Doing a Dawkins.

[floppit]

Someone else said this but I can't bloody find it now. It made me giggle and I wondered if it could become an internet thing, a memish sort of thing? The person who originally came up with the phrase expended it (from memory so forgive me author if I make a small mistake) as tarring all with the same brush. I'd like to add some flesh to the bones but these are my thoughts.

*To take the extreme end of group behaviour or statements and describe the whole as if there is little gradient, as if sides must be taken and any level of affiliation justifies agreement of the most extreme form.

*To only attend to the smallest and most outrageous fraction in order to encourage others to disregard all milder opinions, more to the point to disregard the PEOPLE holding milder opinions.

*Basically, to highly select what is used and to ignore the remainder with the intent of enhancing the emotions as opposed to the reasoning within the argument.

A bit like accusing someone of being a Nazi because they want lower taxes, or attributing them as supporting the slaughter of royal children, or the Killing Fields for being a lefty - put in terms of politics it blatantly doesn't make sense.

I'd love to see religion die out, by being reasoned out, not by means of the above and anyone who's got to know me over the last months here knows that. It might not be a 'recorded' stamped and approved fallacy but it surely is and I don't honestly believe any cause is furthered, least of all the cause of those who wish to see reasoning win out, by the use of fallacious means. I want it to stop because I want something else to start, encouragement David Attenborough style, a knowing, a belief that even the most irrational people do reason, do wear jumpers when it gets cold and shirts in the heat; to encourage that process. I want to see reasoning knock god right off the centre stage and Dawkins has done more to put god centre stage.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, I've been rattling away about this since I landed - I mean the error of highly selected evidence. But, I may never have another chance like this, another time when the world ain't so black and white, when the people now faced with it also were those who supported it when aimed elsewhere - so it's a punt there's enough who truly get that to make it worthwhile.

Also, as a bonus, it's not ad hom, it is reasonable - doing a Dawkins has validity and serves to keep fresh that it simply is not sound, no matter who does it, it's not the best that reasoning can get! If it spread I think it might bug the bjezus out of him, maybe even make him a little more careful, because shit, underneath all that there's still a fecking good scientist it would be nice to have without the frothing!

[tytalus]

I find the idea amusing, although it sounds a bit naughty, 'doing a Dawkins'. heh. salacious!

Perhaps 'dawk' could become a verb, evolving from its earlier badge-of-honor sense? It looks like another word with vague similarity as to the meaning currently, and as a bonus, it would be harder for the dawkers to accuse people of dawking around when the profanity isn't there. What the dawk, we've all been collectively dawked anyway, might as well put it to use...

Seems a bit silly to me, but who knows, people might like it either way.

[floppit]

I find the idea amusing, although it sounds a bit naughty, 'doing a Dawkins'. heh. salacious!

Perhaps 'dawk' could become a verb, evolving from its earlier badge-of-honor sense? It looks like another word with vague similarity as to the meaning currently, and as a bonus, it would be harder for the dawkers to accuse people of dawking around when the profanity isn't there. What the dawk, we've all been collectively dawked anyway, might as well put it to use...

Seems a bit silly to me, but who knows, people might like it either way.

I know (now) that the dawk thing was a joke but for a complete outsider it did look kind of fan like.... maybe that's just me? Sort of puppy devotion. Don't get me wrong, I am FULLY aware that wasn't the case but it was what I first thought.