Treatment of women in Saudi Arabia

[Traianvs]

Wow, he does that? What a douche. That's almost as bad as "person-first labeling" or whatever they call it.

EDIT: Wikipedia calls it "people-first language" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language :vomit:

Not really. His argument is that adhering to a religion should be a choice. Children, not having the cognitive capacity yet to fully understand the implications of being religious let alone what the religion is all about, what those rituals are for etcetera, can't make that important choice yet. That's why he argues that instead of labeling children from an early stage they should be called 'children of catholic parents'. De facto they might be catholic children because they've been baptised, but if the religious are honest enough they'll have to admit that catholic children or people who can't make a well-informed choice are not really catholics at all.

I think he's fairly correct about that. Also as you can see from this reasoning it's quite different from "people-first language" which is merely about euphemisms.

Let's take BK as an example. He consciously chose to become religious at a later age. Dawkins would have no problem with that, and neither do I.

[Traianvs]

Dawkins has a social agenda. The website clearly exists to promote that agenda. Whether you agree with someone or not, you should be aware of when they have an agenda. It's something that separates a thoughtful person from a stooge. I'm not saying it's wrong, or that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is right. I'm saying that they've got a bias, and you should account for that.

Everyone has an agenda, we're not morons. I don't see the problem.


But okay, I see why you dislike him. You all simply disagree with him, what a shocker.

[SpencerH]

I recently watched an Indian movie (Bandit Queen) based upon the life of a woman bandit named Phoolan Devi. No one who watches it would draw much of a distinction between the treatment of women in India or Saudi Arabia.