Winning Friends and Influencing People the Richard Dawkins Way

[Martinus]

My point was that people belonging to [category x] can reasonably take offence to statements saying that fetuses belonging to [category x] ought to be aborted, even if they themselves are not fetuses any more.

Lucky, then, that the story does not report a single person with Down's Syndrome being offended by what Dawkins said. It does mention other people (and now you) being offended on those people's behalf though.

[Ideologue]

Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!

[Martinus]

Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!

If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.

[Ideologue]

Empathy ticks you off?

[Martinus]

Empathy ticks you off?

It's not empathy - it's the white knight syndrome - it's about making oneself feel better because you jump on someone saying something that, often, is not even offensive to the apparent "victim".

It's like all these people jumping on Louis CK for making a rape joke - a bunch of self-important faggots.

[alfred russel]

Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!

If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.

I can think of a very good reason that Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't the ones expressing their offense to the media.

But to your point, I think the offense being discussed has more to do with more than hurt feelings on behalf of those with Down's Syndrome. It probably comes from a few places: caregivers often become informal advocates for people with the disease and a mentality of "they would be better off not being born" does not create a conducive environment to their self worth, lots of people are simply uncomfortable with abortion and this is a convenient way to lash out, and some people with downs syndrome in their families can't help but feel judged by the comments Dawkins made.

[Martinus]

Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!

If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.

I can think of a very good reason that Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't the ones expressing their offense to the media.

But to your point, I think the offense being discussed has more to do with hurt feelings on behalf of those with Down's Syndrome. It probably comes from a few places: caregivers often become informal advocates for people with the disease and a mentality of "they would be better off not being born" does not create a conducive environment to their self worth, lots of people are simply uncomfortable with abortion and this is a convenient way to lash out, and some people with downs syndrome in their families can't help but feel judged by the comments Dawkins made.

I know - and I expressed the ambiguity of the situation before. But if we are totally honest, Down's Syndrome *is* a disability (unlike being English or gay) and if it could be eliminated, so no more people are born with it, the world would be a better place, period. That does not mean we should feel contempt for or advocate killing off living people with Down's Syndrome or consider such people worthless or subhuman or anything like that. I would have the same attitude to people with dwarfism, or inborn blindness or deafness or suffering from the polio disease.

I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus. I mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.

[alfred russel]

I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus.

The problem with phrasing it "would be better if not born" is that it implies the person with Down's Syndrome would be better off not existing. Hence we go down the rabbithole that Jacob brought up.

A better way of expressing it would be "if limiting your number of children, better to do what you can to have those children be healthy."

That isn't too far from what Dawkins actually said, fwiw.

I mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.

At least in the US, it seems almost every politician is now opposed to abortion, at least officially. The difference is whether the government will allow a person to choose or not.

[Martinus]

At least in the US, it seems almost every politician is now opposed to abortion, at least officially. The difference is whether the government will allow a person to choose or not.

The right really won the language war on this one, didn't they? Hell, even Jacob is talking about aborting "babies".

At least the left won the language war on gay things.

[Iormlund]

Meh. I recall saying something similar in 2008, in the US prez election's thread.

[Razgovory]

The goal was to increase happiness, not avoid disability at least according to Dawkins.  So long as the person with Down Syndrome is happy, their disability is irrelevant.  Dawkins assumed that people with Down Syndrome are unhappy (I have no idea if that's true).

[Jacob]

Lucky, then, that the story does not report a single person with Down's Syndrome being offended by what Dawkins said. It does mention other people (and now you) being offended on those people's behalf though.

I'm not offended by any of this

[Jacob]

Empathy ticks you off?

Seems in character.

[Jacob]

I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus. I mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.

I'm pretty comfortable taking the same line on this as I do with abortion in general: it's up to the people directly involved - the potential parents, and ultimately the pregnant woman - to make the decision they feel is best for them, that they can live with. It is not for some sanctimonious jackass to make pronouncements about the ultimate morality about, to further his own PR profile.

[Ideologue]

Freedom really is slavery, then?  But that's already been established.