Richard Dawkins?

hackenslash · **#61** by **hackenslash** » Jul 29, 2014 4:58 pm

I don't see a problem there. If you look properly at the context, there's nothing remotely controversial in what he's said, and his admonition to those responding with frankly asinine comments is well-deserved. It's exactly the sort of response I'd have delivered, only I'd have been considerably less polite.

Scarlett · **#62** by **Scarlett** » Jul 29, 2014 5:07 pm

hackenslash wrote:I don't see a problem there. If you look properly at the context, there's nothing remotely controversial in what he's said, and his admonition to those responding with frankly asinine comments is well-deserved. It's exactly the sort of response I'd have delivered, only I'd have been considerably less polite.

Peter Brown · **#63** by **Peter Brown** » Jul 30, 2014 12:39 am

Federico wrote:

Now it's The Independent which tugs at my heart's strings with an article on RD's very personal and controversial views on rape and pedophilia, which reminded me of my thread about RD & Pedophilia (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =2&t=21714), unfortunately inaccessible for the moment.
.

aye, it was stumbling over this which made me appear here.

I think Richard has been talking to Sam Harris too long and the moral landscape has made him spurt out brain farts into the twittersphere.
BTOT
rarely visit RDF, can't understand the way the forum works and prefer it here.

Darwinsbulldog · **#64** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jul 30, 2014 1:32 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Federico wrote:

Now it's The Independent which tugs at my heart's strings with an article on RD's very personal and controversial views on rape and pedophilia, which reminded me of my thread about RD & Pedophilia (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =2&t=21714), unfortunately inaccessible for the moment.
.

aye, it was stumbling over this which made me appear here.

I think Richard has been talking to Sam Harris too long and the moral landscape has made him spurt out brain farts into the twittersphere.
BTOT
rarely visit RDF, can't understand the way the forum works and prefer it here.

The forum does not work. It is a mouth-piece for agenda. No debate or dissent is tolerated.

Federico · **#65** by **Federico** » Jul 30, 2014 2:19 pm

Banzai! wrote:so it was you he was berating this morning on twitter then

I don't think I ever rose high enough in RD's scale of nuisance to deserve more than a shrug.

Actually, in the rarefied air of high self-esteem he's used to trudge, I'm surprised he feels sometimes the need to modify some of his more outrageous remarks such as ".... telling children fairy tales could be harmful because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism,” as reported in the Independent. He suggested, instead, they should be taught scientific rigour from an early age. Which I interpret as meaning that, at bedtime, instead of hearing fairy tales, children should be instructed in the Cartesian way of thinking.

Evolving · **#66** by **Evolving** » Jul 30, 2014 2:33 pm

Federico wrote:Actually, in the rarefied air of high self-esteem he's used to trudge, I'm surprised he feels sometimes the need to modify some of his more outrageous remarks such as ".... telling children fairy tales could be harmful because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism,” as reported in the Independent.

We discussed that at the time: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-vs-santa-t45544.html?#p2016843, and it seems the reporting was not entirely accurate.

Matt_B · **#67** by **Matt_B** » Jul 30, 2014 2:45 pm

There's no harm in telling people fairy tales. The harm is in pretending that they're true.

Federico · **#68** by **Federico** » Aug 01, 2014 1:07 pm

Federico wrote:
".... telling children fairy tales could be harmful because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism,” as reported in the Independent. He suggested, instead, they should be taught scientific rigour from an early age. Which I interpret as meaning that, at bedtime, instead of hearing fairy tales, children should be instructed in the Cartesian way of thinking.

Does that mean from now on we should consider the reading of fairytales as potentially damaging to children's brains like the teaching of a religion or being sexually assaulted by a pedophile?
And which of the three potential brain bashers is the worst? This is what we can read in The Telegraph:

" Research revealed one in five parents has scrapped old classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and Rapunzel in favour of more modern books.

One third of parents said their children have been left in tears after hearing the gruesome details of Little Red Riding Hood.

And nearly half of mothers and fathers refuse to read Rumplestiltskin to their kids as the themes of the story are kidnapping and execution.

Similarly, Goldilocks and the Three Bears was also a tale likely to be left on the book shelf as parents felt it condones stealing."

Is nothing sacred anymore?

Thomas Eshuis · **#69** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 01, 2014 1:15 pm

Is there such a thing as sacred in the first place?

Federico · **#70** by **Federico** » Aug 01, 2014 2:02 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Is there such a thing as sacred in the first place?

Yes: The sacred cows of Benares.

Thomas Eshuis · **#71** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 01, 2014 4:01 pm

Federico wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Is there such a thing as sacred in the first place?

Yes: The sacred cows of Benares.

So that's a no then.

Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Re: Richard Dawkins?

Who is online