Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Sep 15, 2013.
Well, standards are changing. Go back a couple of hundred years, and lowering a cat slowly into a bonfire to burn alive was considered good, clean fun. As a lad, my dad used to play with explosives he found, almost blowing himself and a mate up on occasion, and constructing a cannon to shoot at seagulls. I shudder to think of any poor sod trying cat-burning or playing with explosives today.
Welcome to the list Mr. Dawkins. You are now a douchebag.
Can you articulate why you have a problem with Dawkins’ comments here?
The problem with his comments is it dismisses the pain of the victims.
It may be that in the past more molestation was accepted in society than now. There has to be a different way to say this.
It seemed to me from what was written as if Dr. Dawkins were speaking from his own experience, only.
Even if he made a faux pas and attempted to speak for others, the fact is he can only opine regarding his own feelings on the matter. I don't think he would knowingly try to offend the sensibilities of so many people, unless he's finally gotten senile.
i'm going back to school to re do the 8th grade.
I don’t see how you get that from his comments. He made reference to a specific instance involving himself, and that he didn’t turn out fucked up. I didn’t see anything whatsoever in what he wrote that could be interpreted as ‘dismissing the pain of victims’.
I think the fact that he calls it "mild pedophilia" and then adds "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm." covers that. Unless he has used his wonderful scientific skills to actually get some evidence and speak to the other victims then he has offhand dismissed the experiences of a whole group of abused children as no big deal.
Being a mild pedophile is like being a mildly pregnant or mildly heterosexual or mildly gay. You are or you aren't. The act of an adult fondling a child is pedophilia. No degrees. No disclaimer. It is what it is. Was it more acceptable? No, it never was. Men would lose their jobs and be shunned in the 50's if someone thought that they had improperly touched a child.
I like Dawkins. I'm glad he had a mild reaction to molestation, some people do. There is no mild pedophilia though, just a pedophile unable to act out.
Are you claiming that he is lying and that the experience really did do him harm? Are you, in the same vein, claiming he is lying about the experience not adversely affecting the others who were in his class?
Because, if you’re not, then it really looks to me like you are reading into his words something he did not say and did not imply.
You do realise that he was talking about his personal experience (and those of his classmates) and not about the experiences of others right?
Actually it is ‘child molestation’ not paedophilia. They’re two different things, and Dawkins has made the same error.
Please teach us the difference between a child molester and a pedophile.
Dawkins is English, right? I bet being gently felt up by the teacher wasn't half as bad as the abuse he was getting from his fellow boarding school classmates. The movie 'If' has a pretty good picture of the sort of shit bigger kids perpetrated on younger boys.
^^PS not trying to exonerate Dawkins or his statement, but his memories are probably a bit skewed.
If the child molester is well known to the children in the school and they can support each other and that is a real help, they don't feel so scared helpless and alone.
Child molester = Someone who molest a child
Paedophile = Someone with a sexual orientation that is mostly direct towards children
Compare these to help you:
Heterosexual = Someone who has a sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex
Rapist = Someone who commits the act of rape
See the difference?
No. I do not.
Someone who molests a child is sexually attracted to the child unless they are torturers.
A child molester may be motivated by other urges than sexual attraction. The feeling of control and power of instance, or out of some mental illness other than paedophilia. I would think most child molesters are paedophiles, but all paedophiles aren't child molesters.
Supporting dox from Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis. For Professionals Investigating the. Sexual Exploitation of Children, a report produced in conjunction with the National Center For Missing And Exploited Children and the FBI:
Pedophiles that do not act on their attractions are, to me, people unlucky to have sexual preferences for children. Pedophiles who use child porn are acting on their attraction and harming children. Child molesters harm children, I really don't care if they are pedophiles or sadists or delusional. I don't know how one could tell, and it matters not to me.
Treatment may differ, but punishment should be the same.
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
An example of Dawkins at his best.
"Mild pedophilia" is not. Did he retract it?
I’m hoping he doesn’t since, imo, there was nothing in his remarks that warranted a retraction. Seems like far too many people will join a lynch mob due to their desire to grant the least charitable interpretation to anything he says – he’s never backed down over the shit people say regarding his comments on religion, so why is this topic much different?
He argues that indoctrinating a child in a religion is child abuse. Somehow he gets from that to child molestation being no big thing.
A valid argument must have a true conclusion, he used to be a clear thinker.
People can think his remarks unacceptable without joining a lynch mob. Do you think "Dawkins said it, it must be true"?
I think the above is a great example of what I meant when I referred to as giving the least charitable interpretation to what he has said.
Here is the crux of his point:
“Thank goodness, I have never personally experienced what it is like to believe – really and truly and deeply believe – in hell. But I think it can be plausibly argued that such a deeply held belief might cause a child more long-lasting mental trauma than the temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse.
Anecdotes and plausibility arguments, however, need to be backed up by systematic research, and I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell. But ‘sexual abuse’ covers a wide spectrum of sins, and I suspect that research would show belief in hell to be more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that I suffered.”
Can someone, in detail, explain why what is written here is so wrong and repellent? Because I’m not seeing it.
I’m more in the “I actually read what he wrote and found the criticism aimed at it to be way off base” camp personally.
He is making an error in logic. He suggests that harming a child sexually is not as bad as harming a child with abusive beliefs. They are both bad.
He is arguing from his own experience of 'mild embarrassment' after sexual abuse and from the fact he was never indoctrinated into a belief in hell.
He thinks the worse abuse is the religious one,which he didn't suffer, compared to sexual abuse, which he did. He minimizes the harm from his abuse and therefor the abuse others have suffered through. He states violent repeated abuse by a family member as "probably" worse that religious indoctrination, once again minimizing the abuse that others have suffered thru if it was less than the abuse he described.
Abusive religious indoctrination and child abuse are not comparable.
He's a pretty good troll, the pedo comment is a troll too.
That’s not what he is saying. For example: “My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell.” This comment cannot be reconciled with your above.
Or, maybe just maybe, he and his classmates didn’t suffer harm of a serious note. From the description it did appear to be mild. Not excusing that groping or claiming it wasn’t wrong, but I think your instance that such groping must somehow necessarily lead to harm is a real stretch.
That really doesn’t follow when you accurately parse the first portion of the sentence.
You appear to be interpreting the word ‘probably’ in the most uncharitable fashion possible in order to attach it. Now what possible benefit is it to interpret the argumentation of others in the least favourable light possible before trying to challenge it? That seems rather pointless and disingenuous to me.
I don’t believe he was making any comparison, merely remarking that ‘mild abuse’ (as described by the groping) might probably cause less harm psychologically than indoctrination in concepts such as ‘hell’.
He compares mild sexual abuse with his schoolmates to help him through it ( which he knows) to religious abuse (which he didn't suffer from) and determines religious abuse is worse. With his comment "My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell."he invalidated the feelings of damage and hurt felt by victims of child sexual abuse that was not violent repeated attacks from a family member.
The comparison of sexual abuse to religious abuse isn't valid.
Do people agree that adult-child sexual contact has degrees of severity?
I doubt people agree on that.
But try to form a consensus.
I admire your attempt to bring logic, expressed here in a very clear and unambiguous way, to the mob. I wish you good luck and will try to give you some support when the mob gets around to lynching you (as they have me in other threads).
A pedo has only his own selfish interests at heart, he considers the child an object.
If you had a small child, and you found a man molesting her/him - and that man justified it with saying it was only mild pedophilia ... what would you do?
I'd personally beat the crap out of him, but first, I'd have some fun with him TEXAS STYLE.
How 'bout weird boner syndrome, like when you get an unexpected erection at the wrong moment when you're hugging your cousin? Do we kill those people too?
I think Mr. Dawkins needs to be investigated. Sounds like he may be trying to justify some of his own past actions? Only a pedo would try to diminish the punishment for pedo crimes - IMO.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!