Amanda Fucking Palmer

[gravy]

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.

No he wasn't. The "try again" thing was his own addition and had nothing to do with the original question.

You're layering on the false dichotomy of BABY WITH DOWNS vs BABY WITHOUT DOWNS

On a practical level that's so obviously not the choice. What if it's the 3rd pregnancy you've had after previous abortions due to Downs?

The incidence is higher in older mothers so it's not that unlikely past a certain age.

It is an easier thing to digest mentally if you reduce it to DOWNS vs NO DOWNS but that's kind of ludicrous.

[gumboot]

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.

No he wasn't. The "try again" thing was his own addition and had nothing to do with the original question.

But he did add it, didn't he.

You're layering on the false dichotomy of BABY WITH DOWNS vs BABY WITHOUT DOWNS

On a practical level that's so obviously not the choice. What if it's the 3rd pregnancy you've had after previous abortions due to Downs?

The incidence is higher in older mothers so it's not that unlikely past a certain age.

It is an easier thing to digest mentally if you reduce it to DOWNS vs NO DOWNS but that's kind of ludicrous.

I fully agree, and yet I still believe this is what he meant.

Dawkins has only the one tool in his belt. Rigorous application of logic. If you do that enough you should come to realise that the only unequivocal truths are tautologies, and then you stop being like Dawkins. Dawkins is still like Dawkins, so he obviously hasn't got to that point yet.

[gravy]

Well I'm glad you're now agreeing he's trying to appply rigorous logic to a moral arguement; often a complete waste of time.

Something that also just struct me is his citing the majority of women with Downs diagnosed pregnancies abort.

I wonder how much of that is due to the influence of a level social stigma attached to any other path perpetuated by twats like Dawkins?

[gumboot]

Well I'm glad you're now agreeing he's trying to appply rigorous logic to a moral arguement; often a complete waste of time.

Yes and no. Rigorous logic to extract the moral argument; but extracting it from such a trivial model that that moral argument itself is, as you say, so obvious that it's not even a thing.

That's where logic gets you. Stating the obvious as if you've earned the right to do so (pardon my recursion (and that one)).

Something that also just struct me is his citing the majority of women with Downs diagnosed pregnancies abort.

I wonder how much of that is due to the influence of a level social stigma attached to any other path perpetuated by twats like Dawkins?

As someone kind of looking at starting that parenthood thing I've already asked myself the "what if" regarding Down's and wondered how to raise the matter with the other half and what to do if we don't agree. Thankfully my mum brought it up while she was visiting, and talked about a friend of hers who started late and what she went through.

Thanks mum!

Perhaps because I am a twat like Dawkins, unburdened with fears of not being able to try again, I'd abort. To my mind the question of what could have been is not a factor -- what could have been could still be, but just a few months further down the line and with a better starting point. My personal circumstances might be different when I get there, but if it happened today that would be my answer.

I don't see any stigma, and I have no fear of Dawkins condemning my soul to eternal damnation. I see a significant financial burden above and beyond that of a normal child. Yes, I have seen people getting along just fine; but I'm just not a love-conquers-all kind of guy and I fear I may not have their winning attitude.

My wife's Chinese, so she talks about children as investments. I can't see her choosing to keep it because the return wouldn't make financial sense.

[gravy]

Are you going to test for Downs?

That's a whole other ethical bag of worms as it carries a 1 / 150 chance of triggering miscarriage.

Parenting may well change your view on the matter. It'd make no difference to Dawkin's logical assesment but there you go.

[VNVObit]

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

Simple maths tells you it will dwindle to nothing, however, that's still significantly higher probability than the zero he referred to. Thought i had linked it properly, sorry about that.

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.

he has over million followers on twitter that means they see all his posts even if he put his account on followers only. I would be surprised if he was not aware of this given his previous tweeting regarding muslim nobel prize winners. I would have been a bit more sympathetic to his position if he didn't already have form
for stirring things up

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.

They are 2 different opinions entirely so the long form is not implicit in the short form. If it was implicit there would have been no need for the clarification. The reality is

Why would he do that, I wonder!

The decision is usually made before taking the tests not after (that would be solely confirmation) so

Maybe you need to buy his book to find out.

being a parent I already am aware that having children it's not just a logical decision process there is some emotion involved and personal views/attitudes are changed by the event.
Yes we were faced with the question of having the test or not and it's at that point that people are counselled about the options and what risks are associated with the tests (small chances yes but if you are parents late in life would you have the same opportunity to try again

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.

wasn't getting into the spiritual on this at all and I do understand the Beethoven Fallacy
I also understand leading arguments (aka preaching) and from the tone it'd be IMO (definitely no H)
If as you say I should look only at the long form of his argument it follows that bringing a DS child into the world is a negative on the whole "sum of happiness and reduce suffering" equation. If it's true for those who have the test then it is also true for those who didn't have the test, albeit their "sin" (sorry couldn't think of a better word) is not taking the test.

[gumboot]

Are you going to test for Downs?

That's a whole other ethical bag of worms as it carries a 1 / 150 chance of triggering miscarriage.

I don't consider anything less than 1% wormy, really. Perhaps the other half won't agree. It'll be between her and the doctor.

Right now I'm a little more anxious about lead exposure. Have to work hard to clean up the mess that has been made with lead-based paint before there's a pregnancy in this house.

Parenting may well change your view on the matter. It'd make no difference to Dawkin's logical assesment but there you go.

Could change it either way. Some people don't test when they're not already a parent but then decide that they will test in subsequent pregnancies.

[gumboot]

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

Simple maths tells you it will dwindle to nothing, however, that's still significantly higher probability than the zero he referred to. Thought i had linked it properly, sorry about that.

Your own reference gave data consistent with what he said. You selected another part of it and asserted that that's the only part that matters, but it obviously isn't the part that matters and it's a huge stretch to try to take it out of context to make Dawkins look wrong.

wasn't getting into the spiritual on this at all and I do understand the Beethoven Fallacy
I also understand leading arguments (aka preaching) and from the tone it'd be IMO (definitely no H)

Yes, sorry, it was an ironic H. We all know who we're talking about here.

The thing is, if I say something is a steaming pile of dog shit, does that mean anything other that in my own opinion I don't think it's very good? Or do you feel compelled to point out to me that the thing I am talking about is in fact not a canine rectal extrusion produced so recently that visible water vapour is still rising from it?

If it's the latter then you are not going to have an easy life on the internet.

If as you say I should look only at the long form of his argument it follows that bringing a DS child into the world is a negative on the whole "sum of happiness and reduce suffering" equation. If it's true for those who have the test then it is also true for those who didn't have the test, albeit their "sin" (sorry couldn't think of a better word) is not taking the test.

No, not negative. Simply less positive than the alternative. For fuck-knows-what-reason Dawkins has also gone to some lengths to cover the reciprocal case regarding bad rape versus badder rape.

Judgement of those failing to take the test is an extrapolation, and you can't condemn Dawkins for something you infer yourself unless you have a decent case for why he couldn't possibly have meant it any other way.

I mean, I still don't like to support Dawkins, but I don't think it's appropriate to hold others accountable for one's own weak inferences. You're tilting at windmills, there.

[VNVObit]

No, not negative. Simply less positive than the alternative

and less positive than the starting position would be a... change? (dancing on pinheads there)

You're tilting at windmills

reminds me about a comment about the Good Friday Agreement

paraphrasing but

"A unionist can tell what is written on every single line while a nationalist can tell you what's written between the lines"

[gumboot]

No, not negative. Simply less positive than the alternative

and less positive than the starting position would be a... change? (dancing on pinheads there)

The starting position is not the alternative.

reminds me about a comment about the Good Friday Agreement

paraphrasing but

"A unionist can tell what is written on every single line while a nationalist can tell you what's written between the lines"

Well reading between the lines sounds all insightful and all, but how do you know that it's any more reliable than reading auras, palms, or tea leaves?

[VNVObit]

The starting position is not the alternative.

That's you imputing a Non-DS v DS child choice again. Dawkins suggests "try again"- I would interpret from that he does indeed recognise the alternative is the starting point (i.e before the pregnancy).

Well reading between the lines sounds all insightful and all, but how do you know that it's any more reliable than reading auras, palms, or tea leaves?

The quote is actually a humourous one about the vagueness of language and the fact that words are open to interpretation (as your response demonstrates). You are reading Dawkins explanation of a moral (correct) choice while I am reading the moral (principle) behind the choice. Both are clearly there in Dawkins blogpost

I think our viewpoints on the article are like the Oscar Wilde's Americans and British, separated by a common language.

Last word on this (hopefully and a tenuous link to the the actual thread title)

life is messy

[Governmentyard]

Downs, downs, debating downs.

[gumboot]

The starting position is not the alternative.

That's you imputing a Non-DS v DS child choice again. Dawkins suggests "try again"- I would interpret from that he does indeed recognise the alternative is the starting point (i.e before the pregnancy).

If the alternative was the starting point then "try again" would be superfluous, wouldn't it.

Well reading between the lines sounds all insightful and all, but how do you know that it's any more reliable than reading auras, palms, or tea leaves?

The quote is actually a humourous one about the vagueness of language and the fact that words are open to interpretation (as your response demonstrates).

Yes, thank you for your insightful clarification on that very confusing point.

[VNVObit]

If the alternative was the starting point then "try again" would be superfluous, wouldn't it.

no obligation to try again, people can then decide not to have a child, so hardly superfluous.

Yes, thank you for your insightful clarification on that very confusing point.

you're welcome

[gumboot]

If the alternative was the starting point then "try again" would be superfluous, wouldn't it.

no obligation to try again, people can then decide not to have a child, so hardly superfluous.

The obligation is immaterial. It was the alternative posited for the comparison.