Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does the existence of gang-rape make rape any less condemnable?

Any less condemnable than what? By using the term less than you're implying a spectrum of how heinous a crime actually is. This is also how the judicial system sees it, insofar as sentences for a given stated crime vary based on the degree of the crime. Terrible as one crime might be, the simple truth is another may be considerably worse. This is also exactly the point Dawkins was making; crimes are not black and white, they are committed, prosecuted and hence exist in degrees. Good of you to reinforce his argument, but what exactly is your point?

Geomy

The thing is, what might not effect one person could have a life long effect on someone else.

Any form of sexual interference to any one is absolutely disgusting and sick. ...

I can't believe im reading some of the comments here, im shocked really.

Goes to show doesn't it....

Dave!

Geomy wrote: »

The thing is, what might not effect one person could have a life long effect on someone else.
.

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

Geomy

Dave! wrote: »

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

I can see your point.

smacl

Geomy wrote: »

Any form of sexual interference to any one is absolutely disgusting and sick. ...

If you look at the original quote, all Dawkins says is that while your attitude above is the accepted norm now, it wasn't when he was growing up. He hasn't condoned anything at all, he's simply stated that social attitudes were different thirty odd years ago, and we can't judge the past by todays standards. This is patently the case. I remember growing up in the 70s where homosexuality was illegal, contraception unavailable and the nuns and brothers preyed on the innocent throughout our educational system. Unfortunately, turning a blind eye and denying everything was the norm at that point in time.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

Any less condemnable than what? By using the term less than you're implying a spectrum of how heinous a crime actually is. This is also how the judicial system sees it, insofar as sentences for a given stated crime vary based on the degree of the crime. Terrible as one crime might be, the simple truth is another may be considerably worse. This is also exactly the point Dawkins was making; crimes are not black and white, they are committed, prosecuted and hence exist in degrees. Good of you to reinforce his argument, but what exactly is your point?

You'll find it was a question; not a statement. I don't believe an occurrence of gang-rape makes rape any more palatable. While gang-rape generally would be considered to be more extreme than rape that doesn't mean that every victim of gang-rape would automatically be more traumatised than a rape victim. Just like every victim of peadophilia would not have had the same reaction to it as Dawkins. I would be quite sure there would be many now adult victims, still suffering reading his egotistical comments and would be deeply sickened.

Can you imagine the responses in this forum if a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?".

I can. It's nothing like the shoulder-shrugging and /or defending the statements that has gone on here.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

No. Dawkins point was that as the sexual assault didn't traumatise him and didn't traumatise any of his schoolmates (how he could know this is unclear) that they should be considered "mild" acts of sexual acts against children and as these sexual assaults happened some years ago then he doesn't feel that they should be condemned,

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have I said that it's wrong to impose todays standards retrospectively?

....then what's your criticism precisely and exactly?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Dawkins point was that as the sexual assault didn't traumatise him and didn't traumatise any of his schoolmates (how he could know this is unclear) that they should be considered "mild" acts of sexual acts against children and as these sexual assaults happened some years ago then he doesn't feel that they should be condemned,

....if you re-read your OP you'll see that is not what he said.

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you imagine the responses in this forum if a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?".

They have and do. It's been a pretty major topic of debate in the media over recent years in case you missed it.

I find the opening argument and much of what you've added to be entirely divisive. Dawkins uses the term mild peadophilia and you imply that he somehow condones it. It doesn't get the desired response, so you raise the stakes by throwing in mentions of rape and gang rape. Divisive, disingenuous and unpleasant.

Geomy

It's a bad statement from someone who's worshiped the world over, almost a demi god to some.

He's a loose cannon that's for sure, I think he may have had an "Intelligent Idiot moment"

Just goes to show how his giving out about religion etc backfired on him, karma at its best. ...

Some here might realise it was a stupid statement, but anyone it effected won't look at it that way...

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....then what's your criticism precisely and exactly?

That Dawkins is trivialising specific forms of paedophilia, What he refers to as "mild" paedophilia which in his case case involved a teacher putting a child on his lap and molesting him.

By Dawkins refusing to condemn these perverted acts on him and describing them as "mild" he must surely be gravely offending the victims of paedophilia who haven't been able to come to terms with their own sexual assaults against them.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

They have and do. It's been a pretty major topic of debate in the media over recent years in case you missed it.

I find the opening argument and much of what you've added to be entirely divisive. Dawkins uses the term mild peadophilia and you imply that he somehow condones it. It doesn't get the desired response, so you raise the stakes by throwing in mentions of rape and gang rape. Divisive, disingenuous and unpleasant.

Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

I'll make it worth your while. If you can find such a thing then I'll delete my account.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That Dawkins is trivialising specific forms of paedophilia, What he refers to as "mild" paedophilia which in his case case involved a teacher putting a child on his lap and molesting him..

So this fondling is as severe as actual rape?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

By Dawkins refusing to condemn these perverted acts on him and describing them as "mild" he must surely be gravely offending the victims of paedophilia who haven't been able to come to terms with their own sexual assaults against them.

For the second time, he did not refuse to condemn them. Read your OP.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

.

Again - Dawkins didn't say what you claim. This is getting rather tired.

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

I'll make it worth your while. If you can find such a thing then I'll delete my account.

Are you sure? Instances of Catholic bishops covering up sex crimes aren't exactly hard to find. You don't even have to qualify the word crime, just looking for crimes that bishops have covered up, they're predominantly sex crimes.

If you want a more specific case, this one involved a personal friend, who was really put through the mill by the Catholic hierarchy. Your term a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?". pretty much sums it up. The number of of similar cases repeated across the Catholic world is large and well documented. You should perhaps read the Murphy report.

Edit: If you're referring to boards threads that include support for the church stance in clerical abuse, you'll find plenty in the clerical abuse thread.

Sarky

Huh. Well, bye BB, in that case...

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So this fondling is as severe as actual rape? .

Fondling? I find your choice of words troubling.

1. Fondling - definition of Fondling by the Free Online Dictionary ...To handle, stroke, or caress lovingly.
   
   

Nodin wrote: »

For the second time, he did not refuse to condemn them. Read your OP.

So when he refuses to condemn the molestation of children that happened 50 years ago what exactly was he doing then?

And can you explain the difference between a boarding school headmaster molesting a child years ago and a headmaster molesting a child today.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

Are you sure? Instances of Catholic bishops covering up sex crimes aren't exactly hard to find. You don't even have to qualify the word crime, just looking for crimes that bishops have covered up, they're predominantly sex crimes.

If you want a more specific case, this one involved a personal friend, who was really put through the mill by the Catholic hierarchy. Your term a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?". pretty much sums it up. The number of of similar cases repeated across the Catholic world is large and well documented. You should perhaps read the Murphy report.

Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
"Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
"Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."

You might have to show the first part first.

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
"Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."

Check out the clerical abuse thread, plenty of apologists for the Catholic church there. Bye now.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fondling? I find your choice of words troubling..

....trying to personalise the debate won't work with me, I'm afraid.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So when he refuses to condemn the molestation of children that happened 50 years ago what exactly was he doing then?.

He did not refuse to condemn it, nor did he give a blanket pass to "molestation". What he stated was

"I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today"

It's in your own OP as a quote, so why I have to explain it is beyond me.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And can you explain the difference between a boarding school headmaster molesting a child years ago and a headmaster molesting a child today.

So you are imposing todays standards retrospectively? Righty-o.

What's the difference between Muhammed marrying a nine year old years ago and somebody doing the same now?

HansHolzel

"Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

So slavery was not too bad then, just a child of its time, like, say, if they enslaved Muslims particularly, as they don't have many Nobel Prizes.

This guy is a joke and an embarrassment to the scientific community. But he's not alone e.g. Watson, the DNA guy, is even worse.

smacl

Where exactly do you get slavery from in reference to the Dawkins' quote?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....trying to personalise the debate won't work with me, I'm afraid.

I am not personalising it. You said that the child molestation suffered by Dawkins was "fondling" which means that the headmaster "caressed" Dawkins genitals "lovingly" and without any consent.

Do you stand by this?

Nodin wrote: »

He did not refuse to condemn it, nor did he give a blanket pass to "molestation". What he stated was

"I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today"

And what we learn from that is that he has less than full condemnation for child "mild" child molestation if it happened some years ago. He is not explicit in whether his condemnation lies between none at all or partial condemnation. His coining of the phrase "mild" paedophila offers a clue though and must have paedophilia advocates around the world rubbing their hands together with glee.

Nodin wrote: »

So you are imposing todays standards retrospectively? Righty-o.

What's the difference between Muhammed marrying a nine year old years ago and somebody doing the same now?

There are different social constructs involved but it's still inexcusable as the impact on the child is the same.

Not the case with the British toff boarding schools though. Which are essentially the same as then as now, and of course the impact on the victim is the same.

HansHolzel

smacl wrote: »

Where exactly do you get slavery from in reference to the Dawkins' quote?

So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not personalising it. You said that the child molestation suffered by Dawkins was "fondling" which means that the headmaster "caressed" Dawkins genitals "lovingly" and without any consent.

Do you stand by this?..

....as I said, trying to personalise the debate won't work with me. You know full well what I mean.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what we learn from that is that he has less than full condemnation for child "mild" child molestation if it happened some years ago. He is not explicit in whether his condemnation lies between none at all or partial condemnation. His coining of the phrase "mild" paedophila offers a clue though and must have paedophilia advocates around the world rubbing their hands together with glee..

.....'attempted lynching by obtuse semantics'

So fondling is the same as penetrative rape?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There are different social constructs involved but it's still inexcusable as the impact on the child is the same...

So you're calling Mohammed a child molester. Fair enough.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not the case with the British toff boarding schools though. Which are essentially the same as then as now, and of course the impact on the victim is the same.

The 1950's held the same attitudes as now? This is fascinating news, because everyone else and the records from the era say otherwise.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??

....well the Brits had abolished it by the 1830's in Britain, so you might want to tighten up your references a tad.

HansHolzel

Touching up children was never officially cool or encouraged, not even in Plato's day.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

Touching up children was never officially cool or encouraged, not even in Plato's day.

He didn't say it was........

HansHolzel

Nodin wrote: »

....well the Brits had abolished it by the 1830's in Britain, so you might want to tighten up your references a tad.

Even that's a fair few decades into the nineteenth century. Then thirty years later there was a bit of unpleasantness in the United States. Come off it.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

Even that's a fair few decades into the nineteenth century. Then thirty years later there was a bit of unpleasantness in the United States. Come off it.

....so you think Dawkins was talking about the pre-emancipation period relating to the USA....these new smart crystal balls are truly amazing.

HansHolzel

Nodin wrote: »

....so you think Dawkins was talking about the pre-emancipation period relating to the USA....these new smart crystal balls are truly amazing.

I'm moving you around like a pawn, time-wise. You were in the 1830s, which you now seem to have implicitly conceded were in the nineteenth century, and now you're up to the 1860s.

Anyway, reasonable people abhorred slavery in the centuries Dawkins himself named.

Reasonable people have always deeply frowned on molestation too.

smacl

To suggests that

we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism

in some way implies condoning slavery is nothing short of ridiculous. As per Brown Bomber's inclusion of rape and gang rape when mild pedophilia wasn't working for him, extrapolating racism to slavery as a device to attack Dawkins' statements is pure raving. Sorry, but that's all it is. Weak.

HansHolzel

To play down racism in a past period when slavery was racism's chief feature is disgusting but if you want to continue to believe in this guy I can't stop you. Or make you think about what you're defending.

Brian Shanahan

Richard Dawkins wrote:

we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism

To put this comment in context, if Uncle Tom's Cabin were written and published today it would be considered incredibly racist, and rightly so. But we don't condemn Harriet Beacher Stowe for this, we rightly praise her as among the forefront of the black emancipation movement in the US. At the time of publishing the book, Beacher Stowe's views were radically progressive in their view of black people, giving them a humanity and equality far above what was commonly viewed as their place in 19th century America.

And let us not forget some of the words of Abraham Lincoln re black people:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

But because he rose above this petty bigotry and ugly racism, and became the man who lost his life because he freed the blacks, we rightly regard Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest statesmen of all time.

Of course times change and mores evolve to match, and it is because people are big enough to grow out of the petty faults they have and embrace a stronger, better morality. By casting away the old fears and hates do we create a stronger and better world.

HansHolzel

Sigh.

Again, for the hard of reading:

"So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??"

Brian Shanahan

HansHolzel wrote: »

Sigh.

Again, for the hard of reading:

"So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??"

You got a large number of proper responses dealing with the illogicality of your position.

Deal with it.

HansHolzel

It is the moral relativism of Dawkins' remarks that seems to be above a few heads here.

HansHolzel

Including yours.

HansHolzel

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You got a large number of proper responses dealing with the illogicality of your position.

Deal with it.

Touching up children is wicked. Deal with that first.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

Touching up children is wicked. Deal with that first.

....has anyone here said otherwise?

smacl

HansHolzel wrote: »

It is the moral relativism of Dawkins' remarks that seems to be above a few heads here.

This is from someone who equates a comparison of attitudes to racism over the last two centuries with the condoning slavery. Methinks the pot is suggesting the kettle may be of african american extract

Hotblack Desiato

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How exactly is "mindless violence" "far worse" than an adult sexually assaulting a child?

How about being afraid to go to school every day (at age 4-5) for fear of being violently leathered, because that was me? Even having to witness others getting this treatment was a form of abuse.

Dawkins explicitly said that what happened to him was wrong but it did not traumatise him.

But there is no response that is going to satisfy you, is there?

Tordelback

There seems to be a confusion on the parts of BB and HH between moral relativism and historical contextualisation. To deny the latter in examining the former is to practice wilful (or actual) ignorance.

Giddens' idea of structuration, of acting in society through the conscious and unconscious manipulation of the elements, structures and signifiers available to you, seems pertinent. You can act as a good person at any time, but that act has to take place within the world in which you exist. Dawkins is merely (if clumsily) acknowledging both the principle of degree (and the moral subtleties therein) and the idea that people in the past were acting in the past, and not in the present. Unlike many religious people, he doesn't speak in absolutes, or look to the past for moral guidance.

HansHolzel

smacl wrote: »

This is from someone who equates a comparison of attitudes to racism over the last two centuries with the condoning slavery. Methinks the pot is suggesting the kettle may be of african american extract

You are still missing the point. Dawkins was rash enough to pick out two centuries in which slavery was central to "racism" when he gave the period a moral get-out-jail card on the subject. He did not specify that he was, say, talking about the insensitive language of the times.

Of course he is never going to 'condone' or support slavery ('condone' itself being a weasel debating word that has cropped up on the thread a few times) but the backsliding implication of Dawkins' wording cannot be ignored, not least when he also recently insinuated that Muslims were thick.

That there is a group of people on this thread whose continuing urge to defend Dawkins in the context of this argument and, more importantly, his playing down of child abuse, is, quite frankly, creepy.

HansHolzel

Tordelback wrote: »

There seems to be a confusion on the parts of BB and HH between moral relativism and historical contextualisation. To deny the latter in examining the former is to practice wilful (or actual) ignorance.

Giddens' idea of structuration, of acting in society through the conscious and unconscious manipulation of the elements, structures and signifiers available to you, seems pertinent. You can act as a good person at any time, but that act has to take place within the world in which you exist. Dawkins is merely (if clumsily) acknowledging both the principle of degree (and the moral subtleties therein) and the idea that people in the past were acting in the past, and not in the present. Unlike many religious people, he doesn't speak in absolutes, or look to the past for moral guidance.

Please don't give us Giddens, Tony Blair's pet intellectual.

Tordelback

HansHolzel wrote: »

Please don't give us Giddens, Tony Blair's pet intellectual.

Further logical fallacy. Just because some odious morally bankrupt politician likes him doesn't invalidate his ideas. Great deal of merit in Giddens' sociology, structuration a useful interpretive tool.

Also beside the point.

HansHolzel

Are undergraduates still forced to study Giddens' New Rules of Sociological Method? Oh dear.

For the uninitiated, let's look at just one of his classic definitions, that of agency:

“the stream of actual or contemplated causal interventions of corporeal beings in the ongoing process of events-in-the-world” (1976:75)

Enough said.

HansHolzel

As for Dawkins combining money-grubbing with his elitism, see the BBC news website 5 June 2011

Academics launch £18,000 college in London

A private college in England aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge is being launched by leading academics. The New College of the Humanities says it will teach "gifted" undergraduates and prepare them for degrees from the University of London. The privately-owned London-based college will open in September 2012 and is planning to charge fees of £18,000. The 14 professors involved include biologist Richard Dawkins and historian Sir David Cannadine. Based in Bloomsbury, central London, the new college says it will offer eight undergraduate courses in the humanities taught by some of the world's most prominent academics.

Degrees cover five subject areas - law, economics, history, English literature and philosophy. Students will also take three "intellectual skills" modules in science literacy, logic and critical thinking and applied ethics. The college will award its own Diploma and students will take University of London degrees, making a combined award of BA Hons (London) DNC. Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher who will be the college's first Master, secured millions of pounds of funding from investors to set up the institution. The college will not be part of the UCAS applications process, with each application considered "individually, personally and on its merits". It also has scholarships and "exhibition schemes" to "ensure that finance should not be a barrier to any talented UK student". But the University and College Union (UCU) said the launch of the new college - and state funding cuts for arts, humanities and social sciences - would result in the subjects becoming the preserve of a "select few". UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: "While many would love the opportunity to be taught by the likes of AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins, at £18,000 a go it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance. The government has set fees in England's public universities at a maximum of £9,000 from September next year.