 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Most cases of Downs Syndrome are not inherited but some are.
So much crap Biology in this thread.
Oh I am sorry mr biology god if I had put 95% not inherited would you be happy? The point remains howver regarding probabilities of suffering.
What other incorrect biology have you seen oh wise one?
Tom I'm not sure you understand my point .
The drive to procreate is individual if for whatever reason the individual has a limited shot at procreation then they will be more ready to invest time and resources in what might be viewed by others as a sub optimal child .
I'm not religious, but these types like Dawkins really get on my nerves. They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.
I like that post, Daveash. Prpbably the most well constructed and best tohught out response yet.
I view Dawkins very much in a similar way to Jeremy Clarksn; both atre undeniably intelligent, and are particularly adept at knowing just which buttons to press in order to get a reaction. But Neither are quite as clever as they or their acolytes beleive them to be; Dawkins could make his points in a more intelligent and reasonable way, if he possesed a smodgen more awareness. For all his undoubted scientific knowledge, I find him a tad narrow-minded, and he has a need to seek negative reaction, perhas as a way of attempting to address an insecutiy within himself, a bit ho like a child deliberately misbehaves in order to get attention. He has however been particulary successful at turning this needinessinto a way of making money, particularly from other similarly needy types needing sme sort of para-messianic figurehead. I do find it amusing that such devotionby his followers mirrors that of the very people and ideologies he often attacks.
Dawkins upsets the self righteous, keep it up
One of the reasons I'm a fan.
It's quite nice to have my point proven so easily. 🙂
Tom I'm not sure you understand my point .
The drive to procreate is individual if for whatever reason the individual has a limited shot at procreation then they will be more ready to invest time and resources in what might be viewed by others as a sub optimal child .
Most humans get a chance to try again, however, I can understand why people would go through with a pregnancy even if the child will be disabled. The parents have a right to choose and that's the way it should stay.
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone compare Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence..
Oh Clarkson is no fool (much as I'd love to think he is sometimes). And they do both say some ****erish things to provoke a reaction sometimes. Added to that, they both have legions of devotees and haterz.
stoffel - Member...Dawkins ... has a need to seek negative reaction...
but in this case, he didn't.
his 'attention seeking' tweet was written in such a way that only a small group of people could read it.
this hoo-ha has only been made possible because other people went digging for it, perhaps people with a need to feel offended...
a need to feel offended...
*Adds to the list of phrases for the intellectually bereft and mild trolls*
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone compare Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence..
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone deliberately misrepresent a point someone has made and use the comment "both are undeniably intelligent" to claim that someone is comparing Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence
I've never noticed Clarkson say anything intelligent.
I've never noticed Clarkson say anything intelligent.
Me neither, but his choice of what unintelligent things to say suggests at least an element of low cunning.
If we can accept that at the point of termination a foetus is not a child, if when pregnancy is confirmed the midwife gave you an option and said " would you like your child with or without Down's ?", I would imagine every parent would say "without preferably".
I'm sure you're right, but I don't see how that makes the others "immoral".
DrJ, I definitely don't think it should be linked to morality (I've said previously in this thread that I don't agree with Dawkin's use of the word in that context and suspect he just made a poor choice).
Again, as I've said before, it's an enormously personal choice either way and the state should never try change a parent's mind when they are doing what is right for [i]their[/i] family.
Peterfile, I believe his use of the word moral was entirely correct. Morals are your own, mine are different from his and both are different from yours. He thinks it is the moral decision, he did not say it is the ethical decision.
Peterfile, I believe his use of the word moral was entirely correct. Morals are your own, mine are different from his and both are different from yours. He thinks it is the moral decision, he did not say it is the ethical decision.
Not sure I want to get into a debate about the meaning of morality on a saturday night 🙂 But, my understanding is that morality is concerned with whether actions are right or wrong.
You say morals are personal, so why did Dawkins offer his moral to another as being the only and correct one? He offered it because he does not feel that it is a subjective topic, he thinks he has the correct answer. For such a subjective topic, there is no right or wrong answer IMO and therefore to come down on either side does not lead to either party being moral or immoral.
btw, I sympathise with Dawkin's position, I just don't agree that "immoral" was the correct word to use.
The dictionary says it means "not conforming to [i]accepted standards[/i] of morality"
If morals are subjective as you describe, how can there also be accepted standards?
This pretty much is what I thought was the difference between moral and ethical
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
So you and I could face the same problem come up with different answers and think them morally correct.
@aa - what you say makes sense, but then what point is there for Dawkins (or anyone) to criticize others as immoral, if it jus means "it's wrong for me".