How can Dawkins redeem himself?

slingblade said:
"Rebecca, your complaint is petty, because other women have it far worse than you in this particular arena. You enjoy many rights and privileges they do not yet enjoy. Think of them and what they struggle with, before you complain."

Is this not his position?
Click to expand...

No, it is not.

If so, then I have not misrepresented it.
If not, then he has not been clear enough to avoid the appearance of using a fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

Yup. Which is why Rebecca and friends were able to escalate the situation.

If his point was not "Your complaint is petty, because other women have it far worse than you," then what was it? I don't see that I made a strawman. That's what he said, through the passive device of a letter to "Muslima," was it not?

What do you feel is his position, as declared through his letter to "Muslima?"
Click to expand...

I've put in my two cents on this already, as has Richard, and others here and abroad. That is the point. It's no longer about legitimate attempts to understand someone's position.

Perhaps it might have been better to simply and clearly state his position, rather than frame it passively as a letter to an imaginary "person" that might then be misconstrued.
Click to expand...

"Richard, please refrain from the use of rhetorical devices.". That should work. :)

Perhaps he should clarify. But no one can or should decide that for him.

However, it might be hard for him to see that his position is not clear, until someone points out his fallacy.
Click to expand...

Done and done. And since it failed, perhaps his choice to let go of a fruitless endeavor redeems him?

Linda
 
Richard Dawkins is an international celebrity and a genius.

You know. Like Norman Mailer. Or Woody Allen. Or Roman Polanski.

Therefore he is not bound by the rules of conventional society. :p
 
fls said:
No, it is not.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose I could find out what his position was, then?


Yup. Which is why Rebecca and friends were able to escalate the situation.
Click to expand...

I rather think some of the escalating was done by those not Rebecca's friends. I don't think everything that's happened as a result came entirely from Rebecca's "camp."

I've put in my two cents on this already, as has Richard, and others here and abroad. That is the point. It's no longer about legitimate attempts to understand someone's position.
Click to expand...

The internet is a big place. I suppose it would be too much to ask for some direction, or a few links, or other means of finding Richard's clarification, or your two cents?


"Richard, please refrain from the use of rhetorical devices." That should work. :)
Click to expand...

Okay.



Done and done. And since it failed, perhaps his choice to let go of a fruitless endeavor redeems him?

Linda
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. I'm not calling for any redemption. Clarification, perhaps, but apparently if I can't find that for myself, I'm out of luck.
 
Well - I'm not in a position to offer any clarification on RD's behalf. The only person who could do so would be RD himself, and so far he seems uninterested. Maybe I can pour enough Bushmills down his thoat at the Del Mar that he will reveal all. Although I doubt he is as garrulous as Mr. Hitchens.

I can tell you how I interpreted his comments, if that would help?
 
Here is what I think Richard Dawkins should do:

Richard Dawkins and his wife should sit down at a table, with me, to discuss at length, the merits of my pragmatic approach to debating creationists. At some point I would also like a photo with the both of them. I already had my picture taken with Richard a couple of times, but never Lalla Ward (she played Romana in Dr. Who).

That is what I think Richard Dawkins should do. What do you think of that?
 
Last edited:
Antiquehunter said:
Well - I'm not in a position to offer any clarification on RD's behalf. The only person who could do so would be RD himself, and so far he seems uninterested. Maybe I can pour enough Bushmills down his thoat at the Del Mar that he will reveal all. Although I doubt he is as garrulous as Mr. Hitchens.

I can tell you how I interpreted his comments, if that would help?
Click to expand...

It would certainly give me another perspective to muse upon.

But as you point out, it wouldn't be either of us saying what he meant, as we can't seem to tell what he meant, given that we have (I think) differing perspectives on the same speech.
 
The best course RD could follow would be to invite RW to his room for coffee next time they share an elevator.
 
Wowbagger said:
Here is what I think Richard Dawkins should do:

Richard Dawkins and his wife should sit down at a table, with me, to discuss at length, the merits of my pragmatic approach to debating creationists. At some point I would also like a photo with the both of them. I already had my picture taken with Richard a couple of times, but never Lalla Ward (she played Romana in Dr. Who).

That is what I think Richard Dawkins should do. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...

Yes! And don't forget to get the rest of your books autographed!

I got to see Neil & Dawkins at Howard University and it was great seeing him up there talking with black men and women wearing a shirt that said "We're all africans"
 
Last edited:
My take on RD's comments on PZ's blog.

Post #1 (original letter from 'Muslima')

"This is all a bit silly. There are 400+ comments on this blog discussing how horrific it is to have a comment made to you in the elevator. The lady doth protest too much. I shall craft a hasty and poorly-thought out comparison to women who really are oppressed to demonstrate that maybe we're taking ourselves a bit too seriously."

- No premeditation to consider that this approach would be viewed as dismissive nor reveal any lack of concern for Rebecca's feelings from the original incident - which definitely should be considered. The issue really isn't whether or not EG was 'right' or 'wrong' to do what he did. The issue is that Rebecca was bothered by it. And what is an appropriate response to being bothered by something.

RD's Post #2:

"Whoops - seem to have hit a nerve with that one. But they're missing my point. I'll write a response explaining where I was going with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek letter. In the process, I'll make another analogy comparing what happened in the elevator to a similarly rude yet innocuous behaviour that needles me. Maybe that will drive home the point"

- Little did he know that the second analogy was going to be used to step the whole thing up a notch, rather than assist to show where he was coming from.

RD Post #3

"Holy crap this is ridiculous. I'll try one more time to see if we can engage meaningfully. As I'm not posting at the JREF, I have to say 'stop using the word ****' in your posts because people aren't even typing rational comments at this point. The bottom line is that mountains are being made out of molehills here. That RW felt uncomfrortable in the elevator really is unfortunate, but is no longer the point."

Speculation on what he's feeling now:

"What a bunch of lunatics. Why can't I be speaking at Liberty University or somewhere more normal next week?"

Note - if anyone wants to take issue with my personal ramblings here, I suggest we split this off, or move that conversation back to the 'other' elevator post, so I'm not derailing Remie's original question.
 
vwgub said:
One time? She went on about it a lot. She talked about getting it on in her hotel room during a TAM party. She is a total flirt and tease. Being hit on is not the same as being raped. Being hit on is a part a normal human sexuality.
Click to expand...

I'll grant that I'm ignorant on this topic, but do women take offense by being hit on? I'm a guy, and I certainly don't take offense by women hitting on me - quite the opposite in fact, as I suspect is the case for most other guys. Please enlighten me on this.
 
slingblade said:
I don't suppose I could find out what his position was, then?
Click to expand...

Since he only made three, short comments, which have been quoted by several bloggers, I find it odd that you managed to avoid reading them. I also find it odd that you elected to go ahead and restate his position in a sarcastic manner without first taking the time to read his comments. Nevertheless, all three are quoted in this blog post (skip over Phil Plait's commentary):

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/

If you still wish to portray his position as "Rebecca, your complaint is petty, because some have it far worse than you", despite his clear statement otherwise...twice...that is, of course, your privilege.

I rather think some of the escalating was done by those not Rebecca's friends. I don't think everything that's happened as a result came entirely from Rebecca's "camp."
Click to expand...

I agree. No one is compelled to come to the defense of someone who has been (seemingly unreasonably) attacked.

The internet is a big place. I suppose it would be too much to ask for some direction, or a few links, or other means of finding Richard's clarification, or your two cents?
Click to expand...

My two cents is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7350733#post7350733

Linda
 
slingblade said:
Perhaps Dawkins can do nothing until he sees a reason why redemption might be necessary. Perhaps if he looks at his act again, in another light, he might see it.

Perhaps others who don't quite understand, either, might understand better under this same light.
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone might answer Dawkins request:
Many people seem to think it obvious that my post was wrong and I should apologise. Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why. The nearest approach I have heard goes something like this.

I sarcastically compared Rebecca's plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men. Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse. We should fight all bad things, the slightly bad as well as the very bad. Fair enough. But my point is that the 'slightly bad thing' suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story.

But not everybody sees it as end of story. OK, let's ask why not? The main reason seems to be that an elevator is a confined space from which there is no escape. This point has been made again and again in this thread, and the other one.

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here's how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

No, I obviously don't get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word **** in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

Richard
Click to expand...
(Disclaimer: Quoted from the other thread who quoted from PZ's blog. My apologies if this was already posted here. I can't keep up on these fast moving threads.)
 
Last edited:
fls said:
Since he only made three, short comments, which have been quoted by several bloggers, I find it odd that you managed to avoid reading them. I also find it odd that you elected to go ahead and restate his position in a sarcastic manner without first taking the time to read his comments. Nevertheless, all three are quoted in this blog post (skip over Phil Plait's commentary):

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/
Click to expand...

You find it odd, I suppose, because you lack certain facts.
The first is that I didn't read all 1282 posts on PZ's blog, where I found RD's letter to Muslima. I did read the one that I satirized. Do I need to read more in order to satirize that post?
The second is that I didn't go to Bad Astronomy to get more info.
I hope this clears up any confusion.

EDIT to add: Good thing I didn't "skip over Phil Plait's commentary," as it seems to echo mine quite strongly.

If you still wish to portray his position as "Rebecca, your complaint is petty, because some have it far worse than you", despite his clear statement otherwise...twice...that is, of course, your privilege.
Click to expand...

I know what I thought his letter to Muslima meant. I still think it means that.
I'll decide on the other two posts after I've read them.

EDIT to add: I have now read his other two posts. My position on what he meant with his letter to Muslima has not changed. In fact, it has worsened.



I agree. No one is compelled to come to the defense of someone who has been (seemingly unreasonably) attacked.
Click to expand...

No one is compelled to respond to anything, in any way. Many have chosen of their own wills to do so. I don't find either Rebecca or Dawkins, or any other player, to be the sole source of responsibility for any of it.



My two cents is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7350733#post7350733

Linda
Click to expand...

Thank you for the links. I shall read what you've provided.

EDIT to add: That post smacks of apologetics.
 
Last edited:
RemieV said:
Now that we've talked the elevator issue to death, I'm curious about the opinions of those who are angry with Richard Dawkins. What can he do to "redeem himself", in your mind, if anything?
Click to expand...

Add me to the why should I care camp, Dawkins while intelligent has always been a jerk.
 
How about this - Watson and Dawkins on stage together, each gives a brief and civilized summation of their points. After that you have everyone read out loud what they personally have written about this situation and film it. 36 hours later, when that has died down, you bring in some food, lock all the doors and force everyone to watch the film. (This includes both Dawkins and Watson, btw)

It won't do a thing for sexism within the movement, but perhaps the aversion therapy will bring a bit of quiet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom