1. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182207 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 11:41 am

I need to clarify this point again. I am not suggesting we SHOULD continue behave a certain way because of how we evolved. I am stating that we do behave in that way. Again, not advocating, merely explaining.

2. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182201 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 11:22 am

I wouldn't have offered it if I thought it was fallacious. You think it's fallacious. That doesn't mean it is. On the other hand, I don't expect that there's one specific reason for why we feel animal testing is acceptable. It's more likely a combination of reasons.

That we more readily empathise with fellow humans is possibly one of the reasons. There's no doubt that most people feel that way. There may very well not be a justifiable reason for animal testing. Not everyone adheres so strictly to logic.

Are you concerned with why we feel it's ok to experiment on animals or are you trying to prove that there is no justification? Chances are there is no acceptable explanation and that arbitrary distinctions are the major reason why it is assumed that our lives are worth more than the lives of animals.

3. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182195 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 11:09 am

I agree, ToCT. I'm glad to see that Mitchell is not as stubborn as I first thought.

4. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182192 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 11:07 am

Yes, it is derived from Darwin's theory of competition. At no point did I dispute that. I disputed your definition. Social Darwinism applies to "human societies", as you later pointed out.

The point in offering it as an explanation is fairly obvious. I was searching for an explanation that did not rely on arbitrary distinctions. I felt it possible that we empathise more with our own species and seek to propagate it. What other reason is there to offer an explanation or than to try and explain?

And no, I wasn't suggesting you did it dishonestly. I said I was replying to the initial post as you were editing it. It had changed by the time I had replied.

5. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182183 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 10:45 am

I offered a possible explanation for favouring other humans. I did not suggest we should behave in such a way. For example, if I try to explain why Hitler did what he did, I'm not advocating it.

Besides, Social Darwinism concerns competition among humans not between species. That is the definition of Social Darwinism. By all means find me a definition that includes competition between species and I'll look into it.

Also, calling me a Social Darwinist is a personal attack. Before expanding on your post (you edited it as I was replying to it) and constructing an argument, your post simply called me a Social Darwinist. That is an ad hominem attack.

I stated explicitly that I was offering it as a possible EXPLANATION. Pick out the quote that you misunderstood and you can judge if it's ambiguous.

"In actual fact, I have made the point that we do what we do because we are just like other animals in our instinct to survive and to ensure the propagation of the species. I also stated numerous times that animal testing is unjust. I cannot argue against that point. In spite of it being unjust, however, it is necessary for our future survival."

In what way is that ambiguous? I even said clearly that animal testing is unjust. By calling it unjust how am I advocating it?

6. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182172 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 10:27 am

Do you stand corrected on saying I advocate Social Darwinism? A simple answer.

If you do not think you stand corrected, show me the quote where I suggest we SHOULD behave based on Darwinian principles.

7. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182169 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 10:22 am

Firstly, I did not SUGGEST we behave based on Darwinian principals. I proposed it as a possible explanation for why we experiment on animals. There is a vast difference between advocating an idea and querying it as an explanation. Do you see the difference?

Secondly, Social Darwinism concerns human competition. Darwinian principles are applied to groups, nations, races etc. It does not apply to competition between species.

Also, look up the definition of ad hominem.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem attack consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Try and get something right for once. Social Darwinist, indeed.

8. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182165 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

Mitchell, in defending his absurd arguments, has tied himself in knots. His position is pretty much untenable now.

9. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182161 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 10:07 am

You don't think we favour human survival over animals? That's all I said. It's undeniable that we do. I merely proposed that our natural instinct to favour our own species is a possible reason for this.

That is NOT social darwinism. I am not making any judgments on whether favouring fellow humans is right or wrong, nor am I necessarily advocating it. I am proposing it as a possible explanation.

10. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182157 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

Clydey:

As a species we have an instinct for survival. We are not better than other animals. That said, we favour fellow humans over other animals. That's possibly why we find it acceptable to experiment on animals to produce life-saving medications for the human race.

Mitchell Gilks:

SOCIAL DARWINIST!!!11



An ad hominem attack is not attacking the substance of an argument, but rather appealing to the negative baggage associated with it. In this case, Social Darwinism. Even though what I said had nothing to do with it. And I'm sure anyone else who read my post will have realised that.

You actually expanded the original post that I called an ad hominem attack. It initially said, "You've fled to social darwinism. I expected moral relativism."

After you expanded the post, my response looked like a non sequitur. Satisfied with that explanation?

11. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182152 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 9:34 am

The difference is my argument does not include experimenting on other HUMANS. Are you too dense to make that distinction? Experimenting on animals to produce life-saving vaccines is not detrimental to fellow humans. Get it?

12. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182151 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 9:31 am

Ad hominem attack? Nice.

Wholly inaccurate, but astounding all the same. I'm not sure why highlighting our instinct for survival is social darwinism, but whatever floats your boat.

13. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182146 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 am

Didn't you read my last three posts? I stated explicitly why I felt we experiment on animals. I'll copy and paste since you're either too ignorant or too lazy to read and comprehend what I say:

"The true reason is Darwinian, Mitchell. Our consciousness does not override our instinct to ensure the survival of the species. We do not produce medication through animal testing because we have any more right to survive, no more than a lion kills a gazelle because it feels it has more right to survive."

And here's another post you failed to comprehend:

"I actually agree with those points. Mitchell is under the impression that I think humans are inherently "better" than animals.

In actual fact, I have made the point that we do what we do because we are just like other animals in our instinct to survive and to ensure the propagation of the species. I also stated numerous times that animal testing is unjust. I cannot argue against that point. In spite of it being unjust, however, it is necessary for our future survival.

In other words, it's a Darwinian justification. It is by no means a moral justification."

So what was the relevance of the following reply?

"This also continues to ignore that not all humans are equal in this regard, yet we allot equal rights and freedoms, so this clearly cannot be the standard by which we do that."

I don't expect a response, since you would have to concede that you are arguing against a position I don't take. You're too stubborn to be that humble.

So our language processes are not more complex than other animals'? Theory of mind? Our executive function? I could go on. The aforementioned are just as complex in animals?

Right you are.

14. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182132 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 9:01 am

Your opinion on whether you feel we are merely different from animals is irrelevant, Mitchell, as is mine. It's about evidence. Have you studied brain and behaviour at all? It is a fact that we have more complex, more developed brains than other animals. We are not simply different. We are more complex.

That is not the reason why we experiment on animals, however. I've given my opinion on that in other posts.

15. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182126 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:54 am

The true reason is Darwinian, Mitchell. Our consciousness does not override our instinct to ensure the survival of the species. We do not produce medication through animal testing because we have any more right to survive, no more than a lion kills a gazelle because it feels it has more right to survive.

At least that's what I feel the best explanation is. Even you favour humans over other animals, particularly those close to you. You recognise that it's unjust, but you favour relatives all the same.

16. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182120 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:48 am

Mitchell, I'm not going to answer the points of your most recent response to me. You either can't grasp the simple point I'm making or refuse to for fear of damaging your own argument. You can t distinguish between hypothetical questions rooted in reality and those that aren't.

17. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182117 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

aleprechaunist,

I actually agree with those points. Mitchell is under the impression that I think humans are inherently "better" than animals.

In actual fact, I have made the point that we do what we do because we are just like other animals in our instinct to survive and to ensure the propagation of the species. I also stated numerous times that animal testing is unjust. I cannot argue against that point. In spite of it being unjust, however, it is necessary for our future survival.

In other words, it's a Darwinian justification. It is by no means a moral justification.

18. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182114 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:36 am

When I expressed bemusement, it wasn't an argument from personal incredulity. I was and still am genuinely perplexed.

I was also not arguing that more developed emotions are moral considerations. I haven't actually given that a great deal of thought. I was actually arguing against what I thought was your point.

When comparing the behaviours of animals and humans, we make logical inferences. The subtle shades of emotions are not so easily tested. ToCT mention abstract feelings of exploitation, which animals certainly do not feel. Our brains are more complex, more developed, notably the frontal lobes. It is a fact that we are more complex animals.

Feel free to ignore this post. Despite being well beaten by the arguments of the various people in this thread, you refuse to concede any points. You have contradicted yourself on numerous occasions. You are, put simply, a lost cause.

19. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182105 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 am

PETA, in my opinion, are despicable. They are not only hypocrites, but they use fear and violence to get what they want.

20. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182096 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

No, I do not condone killing strangers. The difference is my question is rooted in reality. Strangers aren't killed for the purposes of medical advancement. Animals are.

The two questions are different. There's no conceivable situation where I would be forced to kill a stranger's family or watch my own die.

On the other hand, people ARE faced every day with the choice my question poses. If someone is against animal testing, they are hypocritical if they use life-saving medications produced from it. The PETA employee is a famous example. You cannot be against animal testing and think it's ok to use medications produced as a result of it

Being for or against animal testing is not the same as being for or against killing strangers. Again, it's stunning that you think they are comparable. Your killing strangers question is one of those unrealistic hypothetical questions you so loathe and refuse to answer, yet you see fit to demand that I answer.

Tell me you see my point, for my own sanity.

21. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182090 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 7:59 am

Why would you guess that I wouldn't be willing to test on unconscious subjects against their desires? I said no such thing. I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth and then construct an opposing argument.

I would have no problem with benign, unconscious human testing. After all, it's benign and they are unconscious so can't consent. I would object to harmful testing, of course. There's no contradiction.

If you did not suggest that animals with more developed emotions are worthy of higher moral consideration, why did you distinguish between viruses and animals by saying, "Viruses do not have emotions..."?

I do mind if you ignore my logical inferences (not assertions). Are you seriously suggesting that animals fall in love with other animals in the same way humans do? And I don't mean unconditional love.

Like I said, human emotions have more shades. I doubt you would find an objective reader who would dispute that. It is not a vague assertion. It is a logical inference from behaviour. The only reason you dispute it is because it doesn't suit your argument.

I'm getting irritated. I'm banging my head off of a brick wall here. If there's one thing I can't stand, it is when someone cannot admit when they are wrong. Notice how I conceded that you may have a point about viruses not being living organisms? That's how open-minded people converse. They don't engage in literary gymnastics in order to preserve a losing argument.

22. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182076 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 7:37 am

Yeah, I'd agree, TCT. Mitchell is really stacking the deck, though. He wants me to answer his hypothetical questions but cries foul when I do the same.

It's getting tedious. He apparently thinks killing a rat is no different to killing a human. Not only that, but he has contradicted his own point. He condones animal testing in the event that it would save a loved one. Other than that, he objects to it.

How can he miss such a glaring inconsistency?

23. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182071 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 7:31 am

So you can ask me if I would kill unconscious people, but if I ask you a hypothetical question you cry foul and insist we discuss "the real world"? Asking whether or not I would be willing to kill unconscious people is not an "invented situation"?

Got it. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

24. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182068 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 7:27 am

Here's the thing. You cannot oppose animal testing AND condone it in the event that it would save your mother. How on earth can you miss that point? Seriously.

I'll concede that you could argue whether viruses could be considered living organisms. They do, however, seek to survive. That is their purpose. They replicate, they can mutate.

I'll leave that aside since it's not something that's likely to be resolved. The main point is that it is not realistic to think that all living things are equal. It is not how nature works. Like other animals, our instinct is to survive. Animal testing helps serve that purpose.

I'm not sure how I could "demonstrate" an emotion, but subtleties are obvious. Love is the obvious example and is not to be confused with, say, the instincts a lioness has towards her offspring. Human love is more complex than that. To put it simply, there are more shades to human emotion.

You contradicted your own point. You mentioned emotion as a moral consideration in a prior post and then went on to say "...psychopathes and sociopathes, as well as other developmentally disabled individuals would also be denied rights and freedoms. "

Would I be okay with killing unconscious people? Obviously not. Would I be okay with doing experiments on unconscious people? It depends on the damage those experiments would do. If they did lasting damage, absolutely not. If the experiments were relatively benign, yes I would be fine with that.

25. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182059 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 7:05 am

Mitchell, I have answered your every question. By all means restate the questions if you wish and I'll answer them again. Unlike you, I have given straight answers, whereas you have engaged in all sorts of gymnastics.

I'm going to put these questions to you straight. No evading and no answering questions with a question. Give a straight answer so that we are clear. I'll return the favour.

Here's a hypothetical situation. Your mother needs insulin to live. You have two choices.

1. Your mum can keep getting insulin and live.

2. The lives of the animals used in producing and refining that medication are restored, but your mother no longer gets insulin and will die.

Which option do you choose?
------------------------------------------------

Viruses don't suffer when we kill them. If we anaesthetize/sedate animals they don't suffer either. Both seek to survive. Why is one morally acceptable, whereas the other isn't?

Their ultimate goal is to survive. The only major difference is emotion. And that is not a suitable consideration, since we have a broader range of emotions than other animals and you do not distinguish between humans and other animals in this context.

Straight answers, please.

26. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182055 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:57 am

Mitchell, you are evading. From your answer, I gather you would choose for your mother to live. That is hypocrisy. It is not an absurd hypothetical either. You are saying that you accept animal testing so long as it saves someone to whom you are close. You cannot have it both ways.

Viruses seek to survive. They mutate, they adapt. They do live. No, they don't suffer. That's why I compared them to anaesthetized animals. Animals produce their own food to survive. It's not a hobby; it has a purpose. Viruses do not produce their own food because that is not how they survive.

What we are left with, then, are emotions. Animals have them and viruses don't. Is that a moral consideration? Humans have a broader range of emotions than other animals, so that means our lives are worth more?

I'm begging you to give me a straight answer. The literary gymnastics are becoming tedious.

27. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182046 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:43 am

You have to weigh the benefits of animal testing. You cannot argue that it's just. It's not fair, but it is necessary. We, like other animals, seek to survive. Lions kill, viruses kill, and we kill to ensure the propagation of the species and to alleviate suffering.

Do I like it? No, I'd rather a more humane alternative. It is unavoidable, though. And the results it has provided are extraordinary.

28. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182037 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:28 am

Mitchell, please answer my question. Would you let your mother die? A yes or no will suffice.

The point isn't whether you can convince them. The point is whether or not you object. You might think I'm being absurd, but I'm taking logic to the sort of extremes you are.

Your moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. Do viruses not also seek to survive? Is obstructing their survival not a moral consideration?

You used suffering as another moral consideration. Is it more acceptable if the animals are sedated/anaesthetized?

Another hypothetical for you. And please don't object on grounds that you feel it's absurd. Just answer, as I've answered your questions.

Viruses don't suffer when we kill them. If we anaesthetize/sedate animals they don't suffer either. Both seek to survive. Why is one morally acceptable, whereas the other isn't?

In a way I admire your dedication to logic. I never thought I'd meet anyone else who so strictly adheres to it. That said, this conversation has highlighted the limitations of pure, undiluted logic.

29. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182021 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:00 am

You didn't answer my question, Mitchell.

I'd kill the stranger's family. I am a slave to logic, but at some point emotion takes over. Do the stranger's family have less right to live? No, of course not. We're not robots, though. Emotion plays a role in decision-making.

Do answer my question. In order to not be a hypocrite, you would have to let your mother die. Are you so committed to absolute equality?

30. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182019 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:56 am

I honestly couldn't say the degree to which testing on humans would be better. I'm sure it would be more beneficial. I don't know how much more so, mind you.

I could not care less whether I've offended you. I'm giving you my opinion. That I've offended you is entirely incidental. I'm astounded by your naiveté. Presumably you also object to the diet of lions and tigers, too? Where does plant life rank, out of curiosity? All life forms are equal, correct? Where do you draw the line? How about viruses, bacteria etc? Should we respect HIV's right to survive?

Your plea for equality is admirable, but it is spectacularly unrealistic. That's just not how the world works, my friend.

31. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182011 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:39 am

I'll further illustrate my point, Mitchell.

Here's a hypothetical situation. Your mother needs insulin to live. You have two choices.

1. Your mum can keep getting insulin and live.

2. The lives of the animals used in producing and refining that medication are restored, but your mother no longer gets insulin and will die.

Which option do you choose? This should better demonstrate the hypocrisy to which I referred.

32. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182006 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:34 am

Information from humans is more scarce. As unfair as it may seem (bear in mind that I am more empathetic towards animals than humans generally), I recognise that the well being of animals is considered secondary to the well being of humans.

The results of animal testing demonstrate just how beneficial a practice it is. Would you swap the medical advancement as a result of animal testing for the lives of those animals subjected to it? Bear in mind that many of the people you know would be dead, gravely ill, or otherwise suffering if not for animal testing.

It is naive to take such a stance, as it demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the value of animal testing. Yes, it's cruel and unjust. It is also necessary.

As for your hypocrisy, it might not be to the same degree as the PETA employee. That said, I doubt you have lived your entire life without some sort of medical treatment. And that treatment is most likely the product of animal testing.

33. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182000 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:10 am

Mitchell Gilks:

I'm sorry, but you are displaying startling insularity. Animal testing is, I'm afraid, very necessary. It is obviously not ideal, but without it we would be living in a different world entirely. Many of your friends and family will have benefited from animal testing.

Perhaps you're not aware of exactly how critical it is to medical advancement. This reminds me of the well placed PETA employee who, while protesting animal testing, justified her insulin prescriptions by arguing that she needs her life to fight for the rights of animals.

It's easy to be morally outraged if you are ignorant of what animal testing has done for the world or do not directly benefit from it.

34. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161787 by Clydey on April 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Bonzai said:

Maybe I was just being in my catty self and wanted to provoke some people?

How do you figure that I have something against Dawkins? Are you saying "you are either with us or against us"? I always prefer to be a loner.

35. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161758 by Clydey on April 15, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Where did I say taste is objective? I said that it is subjective.

There's nothing to suggest that Dawkins wants to be worshiped. You clearly have something against him. I have no objection to dissenting voices. I simply prefer that they make an effort to back up their argument.

36. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161749 by Clydey on April 15, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Taste is subjective, Bonzai. On what do you base your assertion that you have better taste?

37. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157697 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Al,

Like I said, I was not basing it on his views. I was basing the perception of sincerity on his preamble, where he actually came across as being someone who wouldn't take such an unpopular position lightly.

I had no desire to engage him in a debate. I left that to someone else; therefore, I was in no rush to check the links or read his posts from start to finish. It was an oversight on my part. Perhaps I should have taken the time to read his drivel before concluding that he seemed sincere.

We live, we learn etc etc.

38. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157685 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 12:18 pm

al-rawandi,

My opinion changed over the course of the thread. That occasionally occurs when one keeps an open mind.

Your attitude towards me is testing my patience, though. I'll be sure to employ sarcasm the next time you misjudge someone based on a first impression.

39. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157677 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Steve,

That's precisely what I said and why I told him I would no sooner debate him than debate a creationist. It wasn't his views I was necessarily entertaining. It was what I perceived to be his sincere belief that there was a shred of evidence to support his position.

That is why I recommended gentle persuasion. It turns out I was wrong, though. He is no more basing his beliefs on evidence than a creationist nutjob.

40. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157664 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 11:52 am

Steve Zara,

In this instance I was referring to his sincerity in believing that his views are supported by evidence. I was clearly wrong. He had his chance.

41. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157640 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 11:13 am

It's one thing to say my attempts to hear what he has to say are misguided. It's quite another to call it disgusting.

I already conceded that the holocaust is not my area. I am compelled to hear people out. You and I are on the same page with regard to the holocaust. I agree with you.

Like I said, I was swayed by his apparent sincerity, not his arguments. I feel it more prudent to change his mind through gentle persuasion, appealing to what I perceived to be his sincere belief that his position is supported by evidence.

I don't think there's anything disgusting about that, nor do I feel that I am giving his arguments any credibility.

42. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157631 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

al-rawandi said:

You are truly disgusting, and so is everyone who would give you any hint of legitimacy in these ridiculous claims

43. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157627 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 10:54 am

katie.townsend:

I dont know about anyone else but i also dilike the way in which atheism is almost considered a religion - it, to me, is an ideology of reason and logic in the face of ignorance. I wonder what the world would be like if religion was never a factor?

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157615 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 10:41 am

Yes, but I mean sincerity with regard to his opinion being based on evidence. Like I said, it's not my field at all. If his opinion is based on evidence, then I'd expect his opinion to change in light of the evidence you ladies and gents will present to him.

45. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157608 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 10:33 am

al-rawandi,

Perhaps I'm being swayed by what I perceive as sincerity on his behalf. The holocaust is so far from my field of expertise, so I'm treading carefully. I'm usually willing to give people a chance if they at least appear rational. Maybe I'm wrong in this instance.

46. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157599 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 10:14 am

I do not think ASMarques' holocaust denial is immoral. He is at least attempting to provide evidence that supports his position, no matter how offensive you might find it.

If he is genuinely open-minded and shows a willingness to hear people out, I don't see why that should be considered immoral.

47. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157572 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 9:26 am

Bless your cotton socks, Cartomancer. I hadn't intended to suggest it originated from you ;). Ok, ok, enough of my pedantry. Back to the lighter topic of holocaust denial.

48. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157561 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 9:05 am

I think the "h" is only negligible in the case of people like George W. Bush, who drop it altogether. It's all in the accent. I presume you don't say "an 'istoric"?

You're a far better writer than I could currently claim to be. And you're a year younger, to boot! That said, it's amazing the number of Brits who write "an historic". I really don't get it. It's no big deal, merely something that continues to baffle me.

49. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157523 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 8:20 am

You mentioned the comparison to creationism. I assumed you picked up on what I had said and were arguing that debating a holocaust denier is likely to be more fruitful than debating a creationist.

Also, you made reference to my "an historian" pet hate. ;-)

50. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157513 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 8:05 am

Cartomancer,

At what point did you shift from addressing me to addressing ASMarques? I'm unsure as to whether the charge of close-mindedness was aimed at me or our resident holocaust denier.

ASMarques,

For the record, I am extremely open-minded. The evidence for the holocaust is compelling, however. You may well have some relatively persuasive arguments, just as some proponents of ID will present a better case than others, but the idea of engaging in a debate simply doesn't interest me.

I'll happily look at your side of the argument. I just don't want to be dragged into a back-and-forth on a topic that, frankly, doesn't excite me.