3 ms·
Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil". In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our gen
by caf 17y ago
Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil". In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our genome are really only in the method of propagation each is targetting - viruses are no more "evil" than the genes for blue eyes are. I would also refer you to the part where Dawkins says that a complete genome can be regarded as a massive colony of viruses.
It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as "evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.
- jacoblyles 17y ago"Malicious" then, or "malignant", if not "evil. >"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?" Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. >"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea." Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.
- berntb 17y ago>>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis. (If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.) At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...