Y'know what really grinds my gears?

[Theblazeuk]

He is an insensitive git. But I've yet to hear a reasonable argument against most of his points that aren't purely subjective (such as the morality of abortion, which I think is fair enough for him - they asked his opinion, he didn't sugarcoat it or politically duck it, he gave it straight up and honestly and whats more hasn't claimed his opinion is metaphysically justified).

[Hawkmumbler]

Claiming that Downs Syndrome is a reasonable excuse for abortion, in contrast to actual life threatening disorders or genetic afflictions, is a dick move. DS has no affect on a persons quality of life.

[TordelBack]

These are entirely valid points of view, although I'd note that the issue of quality of life extends beyond what is at that point only a potential person to that of two actual extant people, but the fact remains that testing for Downs is a regular part of early antenatal care in many countries, with all that implies.  If Dawkins is some gibbering monster lurking beyond the bounds of common morality, then why is this choice, or indeed the choice to have that choice, placed before many/most parents at all? 

What Dawkins is is crassly, wilfully insensitive to an issue that can never be anything but deeply emotive.  Dispassionately exploring the morality of a situation that exists isn't in itself a bad thing, indeed it's essential, but as usual the manner in which he communicates completely undermines the value of his thoughts. 

[Bolt-01]

These are entirely valid points of view, although I'd note that the issue of quality of life extends beyond what is at that point only a potential person to that of two actual extant people, but the fact remains that testing for Downs is a regular part of early antenatal care in many countries, with all that implies.  If Dawkins is some gibbering monster lurking beyond the bounds of common morality, then why is this choice, or indeed the choice to have that choice, placed before many/most parents at all? 

What Dawkins is is crassly, wilfully insensitive to an issue that can never be anything but deeply emotive.  Dispassionately exploring the morality of a situation that exists isn't in itself a bad thing, but as usual the manner in which he communicates completely undermines the value of his thoughts.

This about covers my thoughts on the matter but says it well.

[Fungus]

These are entirely valid points of view, although I'd note that the issue of quality of life extends beyond what is at that point only a potential person to that of two actual extant people, but the fact remains that testing for Downs is a regular part of early antenatal care in many countries, with all that implies.  If Dawkins is some gibbering monster lurking beyond the bounds of common morality, then why is this choice, or indeed the choice to have that choice, placed before many/most parents at all? 

What Dawkins is is crassly, wilfully insensitive to an issue that can never be anything but deeply emotive.  Dispassionately exploring the morality of a situation that exists isn't in itself a bad thing, but as usual the manner in which he communicates completely undermines the value of his thoughts.

This about covers my thoughts on the matter but says it well.

Agreed.

I'm a bit bewildered that Dawkins couldn't see how shitty that would come across.
Mitigated slightly by the hateful clanger-machine that is Twitter, ie. summing up sensitive arguments in 100 characters, or whatever it is.

[Dandontdare]

Is that confirmed as really him rather than one some hacker or imposter? I agree he's a bit of a nob, but surely he's not THAT stupid to give his detractors such juicy ammunition?

[Fungus]

Is that confirmed as really him rather than one some hacker or imposter? I agree he's a bit of a nob, but surely he's not THAT stupid to give his detractors such juicy ammunition?

That thought had occurred. Just assumed it's genuine and wouldn't have got this far otherwise...

[Frank]

Is that confirmed as really him rather than one some hacker or imposter? I agree he's a bit of a nob, but surely he's not THAT stupid to give his detractors such juicy ammunition?

Straight from the horse's mouth arse:

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

[Richmond Clements]

Richard Bacon mentioned a rather good tweet he'd read about Dawkins' tweets being like an episode of Game of Thrones: there's 140 characters and something bad is going to happen.

[Hawkmumbler]

My computer just got "V9" malware. Dunno exactly what it does but until I can delete it i'm gonna have to change my bank details.

[Hawkmumbler]

So I just spent the last hour manually removing the malware. Bah, not how I wanted to start my day.

[Grugz]

thats what you get for watching online porn...dirty boy!

[Hawkmumbler]

I'd be lying if I said thats not where I got it!

[radiator]

It's an obvious one, but wanky management-speak.

My workplace is currently infested with it, and I'm tempted to call it out - start taking the piss a bit basically - in order to curtail it. The worst examples for me are when people use silly management jargon when we already have a perfectly valid word/term for what they are saying.

"How are you tracking? Are you tracking for end of play?"

When "How are you getting on? Will you be finished by the end of the day?" would be, if anything, clearer.

"Do you have bandwith to do X?"

How about "Do you have time to do X?" instead, you insufferable cretin?

Makes me want to smash things! 

[JohnMcF]

If someone tells you there is no I in team just tell them there is a U in fuck off!