Amanda Fucking Palmer

[gravy]

I agree with Gervais. The intentions/motivations behind comments/humour carry more weight than offence caused.

Dawkins doesn't set out to injure people even if he does occasionally cause "offence" through clumsy communication.



Gravy on the other hand...

To be clear I don't think anyone here finds what Dawkins has said as offensive, just gauche and stupid. Something his "apology" has just reinforced.

But wow, Ricky Gervais, Stephen Fry and Dawkins. You've really got a bit of a thing for rampant egotists. Surprised you're not a Palmer fan as well.

EDIT

So. It's not really Dawkins that's a problem. On subjects like this you have to be very very clear to make sure you're not going to be a source of validation for utter fuckwits. Dawkins in the context of social media is the problem. Just read this comment:

I totally agree with Prof.Dawkins. Any female that is stupid enough to continue a pregnancy knowing the baby has down syndrome is both selfish and ignorant. You DO NOT have the right to put another person through that kind of life. Abort, Have a tubal and concentrate on a career. Children are a waste of time and money, and downs syndrome idiots are even more revolting.

That's kind of the issue.

[gumboot]

To be clear I don't think anyone here finds what Dawkins has said as offensive, just gauche and stupid.

Well this is the nature of being a scientist. It's an obvious limitation in his cognitive process and has been throughout his career.

Something his "apology" has just reinforced.

You obviously don't read his post as he means for it to be read. The implication is that you're not his intended audience. It's not his burden to write things for you specifically in a way that you can understand. It's your burden to read things properly before trying to project bullshit onto it.


But I do think Dawkins is a cock. I just don't think that the projections being made here are realistic.

[(o)(o)]

But I do think Dawkins is a cock.

Can't really disagree.

But is he right though? We've got an anecdote there that PROVES Dawkins wrong !?!

Or is this comment from Dawkins blog even more scientific :

I am sympathetic to your position, I fully support your right to choose as you have. And I can understand how given your choice you may feel that Richard having said what he did in his tweet you might feel personally attacked. However, unless you wish to tar yourself with the same brush you are accusing Richard of then you should back off the aggression. There will be people on this site who have with great consideration made the opposite choice than you. Your comments seem to indicate the same level of vitriol you are claiming Richard is guilty of. One guy I work with has a profoundly mentally handicapped son he suffers from a multitude of other related issues and I mean suffers. The father deeply loves and cares for his son and will be doing so until he drops. I have asked him if he had known in time if they would have aborted he says yes. Now, I’m sure you get attitude from people who you brindle against with various judgements questioning your choice to not abort. But please don’t assume you are the only one to have made a valid decision, unless you wish to submit others to your judgement. Please take some care for others who may have made the opposite decision to you for perfectly good reasons.

[Governmentyard]

I've run out of popcorn.

[gumboot]

I've run out of popcorn.

Total lack of preparation. Disgraceful. Immoral! Illogical!!

[(o)(o)]

Here's an even juicier example :

The biggest problem I see is Denial from parents and doctors about the realities that come with raising children with downs. They don’t think about what will happen to them if they die and leave them behind defenseless . It is a cruel fate. If they want an eternal child they should get a dog not a child with downs.

I have a cousin with 2 girls with downs. The ironic thing is they are xtian missionaries and one would expect that if they do the lords work, that at least the lord would spare them from downs. But they had two even after they were told that after the first with downs, the chances of another are very high. It seem irresponsible to me to do this.

Stupid and selfish and ignorant?

Certainly the dubious morality in this case is abundantly obvious.

You feeling a bit peckish there Governmentyard ?

Spoiler: show

[Governmentyard]

I've run out of popcorn.

Total lack of preparation. Disgraceful. Immoral! Illogical!!

...I've got brioche though.

[pogo]

it's amazing reading the amount of negativity about the ice bucket challenge. no, it is not perfect. yet...nothing is. wasting water? not great. testing on animals? also frightening. my sister alyson has been systematically breeding a killing zebra fish for the past 15 years to try to find a cure for leukemia. she quit her first job because the lab was experimenting on cats. she couldn't take it. fish? she could take. everybody draws lines. life is messy. i wonder if the people writing those comments are all strict vegans. i wonder where they draw their lines. it's hard.
my best friend anthony has a rare form of leukemia, and is about to have a bone marrow transplant. if it works it will save his life. i don't know how much of that technology was tested on animals. i know it's probably not simple.
alyson and i watched our older step-brother, karl, die of ALS, when i was about 21, alyson was 25, and karl was about 27. it was really horrific. karl was gorgeous and talented and strong and hilarious. an idol to us. he played bass, started bands, painted, introduced me to rocky horror, the cure and the cocteau twins. watching him deteriorate slowly; first losing sensation in him hands and wondering what the hell was wrong. then asking my parents at our dinner table if they had any theories about what it might be (his dad, my step-father john, is a PhD and usually has answers), then watching him relegated to a wheelchair, then to a bed....then dead. it was fucking tragic. i still haven't made sense of it, years later.
if there had been a cure for ALS, and karl could be here now, if he could be part of my life, part of my family, sharing music and art with me....? coming to my gigs? playing bass on my records? painting masterpieces? able to come to thanksgiving this year, where there's always an empty space where he once was?
i'm not sure what i would give to have that.
i know i would give a bucket of water.
i know i'd probably give more than that.
but i don't have that choice. he's gone and he's not coming back.

[gumboot]

Certainly the dubious morality in this case is abundantly obvious.

When I was a kid a friend of mine lived with a bunch of Down's people. His mother worked for some organisation or other and acted as live-in care for them. I don't know where their parents were. They didn't seem old enough for their parents to have expired (although a common risk factor is being born to and old parent), so one possibility is that these people had simply taken a baby step towards independence.

My friend's mum did not appear to be grossly involved in their lives the way a parent might be. I think she just provided adult supervision as needed. Maybe she did more; it was none of my business and I was a kid and I didn't especially care.

So there are ways and means for these people to carry on without the care of their own parents, and as far as I could see it was mostly working out. I do not know what was required to make this happen. Perhaps they're the children of parents sufficiently wealthy to pay for the service, or perhaps the state took care of it, or perhaps it was a charity or she was a volunteer.

Of course none of this addresses anything that Dawkins was talking about. Nothing at all. I wouldn't get hung up on how potentially shitty somebody else's life is going to be when none of us really know well enough to say.

You feeling a bit peckish there Governmentyard ?

Spoiler: show

I tried some beef jerky (first time) as a light snack made of something less than pure carbohydrate, last night.

It was terrible. I expected savory but it was anything but. Second ingredient on the ingredients list is sugar (or was it HFCS?).

I'm sure that's not normal. Is it just America being America again?

[(o)(o)]

Always had great respect for the Virgin Prunes inclusivity of Dave-id Busaras who is mentally handicapped.

Virgin Prunes were family and mates of U2 who played together on the streets in Northern Ireland as children so they have connections. They include Edge's brother. Guggi - who went on to become a successful fine artist. Gavin Friday who turned to running a nightclub in Ireland and was recently seen managing U2.

This is not for the feint hearted.

Virgin Prunes push boundaries!

Dave-id is up first. Enjoy.

[VNVObit]

Do you want me to post a quote from the link you yourself provided where he clearly explains he intended for only a select few to receive the tweet?

His intention are irrelevant he posted it in a public place so the pub table analogy is accurate and his intention is merely stating he lowered his voice so people outside the pub couldn't hear.
As I pointed out if he really wanted it private he could have used DM (that's the way most of us do it) or he could make his account private (but suspect that would be counterproductive for him) which others do when they don't want all and sundry to read what they post.

Looked at it again there were no "gratuitous" references IMO. He provides a couple of references for other materials (some freely available) which provide more comprehensive explanations of what he's saying.

Read note 5 again there is no need for him to mention the book at all as it didn't add to his argument that IMHO is gratuitous

Have you got a specific issue with his moral argument - because if you have I haven't seen it articulated.

I assume you are referring to his blog post (see below)

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort.

ok so we have established his moral position

And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.

While an interesting fact it doesn't mean the great majority of women agree with him as it only relates to those women who've had the test (as Gumboot pointed out earlier). Birth rates for Down's Syndrome has grown due to women not electing for this screening as the detection rate has also shot up over the same time horizon. As to why they are not electing for screening may be due to having children later in life and not having the option to go again. Haven't seen any data on why so many are not electing for screening
Link to report

Graph spoilered as it is large

Spoiler: show

I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering,

Ah the central credo which is suitably vague, how are these 2 points measured.

the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.

Now there's an unequivocal argument "I am moral in doing this because it may actually be immoral not to"


That's a long way from

It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

which is what he actually said. So why has he moved was there some revelation between the tweet which was absolute in stating a moral certainty to this rather weaker position? Or did he realise he'd cocked up and tried to back peddle?

I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn.

Stating the obvious here with a little bit of wiggle room for himself, after all he's back-pedalling

In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child.

factually inaccurate as many adults with Down's Syndromes do live independently (with some personal support, level does vary), hold meaningful employment. They are not all permanent children as Dawkins states

Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone.

50 to 60 years isn't that short and as pointed out in the earlier link support is available for them.

No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice.

again addressing that self selecting subset only

Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

Ah the old "I said I would do it, given some terrible consequences if you don't, told you most everyone does it, but it's really your choice". seems at odds with his espoused pro-choice position as the argument is laden with so much guilt I suspect most clergymen would be embarrassed to use it

as for his footnotes addressing the various lobbies

1) the anti-abortionists
Yep agree they were misdirecting

2) "Dawkins being bossy"
This is the only one where he accepts responsibility for being too blunt - that should have been at the start of the apology not consigned to a footnote if he really meant it


3)"advocating mob rule"
yes he wasn't advocating mob rule just saying that everyone in a particular subset agreed with him.


4) "Eugenics"
Ok we're back on familiar "I know nothing about the subject but will venture an opinion" territory

he says

Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically.

Actually it can be inherited with a rate of between 30% & 50% (source NHS) where the mother has Down Syndrome. so again he's basing his argument on incorrect information

5) "emotional"

Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: ...

[/quote][/quote]

2 things with the argument in this bit
Since when did having a child become solely a logical thing?

and actually his original brutish tweet would lead you to believe that Down's Syndrome people shouldn't exist after all the certainty of "it would be immoral ..." The only time I've heard someone with that level of certainty was Ian Paisley on TV so I can easily understand how people reached the conclusion particularly as they were reacting to the tweet not the more nuanced subsequent blogpost

Finally all he was missing from that book plug was the price and where it could be bought. It was completely superfluous to the point he was trying to make. And if you don't think he promotes his books look at his twitter feed in a browser

[(o)(o)]

A mountain pile there to chew on - come back to that. Let's unpick this one for now:

4) "Eugenics"
Ok we're back on familiar "I know nothing about the subject but will venture an opinion" territory

he says

Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically.

Actually it can be inherited with a rate of between 30% & 50% (source NHS) where the mother has Down Syndrome. so again he's basing his argument on incorrect information

Richard Dawkins influenced a generation of geneticists. How can you possibly suggest he knows nothing about eugenics.

Here's a fairly in depth laymans explanation of DS heritability :

There are three types of DS. The first form is trisomy 21 due to "nondisjunction" and accounts for about 95% of all cases of DS. In this case the extra chromosome is present in the sperm or in the egg, or in the first cellular division and, as a consequence, each cell that forms will have three chromosomes in the couple 21. This form is strictly linked to maternal age not to hereditary genetic factors. The second form of DS, which is also the least common, is the mosaicism. This represents about 2% of cases. In this form of trisomy 21 the cellular division occurs in a defective way after fertilisation, during the second or third division, or those following. As a consequence, not all the cells of the embryo that is forming contain an extra chromosome. This form also does not depend on hereditary factors. The third form, which is very rare, is partial trisomy 21 due to Robertsonian Translocation, accounts for 2-3% of cases. In this case a part of 21st chromosome breaks up during the cellular division, "moves" and attaches itself to another chromosome, usually the 14th chromosome or the other 21st chromosome. Some extra genetic material is present in both cases. About 2/3rds of translocation occur spontaneously during fertilisation. The translocation is hereditary from one of the two parents in 1/3rd of cases. In this case we have the only form of DS which is linked to a genetic factor from either the father or the mother. The parent who is the carrier of this is normal, but two of his/her chromosomes are united in a way that the total number of his/her chromosomes is only 45 instead of 46. It is important to identify, through the child's karyotype the presence or not of partial trisomy 21 due to translocation because if one of the parents is a carrier the chances that other children with DS can be born into that family are higher. So, it is advisable that the parents, the other children without DS and the blood relatives of the carrier parent have their chromosomes mapped. So, in conclusion, we can say that the chances of a brother or sister of someone with DS having children with DS are only minutely higher than those with no case of DS in their family, and concern only the form of translocation. Therefore, it is important to determine whether the brother/sister has got this form and, in this case, whether they are healthy carrier. The chromosome map or "karyotype" can be carried out on a simple blood test. Together with the blood test you can ask for a "genetic consultancy", that is a more precise and personalised explanation.

I've highlighted the important bits.

1. There are three types of DS.
2. Only those in the third form affecting 2-3% of cases can have a hereditary basis.
3. Only 1/3 of those are hereditary relating to the parents.

99% of cases have no genetic factor connected with the father or mother

Dawkins is correct :

Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically.

[VNVObit]

I've highlighted the important bits.

1. There are three types of DS.
2. Only those in the third form affecting 2-3% of cases can have a hereditary basis.
3. Only 1/3 of those are hereditary relating to the parents.

99% of cases have no genetic factor connected with the father or mother

Fertility
Men and women with Down's syndrome tend to have a reduced fertility rate. This does not mean they cannot conceive children, but it does make it more difficult. Those who decide to have children will usually need specialist guidance and support to help them cope with the physical and mental demands of a newborn baby.
If a woman has Down's syndrome, the chance of her child also having the condition is 35-50%. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood if both parents have the condition because this is still a very rare occurrence. The risk of miscarriage and premature birth is greater in women with Down's syndrome.

Or are you saying that the 2% to 3% (point 2 you've highlighted ) are responsible for 30-50% of all births from DS parents (that would seem a stretch of logic)

your third highlighted point is irrelevant as we are talking about the person with with DS (i.e. the only one that potentially could have been through the binary decision of to have or to abort) At no point did Dawkins suggest that the siblings be sterilised or given genetic counselling (I am not accusing him of that)

The only pertinent point is the birth rate of DS children from DS parents

[gumboot]

The only pertinent point is the birth rate of DS children from DS parents

Well, no, actually. The same source says both that genetic inheritance is rare, and that it's a trait frequently inherited from the mother. This would imply that it comes from something other than genetics. It's an interesting idea that DS could be self-perpetuating without the use of genes, but despite this (or because of this) the numbers suggest that DS will eventually wash out after a few generations. This is in line with Dawkins' point. It doesn't do permanent harm to the gene pool, so eliminating it is superfluous to the demands of eugenics.

The 30% - 50% figure comes from the 'Treatment' page on NHS, by the way. Didn't think to look there right away.

His intention are irrelevant he posted it in a public place so the pub table analogy is accurate and his intention is merely stating he lowered his voice so people outside the pub couldn't hear.

That's kind of loaded, isn't it? You're over-stretching an analogy, and I think the principle here is that Dawkins claimed that he said what he said in-context, and the nature of the network meant it was read out-of-context. I don't know how twitter works, and maybe Dawkins doesn't either (or maybe he does!), but it seems to me a reasonable assumption that when you are involved in a discussion which isn't explicitly private then it would be quite rude to onlookers (those with context) to shut them out because of the use of the A word. There must be some way in which you can speak openly but in-context.

Ah the central credo which is suitably vague, how are these 2 points measured.

If you want clarification you could ask him.

the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.

Now there's an unequivocal argument "I am moral in doing this because it may actually be immoral not to"
That's a long way from

It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

which is what he actually said. So why has he moved was there some revelation between the tweet which was absolute in stating a moral certainty to this rather weaker position? Or did he realise he'd cocked up and tried to back peddle?

The long form is implicit whenever somebody ventures an opinion expressed in the short form. If you insist on reading it otherwise you're going to have a very stressful life. It's just a little part of understanding speech patterns which seems ever more difficult to come by on the internet.

No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice.

again addressing that self selecting subset only

Why would he do that, I wonder!

5) "emotional"

Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: ...

2 things with the argument in this bit
Since when did having a child become solely a logical thing?

Maybe you need to buy his book to find out.

and actually his original brutish tweet would lead you to believe that Down's Syndrome people shouldn't exist after all the certainty of "it would be immoral ..."

You definitely need to read his book. Or you could just google "The Great Beethoven Fallacy" and try to infer what he might be saying, but I fear that might not be reliable.

Also, the first hit is rationalwiki, and they're a pack of witless shitheads (so it's unsurprising that they'd be the first hit for a Dawkinsism), but I suppose they probably relay it just fine.


I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he said what he said pretty clearly in 140 characters. He was referring to a situation where you were faced with the choice of aborting and trying to make a healthy baby, or pressing ahead with a Down's baby. He couldn't possibly be referring to those who didn't take the test. He couldn't possibly be referring to those who'd already had a Down's baby. Just a shade of extrapolation would lead you to also exclude those who were fearful that they couldn't have another baby if they tried and those who "just couldn't". Knowledge of Dawkins' background would suggest that he probably considers the Down's foetus and the subsequent healthy foetus to be altogether equivalent except for their life prospects (no questions of distinct immortal souls, I am sure). And basic common sense puts an implicit "IMHO" on the front of it all.

And in case you didn't get it he's gone to some effort to explain, even citing vast elaborations on the subject, just what the difference is between condemning a choice made by those who were able to make that choice, and accepting the unfortunate outcome for those who did not have the choice. How you interpret "choice" is probably the most dangerously ambiguous matter, here, but you'll be digging through philosophical debate on "free will" for the rest of your life before you can get to a point of being able to judge somebody else's interpretation.

[gumboot]

Dave-id is up first. Enjoy.

TIMMAY!!


I suppose someone's going to tell me that's inappropriate, now.