I have been convinced that Richard Dawkins is a 'dork' since he first published his ludicrous book claiming that genes are "selfish". Genes, of course, are simply a collection of nucleotides which float about in a living body and assist in some bio-chemical processes. To describe them as "selfish" is idiocy of the first order.
As confirmation of my opinion, The Telegraph has republished a recent Tweet by the less than distinguished professor:
Under-age people can’t vote. Whatever our criterion for thinking them unqualified (eg insufficiently developed reasoning powers or knowledge) there must be some adults less qualified than some under-age people. Is age the only practical threshold or could others be devised?
Notice his repeated mention of "unqualified" and "qualified" plus, of course, "reasoning powers" and "knowledge". Now who, I wonder, does 'The Dork' have in mind to set the examination of voters in order to decide on their levels of knowledge and understanding and there-by their right to vote? My guess is that he would wish to be 'Examiner-in-Chief' but, alas, someone should tell him that anyone who believes that a lump of chemical 'goo' is "selfish" instantly disqualifies himself!
Hear, hear, Gaffer!
SoD
Posted by: Loz | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 11:39
Richard Dawkins the "evolutionary biologist". 'That' in the hands of the totalitarian Left will be just what the "Dr." ordered. Those who have sufficiently evolved will be qualified to vote? Dawkins is the originator of the term "meme" which now dominates the internet and passes for news in the form of repeated narrative to obtain power and control.
Posted by: Whitewall | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 12:21
Crikey! Now I'm worried, 'SoD' actually agrees with me!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 12:47
David, take that and run... to an early lunch!
Posted by: Whitewall | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 13:00
It’s a metaphor.
Posted by: Timbo | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 13:21
Dawkins is something of a dork, but you of all people should understand poetic license. You're sounding a bit too defensive.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 13:22
"Poetic" Bob?
Posted by: JK | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 13:43
Sorry, Bob, I rarely 'do' defensive!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 14:25
Yes, JK, as in "characteristic of or befitting poetry". Dawkins knows molecules can't literally have emotions.
David, you sometimes 'do' a credible facsimile.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 15:31
It's the actor in me, Darling!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 16:36
Well Bob, it's in more the etymological sense I employ in deriving the implications of "common" phrases I see on (especially) blog comment threads.
Take the word 'poetic' for instance, that'd be of Greek origin unsurprisingly (and your talking Greek Bob, also unsurprising) but anyway one take from the word poetic would be 'creative' - I'll give Dawkins that.
'License' however as ought be apparent is derivative Latin - kudos to Cicero et al - but anyway license implies 'formal authorization' and so the question I have is who in the hell was so authorized to grant a guy like Dawkins to being fecundly foistrous in his artiness?
Hell Bob, none of Dawkins' stuff that I've read - three of his works just to your curiosity - even rhymes.
Posted by: JK | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 17:28
JK,
Ixnay on making fun of ankblay ersvay. Ya know Illiamway Akespeareshay used a lot of that.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 10 June 2019 at 23:53