Winning Friends and Influencing People the Richard Dawkins Way

[Razgovory]

I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well.  Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness.  So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?

On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).

Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same.

We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing.  Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.  Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.  And I agree weeding out human difference is not a good idea.

[garbon]

We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing.  Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.

Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness.  Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?

On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.

Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.

The easiest method isn't always the best one.

[Malthus]

He faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."

How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?

Downs fetuses should be aborted !=  your son should be killed.
Not by a long stretch

What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.

[Tamas]

I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well.  Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness.  So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?

On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).

Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same.

Don't stop Raz from deliberately missing the point just to continue being against something.

[Martinus]

I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well.  Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness.  So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?

On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).

Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same.

We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing.  Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.  Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.  And I agree weeding out human difference is not a good idea.

Well, FWIW, and having observed my gay and non-gay friends, I can honestly tell you that while I have never had any trouble with keeping the non-gay friends and maintaining good relationships with them, the gay ones are in a consent loop of throwing a fit and being offended about something and then reconciling with me, so I can tell you that gays are insane.

[Martinus]

What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.

Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral.

[Malthus]

What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.

Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral.

This though is why Dawkins continually pisses people off (which I dunno, he may consider a good thing  ). He takes morally absolute stands on complex issues in which there may not be "a" single correct answer.

Some moral questions can be answered with a yes/no: others have no simple yes/no approach. Dawkins seems to have difficulty with this concept.

[garbon]

Well, FWIW, and having observed my gay and non-gay friends, I can honestly tell you that while I have never had any trouble with keeping the non-gay friends and maintaining good relationships with them, the gay ones are in a consent loop of throwing a fit and being offended about something and then reconciling with me, so I can tell you that gays are insane.

That isn't the conclusion that I'd draw from your experiences.

[Martinus]

What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.

Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral.

This though is why Dawkins continually pisses people off (which I dunno, he may consider a good thing  ). He takes morally absolute stands on complex issues in which there may not be "a" single correct answer.

Some moral questions can be answered with a yes/no: others have no simple yes/no approach. Dawkins seems to have difficulty with this concept.

Oh yes - that's also what I said already. Humanity has evolved so well because it learned how to reside in this ambiguous grey zone between holding a view and drawing it to its ultimate logical conclusion. Highly intelligent people with low emotional IQ have a really big problem grasping that and often come across as dicks. 

[Razgovory]

I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well.  Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness.  So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?

On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).

Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same.

Don't stop Raz from deliberately missing the point just to continue being against something.

And what is the point?  It seemed to me that Dawkins is taking a Utilitarian moral stance.

[Razgovory]

We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing.  Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.

Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness.  Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?

On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.

Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.

The easiest method isn't always the best one.

I do not not disagree with you.  I don't think it's a good idea to abort people because they may become unhappy later in life or that they are insufficiently useful in the opinion of Dawkins.

[LaCroix]

After I had some law school under my belt, a good friend asked me if I thought he could sue his mother for not aborting him.

Well, I was doubtful at first, but hell, I put my mind to it and hit the books and with a whole lot of elbow grease and a lot of fancy talking, we argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court, and goshdarnit they ruled in our favor. 

[The Brain]

What does "immoral" mean anyway? Cause I don't know. Whether a decision is good or bad seems much more interesting.

[Martinus]

We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing.  Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.

Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness.  Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?

On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.

Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.

The easiest method isn't always the best one.

I do not not disagree with you.  I don't think it's a good idea to abort people because they may become unhappy later in life or that they are insufficiently useful in the opinion of Dawkins.

That's not what he said and you know it, Raz. You make a valid point, to an extent, but your analogies suck.

[garbon]

What does "immoral" mean anyway? Cause I don't know. Whether a decision is good or bad seems much more interesting.

Morality is one scale that you can use to determine if a decision is good or bad.