Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #93
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Touching up children is wicked. Deal with that first.


    ....has anyone here said otherwise?


  • Options
    #94
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Options
    #95
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,230 ✭✭✭✭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?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #96
    Tordelback
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #98
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #99
    Tordelback
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #100
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #101
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    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.

    I for one am not defending Dawkins per se, I'm merely highlighting that the arguments both yourself and BB are posing range from highly divisive to pure raving. Dawkins is simply pointing out that societies standards for morality have changed significantly over time. For example, the slave owning classes of 18th century America that you seem so keen to drag into the discussion, were predominantly good, God fearing, Christians. Today's Christians would of course take the view that slave ownership is not such a good thing. Does that mean every slave owning 18th century American Christian was evil? By todays standards, quite probably. By the standards of the day, less so. We see behaviour throughout history that if placed in a modern context would be considered barbaric, many of those committing barbaric acts even end up as histories heros. Many even believed they were doing what they did in the best interests of their people and / or church. Such is history. Hopefully, we learn from it and progress as a result.


  • Options
    #103
    Tordelback
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


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

    No idea, never did any kind of sociology in formal education, but I have read a fair amount in adult life. And BTW that definition seems okay to me.

    But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which centres on appreciating that there are degrees of severity to things, and that social mores change over time, both principles I would have thought were pretty sensible observations. Neither excuse or condone foul behaviour, but both allow an informed contextualised consideration that doesn't depend on omniscience or moral perfection.


  • Options
    #104
    Zen65
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    As Dades said, that 'clarification' makes no sense: It would be somewhat analogous, to saying a woman who has been groped on a night out, would be 'trivializing/belittling date rape victims' if she made a big deal of it.

    He might think what he said is ok, because he is applying the standard to himself only, but it doesn't work like that; in making the argument he automatically makes the implication, that it is something people shouldn't make a big deal out of.

    On the contrary, I believe his point was that society should distinguish between a groper and a serial rapist. He acknowledges the emotional response but asserts that we should rise above that and not judge yesterday's events by the standards of today.

    In saying that he is not trivialising the Jimmy Saville case, he is saying we should not be inventing "new" Jimmy Savilles by revisiting the past and deeming that (for example) teachers who used corporal punishment were child abusers.


  • Options
    #105
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Tordelback wrote: »
    No idea, never did any kind of sociology in formal education... that definition seems okay to me.

    Need we say any more?


  • Options
    #106
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    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.

    It's a private college, what exactly is your problem with them charging fees and raising money from investors? :confused:

    They'll have scholarships too, which I imagine they're under no obligation to provide, given that it's private.

    Good for him.


  • Options
    #107
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Dave! wrote: »
    It's a private college, what exactly is your problem with them charging fees and raising money from investors? :confused:

    They'll have scholarships too, which I imagine they're under no obligation to provide, given that it's private.

    Good for him.

    Is this support of elitism just a prelude to the threat of a ban?


  • Options
    #108
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Yes. Don't come to the Non-Drinkers forum or you'll suffer my wrath.

    (I don't mod A&A)


  • Options
    #109
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Is this support of elitism just a prelude to the threat of a ban?

    Erm. Are you saying that private universities shouldn't be allowed to choose what fees they charge? Why didn't you address his point that the university offers scholarships? A newly established university isn't cheap to run btw so I'd suspect much of the fees go directly back into the university. But even if they don't and it's an elite University, eh big deal.


  • Options
    #110
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mod: New College isn't really the discussion here. The remarks by Dawkins on paedophilia are. Please keep on topic.

    Thread on New College here.


  • Options
    #111
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Erm. Are you saying that private universities shouldn't be allowed to choose what fees they charge? Why didn't you address his point that the university offers scholarships? A newly established university isn't cheap to run btw so I'd suspect much of the fees go directly back into the university. But even if they don't and it's an elite University, eh big deal.

    The point is that Dawkins puts himself forth as a beacon of enlightenment yet he lends his name and time to this educational initiative that is more in tune with the blue-blood privilege of the past. A few scholarships for the plebs? Big deal. Note too that the report mentioned the backers being "investors" rather than, say, philanthropists. This is just another elitist wheeze dreamt up by Dawkins and his chums.

    My last post was written before I saw the most recent moderator comment.
    Dave! wrote: »
    Yes. Don't come to the Non-Drinkers forum or you'll suffer my wrath.

    (I don't mod A&A)

    OK, I can live with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    My last post was written before I saw the most recent moderator comment.

    Unacceptable! Ban! Ban! Ban!
    Nah, don't worry about it that happens. If you guys want I can move yer posts to the other thread and you continue on there too. :)

    Edit : Done!


  • Options
    #113
    Tordelback
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Need we say any more?

    Gosh I'm sorry, didn't know I needed an actual degree in a subject area before I was allowed to have an opinion on it.

    Any chance of you addressing the topic any time soon?


  • Options
    #114
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Tordelback wrote: »
    Gosh I'm sorry, didn't know I needed an actual degree in a subject area before I was allowed to have an opinion on it.

    Any chance of you addressing the topic any time soon?

    The giving of an opinion probably shouldn't project at the outset an unwarranted image of academic qualification e.g. through use of jargon.


  • Options
    #115
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    You say
    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Is this support of elitism just a prelude to the threat of a ban?

    I read
    Help! help! I'm being repressed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw


  • Options
    #116
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    The giving of an opinion probably shouldn't project at the outset an unwarranted image of academic qualification e.g. through use of jargon.

    And from being repressed, the tables turn. The peasants are revolting! ;)


  • Options
    #117
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Utterly revolting!


  • Options
    #118
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    The giving of an opinion probably shouldn't project at the outset an unwarranted image of academic qualification e.g. through use of jargon.
    So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that if a person uses the correct terminology for a given subject for which they do not hold a formal qualifiation that person is being dishonest? Wow.

    MrP


  • Options
    #119
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    MrPudding wrote: »
    So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that if a person uses the correct terminology for a given subject for which they do not hold a formal qualifiation that person is being dishonest? Wow.

    MrP

    Do you understand the meaning of the word jargon?


  • Options
    #120
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    The use of sociological jargon plus the supercilious tone of the post (on Giddens and "structuration") implied a qualification in the subject on the part of the poster, which he later admitted he did not have.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    The use of sociological jargon plus the supercilious tone of the post (on Giddens and "structuration") implied a qualification in the subject on the part of the poster, which he later admitted he did not have.

    Not really, plenty of people read philosophical texts and refer to them correctly. Using the correct terminology goes with that. I often do so but never pretend to be qualified in that field.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement