-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins’s response to his de-platforming in Berkeley
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Dude really? Dawkins absolutely doesn't want to eliminate people, and I think you darned well know that.
After all this time do you really not see the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person?? Wow!
While not everyone has the right to a broadcast platform like a radio station, I think that if a legitimate group invites a speaker to speak, such speech must be protected. This seems similar to me, the radio station ought to be ridiculed for such a stupid decision.
Invite him to speak, then abruptly cancel because some SJWs got their panties in a bunch?
I doubt it.
Tom
There is a decisive force: Islaamic doctrine.
As for your "maybes", well, I will value them as they deserve to be valued.
Suppose that they had invited some firebrand Muslim cleric to discuss his views. Then cancelled because someone thought he should not be allowed to express his views.
Would you still be Ok with that?
Tom
If he turned out to be a proponent of hate speech, then of course that's OK actually anything they do is OK they have no legal reason to treat speakers equally or in any particular way, they're not government funded, they're only responsible to their subscribers, and my guess is a significant portion of those complained to the station, and that was that. Hate speech is hate speech, why does every atheist want to justify hate speech as long as its not directed at them, and then when it is, they throw tolerance out the window.
I don't. And Dawkins doesn't either.
We will both criticize ideas nearly to death. But it's mostly ideologues who actually advocate holy war, or whatever you want to call the violence. Muslims do that, not atheists.
Tom
That's a rather bold claim, one might even call it libelous, care to back that up with legitimate evidence?
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
"Hate speech"? I don't think Dawkins is a hateful man, and I suspect you may be pulling an atheist chain here Lyndon, but the radio station misses out here more than Dawkins as I said before. He is a brilliant speaker, even post stroke, I'd happily queue up to here him talk about evolution, religion, or today's weather. A brilliant mind and a brilliant orator.
Hmm
Tell a big libelous lie. Get caught out on it. Respond "Sue me".
You sound like Trump.
Tom
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Dawkins has advocated aborting Down syndrome babies on Twitter and, in his Times magazine interview, excused pedopholia as "harmless." Though a biologist, he has used his popular lay-audience following to establish a platform from which he now waxes both eloquent and insensitive on everything from politics to philosophy to religion, often with dizzying logic, earning him a myriad of epithets such as "caustic" even among fellow atheists. He is an entertaining character, but the public can only take so much.
Last edited:
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Yep. You don't get to speak on the radio unless the radio station wants you to. It doesn't matter why or why not.
No one was denied freedom of speech. Mr. Dawkins can speak his mind anywhere, anytime, on his dime.
How intellectually honest of you.
Come on, you can do better.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
No over simplistic analysis there then, I feel educated.
It seems to me that every time something like this happens because of "hurt feelings," it just further proves that Dawkins and "New Atheists" have a point about the harms that religion and/or religious apologetics can do to free speech.
Dawkins should have said that it is his right to criticize all worldviews including Islam and a radio channel that does not distinguish between criticism of ideologies and hurtful speech against people has forgotten how media is supposed to serve the public square.