Messages

Scotland's independence maybe a good thing for Scots - but it could mean a permanent rightwing majority in Westminster as the Scottish labour party MPs were a huge bulwark against the Tories in the Commons. If Cameron didn't have to live with the disgrace of being the PM that lost Scotland, he'd be rubbing his hands at Labour's plight. It's no surprise Darling and Brown are so gung ho No. And it is also very interesting that Farage is spouting today that he was asked to meet Murdoch this week.

I take it that they stay in the Commonwealth, with Her Maj still head of state? Very interesting times indeed.

The quote mining to suit peoples own prejudice is just crazy.

Once again someone voicing their disgust based on their personal experience with people they know. Dawkin's is not talking about them so why are you using that as a stick to beat him with? His comments are about a foetus with an abnormality. This is not someones loved one we are talking about.

these were your responses to my initial post and my second post. In my first post I did not refer to you at all skull, just the comment from Dawkins. To any reasonable reader, it would come across as you being upset with my opinion than vice versa.

I'm not in any way saying you can't support Dawkins or his opinions - I'm just saying why I disagree with it.

Lads I'll explain this as slowly as I can

1. My own personal, visceral disgust with Dawkin's opinions does come from my own personal experience - and it was my own personal experience with DS children which led to me losing my own prejudices about them. Dawkins can say what he wants - just as I am entitled to critique his statements and hold my own opinions, which I form through the prism of my own experience. Which is how most people do it. As for Dawkin's views, they relate to his own morality as he clearly states, and hold as much or as little water as my own.

2. My disgust with Dawkin's opinion comes from his labeling the decision to have a DS child as an immoral act within his belief system. I know he is talking about a foetus with an abnormality - if you read my posts you'll see I use the terminology of foetus within my posts. I am not personalizing the foetus - I have a (slight) insight into the choices people may make when confronted with such abnormality - it is a terrible decision to have to make, and I support the right of those who wish to terminate as much as I deride the labeling of the act to have and bring up a DS child. I believe that the provision of abortion to women is an essential part of their reproductive rights. What we are talking about is a very specific set of circumstances, prompted by one case, that Dawkins commented on and then expanded on.

I think Dawkins is tone deaf emotionally, and I feel ,as much as intellect,  emotion is an essential part of humanity. Which does explain my feelings towards DS kids, for the emotions they beautifully display and inspire in others. Just because it can't be quantified scientifically does not mean that it does not have value.

3. I can distinguish between religious morality and universal morality. I don't believe Dawkins can though, and his attempts to conflate the two are his downfall. Surely we are not suggesting that Dawkins views in a twitter feed represent universal morality? Even his expanded opinion leaves him open to argument to a great many people like me, who do not share his views on the morality of having a DS child. Does this leave me outside some agreed universal moral code, that Dawkins has the patent on? Yet he behaves almost exactly like the mullahs and monsignors he has battled all through his life, completely convinced of his own virtue (or however he would describe it). His original reply to the woman in question was as peremptory and brutal as a priest telling a parishioner to keep the child on pain of eternal damnation. All that was missing was the slam of the confessional closing.

I never believed religion had the exclusive rights to wisdom - I certainly don't think Dawkins has either, and on this subject, I disagree strongly with him.

I believe everyone's morality is made up of a bedrock of enviroment and nurture - then your own experiences through life lead you to refine or reassess that view. My own experience with DS children and their parents leads me to strongly disagree with him. I don't think that makes me prejudiced against the man, but everyone can make mistakes - I think he has been making a few recently, and this is the worst of them.

That specific quote was not about eugenics O'Neill - but if you follow that link I posted, it is an article about that comment and some of his recent views, which, when put together, I find troubling.

As for Godwin's law skull, you were complaining about prejudice immediately after my post, in which, I didn't think I displayed any prejudice. I would have been a fan of his writing, I would have always taken the rationalist rather than religious viewpoint, though i am not an atheist. I just think that on this point, he is mistaken, and I find his views repugnant on it. The strength of my disgust comes from my own personal experience with DS children, and I don't think that qualifies as prejudice on my part.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy when confronted with illness in a foetus is a terrible, private grief for many people - so just as I would never presume to comment on the morality of those who make the decision to terminate it, I certainly wouldn't label the decision to continue the pregnancy as immoral. People is people - everyone has their own God/conscience/flying spaghetti monster to face. Dawkins rails against the clergy who would oppose abortion on moral grounds, he's on thin ice when he attaches morality to the opposite decision.

Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. ...........I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare

Quote mining? That's a fairly clear statement of his own opinion, which he is entitled to hold, and which I am equally entitled to find abhorrent.

As for my "prejudices" I'm sure I had some before I met DS children. But having met them and their parents in situations of terrible suffering, I also feel entitled to say that a decision to keep a DS child should not be categorized as "immoral". If Dawkins had actually spent some time in their company, I dare say his opinion would be revised accordingly. Because to do so is to view them as the individuals they are, rather than an argument point in his ongoing quest to prove that atheism has a moral code equal to/ greater than organised religion.

Dawkins great problem is his immaturity. He has some great ideas, which have had some really positive applications (in my own life as well as, I'm sure, with many other people throughout the world) but he argues them like a first year student in a debating competition.

It's quite telling that when he expanded his view off twitter, he just reiterated the original point.

Even admirable men can have off days, skull. Try this piece from the Guardian a week ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/aug/29/nobody-better-at-being-human-richard-dawkins

I have huge objections to this statement, for personal reasons and also because Dawkins has been making some very unsettling noises recently about reviving the "positive" side of eugenics.

Personally, I have had a lot of experience of children's cardiac wards because of a situation in my own family, and you see and meet a lot of DS infants and children there. For anyone to to cast a moral doubt on these sweet, brave kids existence turns my stomach. The courage and stoicism they display, the strength they give their own parents (as all kids really do in those situations) all point to a higher/more valid (depending on your secularity) reason to existence than mere intellectual capacity. Their moral right to live is as strong as any child's (including my own son), and it is a small walk down the logician's line before you start positing that kids with heart conditions detected in the womb should be aborted as well, whatever their mental capabilities.

Dawkins has been talking up eugenics recently, saying that the Nazis discredited it, and we could, as a race, breed children with higher talents, such as musical ability or artistic bent. Again, it is a very short walk before objective judgement of desirable values becomes subjective oppression of undesirable attributes.

Dawkins is the best and worst thing to happen to atheism. I'm secular and probably best described as agnostic and some of his work is really exciting. But he might just end up like Enoch Powell "driven mad by the remorselessness of his own logic."

Jaysis Sidney, two best Dublin players on the pitch. Thought Murphy was magnificent on sunday, McHugh did incredible damage and Neil Gallagher was brilliant. Key for Donegal was the other 12 played at a very high standard as well - no passengers.

My own da was going on to me about Eugene McGee in 82 - he was saying you could have got Offaly at 10/1 for that game - i was only an ankle biter at the time so don't really remember it live, but from everything I've read about it McGee put in severe tactical thinking for that - he was conciously encouraging the team to only peak for the final, he made huge switches such as Richie Connor to centre forward etc. Certainly up there with McGuinness.

Heffernan v Kerry in 76 was probably another one - an entirely retooled half back line, Hanahoe roaming to leave space etc.

Sean Boylan in 96 - incredible about turn from the year before, very young side.


John O'Mahoney with Galway 98 - using traditional, foot passing, high fielding tactics to beat a hand passing, possession based kildare side.

Mickey Harte v Kerry in 2003 - very controversial but an extremely effective tactical plan.

I wouldn't actually rate Micko as a great tactican - i think his strength was to keep incredibley talented players motivated and working collectively.

A lot of guff talked about us crumbling under pressure - wasn't the case in 2011 when we came back from four points down against Kerry, in 2012 when we nearly recovered a 10 point deficit against Mayo, in 2013 when we went toe to toe against Kerry and then closed it out against Mayo with only 13 fit men on the pitch. Character is one thing this Dublin side is not short of.

Is it not enough to say that Donegal played a truly brilliant game today and we were beaten by a better team? I've never warmed to McGuinness but his comments to Keith Duggan below have only heightened my respect for him, and should be required reading for all those bleating about Dublin domination for the majority of the summer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/jim-mcguinness-brought-potential-to-glorious-reality-1.1913712

He is, and retired or not, lads having a go at amateur players when they are just on the troll and trying to rub it in, would seem to me to be the very opposite of the kind of behaviour the Association tries to promote. Some lads here would want to look in a mirror.

Very hard to remember back to Dublin, pre-Alan Brogan. His emergence on the scene in 2002 was amazing - that full forward line of Brogan, Cosgrove and McNally were a real breath of fresh air and ended the Leinster drought.

Every Dublin manager he played under recognized his class and I was so happy to see him rewarded for all his efforts with a year like 2011.

Wonderful player, we were lucky to see him.

Congratulations to Donegal - huge commitment and heart as expected, but brilliant skill and ruthless execution was the difference on the day. Good luck in the final. I think this is a bit of a golden age for football with teams like Donegal, Dublin, Mayo and Kerry all knocking about and all capable of beating each other on any given day. Reminds me of the Hagler/Hearns/Leonard/Duran days in boxing.

As for us?

Well, we had no plan B. And I really think (and have thought since the Monaghan match) that Jim needs to stop doing his Claudio Ranieri impression every time he picks the team. I think even he got caught up in the whole best panel thing. Although of course, it is great to have options, we need to have a settled first 15. And we need to start playing players in their best positions.

I think at this level, Jonny Cooper is not a centre back, he needs to be in the full back line. I think we need to face the fact that Cian at centre back is a far better option for the team than him at midfield. At midfield we need a more traditional high fielding option to complement MDMA - especially when you have midfielders like Neil Gallagher and David Moran who are well able to win 50/50 ball in the air. Once people have Cluxton's kick outs sussed, we have very little other options. I don't know whether that means bringing Flynner back, or moving James McCarthy forward but it needs to be investigated.

As for the panicking and the wides, I just think we had a systems meltdown and had a very bad day under immense pressure from an excellent team. Doesn't mean players like Berno or Kev Mc have become bad overnight - they will be back. The only upside to yesterday is that some of the hysterical stuff talked on this board about Dublin dominance and financial doping can be seen for the bilge that it was.

Donegal will need to replicate this performance to beat Kerry - I hope the final is a classic. Up the Dubs.

I'd say Paul Grimley is stewing now and he'd be right.

Feel very sorry for Mayo - not to say that Kerry didn't deserve but I thought they showed some incredible heart. A lot went against them, in particular the O'Shea/O'connor injuries took a lot of their momentum at the start of the second half.

I'm sure that a lot of people will be writing them off but I always think of the dubs in the 90s as an example of a time staying together and getting their reward. I hope they get theirs.

I won't say anything about Kerry until I know we're playing them, except congratulations.

PS - ten minutes of post match analysis and they haven't mentioned a twenty man brawl involving team officials and spectators. I'm not looking for a witch hunt but Jaysis, the three monkeys have nothing on it. The next time someone is assaulted on the pitch and the RTE panel take up the pitchforks, they'll have no credibility whatsoever.

Game of the year anyway - far surpasses last week.