Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Getting into debates or arguments doesn't always equal seeking attention.
True. But that doesn't address the point I'm making at all, does it? I mean, I'm raising observations about past behaviors and pointing out that your argument of his naivete clearly fails.
Quote:
By the way you are defining it anyone who has any type of opinion that may be controversial is seeking attention.
Nope. By making this claim, you're showing an inability to address the points that are being raised in a meaningful manner. Being a public figure clearly impacts the circumstances of his decisions.
Quote:
Dawkins actually seems like the exact reverse of that. (1) He doesn't seem opportunistic in trying to receive any type of attention whether negative or positive. (2) His statements have all been in line with his way of thinking, and they've been wide out in the open for quite a long time now. They aren't things that are coming out of the blue.
You make two points.
(1) He created the situation that is drawing the attention. I don't care whether this was an opportunistic move or not, though you can say that someone threw him a softball to make such a claim to the Twitterverse and that's opportunistic.
(2) Again, this is utterly irrelevant. Whether he really believes this does not have any impact on my claim that this is basically an attention whoring move.
Quote:
Honestly I think you have a personal problem with Dawkins. I'm unsure if you feel he's intellectually arrogant or you have a serious philosophical disagreement with him for you to try to drive this point home so much.
Both, actually. I also think Neil deGrasse Tyson is intellectually arrogant and have serious philosophical disagreements with him, but even though he's a public figure of greater notoriety than Dawkins, I don't think he's an attention whore in general, and I have no particular reason at this time to criticize him for attention whoring.
Quote:
I think he's the opposite of an attention whore. He's famous, so it muddles the issue, but he doesn't seek out publicity just for the sake of it.
Sure. He just accidentally uses Twitter to say inflammatory remarks. And it's not like he has used this to drive traffic to his website. Oh, wait...
Quote:
I don't see how there is a difference between me speculating about having diminished mental capability and not wanting to be revived and me speculating about being born with diminished mental capability and not wanting to be born. They are essentially the same thing.
You really think the question of being revived after an accident is "essentially the same thing" as the question of not being born? Really?
Quote:
It doesn't mean I'm passing judgement on the people who are in that condition, and if I was in that condition I wouldn't be able to assess the situation from the same viewpoint.
You're not passing judgment. Just giving your opinion that your their life is in such a terrible state relative to yours that you would rather have not been born than to have their mental capacity.