Richard Dawkins Suggests Feminists May Have Caused His Stroke

[mralstoner]

[Clueless Morgan]

: sigh :

Sounds more like he's blaming the NESS and SGU, not feminists.

The SGU explained why he was disinvited from their conference. (Actually they pointed to the NESS blog I think). They have the right to invite or disinvite whomever they choose without being blamed for causing strokes because of it.... And it was hardly "hate" that was filled out when they disinvited him, it was them wanting to control the tone of their own conference.

: sigh :

[scoobysnack]

Although I don't agree with Dawkins I hope he gets better. My grandma had a stroke and that was something she never recovered from, and ultimately lead to her death. Very sad thing to happen from him and I hope he recovers from this.

[mralstoner]

Although I don't agree with Dawkins I hope he gets better. My grandma had a stroke and that was something she never recovered from, and ultimately lead to her death. Very sad thing to happen from him and I hope he recovers from this.

When I was younger I saw an old guy have a stroke. He'd fallen off his bicycle in a park, and was trying to pull himself up a pole with one arm. The look of terror on his face was striking. Even as I tried to calm him and tell him the ambulance was on its way, he still looked terrified and was fighting for life. The shock hits hard. Yes, hopefully he recovers.

[Clueless Morgan]

[Excited Penguin]

Slightly misleading titles both in the thread and the video. Other than that, who are NECCS, and why the hell did they dinsinvite him in the first place? Also, it seems, if what CM linked to is of any indication, Dawkins had the stroke after he got an apology from the people that disinvited him and got invited again. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.


As for the haters, even though you might not post in this thread, go fuck yourselves and take a really hard look in the mirror. Most of what's being said about Dawkins, as well as about a great deal of other public atheist figures is pure propaganda, libel and misrepresentation. How much of an idiot do you have to be to fall for it? Seriously, there's no excuse.

Listen to what a person actually says and think twice before you presume to be offended. One would think atheists would already know this and would be able to sympathise with these figures for what they go through. Not so, many of us seem to be unable to have nuance and comprehend these kinds of situations in a rational manner. Don't scream sexist or whatever at the first sight of something controversial. Try and understand what the person is saying. If you think a person who is very likely far smarter than you is some kind of ethical monster all of a sudden for something he said, it's very likely that either you didn't comprehend the nature of the saying, or that you have been misinformed/lead on by unreliable sources.

I cannot stress the following point enough. Even if there were legitimate grievances to be had with some views of some of these public atheist intellectuals, you should think for a moment, how much hate you would get if your views had even a tiny amount of the publicity theirs have. Do you think you're perfectly ethical in everything you believe? Sure you do, but you're demonstrably not, if your views continue to change as you grow older, which they surely do. Instead of hating on someone for holding what you consider the wrong opinion, why don't you argue against their opinion, and not against the person?

And I absolutely know for sure what I'm talking about here. I've seen a lot of irrational hate towards Sam Harris on these forums, for instance, from people who are otherwise rational. I despise it and pity it at the same time. You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting their views or being a disingenous cunt about it in general.

[brewer]

OP, I have my doubts.

[Aegon]

You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting their views or being a disingenous cunt about it in general.

Somebody should tell that to Dawkins then.

[Clueless Morgan]

[Edwardo Piet]

You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting their views or being a disingenous cunt about it in general.

Somebody should tell that to Dawkins then.

I think there are many criticisms of Dawkins that may or may nor be valid, but one thing he's not is disingenuous. If he is flawed it comes from being too direct, honest and outspoken.

If any of the remaining 3 of the "Four Horsemen of "New" Atheism" is somewhat disingenuous I think it's perhaps Dennett... but even if Dan Dennett is perhaps a bit disingenuous his intentions are good, it's like he believes it's okay as long as he thinks some good comes out to it... although I don't think it's his place to do that. (Like Sam Harris says, if the person being lied to were to know they were being lied to I doubt they'd share the liar's point of view that it was justified and "for their own good." Same with disingenuousness).

Dawkins on the other hand I think believes that the truth is good in and of itself regardless of the consequences of expressing what he believes the truth is. He couldn't be less disingenuous. He'd piss people off a lot less if he was more disingenuous if it decreased his brutal honesty.