Rubbish.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ANCESTORS TALE: Richard Dawkins.

The book is a survey of recent revelations about hominids. It's poorly written and has a cobbled-together quality to it. Do you recall Don McLean's AMERICAN PIE hit? This book reminds me of the follow-up 'analysis' record that was made to explain McLean's lyrics. Dawkins' chief contribution seems to be commentary about what others are doing...or did. If his writing was better I'd give it 4 stars.

Dawkins also seems troubled by how modern hominids act. That is, his writing is punctuated with PC eruptions. The eruptions remind me of the bugs and snakes that bother old drunks trying to be sober. I especially disagree with Dawkins' contention that 'primitive' societies are the qualitative equal of 'advanced' societies. Really? I'm compelled to wonder if Dawkins' would entrust his life to shamans and witch-doctors and "EGAD" priests.

Aye! That's the rub, Dawkins! How can a scientist and atheist esteem faith-based 'medicine' and astrology and forest spirits? I wonder how he'd react to cannibals!

Franz Boaz and his acolyte Margaret Mead peddled the cultural
equality snake-oil elixir at every county fair for many years. That is, they did before the Nazis came along and forced people to reconsider the equality thesis. The Amish and Nazis are not equals. Dawkins is getting old and likely forgotten World War 2.

In my humble opinion THE SELFISH GENE was his masterpiece, and he's been searching for another Holy Grail since that time.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm pretty sure I would have found that extremely interesting if you'd actually told me what you were talking about.

I got a kind of sort of hint with this

. I especially disagree with Dawkins' contention that 'primitive' societies are the qualitative equal of 'advanced' societies

but I'm none-the-wiser about the actual book.

I'll just go on record for now as disagreeing with your disagreement but reserving the right to not agreeing with Dawkins depending on what he actually said or wrote.

 

[TheReapersWife]

I'm pretty sure I would have found that extremely interesting if you'd actually told me what you were talking about.

I got a kind of sort of hint with this but I'm none-the-wiser about the actual book.

I'll just go on record for now as disagreeing with your disagreement but reserving the right to not agreeing with Dawkins depending on what he actually said or wrote.

Thank you! Someone else said it! I was all like, "Interesting. I want to have an opinion about this, but I'm just not sure what it should be..."

 

[xssve]

Fascinating, when the functional equivalent of conservative economics is the reading of Chicken entrails, and social policy straight out of the middle ages.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"The book is a survey of recent revelations about hominids."

Ah! The clarity and directness of the opening sentence confused you! I'm not surprised.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

I understand your angst and feel your pain when people work and get paid for it. Such conservative economics are mean-spirited.

 

[gauchecritic]

"The book is a survey of recent revelations about hominids."

Ah! The clarity and directness of the opening sentence confused you! I'm not surprised.

Don't be surprised, be informative.

Your opinion on some nebulous happening in a book few have read is neither clear nor direct.

You're veering towards Charleyisms whilst being vastly obtuse.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GAUCHE

Like youve ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Franz Boaz or Marget Mead, or have a clue what a hominid is.

You remind me of a professor I once I had. I cited a Nobel Laureate in a paper I wrote, the professor had no idea whom I was citing, and wrote on my paper "How do you expect me to grade something I know nothing about?"

 

[TheReapersWife]

GAUCHE

Like youve ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Franz Boaz or Marget Mead, or have a clue what a hominid is.

You remind me of a professor I once I had. I cited a Nobel Laureate in a paper I wrote, the professor had no idea whom I was citing, and wrote on my paper "How do you expect me to grade something I know nothing about?"

So, you're point is not to stimulate conversation but to show off? JBJ, I'm sorry. I'm trying to like you, to understand you, but you're not very nice. When someone asks you to clarify about the topic you started, so we can share in a discussion with you about it, you get all sardonic and make us feel like idiots for even asking. Why JBJ? Why you gotta be like that? I KNOW you didn't just start this thread so you could impress and belittle the rest of us. I want to believe that....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RW

Gauche likes the abuse. I bait the trap and Gauche pounces on it.

 

[TheReapersWife]

RW

Gauche likes the abuse. I bait the trap and Gauche pounces on it.

So, your excuse is to blame other people for your behavior? Have some personal responsibility, Bunny-Man! It's unbecoming when you can't own what's yours.

Sometimes, what people think they want isn't always what they truly desire. And to assume you know either one wihout being told, is impudent. Tell me, B-man, what is it that I want? 0_0

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RW

You want spinach. It will put lead in your pencil.

 

[gauchecritic]

Gauche is just a name. I do try not to be and I am, in no particular, fond of abuse.

Witty and urbane exchanges are, if not my forte, then at least desirable.

Like youve ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Franz Boaz or Marget Mead, or have a clue what a hominid is.

The names I am at least partially familiar with but am entirely ignorant of their work.

Put me in the category wherein resides your professor.

 

[TheReapersWife]

RW

You want spinach. It will put lead in your pencil.

But...I use a keyboard.... o_o

 

[gauchecritic]

I abhor rudeness and refrain as much as possible, particularly when I have thinking time in which to frame a response. Really, you wouldn't like me when I'm rude and you wouldn't catch on if I were.

Can we go back to the qualitatively equal societies with a word of explanation first?

 

[TheReapersWife]

I abhor rudeness and refrain as much as possible, particularly when I have thinking time in which to frame a response. Really, you wouldn't like me when I'm rude and you wouldn't catch on if I were.

Can we go back to the qualitatively equal societies with a word of explanation first?

Amen! ^^

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GAUCHE

Well, Boaz was a num-nutz who asserted that all societies and cultures are God's chillun and equally worthy of admiration and respect. But he said that before Aldolph Hitler and Stalin came to Hooterville, which makes Boaz terminally stupid. Or at least as stupid as a shithouse rat. It really does. Mead was his gullible and ugly assistant. She married Gregory Bateson, who got the ball rolling about mom's making their sons schizophrenic from 'double-binds.'

GAUCHE

You invented rude, dear.

GAUCHE

Dawkins is a zoologist and perfesser who wrote a stunning book called THE SELFISH GENE. The premise of the book is: Selfish is good, altruistic is stupid. He further asserted that the only plausible reason people exist is to breed and make copies of themselves. That is, people without chillun are twisted freaks doomed to extinction. By association, gays are also twisted freaks. And he suggested that there really is a war of the sexes with each sex trying to stick the other sex with the reproductive bill.

You can imagine how popular Dawkins was with academics. Christians hated him. Perfessers and feminists hated him. Blacks hated him. Gays hated him. But I thought he was marvelous. And so did most intelligent people. He exposed the game for what it is.

But he got lonely and wrote several books filled with twaddle. The present book is a recap of what anthropologists and geneticists have learned about people and apes since about 1985. And Dawkins erupts in serious ass-kissing of the PC crowd. So his old age will be less solitary.

 

[R. Richard]

You remind me of a professor I once I had. I cited a Nobel Laureate in a paper I wrote, the professor had no idea whom I was citing, and wrote on my paper "How do you expect me to grade something I know nothing about?"

The last never bothered my high school English teacher. Apparently when someone rises above the high school level, the fact of their own stupidity becomes at least a bit more apparent. [I did my best to point out her level of stupidity to the fat, stupid, ugly bitch, but, alas, to no avail.]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

They rarely get it.

I had one professor who ridiculed me in front of the biology class but checked my assertion, then returned to class and apologized.

 

[TheReapersWife]

RICHARD

They rarely get it.

I had one professor who ridiculed me in front of the biology class but checked my assertion, then returned to class and apologized.

Dude! We should have a seperate thread about how sucky teachers are! I'd agree with you on THAT one Bunny Man.

 

[Boxlicker101]

GAUCHE

Like youve ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Franz Boaz or Marget Mead, or have a clue what a hominid is.

You remind me of a professor I once I had. I cited a Nobel Laureate in a paper I wrote, the professor had no idea whom I was citing, and wrote on my paper "How do you expect me to grade something I know nothing about?"

If this was a Physics professor, and the Nobel laureate was a poet, why should the professor have hear of the laureate? A Nobel laureate in Physics would be another matter, of course.

 

[gauchecritic]

GAUCHE

Well, Boaz was a num-nutz who asserted that all societies and cultures are God's chillun and equally worthy of admiration and respect. But he said that before Aldolph Hitler and Stalin came to Hooterville, which makes Boaz terminally stupid. Or at least as stupid as a shithouse rat. It really does. Mead was his gullible and ugly assistant. She married Gregory Bateson, who got the ball rolling about mom's making their sons schizophrenic from 'double-binds.'

So let me see if I understand what you're saying.
Ugly people are stupid. and serious attempts at psychology are worthless. Is that about it?

GAUCHE

You invented rude, dear.

Your gay is showing.

GAUCHE

Dawkins is a zoologist and perfesser who wrote a stunning book called THE SELFISH GENE. The premise of the book is: Selfish is good, altruistic is stupid. He further asserted that the only plausible reason people exist is to breed and make copies of themselves.

This is the built in dynamism of society and seems to be rather than altruism being stupid it is also built in by society and manifests as selfish.

That is, people without chillun are twisted freaks doomed to extinction. By association, gays are also twisted freaks.

Is this your conclusion or is it actually at least implied? People without children aren't a society, organism or indeed species. They're just individuals. So extinct doesn't have any real meaning in this context. If your implication is that gays will cease to exist because they don't reproduce then I think you have no real understanding of what being gay is.

And he suggested that there really is a war of the sexes with each sex trying to stick the other sex with the reproductive bill.

I'm not sure what you're saying here (or Dawkins or whoever)

You can imagine how popular Dawkins was with academics. Christians hated him. Perfessers and feminists hated him. Blacks hated him. Gays hated him. But I thought he was marvelous. And so did most intelligent people. He exposed the game for what it is.

So intelligence is defined by being straight, white and irreligious?

But he got lonely and wrote several books filled with twaddle. The present book is a recap of what anthropologists and geneticists have learned about people and apes since about 1985. And Dawkins erupts in serious ass-kissing of the PC crowd. So his old age will be less solitary.

So twaddle is anything that you don't subscribe to.

I still don't understand why all societies aren't equally valid in their own context.

 

[Oblimo]

Dawkins is a zoologist and perfesser who wrote a stunning book called THE SELFISH GENE. The premise of the book is: Selfish is good, altruistic is stupid.

You even stoop to lie about the content of a book, JJ?

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Dawkins is a zoologist and perfesser who wrote a stunning book called THE SELFISH GENE. The premise of the book is: Selfish is good, altruistic is stupid.

WRONG!

You fail.

Go look up Evolutionary Stable Strategies.

Dawkins is really smart, but he's wasting his talent with books like "The God Delusion" though. He's staring at smoke when he should be looking for the fire.

(I actually thought Ancestor's Tale was actually quite good, but you're entitled to your opinion.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Dawkin's theories on the selfish gene and how it applies to human evolution have been seriously modified following the work of E.O. Wilson and the sociobiologists, who showed that social organisms don't follow the same evolutionary rules as solitary ones. Man is the social animal par excellance so altruism makes perfect sense for homo sapiens, insuring the survival of the group in which the genes are embedded. Homo sapiens survives and evolves in groups. A lone human being has zero chance of passing on his or her genes.

There's even a theory that homosexuality has group-survival value in providing extra nurturing, given the demands of human childhood.