True, true.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:50 pmC'mon Mike, where are your previous high standards of both debate and snark?
You know very well that Richard Dawkins is a long way from being a moron. A moron doesn't get appointed to a chair at Oxford University (the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science). I have some misgivings about some of his views on the mechanisms of natural selection in biological evolution, as perhaps you do with your pre-lawyer lab coat on, but that's nor relevant here.
I can't read Dawkins' mind, so I don't know what his intended meaning was. He could be suggesting that the "Leave" campaign implied there would be an orderly, negotiated exit ... I have no idea whether that's an accurate depiction or not. Or he could be suggesting that the leave/remain vote was non-specific, so it's wrong to claim it as support for any particular type of exit, disorderly or negotiated. Without context, I dunno.
What's clear from reports I have seen this week is that the UK government's political negotiators are massively deluded about their position. They're saying that the next move must be from the EU but without appreciating that the EU team is (a) constrained by its terms of reference from the multi-national body overseeing it, and (b) can simply sit and wait, because it's the UK leaving the EU, not the EU leaving the UK (nor the EU kicking out the UK). The UK's negotiators seem to think that they can bully the EU: ain't gonna happen.
Too, also, it's worth noting that Dawkins is actually quite intelligent - if only because it means that he doesn't actually have lack of ability as an excuse when he engages in sloppy thinking.1
It's true that his meaning is unclear. It would be nice, given his alleged skills at communicating complex concepts to a popular audience, if he was perhaps slightly better at dealing with a 140-character limit, but the Tweet in question is consistent with what I've seen of his Twitter skills in the past.
I fully agree regarding the current UK delusional position. They're trying to bluff their way though, but they're holding no cards at all.
1: I've met Dawkins, and had a meal with him and a handful of others. Terribly disappointing; he's far from the most pleasant man to be around. Which may influence my impression of him. (I also met Gould once, and found him - although unquestionably at least as arrogant as Dawkins - to be a very nice guy.)