Is Richard Dawkins calling for genocide?

[Kframe]

Sounds to me like Richard Dawkins is on that Nazi time.
@Kframe

Yes he is. Just like you are a Nazi.

 

[Kframe]

I guess the TS would come a long way towards the answer of his question if he learned the definition of murder, and also how it differs from abortion. That should make the separation from any thoughts of genocide pretty clear I would think.

It is murder and genocide if you are among the many that think you are killing a life.

 

[tonni]

This is a really difficult discussion and a slippery-slope could be constructed. How far will this go? If they start aborting every child with autism for example, who will take up trolling in the War Room?

 

[all caps]

This is a really difficult discussion and a slippery-slope could be constructed. How far will this go? If they start aborting every child with autism for example, who will take up trolling in the War Room?

I've been recruiting and molding for quite some time, friend.

 

[Kframe]

This is a really difficult discussion and a slippery-slope could be constructed. How far will this go? If they start aborting every child with autism for example, who will take up trolling in the War Room?

It would be nice if they would figure out what causes it and how to correct it before they start genociding all autistic people. Sure murdering them is the easier path then trying to find out the cause and the cure.

 

[tonni]

It would be nice if they would figure out what causes it and how to correct it before they start genociding all autistic people. Sure murdering them is the easier path then trying to find out the cause and the cure.

On one hand eugenics are bad, on the other @Bloodworth

 

[MayhemMonkey]

It is murder and genocide if you are among the many that think you are killing a life.

abortion is not murder

 

[Squarechoke]

It is murder and genocide if you are among the many that think you are killing a life.

What you mean is more like that it's murder and genocide to people that don't care about the definitions of words. You could try to report a woman that had an abortion for murder and see what happens.

 

[Gunny]

No fan of Dawkins but this is a stretch

 

[The Diplomat]

Eugenics is about the avoidance of individual human suffering.

Today, we just call genocide "population control", maintenance, stabilizing of growth. The ways to achieve this feat are less crude than they were in years past, but mostly only because there are better alternatives are available, due to technological progress.

But no matter how the terms are defined, or how the concepts are re-packaged, it all amounts to the same. Less human beings on the planet.

One can only hope.

 

[Judge]

abortion is not murder

Well, to be fair under the google definition you are right.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

So, are you okay with calling abortion killing?If so, then as long as it is legal it should be fine? Right, legal killing is fine?

Guess what else used to be legal killing

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."

^ so you are fine with this as well?

You want me to reason with an opinion that you, yourself, didn't form with reason? Is that correct?

I said we all suffer. Dawkins says that aborting people with birth defects is fine BECAUSE it "avoids individual human suffering".

So, if we all suffer and he is ok with someone killing someone who is suffering WITHOUT their consent, then how far is that from killing everyone? We all suffer. It is ok to kill someone if they suffer without their consent. So carry his logic out. It is saying kill everyone.


I get what you are saying. You think I am saying some crazy shit. I am. I am saying what would happen if you follow Dawkins logic to its ultimate end.

I wonder if there's a way that we could arrange for this thread to be anally raped on its way to the dump.

I wonder what childhood trauma led you to champion anal rape. Freud would have a field day with you.

 

[Billy no mates]

Well done Columbo you've really rumbled him , he's definitely calling for the death of everyone .

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Well, to be fair under the google definition you are right.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

So, are you okay with calling abortion killing?If so, then as long as it is legal it should be fine? Right, legal killing is fine?

Guess what else used to be legal killing

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."

^ so you are fine with this as well?

is that a serious question? when did I state that it was due to abortion being legal I didnt consider it murder?

wtf are they teaching kids in American schools nowadays?

 

[panamaican]

The OP is a...

 

[aunshi189]

Well, to be fair under the google definition you are right.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

So, are you okay with calling abortion killing?If so, then as long as it is legal it should be fine? Right, legal killing is fine?

Guess what else used to be legal killing

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."

^ so you are fine with this as well?

It's the human being part people don't agree on. Some people dispute a fetus is a human being and others claim it is. No one is going to change their mind on this on a discussion on Sherdog.

 

[Judge]

when did I state that it was due to abortion being legal I didnt consider it murder?

Where did I say that? You said abortion is not murder. I said according to the definition of murder you are correct.
Stop being so butthurt and concentrate.

It's the human being part people don't agree on.

Fair enough. What species is an unborn baby inside a human woman? SCIENCE!!!

Do a DNA test. What species will it come back as? Do we agree on objective scientific fact?
Please tell me you are not a flat Earther.

Well done Columbo you've really rumbled him , he's definitely calling for the death of everyone .

I don't think he is intentionally saying that. I am just taking his logic to its ultimate conclusion.
How about this, take what he said, notwhow is my theory not totally supported by his tweet???



PS I love you guys proving I make sense. A bunch of insults and personal attacks but not anyone challenging my proposition. Typical war room.

 

[AndrewSUFC]

Yes, he clearly is calling for genocide. That's definitely what is happening, and you aren't mental at all.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Where did I say that? You said abortion is not murder. I said according to the definition of murder you are correct.
Stop being so butthurt and concentrate..

so why were you fixating on the legality of killing slaves that disobey their masters from 1705? what was the connection?

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

Here is what he said


Now you are saying, Judge, he is talking about those birth defect people. But follow his logic. He wants to champion Eugenics to avoid human suffering.

So murdering someone to reduce their suffering he is okay with.
Who here does not suffer? Who here knows anyone with a birth defect?

Life it suffering. Suffering is the most real thing in life. Try denying that.

But again, if ending someone's life without THEIR CONSENT to stop their suffering, then I am saying using Dawkins's logic he is calling for the genocide of the human race.

What you fail to mention as your underlying assumption is that life begins with conception, based on which you can then call an abortion a murder. This means any abortion is murder and that makes your argument against Dawkins a vanilla lifer argument.

What his putative assumption is is the opposite of that, which is that life does not begin with conception. If that's where he's coming from, arguing abortion on the grounds of future birth defect(s) is morally no different from arguing abortion for any other reason, including simply not wanting a child. That it sounds distasteful to pick whether or not a child is born based on the likelihood of having a fair shot at normal life (biologically speaking) is a moot point - if you don't like the idea of abortion, there's no reason to differentiate between the reasons being cited by those in favor of it.

I can't blame any parent for not wanting to have their child endure suffering - or to expose themselves to said suffering either. Call it selfish, I'll call it humane - to both sides of the situation

 

[Kframe]

abortion is not murder

It is more a matter of personal opinion as to weather someone thinks it is murder or not. If that person is pro abortion then, no it is. But if that person is anti abortion then to them it is murder and genocide. Of the people I have talked to in my sphere here, their is not middle ground. Either they are all for as many abortions as possible or none at all for any reason.