic anomalies among pure bred dogs and give you an opportunity to revise your statement.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...in-health/

Quote:When a male dog wins numerous championships, for instance, he is often bred widely—a practice known as popular sire syndrome (pdf)—and his genes, healthy or not, then are spread like wildfire throughout the breed. As a result, purebred dogs not only have increased incidences of inherited diseases but also heightened health issues due to their bodily frames and shapes, such as hip dysplasia in large breeds like the German shepherd and the Saint Bernard, and patellar luxation, or persistent dislocation of the kneecap, in toy and miniature breeds.

https://gizmodo.com/why-purebred-dogs-ar...1822881312

Quote:Humans and dogs have been intertwined in a symbiotic relationship that dates back some 15,000 years. Through these millennia, we’ve crafted them into all sorts of crazy configurations, forging them into what are now highly recognizable and popular breeds. But for many purebreds and their owners, the adherence to extreme breeding standards has resulted in misery, with pedigree dogs suffering from an array of physical and behavioral problems.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#33

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-17-2020, 05:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 03:30 AM)Free Wrote: I have nothing against eugenics.

It's going happen anyways.

Anyway” is an adverb meaning regardless. Simply put, “anyway” without an S is correct.
Always use it without the S. “Anyways” with the S is considered slang, and is a part of nonstandard, colloquial, or informal English."

That latter part is why I use it.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#34

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 06:14 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions.

-Teresa

Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

I'm not sure what your use of 'commentator' encompasses, but he's quite an erudite and entertaining speaker.

Outside his scientific specialty, he seems to have more than his share of these moments. As Frank would say:

The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#35

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions...

Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

Well yes... as an accredited commentator on evolutionary biology, (a new genus of fish, the Dawkinsia Srilankensis
was named after him), as an ethologist, and as an MA with a Doctorate of Philosophy.  I'm not quite sure of late why
attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport.     Tall poppy syndrome maybe?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#36

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 03:18 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions...

Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

Well yes... as an accredited commentator on evolutionary biology, (a new genus of fish, the Dawkinsia Srilankensis
was named after him), as an ethologist, and as an MA with a Doctorate of Philosophy.  I'm not quite sure of late why
attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport.     Tall poppy syndrome maybe?

I've never cared for him since the whole "Scarlet Letter A" thing about ten years ago. Or the drive to rebrand atheism as "Brights". There's an arrogance there that I find personally off-putting, and he's remarkably tone-deaf for a public speaker. Then there's Elevatorgate and his handling of that, particularly at RDF, where I was a semi-active member when it went down. This current dust-up only reinforces that impression of arrogance. All the degrees in philosophy don't change that.

Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy? I don't like self-appointed anyones.

Next time you want to know why someone feels a certain way, you should simply ask them. This is, after all, a discussion board. Going for the unseemly insinuation first says something about you yourself, SYZ.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#37

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 01:41 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:38 AM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 04:53 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: No, I think that fits with the claim that saying Eugenics works is kind of sketchy at best.

And because it’s also redundant(I don’t know anyone he may be addressing that suggests it doesn’t work), you have to wonder why.  Dawkins may be many things but he is definitely not ignorant of the baggage that eugenics carries.  He is a troll at a minimum.

Maybe, maybe at minimum he's a troll.  I doubt it but okay.  But at maximum, guess what, he's still merely a troll. (feel free to suggest otherwise)

I don't know if you understood the point I was making.  In case you didn't and you are interested:

He is not saying anything new or something any scientist of note has disputed.  So why is he bringing it up?  Does he want to spark a discussion about the potential benefits of a eugenics program?  Nope.  He says he deplores it as a policy.  So he is just trolling at a minimum.  I don't know enough to make any suggestion of what his goal is at a maximum.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
The following 2 users Like tomilay's post:
  • Alan V, Tres Leches
Reply
#38

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 01:49 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:43 AM)Minimalist Wrote: I guess you have to define "works."  They tried the one-child policy in China and it resulted in a staggering demographic bubble where there are too many boys and not enough girls because parents "selected" for boys.  But, technically it did "work."

I suppose the one thing you can say about eugenics of any sort is that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.

The Chinese example is singular, and not enough of a sample size to draw your conclusion (that unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time).  With manipulating animal and crop populations, it has bitten us on the ass rarely.

Discrimination on the basis of genetics is one bite too many.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
Reply
#39

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:35 AM)Tres Leches Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:18 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 05:29 PM)Tres Leches Wrote: Meh, Dawkins is a gasbag and I don't see any reason to pay attention to his opinions.

-Teresa

He's one of the most interesting and insightful experts in his field, I would encourage you to reconsider and check out some of his work.

I have. There are plenty of other insightful, non-gasbag intellects out there who are worth my time.

-Teresa

I love his books on evolution, so for that I give him a lot of credit, but he is a mixed bag otherwise. His documentaries are worth watching too.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
The following 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#40

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy...

Um... what the...?    I never claimed you were "jealous" of Dawkins' status.  Please don't put
words in my mouth.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#41

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:58 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy...

Um... what the...?    I never claimed you were "jealous" of Dawkins' status.  Please don't put
words in my mouth.

Seems to me that jealousy is implicit in tall poppy syndrome:

Quote:The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticized because they have been classified as superior to their peers.
Reply
#42

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 06:19 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:With manipulating animal and crop populations,


I'll give you a chance to check out genetic anomalies among pure bred dogs and give you an opportunity to revise your statement.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...in-health/

Quote:When a male dog wins numerous championships, for instance, he is often bred widely—a practice known as popular sire syndrome (pdf)—and his genes, healthy or not, then are spread like wildfire throughout the breed. As a result, purebred dogs not only have increased incidences of inherited diseases but also heightened health issues due to their bodily frames and shapes, such as hip dysplasia in large breeds like the German shepherd and the Saint Bernard, and patellar luxation, or persistent dislocation of the kneecap, in toy and miniature breeds.

https://gizmodo.com/why-purebred-dogs-ar...1822881312

Quote:Humans and dogs have been intertwined in a symbiotic relationship that dates back some 15,000 years. Through these millennia, we’ve crafted them into all sorts of crazy configurations, forging them into what are now highly recognizable and popular breeds. But for many purebreds and their owners, the adherence to extreme breeding standards has resulted in misery, with pedigree dogs suffering from an array of physical and behavioral problems.

You want me to revise my statement because you found a bizarre exception to the rule?  Nah.  My full quote: "With manipulating animal and crop populations, it has bitten us on the ass rarely."

You didn't include the "rarely" part of my quote, didja?  No doubt an oversight.
Reply
#43

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:33 PM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:41 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:38 AM)tomilay Wrote: And because it’s also redundant(I don’t know anyone he may be addressing that suggests it doesn’t work), you have to wonder why.  Dawkins may be many things but he is definitely not ignorant of the baggage that eugenics carries.  He is a troll at a minimum.

Maybe, maybe at minimum he's a troll.  I doubt it but okay.  But at maximum, guess what, he's still merely a troll. (feel free to suggest otherwise)

I don't know if you understood the point I was making.  In case you didn't and you are interested:

He is not saying anything new or something any scientist of note has disputed.  So why is he bringing it up?  Does he want to spark a discussion about the potential benefits of a eugenics program?  Nope.  He says he deplores it as a policy.  So he is just trolling at a minimum.  I don't know enough to make any suggestion of what his goal is at a maximum.

Thank you for clarifying, I am interested in your opinion.  I think that some people just have an impish delight in taking free speech out for spin every now and again and watching how predictably people get upset.  It is at both minimum and maximum just mildly trollish.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#44

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:49 PM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:49 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:43 AM)Minimalist Wrote: I guess you have to define "works."  They tried the one-child policy in China and it resulted in a staggering demographic bubble where there are too many boys and not enough girls because parents "selected" for boys.  But, technically it did "work."

I suppose the one thing you can say about eugenics of any sort is that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.

The Chinese example is singular, and not enough of a sample size to draw your conclusion (that unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time).  With manipulating animal and crop populations, it has bitten us on the ass rarely.

Discrimination on the basis of genetics is one bite too many.

I don't want to assume I know what you mean, could you clarify?  What do you mean by discrimination on the basis of genetics?
Reply
#45

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 03:18 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

Well yes... as an accredited commentator on evolutionary biology, (a new genus of fish, the Dawkinsia Srilankensis
was named after him), as an ethologist, and as an MA with a Doctorate of Philosophy.  I'm not quite sure of late why
attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport.     Tall poppy syndrome maybe?

I've never cared for him since the whole "Scarlet Letter A" thing about ten years ago. Or the drive to rebrand atheism as "Brights". There's an arrogance there that I find personally off-putting, and he's remarkably tone-deaf for a public speaker. Then there's Elevatorgate and his handling of that, particularly at RDF, where I was a semi-active member when it went down. This current dust-up only reinforces that impression of arrogance. All the degrees in philosophy don't change that.

Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy? I don't like self-appointed anyones.

Next time you want to know why someone feels a certain way, you should simply ask them. This is, after all, a discussion board. Going for the unseemly insinuation first says something about you yourself, SYZ.

+1

@SYZ I haven't heard of tall poppy syndrome (edit: I see the definition quoted above) but I'm guessing it means shooting down people who raise their heads above the parapet (to use another phrase)? If so, yes, I'll fully own that with Dawkins. I'm on board with discussing evidence-based, peer-reviewed science but he veers way off that into personal viewpoints. Better that he keeps his head down and stays quiet as I have no use for his opinions. 
And he's not the only or the best evolutionary biologist out there. Perhaps he's the most famous or loudest after Darwin but fame means little to me when it comes to science.

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
Reply
#46

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 01:13 AM)Tres Leches Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 03:18 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well yes... as an accredited commentator on evolutionary biology, (a new genus of fish, the Dawkinsia Srilankensis
was named after him), as an ethologist, and as an MA with a Doctorate of Philosophy.  I'm not quite sure of late why
attempting to shoot Dawkins down has become an internet sport.     Tall poppy syndrome maybe?

I've never cared for him since the whole "Scarlet Letter A" thing about ten years ago. Or the drive to rebrand atheism as "Brights". There's an arrogance there that I find personally off-putting, and he's remarkably tone-deaf for a public speaker. Then there's Elevatorgate and his handling of that, particularly at RDF, where I was a semi-active member when it went down. This current dust-up only reinforces that impression of arrogance. All the degrees in philosophy don't change that.

Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy? I don't like self-appointed anyones.

Next time you want to know why someone feels a certain way, you should simply ask them. This is, after all, a discussion board. Going for the unseemly insinuation first says something about you yourself, SYZ.

+1

@SYZ I haven't heard of tall poppy syndrome (edit: I see the definition quoted above) but I'm guessing it means shooting down people who raise their heads above the parapet (to use another phrase)? If so, yes, I'll fully own that with Dawkins. I'm on board with discussing evidence-based, peer-reviewed science but he veers way off that into personal viewpoints. Better that he keeps his head down and stays quiet as I have no use for his opinions. 
And he's not the only or the best evolutionary biologist out there. Perhaps he's the most famous or loudest after Darwin but fame means little to me when it comes to science.

-Teresa

All due respect Teresa but "keep your head down and stay quiet" is the worst fucking advice any earthling has ever given to another.
Reply
#47

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 12:58 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:49 PM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 01:49 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: The Chinese example is singular, and not enough of a sample size to draw your conclusion (that unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time).  With manipulating animal and crop populations, it has bitten us on the ass rarely.

Discrimination on the basis of genetics is one bite too many.

I don't want to assume I know what you mean, could you clarify?  What do you mean by discrimination on the basis of genetics?

Just by definition, any eugenics program would be discriminatory.  Such a program would be designed to eliminate the bad genes and promote the good ones.  How would it work without discrimination?

Eugenics:
Quote: the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
Reply
#48

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 02:37 AM)tomilay Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 12:58 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:49 PM)tomilay Wrote: Discrimination on the basis of genetics is one bite too many.

I don't want to assume I know what you mean, could you clarify?  What do you mean by discrimination on the basis of genetics?

Just by definition, any eugenics program would be discriminatory.  Such a program would be designed to eliminate the bad genes and promote the good ones.  How would it work without discrimination?

Eugenics:
Quote: the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

Okay true by definition one characteristic is being discriminated in favor of another.  I thought for the purpose of hypotheticals the ethics of it were off the table and we were just imagining whether it "works" which it surely would (and does when applied to the plant and animal kingdom).  Taking out the negative connotation, "discrimination" can be neutral, we certainly want to discriminate against severe birth defects.
Reply
#49

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-19-2020, 01:21 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(02-19-2020, 01:13 AM)Tres Leches Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 04:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I've never cared for him since the whole "Scarlet Letter A" thing about ten years ago. Or the drive to rebrand atheism as "Brights". There's an arrogance there that I find personally off-putting, and he's remarkably tone-deaf for a public speaker. Then there's Elevatorgate and his handling of that, particularly at RDF, where I was a semi-active member when it went down. This current dust-up only reinforces that impression of arrogance. All the degrees in philosophy don't change that.

Why would you assume uncharitable motives on my part such as jealousy? I don't like self-appointed anyones.

Next time you want to know why someone feels a certain way, you should simply ask them. This is, after all, a discussion board. Going for the unseemly insinuation first says something about you yourself, SYZ.

+1

@SYZ I haven't heard of tall poppy syndrome (edit: I see the definition quoted above) but I'm guessing it means shooting down people who raise their heads above the parapet (to use another phrase)? If so, yes, I'll fully own that with Dawkins. I'm on board with discussing evidence-based, peer-reviewed science but he veers way off that into personal viewpoints. Better that he keeps his head down and stays quiet as I have no use for his opinions. 
And he's not the only or the best evolutionary biologist out there. Perhaps he's the most famous or loudest after Darwin but fame means little to me when it comes to science.

-Teresa

All due respect Teresa but "keep your head down and stay quiet" is the worst fucking advice any earthling has ever given to another.

Thanks, jerry. Without even realizing it or intending to, I've reached peak "fuck you 40s". It took me a few years but I finally got here. Not fuck *you*, of course, but like this:

Cranky

And a little of this:
Girl_devil


I'll now complain loudly to the grocery clerk about not using the coupon that expired in 2009 and to those dang kids next door about turning down the racket that they think is music. 
Lest Dawkins is lurking and thinks I've forgotten about him, I'll get back to him too.

I wonder what the 50s will bring. What a world we live in! Wink

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
The following 2 users Like Tres Leches's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, jerry mcmasters
Reply
#50

Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
(02-18-2020, 02:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 06:14 AM)Chas Wrote:
(02-18-2020, 05:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Better as a biologist than a commentator of any stripe.

I'm not sure what your use of 'commentator' encompasses, but he's quite an erudite and entertaining speaker.

Outside his scientific specialty, he seems to have more than his share of these moments. As Frank would say:


Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. But ...

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)