Dawkins controversial again.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-09-2014 12:30am

J C wrote: »

I'm not decrying the World ... and I'm very grateful and happy to have been born into it.

No, you just did exactly that by describing it as 'fallen'.

However, it shows all of the signs of being 'Fallen' ... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

Umm, who is it who is supposed to have created them, again?

Equally, despite our now-fallen nature, all Humans have the potential for great love and great achievements ... and that greatly inspires me.

We do indeed, and the best way to achieve this is to free ourselves from our archaic and illusory religious shackles which create a hierarchy of humanity. Those like us > those not like us.

On the substantive point at issue ... do you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and they) might wish them to be?

No. I support the abortion of any foetus before the point of viability if the woman so wishes, foetuses are not people, if they were then we would have homicide investigations and funerals for miscarriages.

recedite · 06-09-2014 10:45am

J C wrote: »

... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

That's why God coined the phrase "if it wasn't for those pesky kids.."

J C · 06-09-2014 8:26pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, you just did exactly that by describing it as 'fallen'.

The world is objectively fallen ... but it retains so much of it's original perfection as to be absolutely amazing ... and you and me are very lucky to have been born into it

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We do indeed, and the best way to achieve this is to free ourselves from our archaic and illusory religious shackles which create a hierarchy of humanity. Those like us > those not like us.

As social beings, Humans will always have hierarchys (of the religious and secular varieties).
This is just an inevitable by-product of social and legal order ... which confers great benefit to each of us, whatever our worldview.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. I support the abortion of any foetus before the point of viability if the woman so wishes, foetuses are not people, if they were then we would have homicide investigations and funerals for miscarriages.

Firstly, the point of viability is moving back all the time as medical science advances - so what is your position on abortion past the point of viability?
Secondly, many people do have funerals for miscarried children ... and people can be charged with foetal homicide where they attack a pregnant woman and she miscarries, as a result of the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Thirdly, none of this is addressing the substantive issue in my post about whether you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and indeed they themselves) might wish them to be?

J C · 06-09-2014 8:36pm

recedite wrote: »

That's why God coined the phrase "if it wasn't for those pesky kids.."

This is off-topic ... but if you would like an answer please ask it on the mega thread and I will be happy to answer you.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 9:26am

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

Pherekydes · 12-09-2014 10:04am

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510342953068683264

Czarcasm · 12-09-2014 10:14am

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

It's no secret at this point that I have no time for Dawkins thoughtless tweets, but I think what he's attempting to highlight on this occasion is that the term "rape culture" is a fallacy that is only perpetuated by radical feminists who espouse this idea that all sex is rape, like that by now infamous radfem article that claimed all PIV sex was rape.

I would never wish to silence anyone, and in fact I encourage people to express their asinine opinions so that they can be shown up for what they are, but honestly, Richard at this point needs to realise the difference between encouraging critical thinking and debate... and just mediocre sensationalist waffle designed to illicit more "fireballs of hatred" from the social mediasphere. At some stage, people are going to dismiss his opinion outright and ignore him when he actually one day might come out with something worth listening to.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 10:15am

people love it when you make vague 'is it or isn't is a joke' statements about rape, richard.

Czarcasm · 12-09-2014 10:20am

Pherekydes wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510342953068683264

A perfect demonstration of my point above - look at how many retweets and favourites (does it bug the hell out of anyone else the bastardization of the English language on social media? Like?) his measured explanation gets, as opposed to his effort to encourage critical thinking that just gets misinterpreted.

Five times as many retweets and favourites for one than the other.

smacl · 12-09-2014 11:00am

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

Seems like he's since removed that tweet, or had it censored. What was the gist of it?

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 12:11pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M7tnHOQfgAgJ:https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

robindch · 12-09-2014 12:42pm

Seems to be querying what's meant by the term "rape culture".

I'm not going to make any comment on this other than to say that (a) Dawkin's input on this topic has not improved global understanding or increased global karma; (b) the response of many people to Dawkin's comments on the topic have frequently been significantly less helpful than Dawkins himself; (c) owing to the regularity with which the term appears, "rape culture" should be defined clearly and unambiguously, if any of its (current) possible meanings are found to exist as anything more substantial than this or similar terms or slogans, should be condemned in the strongest terms and, where possible, be prohibited by both social sanction and appropriate legislation.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 12:51pm

b) is a given. there are people even more idiotic than dawkins on twitter and other forms of media.

FouxDaFaFa · 13-09-2014 7:55pm

He's on a roll.

Richard, stahp.

nagirrac · 13-09-2014 8:17pm

Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.

pH · 14-09-2014 10:19am

nagirrac wrote: »

Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.

It's shocking and depressing that modern day "feminism" has done this 180 turn on sexual morals, but I guess given the power of sex and the movements obsession with victim-hood not surprising.

The sexual revolution of the 60s which genuinely empowered women to be open sexual beings entitled to make their own decisions on the quantity and quality of their sexual relationships, has led to our current situation, where in Ireland and many western countries there is a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and casual/one night stand sex. In fact I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of sexual encounters between those who don't know each other where neither of the parties has consumed alcohol is quite small.

As with the laws of drink driving, it's not impossible nor immoral to tell people they are indeed responsible for things they do whilst intoxicated, and whilst obviously forcing sex on a drunken person is a crime, having consensual sex with someone who has consumed alcohol is not, not should it be.

Anyway I wish these modern day SJWs good luck in disentangling alcohol consumption from modern day sexuality, maybe some system where the parents get together and choose partners would suit them better.

MrPudding · 14-09-2014 11:30am

pH wrote: »

I

As with the laws of drink driving, it's not impossible nor immoral to tell people they are indeed responsible for things they do whilst intoxicated, and whilst obviously forcing sex on a drunken person is a crime, having consensual sex with someone who has consumed alcohol is not, not should it be.

This is very true, but unfortunately not that simple. There comes a point where it is not possible to have consensual sex with a person that has consumed alcohol. That point is where they have consumed so much alcohol that they are considered incapable of giving consent.

So, whilst you are indeed correct, that having consensual sex with a drunk person is not rape, one must be careful because what might appear to be consensual sex might not be.

This is not really anything new. If you have sex with a 15 year old that consented to sex it will still be rape, as she is considered, in law, to be incapable of consenting to sex. Similarly, a person with a certain level of intoxication is considered incapable of giving consent.

Arguing that a woman is responsible for what happens to her when she is drunk, in regards to being raped, seems very similar to saying 'well, did you see how short her skirt was? She was obviously gagging for it.' I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.

MrP

robindch · 14-09-2014 11:49am

MrPudding wrote: »

[...] I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.

I agree, but one needs to bear in mind that there are two people in this - what's the nature of consent if the taker doesn't ask for permission reliably, the giver doesn't understand the request reliably, doesn't provide a reliable answer which then may not be understood reliably? And who are the givers and takers anyway? It's not the case that women are always the givers and men, always the takers.

The issue is not as black and white as it's made out to be, at least by the loudest voices in this debate.

MrPudding · 14-09-2014 12:41pm

robindch wrote: »

I agree, but one needs to bear in mind that there are two people in this - what's the nature of consent if the taker doesn't ask for permission reliably, the giver doesn't understand the request reliably, doesn't provide a reliable answer which then may not be understood reliably? And who are the givers and takers anyway? It's not the case that women are always the givers and men, always the takers.

The issue is not as black and white as it's made out to be, at least by the loudest voices in this debate.

Ha. I never said it was easy... With respect to giver and taker, that is fairly easy with rape. Only a man can commit rape. The person having the penis inserted into their body is the person that must give consent. There may be some sexual acts committed by a woman against a man against his consent, but it will not be rape. That is pretty much where the simplicity ends however...

With respect to whether the request is reliably asked for, or whether that request is understood and whether consent, if given, is of a sufficient quality is the nub of the problem...

MrP

Classicporter · 14-09-2014 12:47pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.

What level of rape would you say is worrying?

About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.

MrPudding · 14-09-2014 1:06pm

Classicporter wrote: »

What level of rape would you say is worrying?

About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.

Sorry I don't have time to check, but I don't suppose you know how that compares to the non-campus rape stats?

MrP

Turtwig · 14-09-2014 1:22pm

And crucially if there's anything to suggest that outside of campus rapes are actually significantly under reported making the figure artificially lower?

MrPudding · 14-09-2014 1:35pm

Turtwig wrote: »

And crucially if there's anything to suggest that outside of campus rapes are actually significantly under reported making the figure artificially lower?

I think rape is, in general, under reported, but I suspect that on campus reports might be higher due to the much better support structures they are, generally, put in place for students. I have no evidence of this, it just seems plausible.

MrP

Turtwig · 14-09-2014 2:22pm

I'd tend to agree. My gut feeling is that on campsus 'rapes' may or may not be on the rise. What is on the rise is the awareness of them, leading to it being that wee little bit easier to report them. Which is a great thing. In general society though rape occurs mostly in the shadows and is hugely underreported. In some ethnical cultures it's basically rife and police are offer fearful of interfering in case they're seeing as racially profiling - a perception they must avoid at all costs.

It's only a feeling though as I'm appealing to ignorance obviously it can only be speculation.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-09-2014 2:49pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Only a man can commit rape. The person having the penis inserted into their body is the person that must give consent. There may be some sexual acts committed by a woman against a man against his consent, but it will not be rape.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

pH · 14-09-2014 3:24pm

MrPudding wrote: »

This is very true, but unfortunately not that simple. There comes a point where it is not possible to have consensual sex with a person that has consumed alcohol. That point is where they have consumed so much alcohol that they are considered incapable of giving consent.

So, whilst you are indeed correct, that having consensual sex with a drunk person is not rape, one must be careful because what might appear to be consensual sex might not be.

Sorry but I can't agree. Forcibly having sex with a drunken (or indeed sober) person is rape, and having sex with someone who is unconscious/non responsive I'd also be happy to call rape. However we as a society (rightly) hold people responsible for their actions whilst under the influence of alcohol. "I was drunk your honor" in no way excuses an assault, murder, theft etc, and I believe that one of the things you are responsible for is indeed the consent you give whilst drunk. I'm not sure how the law looks on other questionable consents given whilst drunk, but AFAIK drunken "consent" say to be tattooed is just as good as sober consent in the eyes of the law.

This is not really anything new. If you have sex with a 15 year old that consented to sex it will still be rape, as she is considered, in law, to be incapable of consenting to sex. Similarly, a person with a certain level of intoxication is considered incapable of giving consent.

Of course this is new, this idea that the ability to give consent magically legally disappears after a certain amount of intoxication whilst the rest of our moral and legal responsibilities remain the same drunk and sober.

Arguing that a woman is responsible for what happens to her when she is drunk, in regards to being raped, seems very similar to saying 'well, did you see how short her skirt was? She was obviously gagging for it.' I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.

Well if you run into anyone arguing that drunk girls are fair game to be raped be sure to tell them that because it's extremely unlikely you'll hear it from anyone posting here.

Being drunk obviously puts us all at greater risk from certain crimes, be it rape, mugging, pickpocketing etc.

Now I get that many women feel rape is a special problem, but if we were to take a story of a male friend who went out got totally hammered and had his wallet pinched we'd *probably* be less sympathetic to him than if he'd been sober, we might even say something to him like "well what did you expect falling down unconscious in that alley with puke down your shirt". Now that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against him, nor does it excuse in anyway the action of the thief, who is just as responsible as if they'd robbed a sober person, but there does seem to be something inside most of our brains that sees that whilst the perpetrator is fully responsible for the theft, our natural instinct is to point out to the victim that they put themselves in the situation and that for their own good avoiding such situations in the future is an action they can take for their own safety.

And no for the comprehension impaired I'm not comparing rape to getting your wallet stolen, I'm merely discussing the silly concept of "victim blaming" without the emotional baggage that rape brings to it.

nagirrac · 14-09-2014 3:48pm

Classicporter wrote: »

What level of rape would you say is worrying?

About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.

Any level of rape is worrying, especially for the victim.

Could you provide a source for your statistic, as it does not correlate with anything I have read on the subject. Most rapes are not reported, in particular where alcohol is involved, as the victim feels self blame and embarrassment. This has been established by numerous research surveys, the number of college students, male and female who report being sexually assaulted or raped is in the range of 2% to 25%, depending on the questions asked. A Department of Justice survey, which asked specifically "did someone force you or threaten you", has the number for rape and attempted rape at 3%, whereas a National Victim Center survey which included all rapes where consent was not given has the number (for women) at a staggering 25%.

jackofalltrades · 14-09-2014 4:22pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Any level of rape is worrying, especially for the victim.

Then how can it reach a worrying level, if every level would be considered worrying.

A Department of Justice survey, which asked specifically "did someone force you or threaten you", has the number for rape and attempted rape at 3%, whereas a National Victim Center survey which included all rapes where consent was not given has the number (for women) at a staggering 25%.

Can I see a link to this please? That number seems very high.

nagirrac · 14-09-2014 6:25pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then how can it reach a worrying level, if every level would be considered worrying.

All rape, as in sex without consent, is worrying from a moral standpoint, but like all crime the level of incidence of the crime can also be worrying. Murder for example is morally worrying in any instance, but the level of murder say in Dublin versus a few decades ago is also worrying.

We know from research that rape is greatly underreported. Recent surveys on US college campuses suggest rape is far more common than was previously thought and appears to be on the rise, which I accept could suggest rape is on the increase or victims are more comfortable reporting it, at least to a survey. What is unquestionable from the data is the link between rape and alcohol / drug consumption.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can I see a link to this please? That number seems very high.

I agree its very high, and a bit of an outlier on the data. Scroll down to date rape, its reference 27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_rape

nagirrac · 14-09-2014 6:47pm

Roastlamb231 wrote: »

Do you have a link for the survey that gave a figure of 25%? If that survey is anything like the "1 in 4" nonsense then it is deeply flawed and biased to worrying levels.

Most college surveys suggest an average of around 2-3% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, if the question is simply "have you been raped". However, we also know from surveys that many, and maybe most, victims do not regard non consensual sex as rape if they are intoxicated. The surveys that report 1 in 4 include those who say they did not give consent due to the influence of alcohol/drugs.

I agree its not black and white, and personal responsibility has a huge part to play, but I also believe that sex without consent is morally wrong and everything should be done to educate young people on why it is wrong. Blaming the victim as Dawkins is doing is hardly helpful in this regard, as victims already have a lot of self blame.

MrPudding · 14-09-2014 8:33pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Um. Ok. Care to provide some clarification?

MrP

Turtwig · 14-09-2014 8:49pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Um. Ok. Care to provide some clarification?

MrP

Think s/he is talking in terms of what 'ought' to be. Whereas you are talking in terms of what is.

jackofalltrades · 14-09-2014 10:01pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Most college surveys suggest an average of around 2-3% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, if the question is simply "have you been raped".

The "1 in 4/5" statistics seem to be based on surveys that were technically flawed.
In some of these surveys the respondents disagreed with the person doing the survey that they had been raped.
In others sex while intoxicated was automatically considered as rape/sexual assult.

Blaming the victim as Dawkins is doing is hardly helpful in this regard, as victims already have a lot of self blame.

How is Dawkins victim blaming? From what I've read of the tweet he just seems to be having a go at "rape culture".

nagirrac · 15-09-2014 12:56am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How is Dawkins victim blaming? From what I've read of the tweet he just seems to be having a go at "rape culture".

Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).

Taken in isolation, Dawkins latest tweet may seem relatively harmless, but it has to be taken in the context of a whole series of tweets to his roughly 1M followers. In the past he has had a go at a feminist who complained about being propositioned in a hotel elevator, scolding her that Muslim women have it worse, mothers or parents who decide to continue a Downs Syndrome pregnancy are immoral, he has described some pedophilia as "mild", and now some rape as "mild". If a Catholic bishop were to make such statements about child abuse, how do you think it would be received? "Ah sure, it was mild rape, not at all like stranger rape".

Basically he is crap at philosophy and should stick to science. He has muddled incoherent thinking that generally isn't backed up by any evidence. His stated moral worldview is that it is immoral to do anything to add to world suffering, which is how he defended his Downs Syndrome argument. Perhaps he could take his own advise then and pause before causing suffering on subjects he knows nothing about, or at least interview a few people with DS and ask if they would prefer if they had been aborted, or ask their parents about the suffering they have caused. He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.

pH · 15-09-2014 1:32am

nagirrac wrote: »

He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.

That's your opinion, Dawkins has his - I get that religious people get muddled and think Dawkins is some kind of atheist pope, but really he's not.

Number of people affected by Dawkins' opinion on whether it's moral or not to go ahead with a pregnancy if you know the fetus has Downs ... Zero. Unless you're proposing the existence of a pregnant woman out there who once told the fetus has Downs syndrome says something like "Personally I have no problems raising a child like this and would be happy to do so, but Richard Dawkins says it's immoral so I'd better have an abortion".

porsche959 · 15-09-2014 1:35am

Dawkins has become an embarrassment to the atheist community.

nagirrac · 15-09-2014 2:41am

pH wrote: »

That's your opinion, Dawkins has his - I get that religious people get muddled and think Dawkins is some kind of atheist pope, but really he's not.

Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope, and an authority figure of reason and logic, and there are plenty who regard him as such. Nowhere have I suggested he speaks for all atheists, nor even a majority of atheists, but in my experience he does speak for many strong atheists, given how frequently he is referenced on atheist fora, his speaking engagements at Atheist organizations, his 1M Twitter followers, and the fawning of his followers on his website. Personally I don't give a rats ass about him, but I do care about his influence on society, which I believe is negative.

My opinion on the DS issue is based on the evidence of those that have studied people with Downs Syndrome and their families, his opinion is based on his individual flawed logic. Survey data makes it quite clear that the great majority of parents, guardians and siblings of people with DS state their lives are positively affected by their DS child/sibling, and more importantly 98% of DS adults say they are happy with their lives and happy with who they are.

The inability of some strong atheists to see this issue clearly is disturbing, as clearly they cannot get past Dawkins as an authority figure. What if a religious figure stated that being gay leads to suffering, due to how it is perceived in society, and if we had a reliable genetic test parents should really abort and try again. What gives Dawkins the ability to judge who is worthy of life and love or not? The excuse that it is just his opinion is pathetic, his opinion is highly influential and needs to be countered publically, in the same way that intolerant fundamentalist religious opinion needs to be countered.

pH wrote: »

Number of people affected by Dawkins' opinion on whether it's moral or not to go ahead with a pregnancy if you know the fetus has Downs ... Zero.

Actually not true. Dawkins is a significant public figure and his views are widely publicized, and taken seriously by significant numbers. His need for constant media attention and wide reporting of his views are evidence of this. His widely disseminated views are hurtful to those who have decided to go forward with DS pregnancies. Put yourself in the shoes of someone with DS or a family member, and imagine how you would feel if you heard an authority figure with a large public following thinks its immoral that you or the person you love was allowed to be born.

I honestly do not understand why people defend him, as I said compare him to a religious figure making such utterances, like references to "mild pedophilia" or "mild rape". It seems to me an appalling lack of empathy to think in this fashion, but as you say everyone is entitled to an opinion.

jackofalltrades · 15-09-2014 7:35am

nagirrac wrote: »

Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).

But how is he victim blaming in his last tweet, as you claim?

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2014 8:47am

porsche959 wrote: »

Dawkins has become an embarrassment to the atheist community.

There's an atheist community now? Nobody told me!

MrPudding · 15-09-2014 9:33am

pH wrote: »

Sorry but I can't agree. Forcibly having sex with a drunken (or indeed sober) person is rape, and having sex with someone who is unconscious/non responsive I'd also be happy to call rape.

But the issue we have is that it is not black and white. Drunken consent is still consent, and that is the legal position. There is a difference between being drunk, inhibitions and having sex when one might otherwise not have done so: not rape; and being so drunk as to not understand what is going on. As you rightly point out, having sex with a person that is unconscious is, and should be, rape. But the complication arises at a level of drunkenness where the person is still conscious, but just barely. it is at this point where their ability to consent is doubted, and this is where the difficulty arises.

pH wrote: »

However we as a society (rightly) hold people responsible for their actions whilst under the influence of alcohol. "I was drunk your honor" in no way excuses an assault, murder, theft etc,

Being voluntarily intoxicated is not an defence, in general, for committing a crime. But we are not talking about a drunk person committing a crime, we are talking about a drunk person being a victim.

pH wrote: »

and I believe that one of the things you are responsible for is indeed the consent you give whilst drunk. I'm not sure how the law looks on other questionable consents given whilst drunk, but AFAIK drunken "consent" say to be tattooed is just as good as sober consent in the eyes of the law.

As I said earlier, drunken consent is still consent. What we are talking about here is not that having sex with a drunk person is rape, but there comes a point where it might be. Here is a quote form the Court of Appeal in England in the case of R v Bree where a guy appealed, successfully, his rape conviction:

R v Bree wrote:

If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.

The above pretty much sums up my view on this, and to be honest, I don't think you and I are far apart on this.

pH wrote: »

Of course this is new, this idea that the ability to give consent magically legally disappears after a certain amount of intoxication whilst the rest of our moral and legal responsibilities remain the same drunk and sober.

I am pretty sure this is not a new concept. Consent, and the ability to give it validly, has always had capacity as a qualifier. And remember, we are not talking about having had a few drinks here, we are talking about being so drunk as to be on the verge of unconsciousness.

pH wrote: »

Well if you run into anyone arguing that drunk girls are fair game to be raped be sure to tell them that because it's extremely unlikely you'll hear it from anyone posting here.

Being drunk obviously puts us all at greater risk from certain crimes, be it rape, mugging, pickpocketing etc.

Now I get that many women feel rape is a special problem, but if we were to take a story of a male friend who went out got totally hammered and had his wallet pinched we'd *probably* be less sympathetic to him than if he'd been sober, we might even say something to him like "well what did you expect falling down unconscious in that alley with puke down your shirt". Now that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against him, nor does it excuse in anyway the action of the thief, who is just as responsible as if they'd robbed a sober person, but there does seem to be something inside most of our brains that sees that whilst the perpetrator is fully responsible for the theft, our natural instinct is to point out to the victim that they put themselves in the situation and that for their own good avoiding such situations in the future is an action they can take for their own safety.

And no for the comprehension impaired I'm not comparing rape to getting your wallet stolen, I'm merely discussing the silly concept of "victim blaming" without the emotional baggage that rape brings to it.

I think that is a fair point, but it is a difficult one to balance. I know you are not comparing rape to getting mugged, but just think about the difference there would be in a cross-examination of a man what had his wallet stolen while drunk and a woman that was, let's say, actually raped whilst drunk...

Turtwig wrote: »

Think s/he is talking in terms of what 'ought' to be. Whereas you are talking in terms of what is.

But then should s/he not have posted correct but shouldn't be, 'correct but shouldn't be and correct but shouldn't be'? Simply stating my post was wrong, wrong and wrong, is an indication of a belief that what I said was factually wrong. Personally I happen to agree that what ought to be, in terms of sexual offences is very different from what is currently in place, but that does not change the reality of things.

MrP

porsche959 · 15-09-2014 2:54pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's an atheist community now? Nobody told me!

Meh. I find this quite tiresome. Yes, most who identify as atheist don't go to conferences and the like but the reality is Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2014 3:06pm

porsche959 wrote: »

Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.

Yes, I know, I just don't care. I didn't elect him Pope of Atheism, and his arguments and pronouncements, good or bad, do not reflect on me in the slightest.

smacl · 15-09-2014 5:12pm

porsche959 wrote: »

Meh. I find this quite tiresome. Yes, most who identify as atheist don't go to conferences and the like but the reality is Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.

Nor do they form a community, have a shared world view, or have anything else in common beyond not believing in God. Dawkins may well be a celebrity atheist but he has no more mandate to represent atheism than Daniel O'Donnell has to represent Ireland.

nagirrac · 16-09-2014 5:47am

smacl wrote: »

Nor do they form a community, have a shared world view, or have anything else in common beyond not believing in God. Dawkins may well be a celebrity atheist but he has no more mandate to represent atheism than Daniel O'Donnell has to represent Ireland.

Yeah, but you're one of them al a la carte atheists

and O'Donnell unlike Dawkins has an MBE

Czarcasm · 16-09-2014 8:01am

I wonder what Dawkins would have to say on twitter about this -

Birth of first baby screened for Cystic Fibrosis a ‘milestone’

Frank Lee Midere · 16-09-2014 8:17am

nagirrac wrote: »

Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).

Taken in isolation, Dawkins latest tweet may seem relatively harmless, but it has to be taken in the context of a whole series of tweets to his roughly 1M followers. In the past he has had a go at a feminist who complained about being propositioned in a hotel elevator, scolding her that Muslim women have it worse, mothers or parents who decide to continue a Downs Syndrome pregnancy are immoral, he has described some pedophilia as "mild", and now some rape as "mild". If a Catholic bishop were to make such statements about child abuse, how do you think it would be received? "Ah sure, it was mild rape, not at all like stranger rape".

Basically he is crap at philosophy and should stick to science. He has muddled incoherent thinking that generally isn't backed up by any evidence. His stated moral worldview is that it is immoral to do anything to add to world suffering, which is how he defended his Downs Syndrome argument. Perhaps he could take his own advise then and pause before causing suffering on subjects he knows nothing about, or at least interview a few people with DS and ask if they would prefer if they had been aborted, or ask their parents about the suffering they have caused. He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.

Are you saying that Emma Watson has it as bad as women in the Taleban controlled areas. I mean a guy politely invited her to his room for coffee in a lift ( in Dublin as it happens) and she declined whereupon he said ok.

Frank Lee Midere · 16-09-2014 8:30am

nagirrac wrote: »

Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope, and an authority figure of reason and logic, and there are plenty who regard him as such. Nowhere have I suggested he speaks for all atheists, nor even a majority of atheists, but in my experience he does speak for many strong atheists, given how frequently he is referenced on atheist fora, his speaking engagements at Atheist organizations, his 1M Twitter followers, and the fawning of his followers on his website. Personally I don't give a rats ass about him, but I do care about his influence on society, which I believe is negative.

My opinion on the DS issue is based on the evidence of those that have studied people with Downs Syndrome and their families, his opinion is based on his individual flawed logic. Survey data makes it quite clear that the great majority of parents, guardians and siblings of people with DS state their lives are positively affected by their DS child/sibling, and more importantly 98% of DS adults say they are happy with their lives and happy with who they are.

The inability of some strong atheists to see this issue clearly is disturbing, as clearly they cannot get past Dawkins as an authority figure. What if a religious figure stated that being gay leads to suffering, due to how it is perceived in society, and if we had a reliable genetic test parents should really abort and try again. What gives Dawkins the ability to judge who is worthy of life and love or not? The excuse that it is just his opinion is pathetic, his opinion is highly influential and needs to be countered publically, in the same way that intolerant fundamentalist religious opinion needs to be countered.

Actually not true. Dawkins is a significant public figure and his views are widely publicized, and taken seriously by significant numbers. His need for constant media attention and wide reporting of his views are evidence of this. His widely disseminated views are hurtful to those who have decided to go forward with DS pregnancies. Put yourself in the shoes of someone with DS or a family member, and imagine how you would feel if you heard an authority figure with a large public following thinks its immoral that you or the person you love was allowed to be born.

I honestly do not understand why people defend him, as I said compare him to a religious figure making such utterances, like references to "mild pedophilia" or "mild rape". It seems to me an appalling lack of empathy to think in this fashion, but as you say everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Clearly mild pedeophillia exists. You are an example of the kind of thinking - the black and white thinking - which is common in religiously minded people.

When I was 12 on a bus a guy sat beside me on a country bus and proceeded to tell me he was deaf. Well he wrote he was deaf. He had an A4 notepad. He then "talked for a while" which was writing to and fro. I was slightly weirded by this conversation. But I was taught to respect disabled people. He then got more and more... Weird. Asked questions about sex ( I was 12). Drew pictures of a penis. Or two. I did nothing. He then started to fondle me. I squirmed. He tried again. I wrote "**** off" on the notepad. And he did.

I remembered this about 15 years later in a pub where a group of guys were discussing the stats about abuse being ⅓ or ½. We all thought that too high until we tried to remember. Most people had something. Some weirdo grabbing them.

But it didn't really affect me. Or the other guys. It's not like we were Elizabeth fritzl.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-09-2014 8:36am

nagirrac wrote: »

Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope

No. You and your theistic cohort have set him up as such. Solely so you can present this baiting misrepresentation in order to bait atheists into defending themselves against the straw man instead of discussing whatever topic happened to be at hand when you used the bait to derail it.

While still other Theists are so ingrained in their personality cult world views, such as the personality cult of Jesus Christ, that they find it difficult to observe the world view of others without doing so in the same structures and terms. So they need to believe we have a personality figure head in the same way THEY do.

But it simply is not true because those, like myself, have no such personality figureheads. Rather we listen to the arguments as and when they arrive. Some people are more prevelent in presenting them due to how world media and literature function. But I attack no more import to the words of Dawkins then I do the words of lesser known Aaron-Ra.

I respect them for getting up and DOING such public speaking and writing. But more than that.... no. I consider, then agree or disagree with, any argument or point they make as and when they make them. They are just a voice in a crowd like myself and yourself.

So stop applying the constructs of your own personality cult style world views when attempting to evaluate the world views of others..... and you will cease to be so wrong, so often.

Hordak · 16-09-2014 8:41am

magicbastarder wrote: »

i googled the claim about the 'great majority' being aborted. apparently there are approx. 700 births and 1,100 abortions every year in the UK; so a majority, but not as great a one as implied.

Since when is the definition of 'majority' subjective?

Pherekydes · 16-09-2014 9:11am

Hordak wrote: »

Since when is the definition of 'majority' subjective?

When you qualify it with 'great'.

Dawkins controversial again.

Comments