Is Richard Dawkins calling for genocide?

[TheGreatA]

lol at Gates not being a "political player" in the world. He has no influence or reach at all. He affects nothing. You have to tear down great men to your level. It is pathetic. Done with you for real this time.

He has influence and reach, but he is not what I'd call an active player.

I do not tear anything down to "my level". I just do not partake in this American idol culture. If you were from where I'm from, you'd probably think the same way. I put my father above me, and my grandfather. But some man that I do not know, and have no relations with? Why should I put him above me? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, you were done the moment you opened your mouth about Stephen Hawking, who did not suffer from any kind of a physical defect from his birth. It's just a shitty argument and your little deflection attempt hasn't amounted to shit, either. So just go home.

 

[unimackpass]

Quote from Hitchens book,
"It's nonsense that a unborn child is not a human-being."




"All the latest discoveries in embryology in the last generation affirm the opinion of a unborn child."

"Anyone seeing a sonogram instinctively recognizes such."

 

[Squarechoke]

???

Pro abortion stance pretends there is no life prior to birth.

No, it doesn't. That would be absurd since a carrot is alive. It does however say that it, up to the time where abortion is allowed, is not yet a full human with all the rights that go with that.

But as I said, if you don't think the definitions of words are important, go ahead and report someone that had an abortion for murder and see how it goes.

 

[MicroBrew]

Grasping at straws a bit here.

Just a bit?? TS is grabbing a hay bale with a grappler.

 

[MicroBrew]

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.

No Dawkins isn't. You are grossly mischaracterizing his statement.

 

[Fawlty]

Quote from Hitchens book,
"It's nonsense that a unborn child is not a human-being."




"All the latest discoveries in embryology in the last generation affirm the opinion of a unborn child."

"Anyone seeing a sonogram instinctively recognizes such."

I won't let this go by without reminding that Hitchens was in favor of the right to abortion.

 

[luckyshot]

Wait, wait, I know how to play this game: Richard Dawkins is... literally Hitler!

Did I do it right?

Today, we just call genocide "population control", maintenance, stabilizing of growth. [...]

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.

Fun fact: it took all of human history-- hundreds of thousands of years-- until about year 1800, actually-- for the human population to reach 1 billion.

In the last 200 years it has increase to 7.5 billion.

If we are genociding ourselves, we fucking suck at it horribly.

 

[SMillard]

TS, if this is what you preoccupy yourself with, then

 

[DespicablePeep]

No, it doesn't. That would be absurd since a carrot is alive. It does however say that it, up to the time where abortion is allowed, is not yet a full human with all the rights that go with that.

But as I said, if you don't think the definitions of words are important, go ahead and report someone that had an abortion for murder and see how it goes.

You are defining things and words to your view, a lot of states in US allow up to 24 Weeks. At 24 weeks with neonatal advances its possible for a baby to survive if given birth prematurely.



Thats what a lot of states in the US allow to abort.

Not a full human is just a play of words to make you fell right, if at least your kind had balls to admit its a life and that you view the mothers choice above that life it would be honest and bold.

 

[unimackpass]

I won't let this go by without reminding that Hitchens was in favor of the right to abortion.

So you agree with Hitchens research that a unborn child is a human being?

 

[Fawlty]

So you agree with Hitchens research that a unborn child is a human being?

This is a manipulative and useless way to approach the topic.

A developing human life in the womb is what it is. We decide what rights it has and when, and how those rights relate to those of the mother.

 

[unimackpass]

This is a manipulative and useless way to approach the topic.

A developing human life in the womb is what it is. We decide what rights it has and when, and how those rights relate to those of the mother.

Disagree. When the obviouse is pointed out and there really is no tenable Counterpoint then foul is called. I could just as easily claim the manipulation is coming from the position we're not actually dealing with a unborn child.
All I did was quote Hitchens and after your comment asked if you agreed. Something to ponder.

Edit to add - A nine month old child is developing out of the womb. That Hitchens point.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I won't let this go by without reminding that Hitchens was in favor of the right to abortion.

I didn't know this, I thought he was anti abortion.

 

[MiniCraque]

I'm glad you added a question mark so you don't sound like a stupid or crazy person with an agenda.

Yeah he totally dodged that bullet.

 

[TidWell]

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.

Thought it was going to be Dawkins wanting a Genocide of Muslims.

I agree its a form of Eugenics, whats weird is

 

[Squarechoke]

You are defining things and words to your view, a lot of states in US allow up to 24 Weeks. At 24 weeks with neonatal advances its possible for a baby to survive if given birth prematurely.



Thats what a lot of states in the US allow to abort.

Not a full human is just a play of words to make you fell right, if at least your kind had balls to admit its a life and that you view the mothers choice above that life it would be honest and bold.

I wouldn't talk about having balls to admit things when you can't even admit that "murder" is a legally defined term and you use it when it's not applicable in order to make a cheap point about your beliefs. That's a literal fact and you're being dishonest for trying to bypass that. Things don't get better when you're plain wrong in your interpretation of what I said.

 

[meauneau]

Here is what he said



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.

If life is suffering and suffering is bad, then if we bring people into life, without their consent, where they will suffer, we are doing something wrong. Therefore we should not bring people into life.

 

[Judge]

If life is suffering and suffering is bad, then if we bring people into life, without their consent, where they will suffer, we are doing something wrong. Therefore we should not bring people into life.

Cliffs: Nothing agreed to coming into this world so kill everything EXCEPT YOURSELF with complete justification.

"where they will suffer, we are doing something wrong. Therefore we should not bring people into life."
- this is an axiom of yours, this is not based on any fact. It is your opinion. It is your faith. It is something you have no evidence for.

I am an existentialist. It is kind of hard to pin down what the fuck that means. But, I think the central tenant means something like "an existentialist says that we do not say what we believe, but what we actually believe is what we act out".

So you have to see why your argument holds no water (as Marissa would day). No one is making you live. You chose to live. You chose the suffering and living a life you did not consent to.

Next, you are being illogical. Nothing created can consent to being created. If your argument is that things have to give consent to being giving existence before existing then you are invalidating everything living or dead in this universe.
And anyone who thinks this is a POS that would have their "justification" for murdering all living things. This is what the Columbine kids thought.

I pity you. Either because you actually believe what you posted or because you are intellectually dishonest enough to think no one with an IQ over 83 would see right through it.

My judgement on you.

PS I like your use of the word "therefore" in your attempt to not sound pitiably stupid.

People live suffer, people can end their lives anytime they want, if the people who suffer choose not to off themselves, then life is worth living even with suffering.

Only a child thinks life is about being happy.

This is a manipulative and useless way to approach the topic.

A developing human life in the womb is what it is. We decide what rights it has and when, and how those rights relate to those of the mother.

We decide what life is legal to kill. It is a living human being. Let's just be honest. If we can't be scientifically honest then the scientific truth must make the act so repugnant that we would outlaw it once again.

Wait, wait, I know how to play this game: Richard Dawkins is... literally Hitler!

Did I do it right?



Fun fact: it took all of human history-- hundreds of thousands of years-- until about year 1800, actually-- for the human population to reach 1 billion.

In the last 200 years it has increase to 7.5 billion.

If we are genociding ourselves, we fucking suck at it horribly.

You understand world hunger is near an all time low. Poverty is at an all time low.

There is no scientific evidence we have over-population.

Do you believe in flat Earth as well?

 

[dontsnitch]

If life is suffering and suffering is bad, then if we bring people into life, without their consent, where they will suffer, we are doing something wrong. Therefore we should not bring people into life.

You ever seen this?

 

[meauneau]

You ever seen this?

2 hours bro. Any cliffs?