Yeah man, that's fucked up.

We should just let those children suffer with an incurable disease until they die all sick and deformed in a hospital bed at age 6.

That's the way Yahweh planned it. Right Shiny!?

Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.

However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?

You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.

Ahh yes, there can be no nuance, no context to what anyone says. In this case, clearly Dawkins feels that murdering a child is absolutely fine, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating the suffering a horrible disease is causing it.

Oh, and as to your video description? Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he does not believe in socialdarwinism. Troll harder, little fool.

hahahahahahahahahaha

*science *religion

Adding video to channels (Religion, Science) - requested by Fusionaut.

Quite a few issues here. I would simply say that what is incurable today, may be curable tomorrow. However, I would not wish my child to suffer in agony in the, possibly, vain hope that a cure could be found.

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is. It is making an arbitrary determination on the value of a life is, and when someone doesnt meet that criteria, that they are better off dead. And that we would be morally justified in murdering them even out of the womb.

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Ahh yes, there can be no nuance, no context to what anyone says. In this case, clearly Dawkins feels that murdering a child is absolutely fine, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating the suffering a horrible disease is causing it.
Oh, and as to your video description? Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he does not believe in socialdarwinism. Troll harder, little fool.

Who do you say God is, and why don't you think Gods word is inspired?

>> ^marbles:
Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.
However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?
You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.

Often times, the murdering leads to more suffering than they would have had otherwise. There are countless instances of children miraculously beating the odds and living a healthy life. To arbitrarily murder them because we don't believe their lives have any value is sick.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Yeah man, that's fucked up.
We should just let those children suffer with an incurable disease until they die all sick and deformed in a hospital bed at age 6.
That's the way Yahweh planned it. Right Shiny!?

Like Marbles said. Yahweh kills babies all the time.

What was that plague again? OH RIGHT, murdering everyone's first born?

shut the fuck up shiny.

you don't, nor Yahweh, hold any high ground when it comes to murdering babies for shits and giggles.

How about some context: http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Singer-Uncut-Darwin-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
Minute 24.

Nice try though.

Out-of-context quote mining is one of the very few tools these nutters have to support their insane premises. Unfortunately, for them, they feel compelled to present this "evidence" to those who don't share their delusional view of reality, and all they manage to elicit is laughter, pity, and confusion as to how evolution, much less, a relatively enlightened society, can keep spitting out such complete dipshits. Evidence itself that Mars may be a lot further away than we hoped.

>> ^marbles:

Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.
However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?
You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.
Wish I could upvote half a comment.

That wasn't out of context at all, in fact if you actually use your ears and listen to what he is saying, it reinforces my point twice as much and makes what he said even worse. What they are talking about is how because of the belief that we are in the image of God, that there is a natural barrier regarding moral questions (such as infanticide)..but that this barrier is actually artificial (because they believe in evolution, that we are the same as animals) and so we shouldn't worry so much about traversing it (because they don't believe human life is in any wise sacred or special)..

dawkins says that he at least worries a bit about breaking this barrier and falling onto a slippery slope..(ie, eugenics)..so after he gets through endorsing infanticide..he graciously says he would be willing to give consideration to someone who asked the question "where does it end?"

then Peter says "yes i can see there is a problem with (killing) small children, because we're bonded to them very closely in a way..though we're not really bonded to the same extent to the fetus or even to the newborn (its easier to kill them)..but i think when people make slippery slope arguments in this area (that if we allow infanticide for "compassionate" grounds, why not kill babies with downs syndrome too?)..you have to appreciate that it does go the other way, precisely because we draw this boundary between us and animals (that we're being held back as a race because of moral constraints imposed by the idea of the sacredness of human life(ie, that infanticide and other "compassionate" murder is a good thing, and we should be doing more of it)

This is social darwinisim, and it is monstrous..and this is just the beginning, if people like this get their way. Thank you for proving my point.

>> ^luxury_pie:
How about some context: http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Singer-Uncut-Darwin-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
Minute 24.
Nice try though.

Obviously you didn't listen to the video, because it isn't out of context. It's fully in context and makes my argument even more salient. I don't think english is luxury_pie's first language so he probably missed the meaning..what's your excuse?

As far as this enlightened society, or evolution goes, you're the aberration, not me. Over 90 percent of everyone in the world believes in a higher power, and nearly 50 percent of the United States believes in special creation..the rest believe in theistic evolution..only around 13 percent believe in straight darwinism. So it doesn't seem like you're all that useful in a genetic sense, fletch; your particular strain has never caught on.

In any case, I'm confused as to why you follow me around everywhere and make sure to let everyone know you're ignoring me and that I'm not worth your time..yet here you are. Kind of strange to follow someone around you're supposedly ignoring and yet taking every opportunity to comment about them, isn't it?


>> ^Fletch:
Out-of-context quote mining is one of the very few tools these nutters have to support their insane premises. Unfortunately, for them, they feel compelled to present this "evidence" to those who don't share their delusional view of reality, and all they manage to elicit is laughter, pity, and confusion as to how evolution, much less, a relatively enlightened society, can keep spitting out such complete dipshits. Evidence itself that Mars may be a lot further away than we hoped.

@shinyblurry please watch the whole interview and get your head out of your Jesus.

Either show me where I am wrong or move on. Lay out your argument using commentary in the video to support it..you've already unjustly downvoted my video, and now you're making wild claims, so how about *you* watch the video and explain exactly how it is out of context..and start from my last comment to you where I took the time to explain what was being said.

>> ^luxury_pie:
@shinyblurry please watch the whole interview and get your head out of your Jesus.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+
saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

He isn't talking about an isolated incident. Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases. So, if there was a general policy in society of killing off babies who would die early, according to his own words he would be in favor of that. No matter how you want to dress it up, it's still social darwinism.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

No, a true social darwinist would kill them off so they wouldn't consume unnecessary resources.

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

No, I am saying that they would have both would have been selected for death under dawkins morality, even though they would have both lived given the circumstances. I am showing the idea of infanticide being morally permissible is actually morally repugnant, and that many children would die who would have otherwise survived.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What,is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

He's not endorsing it, he's speaking hypothetically. And frankly that is all you are ever doing dear, with your faith. How about we call it evens and say no more about it

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.

Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:

- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.

Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

I understand perfectly well what he was saying, and again, it is social darwinism, whether they are going to die in agony or not. If you listen to the rest of it, what they are talking about is removing the ethical barrier that is present due to our being created in the image of God. They would like to see that removed and have human life be regarded on the same plane as animal life. When you do that, suddenly things like infanticide become more palatable, because after all, there are billions of us..what is one less? A lot of people want to reduce the population of the planet by 80 percent or so (so long as they're not on the 80 percent side of the equation). It's classic social darwinism, in all its repugnant splendor.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.
Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:
- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.
Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

He said that morally, he is in favor of infanticide, so yes he is endorsing it.

>> ^alien_concept:
He's not endorsing it, he's speaking hypothetically. And frankly that is all you are ever doing dear, with your faith. How about we call it evens and say no more about it <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Quote mining.