Richard Dawkins announced as 2012 recipient for ‘Services to Humanism’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cone;36288039]well, again, how many people are you actually going to convert like that? you'll probably get a fair few if you're well-known like Dawkins is, but those numbers can be replaced fairly easily. it just seems like all that time spent arguing religion could have been better used.[/QUOTE] The goal isn't conversion. Atheists don't get anything out of converting people. The goal is to keep the crazy people from doing crazy shit. Nobody cares if they're crazy, so long as they don't do crazy shit.

[QUOTE=Cone;36287957]perhaps, but I believe it's a fallacy that someone who claims to be entirely focused on pressing issues facing humanity is devoting time to something that any rational person can see is ultimately pointless. I mean, you're not going to make people who think they hear God's voice any less schizophrenic by logically pointing out the flaws in the craziness, and it's more or less the same deal with anyone who's willing to pick up a gun for their religion.[/QUOTE] actually as far as I'm aware, The God Delusion managed to deconvert a lot of people

[QUOTE=Cone;36288039]well, again, how many people are you actually going to convert like that? you'll probably get a fair few if you're well-known like Dawkins is, but those numbers can be replaced fairly easily. it just seems like all that time spent arguing religion could have been better used.[/QUOTE] It isnt completely about trying to get people to convert, its about making people aware of the stupid shit that religioun has caused/is causing and why more people should take a stand against it.

[QUOTE=Patriarch;36288021][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson#Elevator_incident[/URL][/QUOTE] I don't see a problem with Dawkin's response :v:

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36288079]actually as far as I'm aware, The God Delusion managed to deconvert a lot of people[/QUOTE] Interesting, I never knew that deconvert was a word.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287726]That's pretty condescending. But it's cool how you've found a way to feel superior to both theists and atheists. Really, that's great.[/QUOTE] Guess his title really makes sense.

[QUOTE=Lukeo;36288093]I don't see a problem with Dawkin's response :v:[/QUOTE] I do. He seems to have a problem that so many people have, where they think that if a problem isn't as bad as a problem elsewhere then it somehow isn't a problem. It's pretty retarded.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36288107]Interesting, I never knew that deconvert was a word.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconvert]was that meant to be smartass comment or something[/url]

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36288135][url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconvert]was that meant to be smartass comment or something[/url][/QUOTE] It actually wasn't. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] I should change my avatar, everyone is assuming I'm being a sarcastic asshole.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288134]I do. He seems to have a problem that so many people have, where they think that if a problem isn't as bad as a problem elsewhere then it somehow isn't a problem. It's pretty retarded.[/QUOTE] It puts her situation into perspective. She didn't even have anything bad happen to her, she just felt uncomfortable for a little while. People make me uncomfortable about a variety of different types of shit, but it isn't a big deal because discomfort is part of the human experience.

if im ever being sarcastic or smartass i neglect punctuation and capitalization

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288134]I do. He seems to have a problem that so many people have, where they think that if a problem isn't as bad as a problem elsewhere then it somehow isn't a problem. It's pretty retarded.[/QUOTE] Dawkins went on to say that that wasn't the point of his statement; he was comparing a real problem with something that he saw as not actually being a problem at all. He does make a good point; I sympathise with Rebecca on being proposed to by a stranger, because as an introvert, social interaction like that, to me, is horrible and embarrassing. I do think though that her complaints of being sexualized were pretty silly, because some people will want to have sex with you, and at the end of the day, there isn't a problem is asking people if they would like to have it. (How someone asks the question is a different matter altogether.)

[QUOTE=Cone;36288039]well, again, how many people are you actually going to convert like that? you'll probably get a fair few if you're well-known like Dawkins is, but those numbers can be replaced fairly easily. it just seems like all that time spent arguing religion could have been better used.[/QUOTE] The goal isn't to persuade people already ingrained into their religion. Nothing will achieve that. The goal is to create an environment where people who don't believe in God feel comfortably coming out as atheists and to foster an attitude of constant inquisition. If religion gets pushed out of school and science is taught on higher ground than any religion, [I]children[/I] will be more likely to see that side as true, and that's the important part. No one cares about the fact that 80 year olds are militant theists advocating hate, because they don't compose the future, they're past their ability to do harm, and will die off soon enough. A generation of children having the same views would be far more dangerous, because they'll eventually be in control of the planet.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288134]I do. He seems to have a problem that so many people have, where they think that if a problem isn't as bad as a problem elsewhere then it somehow isn't a problem. It's pretty retarded.[/QUOTE] Well she did overreact in my opinion. Not to mention having to repeat it: "In a video blog, among other things"

[QUOTE=Patriarch;36288199]Dawkins went on to say that that wasn't the point of his statement; he was comparing a real problem with what he saw as not actually being a problem at all. He does make a good point; I sympathies with Rebecca on being proposed to by a stranger, because as an introvert, social interaction like that, to me, is horrible and embarrassing. I do think though that her complaints of being sexualized were pretty silly, because some people will want to have sex with you, and at the end of the day, there isn't a problem is asking people if they would like to have it. (How someone asks the question is a different matter altogether.)[/QUOTE] Her experience does highlight a problem with our society though, where women are over sexualised and all women are seen as sex objects.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288217]Her experience does highlight a problem with our society though, where women are over sexualised and all women are seen as sex objects.[/QUOTE] Since when is asking a woman if she would like to have sex (they were strangers though, I will concede) treating her like a sex object? Isn't that the whole point of a one night stand?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288217]Her experience does highlight a problem with our society though, where women are over sexualised and all women are seen as sex objects.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't? She wasn't sexualized at all. She felt sexualized. You can feel sexualized about a whole variety of things, that doesn't make the feeling justified or a serious societal issue. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] There are real problems as far as women being objectified. This is not one of those problems.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288217]Her experience does highlight a problem with our society though, where women are over sexualised and all women are seen as sex objects.[/QUOTE] If it was an man or a man in the elevator, if it was a woman and a woman in that elevator, or a man or a woman in opposite roles, who you have any complaints? At least be consistent

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36288252]No it doesn't? She wasn't sexualized at all. She felt sexualized. You can feel sexualized about a whole variety of things, that doesn't make the feeling justified or a serious societal issue. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] There are real problems as far as women being objectified. This is not one of those problems.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah a man asking a random woman for sex isn't sexualising her and treating her a sex object at all.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287699]nobody has the right to be condenscending. you say that as if it's a good quality. it's not[/QUOTE] are you fucking kidding me sanius [QUOTE=Sanius;36267086][B]can you even read[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sanius;36261573][B]your opinion is stupid[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sanius;36228242][B]don't get mad about things you don't understand[/B][/QUOTE] I reserve my right to be a condescending asshole now and again, so do you and so does Richard Dawkins. Don't try to fucking pretend we aren't ever condescending, or that "he's condescending" is a legitimate criticism of the guy coming from you. You better reply to this.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288310]Oh yeah a man asking a random woman for sex isn't sexualising her and treating her a sex object at all.[/QUOTE] "Hey, would you like to come back to my room for coffee?" = sexualisation? If both parties consent, then they're both in for a jolly time! I find it hard to see what the problem is.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288310]Oh yeah a man asking a random woman for sex isn't sexualising her and treating her a sex object at all.[/QUOTE] Maybe he just wanted coffee! You weren't in the elevator, how do you know what he meant?

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287699]nobody has the right to be condenscending.[/QUOTE] except for you right

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288217]Her experience does highlight a problem with our society though, where women are over sexualised and all women are seen as sex objects.[/QUOTE] "EY GURL LEMME HOLLA AT YA! AH WANT ME SUM O' DAT ASS" - Treating a woman as a sex object "Hey, you wanna maybe go to mine for some coffee" - Propositioning a woman Maybe neither is particularly enjoyable for the woman, but you can plainly see one is better than the other. Oh and this just in, people want to have sex. It's quite an enjoyable thing.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288310]Oh yeah a man asking a random woman for sex isn't sexualising her and treating her a sex object at all.[/QUOTE] "In June 2011, Watson described an experience at a skeptical conference, concerning an approach by a man in an elevator, who invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation late at night." Where was the request for sex? She is the one who inserted that she FELT like he was asking for sex. For all we fucking know his motives were pure.

hey look who's a fucking blatant hypocrite it's sanius! god damn automerge

[QUOTE=Patriarch;36288329]"Hey, would you like to come back to my room for coffee?" = sexualisation?[/QUOTE] Yes I'm sure the man just wanted a nice conversation, totally wasn't an obvious sexual advance. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36288345]"In June 2011, Watson described an experience at a skeptical conference, concerning an approach by a man in an elevator, who invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation late at night." Where was the request for sex? She is the one who inserted that she FELT like he was asking for sex. For all we fucking know his motives were pure.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt his motives were pure considering how sexualised women are in our society.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288354]Yes I'm sure the man just wanted a nice conversation, totally wasn't an obvious sexual advance.[/QUOTE] Let's say it was a sexual advance. How exactly was he treating her like an object, and how was he to know that she would be so offended by an offer for sex, something which many people consider (the act, not the proposition) a good thing.

Also the Rebecca Watson thing was stupid and showed a lack of awareness of privilege, yes, I totally agree. That doesn't mean everything he says is invalidated. A great deal of second-wave feminists said horribly transphobic things, that doesn't stop me from identifying as a feminist.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288354]Yes I'm sure the man just wanted a nice conversation, totally wasn't an obvious sexual advance.[/QUOTE] Are all sexual advances objectifying women? that's about as polite as you can get without being hugh Grant or her throwing herself onto you.