Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Exi5tentialist]

The important issue is whether he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash, or whether he believes the Islamic culture does and that it is manifested in their imposition of the dress code we're discussing. I think it's the latter.

What's your evidence for that?

[Robert_S]

I'm guessing that Dawkins doesn't so much as glance at the Daily Mail or have many racists co-workers, so I'm willing to forgive and inadvertent verbal assist to such people.

Much like if a UK-EU person were to casually say "nigger" in the US. They often don't get the weight the choice of words has outside their familiar context.

'Machievelli'?....hiding behind naivety there is a very educated man, a expert wordsmith and if we don't like we can fuck-off.

Nah, I just think he fancies himself an elevator but won't deign to lower himself to the bottom floors.

[charlou]

The important issue is whether he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash, or whether he believes the Islamic culture does and that it is manifested in their imposition of the dress code we're discussing. I think it's the latter.

What's your evidence for that?

His own words. My interpretation differs from yours.

Why do you think he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash?

Also would like your response to this that I posted earlier (bolded):

I suspect DAwkins has an even older dictionary than me.

Actually I suspect it's the OED on an iPhone, so there's no excuse really, is there?

Ah, well, there's a lot of supposition in this thread.

There is some supposition on both sides, I wouldn't say "a lot."

My suppositions are reasonable and based on evidence of Dawkins's previous behaviour as a confirmed islamophobic bigot. Others are based on blind faith in the man, and denying the evidence of his right-wing agenda.

"islamophobic bigot" ... Can you explain just what it is that RD is being "bigotted" about that you disagree with, and why you disagree with his concerns.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm guessing that Dawkins doesn't so much as glance at the Daily Mail or have many racists co-workers, so I'm willing to forgive and inadvertent verbal assist to such people.

Much like if a UK-EU person were to casually say "nigger" in the US. They often don't get the weight the choice of words has outside their familiar context.

'Machievelli'?....hiding behind naivety there is a very educated man, a expert wordsmith and if we don't like we can fuck-off.

Nah, I just think he fancies himself an elevator but won't deign to lower himself to the bottom floors.

The Daly Mail readership is pretty low but their not exactly bottom level for all their faults.

[Exi5tentialist]

The important issue is whether he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash, or whether he believes the Islamic culture does and that it is manifested in their imposition of the dress code we're discussing. I think it's the latter.

What's your evidence for that?

His own words. My interpretation differs from yours.

Why do you think he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash?

Well I think you're playing with words and not providing very much clarity. Let me help.

I do not think 'the important thing is whether Dawkins personally thinks of muslim women as trash'. I think that is one important thing, but it is not the most important thing. What is important is what he has said: what concepts he is putting out into the public domain. And the fact remains that he has put out into the public domain a concept of a women as bin liner-clad trash. That is his responsiblity. I think as ever he relies on an ambiguity to drive home an islamophobic point, and the ambiguity is the one you have referred to - is Richard Dawkins saying muslim women are trash, or is he saying that islam makes muslim women trash? Of course, you have plumped for the latter explanation, but with no evidence. Richard Dawkins has not as far as I am aware been explicit on that ambiguity, and furthermore you have provided no evidence that muslim women do not wear the niqab voluntarily. That's two pieces of evidence you are missing. That's a bit of an oversight for people who value reason and science isn't it?

Also would like your response to this that I posted earlier (bolded):

"islamophobic bigot" ... Can you explain just what it is that RD is being "bigotted" about that you disagree with, and why you disagree with his concerns.

Dawkins is being bigoted about muslim women for a start, to my knowledge he has now used the the bin liner reference at least three times in public, and has not responded to any of the arguments that have been put to him about why that description is inflammatory and inaccurate. Secondly he has spoken of a visceral revulsion that he feels whenever he sees a woman wearing a burka. I think this is evidence of a man not taking responsibility for his opinions, he locates his opinions in his viscera rather than his brain and this indicates a profoundly entrenched prejudice. Thirdly he has described islam as the biggest force for evil in the world today. Not capitalism, not poverty, not crime, no it is islam, apparently. Evil is a word I don't use myself, I think it is incumbent on any atheist to drop the vocabulary of judeo-christian culture like a hot potato, not perpetuate it to describe a grouping who are a historic enemy of christianity. Again this shows a deeply entrenched position on Dawkins's part, not subject to reason or persuasion, infact I think it is so identical to a traditional protestant imperialist prejudice about muslims as to be inseparable from it. These are just three examples, and along with many other things he has said they add up to his being a very bigoted person, someone who does not recognise individual choice, someone who does not defend religious freedom or human rights in their entirity.

Just a small point, I do not think his extreme views are mere 'concerns'.

And I don't think he's a very good atheist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Death is nothing to be afraid of. I'd rather become a suicide bomber than die of old age, bedridden, or locked up.

Go on, then. Don't let us stop you. Die.

[HomerJay]

yes, it's William fucking Craig

[Pappa]

The Times Educational Supplement's website has a community area. I found this thread there: http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/524342/7045229.aspx

Oh, an unsolicited link with no context or explanation. How unhelpful.

The TES is the publication that Dawkin's words appeared in. That is their website. From what I can gather, the members of their community area are all UK teachers.

Yeah, nobody asked me to post the link, so I guess technically it's unsolicited (as most links posted on forums are), but as it's clearly on topic I don't understand why you've taken issue with it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Times Educational Supplement's website has a community area. I found this thread there: http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/524342/7045229.aspx

Oh, an unsolicited link with no context or explanation. How unhelpful.

The TES is the publication that Dawkin's words appeared in. That is their website. From what I can gather, the members of their community area are all UK teachers.

Yeah, nobody asked me to post the link, so I guess technically it's unsolicited (as most links posted on forums are), but as it's clearly on topic I don't understand why you've taken issue with it.

Simply sniping.

[Bella Fortuna]

The Times Educational Supplement's website has a community area. I found this thread there: http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/524342/7045229.aspx

Oh, an unsolicited link with no context or explanation. How unhelpful.

The TES is the publication that Dawkin's words appeared in. That is their website. From what I can gather, the members of their community area are all UK teachers.

Yeah, nobody asked me to post the link, so I guess technically it's unsolicited (as most links posted on forums are), but as it's clearly on topic I don't understand why you've taken issue with it.

Actually I'd suggested something of that sort...

Might actually help if one could read the entire text of this interview and not just snippets extracted for effect...

Why? A quote is a quote isn't it?

There's this magical concept called "context"...

So thank you for posting it, Pappa.

[Exi5tentialist]

So thank you for posting it, Pappa.

Sorry to interrupt your love-in but I do think quotes can provide their own context quite adequately.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or you can click the link. The universe will not bend to your will, Exi. Nor will the Ratz.

[Bella Fortuna]

This is a reminder to Zilla regarding personal attacks for this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 48#p997948

Also please consider this a general reminder to all in this thread to avoid personal attacks and to play nice.

[Tero]

I read something somewhere. So I am commenting on it.

I think the Muslim students miss a wonderful opportunity when they walk out from class. They could stay and ask the professor: Why are there still chimpanzees?

[Ronja]

... I do think quotes can provide their own context quite adequately.

Could you explain how exactly you mean that this would work? Because I find it quite likely that even a lengthy quote, and even more so a short one, can be better understood if the reader knows more e.g. about where, when, to whom, through which media and in answer to which question(s) it was made.

That does not have to mean that *everything* about the person who said or wrote something, or her/his intended audience, needs to be known, but people do speak and write differently depending on who they deem likely to read or listen, and the same expression often is interpreted somewhat differently by different people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language_use)

IMO it also does not hurt to know about discussions outside RatZ concerning the same topic(s).