Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A three post tangent is a derail on Rationalia now?

I will admit though, that I felt some urgency about getting my tangent back around to the main point after seeing your report.

If you really wish to ask the rest of the staff, I'll not complain about having those posts moved. Although Exi5 might raise an objection on the grounds of it being a case of "moderators using their powers inappropriately to manipulate the scope of discussions artificially"

Some people would complain if you hung them with a new rope.

"Bit prickly, mate, got any that are broken in?"

[charlou]

A three post tangent is a derail on Rationalia now?

I will admit though, that I felt some urgency about getting my tangent back around to the main point after seeing your report.

If you really wish to ask the rest of the staff, I'll not complain about having those posts moved. Although Exi5 might raise an objection on the grounds of it being a case of "moderators using their powers inappropriately to manipulate the scope of discussions artificially"

A report is to all of you. Don't care if you complain or not. It was a derail .. doesn't matter that it comprised the posts of mods ... Still is a derail as far as I can tell and becoming more so. Perhaps a look at the OP and on topic discussion will help you all decide if it fits?

[Robert_S]

I'm bowing out of the entire discussion of the derail/non-derail of those posts aside from one post drawing the whole thing to the attention of the rest of the staff.

[Exi5tentialist]

Although Exi5 might raise an objection on the grounds of it being a case of "moderators using their powers inappropriately to manipulate the scope of discussions artificially"

I wouldn't, I'd just see it as messing with the thread unnecessarily.

[Exi5tentialist]

Duplicate post. Oops.

[Exi5tentialist]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

You only half quoted what I said, and lost a lot of meaning in the process. This is what I said:

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people here by saying that of course he did not mean "alien" with the intention of conjuring up the foreign or non-human sense that undeniably attaches to that word. And I would be required to believe him, since many people here are so keen to tell me that I must not infer anything outside the most simplistic face-value interpretation a literal statement made by any individual.

This is not, therefore, an issue that could be resolved simply by Richard Dawkins explaining what he meant by alien, since the explanation will almost certainly contain a lot of self-justifications about his intention to select one dictionary definition of the word 'alien', all other definitions as being not his intention. Accepting this explanation would be a denial of the reality of modern civilisation which is that public figures need to select their words carefully, because to select words which have multiple meanings, some of them pejorative, can give offence and may be intended to do so. So the question for me is not whether Richard Dawkins has explained his intended meaning, it is whether

a) he has actually used the word 'alien' deliberately to ignite tensions based on the interpretation of the word as 'foreign' or 'not human', which I doubt, or
b) used the word 'alien' whilst being ignorant of the the alternative interpretations of the word, which again I doubt, or
c) he has lied to himself about his intentions

The issue probably wouldn't be so major if it was just a one-off slip of the tongue. The problem is he keeps doing this, and makes his prejudices more and more obvious each time he does.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's not possible your assumptions are mistaken, is it? Of course not, you're never wrong.

[Hermit]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

You only half quoted what I said, and lost a lot of meaning in the process. This is what I said:

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people here by saying that of course he did not mean "alien" with the intention of conjuring up the foreign or non-human sense that undeniably attaches to that word. And I would be required to believe him, since many people here are so keen to tell me that I must not infer anything outside the most simplistic face-value interpretation a literal statement made by any individual.

OK then. My reply to the expanded quote of your post: He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.