bits I found particularly interesting

1.06:10

1.10:20, 1.20:00, 1.21:50 - This is interesting, elaborated more than I have seen before. Though I have a strong niggle. I dislike the sentiment from the questioner and also Dawkins' answer. Dawkins would have done better to agree with promotion of certain values but also provide a child with some reason why those values are thought to be good ones -and crucially the importance that they can change their mind if a sufficient counterargument is presented at some point in the future.

Generally though, reading one newspaper is a bad idea. It shouldnt be applauded. Its usually just self-censorship and reinforcement.

To quote Russell: A good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country in France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution.

1.35:00

1.43:20 - the question of what is good evidence. Shame Pritchard's comment couldnt get more time to be elaborated on and responded to.