Amidst Backlash, Dawkins Doubles Down on Down Syndrome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
yeah, society is “an imaginary group label with no significance in the actual world.”
But so is the individual : an imaginary group label of organs, cells, bacterias, etc.
And so is the cell : an imaginary group label of molecules and atoms.
Which are an imaginary group label of quarks and quanta.

Methodological individualism is a sophism.
Don’t like something ? don’t want to care about it ? Don’t want to actually study it : say it’s an abstract concept that doesn’t really exist.
[/quote]

This is not a coherent argument for a person who believes in individuals being endowed by their creator with human rights, will, and value.

Though I agree with you, for an atheist that is the logical conclusion.

And I admit that there is a counter argument for which I have no rebuttal should someone care to claim it. That society was created with innate rights and not the individual.[/quote]

“Society has no right because it has no soul” and
“Society has no right because it doesn’t exist”

are two very different things.

I can understand and respect the former, but the latter is absurd.

And you can’t denounce the “collectivist” notion as mystical when your individualism is clearly rooted in mysticism.

[/quote]

It may not have a “soul” but the crowd is an entity that exists extrinsic to the individuals within. The individuals in a crowd undergo a process of “deindividuation” and lose much of their own autonomy and identity. The concept of the collective is as real and mystical as the concept of the individual.[/quote]

NOW that is an intellectually honest argument I can agree to disagree with. I’d say that the individual chooses to act more collectively, though still with exceptions to your rule, for example autistic people probably don’t. They don’t do things like yawn from seeing others yawn for example. Plus an individual can also change and submits themselves to circumstances and a loss of control in sleep, or under water, or in death, or in shock, or in panic. But none of these things are entities.

62

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

That’s insane.
[/quote]

An interest requires a consciousness. Groups don’t have one in any capacity higher than the result of each individual. The label of society adds no TRUE value to the statements, only false values that can be snuck into the argument by using label to disguise what’s actually being said.
Name a group interest of the society in question.

I think it’s insane to think that adding a label to something creates something that wasn’t there before.

63

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
yeah, society is “an imaginary group label with no significance in the actual world.”
But so is the individual : an imaginary group label of organs, cells, bacterias, etc.
And so is the cell : an imaginary group label of molecules and atoms.
Which are an imaginary group label of quarks and quanta.

Methodological individualism is a sophism.
Don’t like something ? don’t want to care about it ? Don’t want to actually study it : say it’s an abstract concept that doesn’t really exist.
[/quote]

This is not a coherent argument for a person who believes in individuals being endowed by their creator with human rights, will, and value.

Though I agree with you, for an atheist that is the logical conclusion.

And I admit that there is a counter argument for which I have no rebuttal should someone care to claim it. That society was created with innate rights and not the individual.[/quote]

“Society has no right because it has no soul” and
“Society has no right because it doesn’t exist”

are two very different things.

I can understand and respect the former, but the latter is absurd.

And you can’t denounce the “collectivist” notion as mystical when your individualism is clearly rooted in mysticism.

[/quote]

It may not have a “soul” but the crowd is an entity that exists extrinsic to the individuals within. The individuals in a crowd undergo a process of “deindividuation” and lose much of their own autonomy and identity. The concept of the collective is as real and mystical as the concept of the individual.[/quote]

NOW that is an intellectually honest argument I can agree to disagree with. I’d say that the individual chooses to act more collectively, though still with exceptions to your rule, for example autistic people probably don’t. They don’t do things like yawn from seeing others yawn for example. Plus an individual can also change and submits themselves to circumstances and a loss of control in sleep, or under water, or in death, or in shock, or in panic. But none of these things are entities.[/quote]

What I mean is the crowd will act in a manner that none of the individuals within the crowd would act on their own. Therefore the crowd - in as much as it “thinks” and “acts” independently of the individuals - is to some extent an autonomous entity.

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

An interest requires a consciousness.
[/quote]

Correct.

I disagree.

Okay. It is in the interest of the crowd to distinguish the “other” - ie, who doesn’t belong to the crowd. This is the crowd defining itself and its identity independent of the identities of the individuals within the crowd.

[quote]

I think it’s insane to think that adding a label to something creates something that wasn’t there before.[/quote]

I agree. But it was there before. It began with the family, then the tribe, then the city state, then the nation.

65

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

That’s insane.
[/quote]

Think about this. The collective label is required of your argument. BUT the collective label ads no information. Name something done by a collective not completely equal to the summation of the actions of the distinct individuals. Something of added value the collective label imparts to the argument or general knowledge.

I would also say that even in your sketchy, obscurely defined collectivist being, there is no real truth that a hermit in the woods in north carolina shares any innate connection or being with a surfer in california. And share no benefits or detriments exempt by coincidence.

66

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
yeah, society is “an imaginary group label with no significance in the actual world.”
But so is the individual : an imaginary group label of organs, cells, bacterias, etc.
And so is the cell : an imaginary group label of molecules and atoms.
Which are an imaginary group label of quarks and quanta.

Methodological individualism is a sophism.
Don’t like something ? don’t want to care about it ? Don’t want to actually study it : say it’s an abstract concept that doesn’t really exist.
[/quote]

This is not a coherent argument for a person who believes in individuals being endowed by their creator with human rights, will, and value.

Though I agree with you, for an atheist that is the logical conclusion.

And I admit that there is a counter argument for which I have no rebuttal should someone care to claim it. That society was created with innate rights and not the individual.[/quote]

“Society has no right because it has no soul” and
“Society has no right because it doesn’t exist”

are two very different things.

I can understand and respect the former, but the latter is absurd.

And you can’t denounce the “collectivist” notion as mystical when your individualism is clearly rooted in mysticism.

[/quote]

It may not have a “soul” but the crowd is an entity that exists extrinsic to the individuals within. The individuals in a crowd undergo a process of “deindividuation” and lose much of their own autonomy and identity. The concept of the collective is as real and mystical as the concept of the individual.[/quote]

NOW that is an intellectually honest argument I can agree to disagree with. I’d say that the individual chooses to act more collectively, though still with exceptions to your rule, for example autistic people probably don’t. They don’t do things like yawn from seeing others yawn for example. Plus an individual can also change and submits themselves to circumstances and a loss of control in sleep, or under water, or in death, or in shock, or in panic. But none of these things are entities.[/quote]

What I mean is the crowd will act in a manner that none of the individuals within the crowd would act on their own. Therefore the crowd - in as much as it “thinks” and “acts” independently of the individuals - is to some extent an autonomous entity.[/quote]

All individual acts are contextual. All behaviors are altered by environment. I wouldn’t slap my leg if the mosquito hadn’t bit it. I would behave very differently when playing if gravity were half it’s current value. You are assigning consciousness to circumstance. The idea of an individual is that there is a being and an influence outside of physical circumstance not that it is free of physical influence. You aren’t showing me special about a group that any physical environment doesn’t do. Be it rocks, or sheep or landscape, or physical law or Any other physical thing.

67

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Think about this. The collective label is required of your argument. BUT the collective label ads no information. Name something done by a collective not completely equal to the summation of the actions of the distinct individuals.

[/quote]

Hitler would place Nazi officials in plain clothes in the crowd before giving a speech. They would clap and cheer and the other members of the crowd would instinctively follow suit - herd behaviour. Thus, the crowd “acted” and even had “emotions” that were extrinsic to the individuals within. Observe a flock of birds or a school of fish changing direction all at the same time - this is “group think”. The collective is a mystical and autonomous entity just as the individual is.

68

DD, just see if you can get collectivists to admit that nobody is any better than Hitler, Mao Zedong, or Joseph Stalin.

Collectivist: Individuals voluntarily enter the state because the group is stronger than the individual and can better protect the individual.
Individual: What about the Jews killed by Hitler? Did they commit suicide?
Collectivist: Hitler was German.
Individual: And…?
Collectivist: 'Murica

69

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Okay. It is in the interest of the crowd to distinguish the “other” - ie, who doesn’t belong to the crowd. This is the crowd defining itself and its identity independent of the identities of the individuals within the crowd.

[/quote]

No, it’s merely individuals creating a list. One that Many wouldn’t agree on. Name one absolute Truth of identity of a group. Everything you mention is SUBJECTIVE. Meaning it is merely the evaluation of each individual independently which no inherent value of one over the other. Specify any specific value you are asserting and I’ll demonstrate it’s subjectivity and hence relativism and individualism.

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, it’s merely individuals creating a list. One that Many wouldn’t agree on. Name one absolute Truth of identity of a group.
[/quote]

Race? Sex? They’re not social constructs you know. But that’s not really relevant to the point anyway.

71

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Think about this. The collective label is required of your argument. BUT the collective label ads no information. Name something done by a collective not completely equal to the summation of the actions of the distinct individuals.

[/quote]

Hitler would place Nazi officials in plain clothes in the crowd before giving a speech. They would clap and cheer and the other members of the crowd would instinctively follow suit - herd behaviour. Thus, the crowd “acted” and even had “emotions” that were extrinsic to the individuals within. Observe a flock of birds or a school of fish changing direction all at the same time - this is “group think”. The collective is a mystical and autonomous entity just as the individual is.[/quote]

No. Each of those actions in completely defined within the action of each individual. In the flock each individual evaluates its surroundings in a way that allow each to choose to move like the others do. All those things are definable entirely as actions and mechanisms within each individual. And again there are plenty of exceptions. People who don’t clap and birds that don’t turn. There is NO special outside force for a group asserts in any way distinct from any other physical circumstance evaluated and reacted to by the individual

72

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, it’s merely individuals creating a list. One that Many wouldn’t agree on. Name one absolute Truth of identity of a group.
[/quote]

Race? Sex? They’re not social constructs you know. But that’s not really relevant to the point anyway.
[/quote]

Uh, yes, they are. Or at least there are plenty of people that honestly believe they are. You must not read the news. And what is your authority to assert that your opinion is better than theirs. Nor when you dissect things like that to pure logically base values do you ever find any solid definition. Race hasn’t really ever been a scientific construct to begin with. But again if you throw out the “we all just know what it means” argument something as simple as a chair becomes impossible to define much less things like gender or race. People won’t even agree on a definition in order to have an argument about inclusion.

73

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Race? Sex? They’re not social constructs you know. But that’s not really relevant to the point anyway.
[/quote]

Are you sure that race isn’t a social construct?

74

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, yes, they are. Or at least there are plenty of people that honestly believe they are.
[/quote]

And those people are entirely wrong.

See above.

What sort of question is that? An opinion is what one believes to be true. If I believe something to be true then any contrary opinion must be untrue if I am correct.

Something doesn’t have to have clear boundaries to exist. There is no exact place where the atmosphere ends and space begins but that does not imply that an atmosphere does not exist.

Words can have a gender: masculine, feminine, neuter or indeterminate. People do not have a gender. People have a sex. There are two, and only two sexes: male and female. Males have an X and a Y chromosome; females have two X chromosomes. Females have ovaries, a uterus etc. men have testicles and a penis. Men cannot have babies. Women cannot impregnate other women. Additionally, males and females produce different quantities of sex hormones that radically alter their psychology and bodies. This is all scientific fact, not a “social construct.”

75

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Race? Sex? They’re not social constructs you know. But that’s not really relevant to the point anyway.
[/quote]

Are you sure that race isn’t a social construct? [/quote]

100% sure.

76

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, yes, they are. Or at least there are plenty of people that honestly believe they are.
[/quote]

And those people are entirely wrong.

See above.

What sort of question is that? An opinion is what one believes to be true. If I believe something to be true then any contrary opinion must be untrue if I am correct.

Something doesn’t have to have clear boundaries to exist. There is no exact place where the atmosphere ends and space begins but that does not imply that an atmosphere does not exist.

Words can have a gender: masculine, feminine, neuter or indeterminate. People do not have a gender. People have a sex. There are two, and only two sexes: male and female. Males have an X and a Y chromosome; females have two X chromosomes. Females have ovaries, a uterus etc. men have testicles and a penis. Men cannot have babies. Women cannot impregnate other women. Additionally, males and females produce different quantities of sex hormones that radically alter their psychology and bodies. This is all scientific fact, not a “social construct.”[/quote]

And what I say is true, therefore you must necessarily be wrong. And you omitted a number of people in your definition of sex. Not to mention each collective label you used would need an absolute physical definition many of which don’t exist. But lets just try exclusively one of them. What is an X chromosome?

77

(Sigh) Where are we going with this? I’m not in the mood for gender studies batshit.

78

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
(Sigh) Where are we going with this? I’m not in the mood for gender studies batshit.

[/quote]

Not gender studies, logic and physical constructs. None of my chromosomes match any or yours. one of us must not have one of these Xs. Different atoms. Different orders. Different locations. What exact physical logically definable trait defines each of our Xs?

79

^^It’s in the link:

"The X chromosome is notably larger and has a more active euchromatin region than its Y chromosome counterpart…

The X chromosome contains about 2000 genes compared to the Y chromosome containing 78…"

Etc

80

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Race? Sex? They’re not social constructs you know. But that’s not really relevant to the point anyway.
[/quote]

Are you sure that race isn’t a social construct? [/quote]

100% sure.[/quote]

How many are there?

What if a child is born to parents of different races? What race is he? What if that child procreates with a child born to parents of two other races? What race is the product of that union? If we just say that these scenarios create mixed-race children, then we have a huge number of people on Earth to whom we can’t assign an actual race, right?