Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[charlou]

I didn't read it so much as reverence for Watson, but more a concern that one person was not allowed to speak because another person with more clout at the time didn't want to it to be allowed.

[Warren Dew]

Yeah, a limit of "birth" is too unspecific. I like the 21 week thing, or thereabouts, when a baby could be delivered and live. The slight problem with this is that technologies will extend this date back towards conception, presumably. It's a fucking tough issue, no doubt.

Also an issue is the fact that only a few percent of 21 month fetuses who are delivered actually manage to live, and they consume enormous medical resources that could probably be better used to help many other people.

The earliest I would draw the line would be when a fetus can be delivered and live without medical assistance - which is a month or two premature.

[Warren Dew]

The birth is certainly a notable moment, but there is really very little difference between the day a baby is born and the day before.

Actually, there are a very large number of physiological and psychological changes that occur at birth.

[charlou]

My observation above aside ...

I was crushed. I couldn’t believe it. Richard Dawkins was my hero. I looked up to him as a beacon of truth and reason in a world of irrationality. I couldn’t believe he would act this way toward Rebecca. Before I left for the tour, I truly, honestly thought that the whole “Elevatorgate” thing was a miscommunication, and if someone (and I was willing to be that someone) would sit down with Dawkins, they could explain to him why it’s uncomfortable to be propositioned in an elevator by a stranger, and then Dawkins could apologize for the whole thing and everyone could move on. I really just thought it was just ignorance, not malice, that caused Dawkins to act that way.

I don't even want to start on why I don't think RD has anything to apologise for wrt how he responded to RW during the "elevatorgate" thing. I quickly came to understand his point and agree with him at the time.

The emotive string pulling in this article does nothing for me. Idolising someone (who, btw, never asked for such reverence), then being all cut up because that person doesn't live up to whatever standard of perfection you have in your mind for them is YOUR issue, not theirs. The fall from the pedestal You placed them on is Your fall, and that's why You feel hurt.

[Azathoth]

There is a response now from american atheists

While Mr. Silverman does not dispute that an exchange with Dr. Dawkins took place in Miami in September of 2011, there was no acquiescence on Mr. Silverman's part. At the time the exchange took place, Ms. Watson had not in fact been invited to speak at the Reason Rally, and that decision had already been made. The Reason Rally had many more requests from prominent atheists to speak than speaking slots to offer.

American Atheists and Mr. Silverman appreciate Ms. Moglia’s effort to bring attention to the issue of blacklisting speakers despite that in this particular instance she was not in possession of all the facts. Like many other organizations, American Atheists has faced occasional criticism and threats of boycott for its choice of speakers, but maintains the stance that the growing atheist community is big enough, diverse enough, and reasonable enough to understand the value in diverse perspectives.

American Atheists believes this is an opportunity for consciousness-raising and growth, and continues to encourage and support reasonable and open discourse about controversies for the wider benefit of the long-term goals of atheism activism.

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanAtheists?fref=ts

[charlou]

Good response.

[Bella Fortuna]

My observation above aside ...

I was crushed. I couldn’t believe it. Richard Dawkins was my hero. I looked up to him as a beacon of truth and reason in a world of irrationality. I couldn’t believe he would act this way toward Rebecca. Before I left for the tour, I truly, honestly thought that the whole “Elevatorgate” thing was a miscommunication, and if someone (and I was willing to be that someone) would sit down with Dawkins, they could explain to him why it’s uncomfortable to be propositioned in an elevator by a stranger, and then Dawkins could apologize for the whole thing and everyone could move on. I really just thought it was just ignorance, not malice, that caused Dawkins to act that way.

I don't even want to start on why I don't think RD has anything to apologise for wrt how he responded to RW during the "elevatorgate" thing. I quickly came to understand his point and agree with him at the time.

The emotive string pulling in this article does nothing for me. Idolising someone (who, btw, never asked for such reverence), then being all cut up because that person doesn't live up to whatever standard of perfection you have in your mind for them is YOUR issue, not theirs. The fall from the pedestal You placed them on is Your fall, and that's why You feel hurt.

So much this!

[DaveDodo007]

Hmmm. Beccypoos wants people to boycott Dawkins and his products, totes OK. P Z fuckwit refuses to attend any conference in which Abbie Smith attends, totes OK (despite power differential.) Richard Dawkins may not have wanted to be at the same event as some lowlife fuckwitted drama queen (truth yet to be established) OMG OMG OMG, EBIL EBIL DAWKINS. Will someone please explain why eugenics is a bad idea again because I'm just not seeing it.

[laklak]

Perhaps some of those participants are a good argument for late, late, late, late term abortions?

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, they are pushing a big lie.
Dawkins didn't stop anyone speaking. He just exercised his right to choose who he shared a platform with.

Also, Dawkin's main interests lie in evolution and atheism. If he doesn't like the idea of those interests being hijacked by those pushing feminism and social justice, he has the right to back out of speaking. I don't blame him one bit.

Watson wants public exposure off the back of people who are famous because they've DONE something. I can see why Dawkins had no inclination to help her in that mission.

It's up to others what they do about it.

Rebecca Watson is a nobody, in the scientific world. I'm not surprised they chose to go with Dawkins.
Watson is free to talk to anyone if they want to listen, but to share a platform with someone, she needs them to agree to it.

[Audley Strange]

Expect some incoming. In order to expose Dawkins as being Mysogynist General, Svan has been witnessing about his alleged dalliances with other women. LP's thread on Dawkins here is being linked to this nonsense.

It might come to nothing, since most of these people exist to whine rather than actually do anything, but I thought it worth alerting you.

So... I think Rebecca Watson is a poisonous attention whore who has not enlightened us to misogynist attitudes towards women, but has created a resentment towards a self publicising idiot who plays the victim so her credulous followers can create a phantom menace. She has harmed the A/S movement more than organised religion. Hatred of Rebecca Watson is not hatred of Women, nor is it anti-feminist. She would sell feminists down the river for 5 minutes on The Daily Show. she is neither a skeptic nor a chick. She is a grown woman who manufactures controversy out of nothing for pity points and cash.

She is more problematic than sexism in the A/S community.

[Bella Fortuna]

Amanda Knief of American Atheists (Silverman's organisation) is countering:

"When you write a blog or anything for public consumption, you are responsible for the content you include--and what you leave out if it is pertinent to the issue or story. Presenting events from one's perspective is fine but don't pretend it is journalism or reporting when you make assumptions about what you hear or see AND DON'T FACT-CHECK. That's on you and can be libelous or defamation if you are not careful. So just friendly advice: if you want to be a writer, develop the ethics of a writer first."

"I apparently lost a few FB friends today. I don't know yet if this will translate IRL. But I will not apologize for calling out inaccuracies or errors when I am able and when I see how much damage they cause. I am not trying to stop anyone from speaking or writing but I, as your reader, demand your product meet basic ethical standards of fact-checking and verification--or at least the attempt. Why would any reader would accept less?"

"I read an article or a blog post and I hope that as a skeptic and an informed reader I ask the following questions: 1. who is the source of this information? 2. How reliable is the information (i.e., first-hand, how fresh, any angles)? 3. How reliable is the source of the information? (i.e., recording, written, hearsay)? 3. What is the purpose of the information imparted? 4. Can the information be verified?

Trust but verify.
It is too easy to believe the worst."

[Clinton Huxley]

I said this would happen. Give 'em the vote one century and the very next they'll want to run the show.

[Sean Hayden]

meh, I don't get it. The story, the problem, I don't see it.

[Coito ergo sum]

...Yes, a 38 week fetus has an interest in surviving, and I guarantee the fetus feels pain at that age.

I'm not so sure about the former of those two statements - I don't believe a 38 week fetus has 'interests' in anything at all.

Certainly not in the conscious "thiz iz relevant 2 my interestz" sense. But, comatose people don't have such "interests" either, but we acknowledge an interest in their survival.