Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (41489)	9/13/2013 10:34:06 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Some of the rational public weigh in on Dawkin's forgiveness of the man who touched him... Very well said, though honestly, you really shouldn't have had to explain yourself this way. Some people are just too easily offended and too little inclined to use a bit of common sense. I like others wonder why you should have to explain something so glaringly obvious. It's a pity you need to explain. The result of a small group of big mouths who by default categorize certain types of people as guilty of whatever the group wants to be true. Fortunately they are outnumbered by reasonable people with comprehension skills and those with the ability to realize they could be mistaken and admit as much (also known as class) Many of Richard's critics (and there are many of late) have been making the point that "wrong is wrong, period". I read Richard as stating that there are shades of wrong (which makes his critics mad). Let me repeat a quote from the "Big Bang Theory" that I've posted elsewhere: Sheldon: "Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation." Stuart: "Of course it is. It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge." There may be more, but by my reckoning, this is the second time recently that an explanation has needed to be given regarding twitter posts. It may be worth revising the use of twitter because possibly a) the tweets are coming out wrongly, b) the readers miss a point, c) both, d) twitter is simply n... I agree completely. I admit when it comes to Twitter I'm a Luddite and a grumpy old man but so be it, I still think it is essentially useless for people who want to have intelligent discussions. It's for people who want to trade dumb jokes that they think are incredibly clever, random pointless comments they think are insightful, and insults. It's not a medium that people like Prof. Dawkins should waste their time on to begin with even though I know the prevailing wisdom is you have to use it to reach young people. In reply to #1 by bootjangler: There may be more, but by my reckoning, this is the second time recently that an explanation has needed to be given regarding twitter posts. It may be worth revising the use of twitter because possibly a) the tweets are coming out wrongly, b) the readers miss a point, c) both, d) twitter is simply n... Give yourself a rest. The only reason the prof. is forced into a situation where he has to explain his tweets is because there is a small army of people out there who are desperate to see him fall flat on his face... So desperate in fact, that they will manufacture controversy from anything he has to say about any given subject. It's not the Prof. who is at fault in these cases. And, he goes out of his way to clarify his statements in case any people actually fall prey to the cynical mob who wilfully misinterpret his comments, and start to believe he actually thinks the way they claim he thinks. That he goes to such effort is above and beyond requirement. His statements, when read without the invective thrown at them by the mob of detractors, are perfectly understandable on their own merits. In reply to #5 by mordacious1: Many of Richard's critics (and there are many of late) have been making the point that "wrong is wrong, period". I read Richard as stating that there are shades of wrong (which makes his critics mad). Let me repeat a quote from the "Big Bang Theory" that I've posted elsewhere: Sheldon: "Wrong is an... In the interest of critical thinking, I must point out a glaring error in your comment. Sheldon used the word wrong with the meaning "being false" and he was completely correct. There are no grades of wrong in that sense, period. It makes no sense to ask whether a statement is "more false" than other statement. (Stuart is wrong.) But, there is one more meaning of wrong: "morally wrong or inappropriate." This is the sense in which Dawkins used the word in his latest tweets. There are grades of "morally wrong." Killing thousand people is more immoral than punching a person's face. All that said, I think Dawkins' intent is never what his critics make it out to be. the cremasteric reflex is not painful, but in a skin-crawling, creepy way it is almost worse than painful TMI. Nightmares for me for the next six decades. ;) All joking aside, Richard, I'm so sorry that being famous means you have to be infallible. I'm glad that I'm not famous. I've said so many things that "came out wrong" that if I were world-known I would be painted as a lunatic. Seriously. 12-Sep-2013 17:32 PM