Dawkins pissing people off again with his arrogant opinions

[pErvinalia]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

[rainbow]

The problem is that he is allegedly intelligent. Intelligent people understand there are no absolute morals. They also hopefully have an understanding of social issues, unlike Dawkins. He's like SD, he doesn't realise the effect his words have in a social environment.

Does saying you think something is immoral mean there are absolute morals?,

Pretty much.

[Strontium Dog]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

What are you talking about you utter berk?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion that some idiots might find offensive, and being outright abusive.

Dawkins is completely correct, a feeling I know only too well, and if people are attacking him for that, the problem is THEM not him.

[Pappa]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

What are you talking about you utter berk?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion that some idiots might find offensive, and being outright abusive.

Dawkins is completely correct, a feeling I know only too well, and if people are attacking him for that, the problem is THEM not him.

It's not nice to call rEv a cunt.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

What are you talking about you utter berk?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion that some idiots might find offensive, and being outright abusive.

Dawkins is completely correct, a feeling I know only too well, and if people are attacking him for that, the problem is THEM not him.

It's not nice to call rEv a cunt.

It's surprising how few people realise it's (berk) meaning. I can remember teachers at my old school using it all the time. I even remember a public information film with it in...It was about smoking in the workplace - "Don't be a berk. Put it out...properly".

[MrJonno]

The problem is that he is allegedly intelligent. Intelligent people understand there are no absolute morals. They also hopefully have an understanding of social issues, unlike Dawkins. He's like SD, he doesn't realise the effect his words have in a social environment.

Does saying you think something is immoral mean there are absolute morals?,

Pretty much.

Saying something is wrong just means you think it is wrong, doesn't in any way imply any absolutes unless you already think there are absolute morality and that person is trying to describe it

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The problem is that he is allegedly intelligent. Intelligent people understand there are no absolute morals. They also hopefully have an understanding of social issues, unlike Dawkins. He's like SD, he doesn't realise the effect his words have in a social environment.

Does saying you think something is immoral mean there are absolute morals?,

Pretty much.

Saying something is wrong just means you think it is wrong, doesn't in any way imply any absolutes unless you already think there are absolute morality and that person is trying to describe it

Actually, saying that an act is wrong with reference to a particular instance does not imply any absolutes. Saying that something is simply wrong (without citing any particular cases, or possible extenuating circumstances, etc.) implies exactly that!

eg. Compare the following:

1. It is wrong for the government to imprison MrJonno for what he said last Wednesday.
2. It is wrong for the government to imprison anyone, ever for something that they say.

The first is an opinion of the ethics of a particular case. The second is an ethical generalisation irrespective of circumstances and thus a statement of absolute morality.

Dawkins' tweet is very much in the second category.

[Hermit]

Dawkins never ceases to amaze. Who would have thought that among his many talents is the ability to read German?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Care to speak English, boy?

[pErvinalia]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

What are you talking about you utter berk?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion that some idiots might find offensive, and being outright abusive.

So? Going by your own quote of Fry, you don't have a right to be offended. So stop getting offended and harden the fuck up.

Dawkins is completely correct, a feeling I know only too well...

No one trolls you better than yourself.

[pErvinalia]

So don't whinge when people give it back to you.

What are you talking about you utter berk?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion that some idiots might find offensive, and being outright abusive.

Dawkins is completely correct, a feeling I know only too well, and if people are attacking him for that, the problem is THEM not him.

It's not nice to call rEv a cunt.

It's surprising how few people realise it's (berk) meaning. I can remember teachers at my old school using it all the time. I even remember a public information film with it in...It was about smoking in the workplace - "Don't be a berk. Put it out...properly".

I had no idea. A mate of mine was half English and embraced the English culture while at school. He used to use all sorts of obscure pejoratives that us Aussies didn't know anything about. We used to think it was hilarious when he called us 'berks'. We thought it was spelt "Burke" and the only "Burke" we knew about was a pioneering legend here in Oz.

[Hermit]

I thought people here are clued up enough to work out what it's about without even being able to read German. Apparently not, so here's a rough translation:

60,000 Reichsmark
That's how much it costs the community to keep a genetically sick person over his lifetime.
Comrade, that's your money too.
Read New Nation
The monthly magazines of the NSDAP's Office of Racial Politics

[JimC]

I didn't know the "berk" connection to female genitalia either...

[MrJonno]

Actually, saying that an act is wrong with reference to a particular instance does not imply any absolutes. Saying that something is simply wrong (without citing any particular cases, or possible extenuating circumstances, etc.) implies exactly that!

eg. Compare the following:

1. It is wrong for the government to imprison MrJonno for what he said last Wednesday.
2. It is wrong for the government to imprison anyone, ever for something that they say.

The first is an opinion of the ethics of a particular case. The second is an ethical generalisation irrespective of circumstances and thus a statement of absolute morality.

Dawkins' tweet is very much in the second category.

Different sort of absolute morality, talking about ethics/morality as facts like gravity which they plainly can never be. Basically to have absolute morality you need an absolute and perfect source ie a fictional god

[pErvinalia]

Not according to Sam Harris. And I think Dawkins is a supporter of Harris's thesis.