Customize

Richard Dawkins talks about "mild pedophilia"

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Sep 15, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    I'm the one you called "intelligent." I think you aren't being generous enough to the anons who are annoying you. They're good people.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. I think this one is meant to provoke the Muslims:

    [IMG]
  3. HIlarious.
    Be generous with whom?
    People who insult and attack me on a regular basis who do not know how to agree to disagree without lame ad hominem? Surely you just have a good sense of humour.

    Also, to the poster above:
    [IMG]
    How old was Aisha when she was married? 9 ? 12 yrs old, no biggie - right?
  4. Anonymous Member

    Sometimes mean people seem to hold all the cards. That's when, for some crazy reason, I think about the Carolina parakeet. Maybe I'm a Carolina parakeet. Maybe you are one of them too. Maybe the stupid people will do us in just like they did a hundred years ago. Ah well, we had a moment.
  5. Anonymous Member

    IMHO Dawkins screwed the pooch. He said it, he has had to explain it, and it is fodder for his enemies. His non- enemies have every right to complain about what he said and accept ( or not) his explanation.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Ok srs now. Just because you believe something it doesn't make it important. Demanding that forum posters address each and every one of your arguments is a bit....egofag.
  7. I'd gladly swap most of the words I've written here (must be thousands by now) for your elegant summary.

    In the world of Academia, where Dawkins excels, it is regarded as the highest virtue to do all you can to tear to shreds the work of your peers, for the greater goal of the advancement of knowledge, so he will be quite comfortable with harsh criticism.

    I share Anon's concern that powerful vested interests (particularly woo-peddlers) can undermine a scrupulous man like Dawkins by unfair and underhanded methods, but it is in his best interests and those of the scientific and rational ideals for which he stands that he listen to the criticism of his (far) less distinguished friends.

    tl;dr <see quoted post>
  8. I like pretty birds.
    [IMG]
  9. Funny coming from you, Disambiguation.
    THE OHH SO SELF IMPORTANT LEADERFAG OF A POSER MOD?
    you downvoting my posts again? i know its you a lot of the time.

    Can't you go hang out with the arab pedophiles. I mean the Iranians and the pedos that you are obsessed with? Why but into a thread/ Why not go talk to Iraniam, who egofags in its own select part of the forum, quite undemocratically, I might add. Iraniam gets to post whatever it wants, and nobody is allowed to comment or ask any questions. To anyone capable of reason out there, does that sound like someone obsessed with control and censorship? Oh, you like to greet all the fresh meat new fags in hopes that you can personal army them into your own personal faggotry. Well, fuck off.
    AND, LEAVE ME ALONE.
    thank you.
  10. Anonymous Member

    People bring their own life histories to things they read. And they unconsciously do social referencing --they have a feeling for how their friends or people they admire might react and they start, in a sense, with that as their own gut feeling. So I don't blame anyone for having a reaction to Dawkin's comments on pedophelia that was different from my own.

    In my case I completely get Dawkins' wish to defend the abuser against people flipping out. I loved the person who abused me before the abuse but not after. Coming out did break up my family. But this person has been a good parent to my younger sibs and is still important.

    The icons of child sex abuse we get on the webs are the creepers in the playgrounds. But most abuse involves trusted adults, not strangers. So the pain for most abused kids is not some induced fear of monsters but the misery of limitless, unresolvable, moral conflict. You don't fix that problem by shooting someone in the head (I hate that mod's avatar but I can live with it). You have to slow down and listen and try to feel what it's like to be in that position.

    Hunters described how the Carolina parakeets would startle and fly off after a couple of shots, but then would quickly return to hover or land near their fallen comrades, where they were then easily shot. I wish I could have seen the enormous flocks that once existed. But I can't wish that the birds didn't have those strong bonds that made them so easy to kill.
  11. Anonymous Member

    According to the Islamic scriptures, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and consummated the marriage at 9.

    None of this would matter much anymore, except for the fact that Muhammad's conduct is specifically asserted to eternally be the best example to be emulated by all Muslims.

    Saying that Muhammad's conduct was less than admirable is, of course, a capital offence.

    It takes a good deal of hypocrisy to mount an Islamic attack on Richard Dawkins in this regard.
  12. Agreed. I don't either blame people for reacting in different ways. We have two very sensitive issues here. One is the subject of child sex abuse/pedophilia, the other being the conflict between science and religion. People on either side are likely to have very strong feelings.

    I do not disagree with Dawkins on that score. Even offenders who target children don't deserve to be subjected to mob justice, and I have been careful to acknowledge that. I believe that the person who molested Dawkins deserved to go to jail for what he did, but in those days very, very few such offenders did. It's only in more recent times that specific legislation has been in place to deal adequately with the problem, and only recently that the rights of children and of victims have been given a higher priority backed up by statute. (I think that people like Dawkins' molester were able to continue because others did not want otherwise respected teachers to be exposed publicly, but at the expense of their victims).

    It is such a very short time-span that children's issues have been taken seriously, and I feel very strongly that we should resist any attempts to regress to 'the bad old days' or the minimising the harm caused by abuse.

    Having quite a long experience of talking and listening to victims of abuse, I think I understand the awful dilemma you describe. Sometimes, it seems, families where there is abuse are so dysfunctional and broken, it is the lesser of two evils that they do not stay together.

    <Nodding in agreement> Impossibly complex and conflicting emotions and family dynamics are familiar to me. When you feel under siege, your own kin can seem like either allies or enemies, with little in between.

    Very poignant. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain the reference, which wasn't familiar to me.
  13. Anonymous Member

    The Return of YourGay
  14. Anonymous Member

    I’m finding it very bizarre to read the above passage, in which almost every thought expressed is already contained in Dawkins’ quoted comments, from a poster who has been bashing Dawkins for having said such comments in the first place.

    When Dawkins expressed how the ‘changing moral zeitgeist’ led to the Catholic Church being the subject of prosecutions you bashed him mercilessly. A typical example of your logic: “The thrust of these comments is to suggest that our reactions to (in some instances, at the least) child molestation are overblown.”

    Having watched you ITT ignore again and again and again the very same context expressed above, and your use of dispensing of context to distort and misrepresent Dawkins’ comments, only to see you later posting that very same context (displaying a capacity on your part to grasp it) is mindblowing.
  15. Anonymous Member

    People need a little space and grace to work out how they understand emotionally charged topics. I myself have been wrong about a lot of things. But I couldn't have figured out where I'd gone wrong if I were busy trying to defend myself from some social humiliation. Those survival instincts are a bitch to ignore.
  16. I said:



    You might be finding it bizarre because you are so consistently OTT in your reactions that you lack the ability to follow what I've been saying all this time, contenting yourself with overblown hyperbole and shrieking accusations. At the same time as you accuse me, without justification, in every post, like a broken record, of quoting Dawkins out of context, you cannot bring yourself to write one word of acknowledgment when, for example, you actually doctored Dawkins' words and claimed that your version was 'what he actually said' (or any of the many other instances where I have shown your arguments to be weak).

    It is impossible to have a civilised exchange with such a person. I'm happy to argue my case in spite of your insufferable rudeness.

    I disagree with Dawkins' view of the 'moral zeitgeist' of the times he is describing. It might just about do as a sort of shorthand in a passing remark, but it falls well short of an adequate description of the moral landscape.

    If fewer prosecutions happened then than now, it was not because the general populace found such crimes any less morally wrong, it was because child victims did not have as much of a voice, nor adequate legal protection. I find Dawkins' use of the term rather dismissive of the suffering those victims have endured, for decades in some instances. In describing things this way, he is leaving the door open to anyone who wants to justify their abuse of others by claiming 'Oh, things were very different then than now [however long ago 'then' was]. I didn't know it was wrong. I have Prof Dawkins words to back me up').

    In fact, when he describes seeking recompense now as 'raking over the distant past' it is tantamount to saying any such legal actions are wrong, because the moral zeitgeist of the time was so different from today. He is clearly out of step with legal opinion, and, more importantly, can hardly be said to be on the side of those particular victims.

    When he says 'I can't find it in me to condemn [the man whom he knows molested many other schoolboys besides himself] by the standards of today...' I am deeply sceptical, for the reasons given above.

    The thrust of these comments is to suggest that our reactions to (in some instances, at the least) child molestation are overblown.

    Context (x 3): check. Distort: check. Misrepresent: check. But you forgot to mention 'quote-mining' this time - I expect that's down to a previous mindblowing post. It's a bit like the song of the whale - small, near-imperceptible changes can be detected over time.

    I have had the context as quoted, as well as one or two others, in mind the whole time.
  17. Anonymous Member

    Calling out deliberate misrepresentation is fully justified, especially when you are using such to essentially slander a person. All the more ironic, as detailed in my previous post (the content of which you practically ignored, quelle surprise), given that you and Dawkins actually share quite a commonality in beliefs – but it’s only wrong when Dawkins says it for some reason.
    Apparently writing voluminously on this, with entire quotations and detailed explanations of the context you are consistently ignore, doesn’t count as justification in the eyes of the morally indignant.
    Compare what you have written above with this extract (another segment of context from The Times article which you have ignored):
    This is important, because one scientist whom Dawkins commends to the Nobel committee is Steven Pinker of Harvard University. Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, explains the decline of violence in human society partly in terms of what Dawkins calls our “shifting moral zeitgeist”. Apparently, this means we’re less beastly than we used to be because we disapprove of beastliness more than we used to.

    Of course, you fail to take this sort of passage to its logical conclusion. In this case it is that the increased societal disapproval is the underpinning for why society passed additional laws on the issue. But is precisely the sort of context-dodging you are engaging in, repeatedly, which leads to bizarre comments like the one you have made here. You, apparently, disagree with Dawkins and have stated where you stand on the issue – being oblivious to the context in which Dawkins expressed practically the same sentiment you just did. And, for reasons escaping logic and rationality, pointing out this type of extreme inconsistency on my part is “OTT”.
    And here we have, yet again, more context dodging. It seems as if you don’t realise that The Times interview and The God Delusion where discussing completely different things contextually, which is leading you to combine them it ways that make utterly no sense (fine for misrepresentation, but less so for honesty and factual accuracy). No wonder I have to spoon feed you.

    The Times interview discussed the topic of abuse from the perspective of the “shifting moral zeitgeist”.

    The God Delusion passage, where the “raked over the distant past” came from, is as follows:
    In the particular case of Ireland, even without the sexual abuse, the brutality of the Christian Brothers, responsible for the education of a significant proportion of the male population of the country, is legendary. And the same could be said of the often sadistically cruel nuns who ran many of Ireland’s girls’ schools. The infamous Magdalene Asylums, subject of Peter Mullan’s film The Magadalene Sisters, continued in existence until as late as 1996. Forty years on, it is harder to get redress for floggings than for sexual fondlings, as there is no shortage of lawyers actively soliciting custom from victims who might not otherwise have raked over the distant past.

    Do you see how the passage from The God Delusion is not discussing the “shifting moral zeitgeist”, and is therefore a completely discussion than that of The Times? Plucking out quotes in the manner you are doing, and utterly ignoring the very different contexts in which those quotes were made, is flat-out misrepresentation.

    Since it is abundantly clear that you have not read the particular passage in The god Delusion, let me spoon feed you some more. The passage is under the subchapter “Physical And Mental Abuse”, and was describing how sexual abuse is often over-emphasised to the point of minimising acts of physical and mental abuse (hence “Forty years on, it is harder to get redress for floggings than for sexual fondlings…”). The case of Ireland is a real world example illustrating his points (see the Ryan Report link earlier ITT).

    Even more context to spoon feed you. The subchapter opens with the case of where a paediatrician was targeted after a newspaper ‘name-and-shame’ campaign fucked up. Dawkins describes the background to the incident and how it was fuelled by public anger after an eight year old girl was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered in Sussex. His comment “…if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers…” is part of the same paragraph – but all of this background is just more context for you and The Atlantic to ignore.

    There is one point I’ll end this post on, and I think it is a great illustration of the level of misrepresentation you are engaging in. Quoting you for clarity: “In fact, when he describes seeking recompense now as 'raking over the distant past' it is tantamount to saying any such legal actions are wrong, because the moral zeitgeist of the time was so different from today.”
    Despite having been provided with plentiful context and relevant quoted material, the fact that you don’t even seem to realise that the “'raking over the distant past” and “moral zeitgeist” have come from two different unrelated and unconnected sources says it all really.
  18. You don't seem to realise that, by referring to my posts as 'deliberate misrepresentation', you are defaming me, over and over. Argue your case as strongly as you possibly can, call me out all you want, but do not accuse me of dishonesty, unless you have incontrovertible proof.

    I have done my utmost to answer your objections as to context, over the course of many posts. You seem to have a blind spot where this is concerned, which nothing I could say can correct, it seems.

    By the way, do you not feel 'morally indignant' about child sexual abuse, or about those who wish to cover it up or minimise it? You use this phrase as though it were, by itself, a reason to discount my arguments. I would hazard a guess that your own OTT accusations spring from just such a sentiment. There is none so blind...

    Stuart Hall (former BBC sports presenter), as you are no doubt aware, sits in jail now for a series of crimes dating back over a period similar to that Dawkins describes in his own experience. From what I can gather from newspaper accounts, he was accused of, among other things, putting his hand up the skirts of very young girls - very much like what happened to Prof Dawkins, but which he says was no more than a 'mild touching up', which was 'harmless'. When he says this, it is not judging things by the standards of the time - it is how he now views the actions of the molester. When he says such things, he is contradicting what expert opinion has found - that these crimes are harmful to the victims. Had he restricted his comments to his own experience, that might have passed censure, but he went on to speak of others among his schoolmates, and, as his Sept 12 statement shows, he now admits that he could not know what effects their abuse has had on them.



    No. Prof Dawkins' phrase 'shifting moral zeitgeist' can be taken to mean that, over time, we have changed our minds in some arbitrary fashion, akin to the shifting sands of the Sahara, about whether something is morally right or wrong, and I am arguing that this is not the case. The laws we have now do no more than put into effect some remedies for what we have long known to be morally wrong. In a society where the economic interests of the privileged few has shaped our laws, the rights of the many have been ignored for too long, and there never was anything arbitrary about it.

    It is another clumsy phrase, which obfuscates more than it explains. (It's a tad ironic that a scientist and rationalist is happy to appeal to the spirit of the age to support his views).

    I think you understand me when I say your reactions have been OTT. It has nothing to do with your opinions, it is your condescending manner, your rudeness and your ad hominem attacks I am referring to.


    The connection between the two passages is that they are from the same person - Prof Dawkins. This is a rather crucial, if blindingly obvious, context you have somehow contrived to ignore.

    Unless you are arguing that Prof Dawkins' views are like the shifting sands of the Sahara, you will understand that, at the time he wrote the quoted passage in The God Delusion, he must also have believed in the notion of the 'shifting moral zeitgeist' of the Times article, and that they, both together and separately, faithfully represent his views.

    What other reason can Dawkins have for referring to seeking justice for past sexual abuse so dismissively than his notion of a different 'moral zeitgeist' operating at the time? (Unless he is saying so because he believes others' abuse really wasn't a big deal). Can you attempt a better explanation than simply pointing out that the two passages are from different publications, because I find such an argument unpersuasive, to say the least.

    (I wonder whether Prof Dawkins would describe the prosecution of Stuart Hall as 'raking over the distant past'? If not, why not? Can you acknowledge why some might find his words less than helpful?)

    Another poster has provided support for Dawkins' argument that, in Ireland, the focus has been on compensating victims of sexual abuse more than those who suffered emotional, mental or physical abuse. I have read (most of) the Ryan report, and it is certainly wrong to ignore these accounts of other forms of abuse that are, for all I know, equally harmful. That simply does not explain why Dawkins refers to 'raking over the distant past'. Seeking recompense after forty years, no matter what form of abuse was alleged, would then be equally 'raking over the distant past'. This fact does not support the idea that Dawkins' argument is about minimising other forms of abuse - he undermines any attempts to seek redress for past crimes.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Demonstrating that you unaware that different quotes have come from different unconnected sources, and that you are fully intent on arguing over material you have not even bothered to read, is strong proof of dishonesty.

    Giving clear cut examples of where you expressed sentiments that Dawkins did, and how you misrepresented those comments to ignore those sentiments that you would later post your agreement with, is strong proof of dishonesty.

    Describing, in detail, all the context that you continually and deliberately leave out is strong proof of dishonesty.
    FTFY. Why care what Dawkins was saying, or the context within he was saying it, when you can simply substitute your own to misrepresent him?

    Dawkins was taking ideas from Pinker and running with it. Given the shit-load of research Pinker has backed his ideas with, only someone completely ignoring that context would claim that Dawkins running with Pinker’s ideas was implying any change of mind was “in some arbitrary fashion”. But hey, if you want to misrepresent this is just more context to be ignored right?
    Here we have a little misrepresentation mixed in with a logical fallacy.

    Dawkins has never expanded his anecdote to the general case, and has (on multiple occasions that you seem to like ignoring) said it was “wrong”, “reprehensible”, and other connotations of similar meaning. When folks talk about someone like Benjamin Franklin they tend not to talk about how he profited from the slave trade. I consider slavery to much viler that sexual abuse, and certainly orders of magnitude worse than Dawkins’ anecdote – so are people who don’t condemn Franklin by the standards of today guilty of the same thing Dawkins is doing? Or is there a context of perspective here that you are unwilling to consider since you seem so intent of bashing Dawkins?

    Since Dawkins had spoken to his classmates (and had compared notes) it seems a reasonable conclusion that no harm was caused if those classmates expressed the same sentiment. Sure, he could be mistaken but that would require the far more tenuous claim that the classmates cannot sufficiently know their own minds (which has been covered in depth previously). This is where you make a logical fallacy. For Dawkins to be in contradiction to “expert opinion” it is necessary for those experts to be claiming that such abuse always results in harm. As I said previously ITT, you can search all your favourite scholarly archives in search of support for the contention that such abuse always causes harm and you won’t find a thing. Giving an example of where abuse of the level of Dawkins anecdote didn’t lead to harm is not, in any way, contradictory of the research consensus – despite you attempts to twist things to make it seem otherwise.
    Trying to justify your reasons for ignoring the context in which remarks are made only highlights that you are ignoring the context in which remarks are being made. It just makes your claim that you are not misrepresenting him even more of a joke than it was.
    A question answered in 30 seconds had you bothered to read the relevant passage in The God Delusion. You don’t even need a copy of the book, with sufficient material to answer this question already strewn across this very thread. My previous post alone contained enough context to fully answer this question.

    The answer is that the passage had fuck all to do with minimising sexual abuse and fuck all to do with changing moral zeitgeists. The passage was making the comparison of sexual abuse with physical/emotional abuse, and noted how society had prioritised sexual abuse to the detriment of those who had suffered physical/emotional abuse. This is why he wrote “Forty years on, it is harder to get redress for floggings than for sexual fondlings…”.

    Additional context can be explained by borrowing a concept another anon gave, the passage is a good example of a ‘steelman’. Dawkins is literally bending over backwards to give the Catholic Church every benefit of the doubt possible, thus “Such additional resentments should make us all the more careful not to rush to judgement”. This was why he referred to the money aspect, and did so in the manner most favourable to the target of his attack. This is an organisation that he has, in word and deed, expressed the deepest contempt for – and yet in argumentation he goes out of his way to give them the fairest possible hearing when he tears into them. The raking comment is followed up with this: “There’s gold in them thar long-gone fumbles in the vestry – some of them, indeed, so long gone that the alleged offender is likely to be dead and unable to present his side of the story.”
    If people are so determined to misrepresent his words then that is their issue. I, personally, find the misrepresentation (and the limits on discussing this topic that such misrepresentations seek to impose) to be far more unhelpful than anything found in the original comments.
    Do you even know how many pages that report spans? Because, if you did, I doubt you would have tried to sell this claim.
  20. This comes fully-formed from your own head. I read the different sources, but you do nothing more than continue asserting that I am unaware of them. (My previous post contained an explicit acknowledgment of this, but, as I said, you have a blind spot.) Further, you have a blind spot that does not allow you to see that it does not matter that the sources differ.

    What matters (as far as I am concerned, and as far as this thread is concerned) is to enquire whether there is any substance to the strong feelings expressed by child welfare professionals and reported in respected publications by a number of reporters who are aware of the libel laws.

    By leaping to the conclusion that it's part of some dishonest campaign to discredit Dawkins, you just keep on asserting what you should seek to prove by a cogent argument. You have shown a far greater use of selective quotes (omitting parts of what Dawkins says and how I have interpreted his biews) than anything you accuse me of.

    You are the one person in this thread who claims this. That tells me how convincing your 'proof' is.

    Describing, in detail, all the context that you continually and deliberately leave out is strong proof of dishonesty.

    So, you want to accuse me of twisting Dawkins words, by editing what I said? Did you give yourself a pat on the back for that? Answer the point, and stop playing juvenile games.

    I was quoting The Times article of 7 Sept. 'Shifting moral zeitgeist' is Dawkins' own phrase, not Pinker's. It does seem to imply just the sort of unpredictable, random variation as I opined. He repeats it again in the phrase 'shifting standards' in the same article. Why wouldn't an evolutionary biologist prefer a term like, say, 'evolving moral zeitgeist' or 'positive developments in moral standards' if he meant to imply that we were changing for the better? I don't know what was in Dawkins' mind, so I ask the question, and offer it as potential evidence. You are quite sure you know both Dawkins' as well as my own mind, enough to state boldly that my 'misrepresentations' (the ones that exist in your head) are 'deliberate'. Any faith I might have in the former is diminished by the falsity of the latter.


    Here we have a little misrepresentation mixed in with a logical fallacy.

    To ignore or condone today Benjamin Franklin's profiteering from slavery in the 18th century would be untenable, as it would be a gross injustice to the victims of slavery whose effects continue to this day. I cannot grant Dawkins' much credibility when the events he is speaking about occurred in living memory, because I remember what it was like growing up then. We are speaking of the 1960s and 1970s - in the Irish example, up to a time much closer to yesterday than to more barbarous times. I learned about pedophilia at my mother's knee.

    I never ignored that Dawkins described these things as reprehensible. I questioned why he used such a mild phrase, especially in speaking of a mulitple offender. Have you forgotten so soon?

    Since Dawkins appears to retract this, albeit in an oblique way, I give no creedence to his claims as they apply to his schoolmates. If he was completely sure of these things, he would not have back-tracked.

    Here, again, is an extract of what he said on Sept 12 (the bit pertaining to his schoolmates):



    In the bolded portion of the text, he does not repeat any claim that others stated they were not harmed - only that they found the death of the abuser more upsetting than his sexual depredations had been, and he says it was only his opinion that they suffered no lasting damage.

    (I may have split your paragraph in the wrong place here. It's not clear if the first sentence applies to the preceding para. or to this. I'm sure you'll let me know)

    Oh, you must have missed the legal information relating to sexual offences I posted just a few posts ago. Well, here it is again, quoted more fully, from [UK] Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 7:



    The bolded part categorically states what you dispute. All non-consensual offences involve the violation of the victim's sexual autonomy and will result in harm.
    Always.



    So you keep saying. I disagree. Did Dawkins adopt the 'shifting moral zeitgeist' argument only for one publication, then slough it off for the next? No, is the only reasonable answer. It is his view, and we are entitled to assume he held that view when trying to interpret or assess his meaning in other passages where he discusses the issue of abuse. Furthermore, if inconsistencies are revealed by comparisons between two statements on the same topic, it is legitimate to highlight them. I can't say any more clearly that I reject this argument of yours, and why that is so.

    Others disagree, too, in terms; ie that the passage in question does indeed minimise sexual abuse, whether Dawkins intended to do so or not.

    By the way, have you read PZ Myers' 9 Sept blog comment about this controversy?
    Hardly a Dawkins-hater. Here it is:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/09/09/i-beseech-you-in-the-bowels-of-christ-please-stop/

    You have not addressed the part I was most concerned about. Perhaps you forgot. It is the bit that refers to 'raking over the distant past'. Say why you think this is not dismissive of, and not minimising sexual abuse. Say why you think that 'raking over the distant past' wouldn't equally apply to floggings, and how that affects the rest of his argument.


    Do you imagine that only professional Dawkins-haters would take offence at the implication here - ie that victims are no better than gold-diggers? This is clumsy and insensitive, and reads more like invective than reasoned argument. 'Fumbles in the vestry' is just another example of trivialising (minimising) serious sexual offences. Is Dawkins winding us up? Are you, in fact a crypto-Dawkins-hater, posting ever more proof of what you deny? We deserve to know the truth!

    Dawkins wrote this before the Jimmy Saville and other famous cases came to light. Saville is dead. Is Dawkins implying that it is pointless to bring crimes such as his to light?



    Attempts to tease out Dawkins' meaning are not necessarily misrepresentations, are they?


    Not worthy of any response.
  21. Anonymous Member

    I give up. I cannot deal with such consistent and blatant misrepresentation, and I think the material thus far ITT has sufficiently demonstrated that. I will leave this thread with two final observations that highlight dishonesty.

    In response to the question of “expert opinion” you cite a legal document and not a research paper. Since no research exists to support your contention you cite a sentencing document instead. I think it should be obvious to anyone that this was not an oversight on your part.

    The comment with reference to the Ryan Report was ignored because, knowing so little about that report, you don’t even realise why your claim over having mostly read it was so obviously false. I’ll spell it out for others – the report is over 2,500 pages. Who seriously believes you read most of it?

    Enjoy your Dawkins bashing.
  22. YOU WIN. says me.

    [IMG]
  23. You have not shown one single instance of blatant misrepresentation, because there were none.

    Your incessant accusations, lacking in any foundation, have soured the whole discussion, where a sober and rational debate would have served so much better. That your parting shot would consist of two further unsubstantiated claims of dishonesty on my part is no surprise to me. It's sour grapes - more ad hominen attacks in the absence of an argument.



    The law on the statute book is expert opinion. It would be wise to pay heed to what that expert opinion states. Of course, academic papers do not deal in absolutes, but the law reflects the academic consensus, while leaving no room for doubt as to the harm caused.

    It is scurrilous to offer this as 'proof' of my dishonesty. That you would stoop so low speaks volumes.


    You have the temerity and arrogance to offer these fabrications of yours as evidence of my dishonesty, when you know you have not one scintilla of proof? It serves only as further proof of your own faulty and unprincipled tactics which you have demonstrated amply throughout the thread.

    Your claim that I 'know so little about [the Ryan report]' is without foundation. In plain language, you made it up. You cannot possibly show that my claim is 'obviously false' since you also conjured this assertion out of thin air.



    His friends and admirers take no pleasure in criticising some of his utterances. Some will give him the benefit of the doubt, based on his rock-solid academic record and his noble defence of reason and science against the forces of ignorance and vested interests.

    Prof Dawkins would be well-advised to listen to the criticisms and evaluate them for what they are. The wisest of them can only benefit him in the long term.
  24. The Internet Member

    I love you both. Now stop fighting and go back to trolling Scientology.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins