Mail vs Richard Dawkins

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:26 am

We're going round in circles. Woolly liberals are indeed bad. But the people who were critical of the cartoons weren't all woolly liberals. I've never seen him engage with their points. He didn't in The God Delusion.

Cartoons aren't acts of actual violence, and nobody said they were as bad as death threats.

But the editor knows exactly what he's doing, and the affect it has. I bet he looked at that ENAR report and thought "fuck off, political correctness gone mad!"

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:28 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

lord_kobel wrote:

But no one was complaining that they were racist.

That's quite a statement. I was. I expect there was the odd Muslim who's cool about Muhammed but didn't think the chap with the bomb-headdress was very nice. How do you know they were all just upset about "the prophet"?

In order for them to be deemed racist then they have to demean racial characteristics that those on the end of the put down cannot do much about.

Saying they are racist when they are not is a cop out.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:29 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

But the people who were critical of the cartoons weren't all woolly liberals. I've never seen him engage with their points. He didn't in The God Delusion.

Like who?

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:32 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

But the editor knows exactly what he's doing, and the affect it has. I bet he looked at that ENAR report and thought "fuck off, political correctness gone mad!"

The editor is NOT responsible for people taking things the wrong way. You have no idea what the editor though and whether he, undeservedly, lives with death threats.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:34 am

Does any person have the right to make any statement without considering the effect that statement is likely to have?

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:37 am

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Does any person have the right to make any statement without considering the effect that statement is likely to have?

Depends on the statement.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:38 am

Gary Younge in the Guardian, for starters. It's a fairly standard leftist (as opposed to liberal) position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/fe ... garyyounge

Dawkins does this a bit in that book (which I nonetheless like, and has some great passages in). He prefers the easy arguments for God- which is right because they hold undue influence- but then says "I haven't got time to deal with the sophisticated argument of the Bishop of Edinburgh". Dawkins sees one easily refuted argument- woolly liberals or creationists- and just goes for that.

It's times like that I remember he's a biologist who does some philosophy, not a philosopher. A great man, and a hero of mine, nonetheless.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:38 am

Rob: Can you define a principle of definition for statements which should be suppressed or simply not expressed?

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:47 am

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Rob: Can you define a principle of definition for statements which should be suppressed or simply not expressed?

Any free speech that does not involve reciprocity may be a candidate for suppression. However suppression is not what I read from your previous statement.

People need to take responsibility for opening their mouths when they spout crap.

People taking statements the wrong way, well that's irresponsible too.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:47 am

Well, seeing we know about it in some detail, let's take the Mail as an example. Do you think they write the volume of stories they do about Muslims, with the distortions they do, out of honest reporting? There's an agenda there to be nasty to them.

The affect is to make people hate Muslims. They're either stupid or they think this is a small price to pay to sell papers.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:48 am

What do you mean by "free speech that does not involve reciprocity"?

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:48 am

Yes I do think the mail is rather ironic in its treatment of muslims.

The mail hates Dawkins too.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:51 am

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

What do you mean by "free speech that does not involve reciprocity"?

When the opposing party states they want to take away your right to free speech.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:52 am

But that isn't a principle. You can find someone to object to anything. What principles would you invoke as to what is permissible and what isn't?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:53 am

Big Rob wrote:

Yes I do think the mail is rather ironic in its treatment of muslims.

ironic?!

There's the irony that Muslims objecting to racy stuff is bad, when white people doing it would be "family values".

But they mean what they say, I'm sure.

Mail vs Richard Dawkins

Who is online