deleted by creator
in a mirror, you can kiss yourself, but only on the lips
Something tells me Neil may have actually performed that experiment himself. For science.
Doubt it was just kissing
“Docking sequence initiated”
It’s actually even more unlikely that they would be able to learn how to talk. This guy’s clearly not a very good scientist if he missed that.
I’d be questioning the unique selective pressures that caused the hundred acre wood to produce sentient stuffing filled animals.
I mean, if it’s the Red Forest, anything is possible
Darwin’s got his finches, Dawkins has his teddy, each instrumental to the modern understanding of natural selection.
Or he knows something we don’t…
Unlike with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, with Dawkins, I would be quite surprised if he brought that up without being quite specifically asked about it…
But, now hear me out, what if there was also a rabbit?
Why stop there? Owl! Tiger! Kangaroo!
Tigger. There’s a double-guh.
It’s morphin’ time!
Yeah, not with that attitude, Richard.
This looks like something from Viz magazine. They’ll regularly have big one page jokes about something and then have these little made up side bits in.
Whole thing was probably about illegal immigrants taking small boats to the hundred acre wood and then there’s this little bit in the bottom.
Here’s an example. The thoughts of the 1966 world cup winning squad on the disappearance of Lord Lucan
deleted by creator
I mean, he’s a Tigger, not a Tiger, so that’s off.
Bruh you can’t just drop the t-word like that
I don’t think those animals would be stitched together with cloth and stuffed with cotton, either.
I came here looking to see if anyone would point out that they are toy animals, not real ones.
they are toy animals, not real ones
A couple of them were real animals, and this is reflected in the stories.
The two characters are
Owl and Rabbit.
In one of the stories, one of them says to the other “You and I have brains, the others have fluff”.
True, but Owl and Rabbit weren’t mentioned.
They do complicate things, since Owl and Rabbit shouldn’t get along unless Owl happens to be too small for Rabbit to consider him a threat.
In their case, you can’t play the “stuffed animal” card, but you can still play the “anthropomorphized” card that all the others can as well. Animals that are able to reason and talk to one another are less likely to consider each other prey.
I mean, the dude studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, so he is an expert on the matter…
And yet his statement is missing the oxford comma
How dare him not to say that!
Someone take Dawkins to a zoo.
Buzzkill
“Richard Dawkins confirms intelligent design mostly likely explanation”
I’m sure there’s regions where people have pigs and donkeys and there are bears and tigers in the woods.
However, it would not end up well for the pig or the donkey if they hung out
If someone released a donkey in East India this would be very plausible. Kangaroos on the other hand…
Yeah there’s no way that Kanga hasn’t beaten the shit out of them all already for getting too close to Roo, especially Tigger and Pooh.
Well, they’re all stuffed animals, so Kanga probably isn’t too worried about predation.
It is unlikely that this transphobe will be remembered in a positive light in ten years.
Uh oh, what did he do?
He claimed several times that transpeople were just the gender version of “Black Face”, so much so they rescinded one of his humanism awards
Wild that you’re getting downvoted, I didn’t know people actually like Dawkins. Here’s The Guardian’s article
His wording is a bit harsh, but I don’t think what he says should receive such a backlash. He expresses hard stances on religion as well, which can hurt people in a similar way as that’s also part of their identity.
I think he’s not entirely accurate here though, as there can really be biological mixes / nuances in the sex of people. Even if you exclude the gender discussion on top. It’s all just a gradual thing I’d guess, even possibly inconsistent in ‘percentage’ on different parts of the body.
And all in all it’s also dependent on our culture how we perceive some things as feminine and masculine.
I don’t get why we can’t agree that biologically people tend to be on a multidimensional spectrum, which sometimes is too ambiguous for the naked eye to pin a binary value on. Even scientifically it could be difficult to determine. Above all, on the gender side we indeed should have the courtesy to trust how someone feels and likes to be perceived in this world.
But we can also not blame people for expressing uneasiness if the biological sex and gender are too far apart in how we defined it culturally over thousands of years. One cannot avoid some conflict there.
Hopefully we can try to better ourselves and respect others, in both ways.
Remember that time he excused a woman getting sexually assaulted in an elevator by an Atheist, and he just shrugged it off as “A Muslim would have done worse” and claimed she was overreacting… haha… Dawkins is a piece of shit.
He has also argued for Non-Local Consciousness and claims to be a “Cultural Christian”, so I wonder if he’s even an Atheist anymore…
Do you have a source for that; what I could find in a quick Google about his statements on rape is his arguments on X is bad and Y is worse. Which is more of a logical argument, but this does not include “a Muslim would have done worse”.
Quote by him: “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”
These statements are bound to be controversial as people might somehow interpret X is not bad as Y is worse. But I would disagree, this is more of a thought experiment in which you can always have a worse situation.
I absolutely do!
https://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
I understand he’s a respected biologist and people like him for being one of the “Four Horseman of the New Atheist Movement” (Such an overly dramatic title), but he’s a genuinely horrible human being.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. It really does seem out of place to suddenly reference the suffering of Muslim women in this context.
He seems to elaborate in that he just thinks this case was an overreaction on the side of the woman who felt uneasy, but that of course is a different discussion. We’re not comparing suffering here. I understand the negativity he seems to have brought up on himself better now.
If you were raised in “the West” then you are most likely passively “culturally Christian” too.
True, but the thing, as I don’t base my entire fucking identity around it to the point where I’m openly bragging about it, despite trying to be the figurehead of New Atheism (New Atheism and Atheism are different things)
We have to remember that “New Atheism” was/is largely a response to militant Islam and also demographic shift in western nations.
claims to be a “Cultural Christian”
What does that even mean? If it includes “I put up Christmas lights” then I guess I’m a Christian too.
You’ll have to ask Dawkins, he’s the one going around bragging about being one.
Disagreed slightly with someone
His comments seem somewhat reasonable if not slightly politically incorrect. I feel like having an opinion isn’t an option when it comes to the trans topic. Any thoughts counter to the pro trans movement is immediately vehemently wrong.
I have trans friends and respect their choice but also understand that people are allowed to have their own thoughts about the issue.
My entire EXISTENCE being compared to literal racism is not something I should be required to respect. No minority group should be asked to just accept that some people are allowed to be bigoted against them.
What a tragedy. Can we dig him up and cancel him?
Edit: Who else was thinking he was dead? Lord hep me!
Iirc, he had a stroke and then became Twitter friends with JK Rowling.
