Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

Brown Bomber

Fresh from his recent idiotic comments about Muslims and Nobel Prize winners Richard Dawkins, a child victim of sexual abuse himself, has played down the impact of paedophilia on it's victims in a recent London Times interview.

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”

It's almost as if the **** is courting controversy to publicise his book.

Interview here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/the-world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's almost as if the **** is courting controversy to publicise his book.

I know, saying or posting something to stir **** and provoke reactions!

What an awful person!

Turtwig

Let me guess this straight you're lambasting a victim of child sex abuse (is that true btw? Never knew.:o) for playing down the harm it does. Even if Dawkins was talking about the present it wouldn't have been surprising if he played it down. Victims very often do that. To criticise them on that action is not very empathetic to their plight.

Also I think you completely misunderstood him in that quote in the first place. The above paragraph was just addressing the interpretation you gave in the op.

Benny_Cake

Poor choice of words perhaps ("mild paedophilia"), but as much as I think Dawkins can be a dick at times, I don't think that there is anything to get upset about. Abuse victims must often find it difficult to describe what happens to them, and I don't see why Richard Dawkins would be any different. Nothing to see here.

sbsquarepants

It's a stupid thing to say in all honesty, and I'm a big fan of Dawkins. I don't agree with practically any of the usual criticisms leveled at him. But Jesus Christ Richard, there is no such thing as mild paedophilia you headcase, I know exactly what you mean, but you still cant say that!

And in any case Brown Bomber - would you describe mo and Aisha as a serious case or a mild one. Come down from that high horse would you.

I Heart Internet

The phrase I read was that he couldn't condemn "mild touching up" of children.

What a fool.

He's since retracted that statement (I think).

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The phrase I read was that he couldn't condemn "mild touching up" of children.

What a fool.

He's since retracted that statement (I think).

He hasn't retracted the statement but has posted on his site to try and clarify the comment.

Now, given the terrible, persistent and recurrent traumas suffered by other people when abused as children, week after week, year after year, what should I have said about my own thirty seconds of nastiness back in the 1950s? Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: “How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Don’t cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was – and remains – so much worse.”

That is why I made light of my own bad experience. To excuse pedophiliac assaults in general, or to make light of the horrific experiences of others, was a thousand miles from my intention.

Link to full blog post

Dades

That clarification makes no sense to me. People aren't flapping about him not being traumatised or about him belittling his own experience. They take exception to him using a term "mild pedophilia" in the context of making it seem less offensive.

I do get what he's saying but he's a dumbass for saying it.

magicbastarder

is dawkins aspergent? he does seem blind to the nuance of human emotion at times.

Geomy

Dawkins always reminds me of someone on a course of antidepressants. ....

He just doesn't seem to be connected to life from an emotional or empathic level.

He is like a Vulcan in startreck, extremely logical and looks at thing's from his point of view, but lacks the ability to think about how his opinions effect others or his own reputation....

I think he went way too far this time, maybe it's old age. ...

But if he can deal with his past and detach from the trauma fair play to him, there's plenty of people out there who can't let go and are living it every day through no fault of their own. ..

KyussBishop

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.

Benny_Cake

That explanation only makes it sound worse, if anything.

On a second read of what he said, it doesn't sound good, and my first reaction was probably too dismissive. I think I can see what he was trying to say but what a thoughtless and clumsy way to say it.

Dades

Geomy wrote: »

Dawkins always reminds me of someone on a course of antidepressants. ....

He just doesn't seem to be connected to life from an emotional or empathic level.

Leaving aside the quote this thread relates to, I wouldn't agree with this. He has written a book called "The Magic of Reality" where he's at pains to point out that the wonders of nature are far more fascinating than the myths of religion.

Geomy

Dades wrote: »

Leaving aside the quote this thread relates to, I wouldn't agree with this. He has written a book called "The Magic of Reality" where he's at pains to point out that the wonders of nature are far more fascinating than the myths of religion.

Is that the book aimed at younger reader's ?

doctoremma

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Agree and disagree, and my disagreement is probably going to be a little controversial.

He doesn't feel traumatised by what I'm imagining to be the very stereotypical public school experience of a randy master feeling up a young boy. That is his prerogative and I agree that his experience does not necessarily map onto anyone else's.

But I think sometimes we (the observers in wider society) forget that people can feel like that. If we are aware of a randy old goat doing similar, we as a society might demand he gets the sack/punished appropriately (fair enough) but might also demand that a far bigger deal of it is made than is in the best interests of the victim. I'd wager that on some occasions, the victim is more traumatised by the subsequent events, such as the burden of parental/social services/police/court questioning, than by the incident itself. I recall a story I read several years ago, of a girl - then around 8 years old - who had her bottom felt by a male member of staff at a museum, as he helped her up onto a play/exhibit/something. The mother witnessed the incident, reported the man, he got the sack, charged with some kind of sexual assault, etc. The girl, who was speaking as a teenager, claimed that she didn't remember the event itself but she certainly was "forced" to make a memory and to feel traumatised by the counselling her mother put her through. I'm not comfortable, nor am I advocating, playing down the ramifications of any sexual assault for the perpetrator, but sometimes saying "This was wrong, and the person responsible has been dealt with" might be more appropriate than dragging out (or unnecessarily creating) emotional trauma that might not be there.

Dades

Geomy wrote: »

Is that the book aimed at younger reader's ?

Yep.

seamus

He just shouldn't have used the word paedophilia. Or "mild". Bad phrasing on his part.

Although people are a bit hysterical about sexual assault at the moment, so it's a hard one to broach. "Minor sexual assault" seems like the thing he was trying to say - i.e. a small incident which by our standards is serious, but back then would have been commonplace and even acceptable - but even at that you'll have people up in arms saying, "There no such thing as a minor sexual assault!! All sexual assault is a hanging offence!! rabble rabble rabble"

Mr. CooL ICE

I don't really see what the big deal is?

Perhaps this is because the first I heard of it was his explanation during the Pat Kenny show, but I can see where he is coming from. The guy talks a lot, and for the amount that he talks, its highly possible that something he says could be misinterpreted like this. I can easily see how it was misinterpreted, but I'm perfectly fine with his follow up

Akrasia

All Dawkins is saying is that there are degrees of abuse

He has said it in a clumsy way and of course those who have an agenda to discredit him are jumping all over it, but how can any deny that there are degrees to these things with some forms of abuse being absolutely horrific and other forms of abuse being so mild that it barely causes any damage to the victim.

If someone is traumatised because of years of persistent abuse from a trusted authority figure then they deserve our deepest and sincerest sympathy

However, if someone was 'abused' in the mildest imaginable way (whatever that is) and they spend the rest of their lives playing the victim card and claiming that it has destroyed his/her life, then clearly the abuse was not the problem there, there are underlying issues there, and equating the two 'victims' as if they are the same is clearly devaluing the horrors experienced by the former.

There are paedophiles out there who were praying on innocent children and then compounding the issue with threats and psychological abuse, then absolutely, these people are vile immoral people who should be absolutely condemned, but they are not in the same category as the drunk uncle who asks his 12 year old niece to sit on his knee at christmas one year and never takes it any further or does any harm to any other children. The 12 year old niece might feel violated, but it's hardly a life changing event

the culture of deference

He is taking about the time frame that the abuse happened in.

From the 1940's onwards I can only imagine the power those in authority had.

I thought paedophilia and actual assault were two different things

Gbear

Geomy wrote: »

Dawkins always reminds me of someone on a course of antidepressants. ....

He just doesn't seem to be connected to life from an emotional or empathic level.

That makes you sound like you haven't a ****ing clue what you're on about.



Poor choice of words using "mild paedophilia". Nothing more.
Not worth getting exercised about. His clarification was quite sufficient.

sbsquarepants

That's exactly it - it's a poor choice of words (very poor infact, stupid even) but that's all it is.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fresh from his recent idiotic comments about Muslims and Nobel Prize winners Richard Dawkins, a child victim of sexual abuse himself, has played down the impact of paedophilia on it's victims in a recent London Times interview.


It's almost as if the **** is courting controversy to publicise his book.

Interview here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/the-world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#

.....terrible phrasing is what he's guilty of there. I'd suggest that you had a stick ready to thump Dawkins and attached this in the hope of strengthening the blow.

MrPudding

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's exactly it - it's a poor choice of words (very poor infact, stupid even) but that's all it is.

Why was it a poor choice of words? I have a mild cold, or he was suffering from a mild case of the two bob bits. Why is mild a perfectly good adjective for some things and not others? I presume that most people would agree that there are vary degrees of paedophilia, I am not sure I understand what the issue is with a person describing what he experience as mild.

I understand that paedophilia is an emotive subject, but is it so emotive that the grammatical rules that apply to other words don’t apply to it?

MrP

Geomy

Gbear wrote: »

That makes you sound like you haven't a ****ing clue what you're on about.



Poor choice of words using "mild paedophilia". Nothing more.
Not worth getting exercised about. His clarification was quite sufficient.

What are you now, a mental health expert ?

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

I understand that paedophilia is an emotive subject, but is it so emotive that the grammatical rules that apply to other words don’t apply to it?

Nothing to do with grammar, simply that certain adjective-noun combinations can be considered as oxymorons to some. For example, I find the catholic term just war rather unusual, and have friends that always get a giggle from the term American intelligence

Brian Shanahan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fresh from his recent idiotic comments about Muslims and Nobel Prize winners Richard Dawkins, a child victim of sexual abuse himself, has played down the impact of paedophilia on it's victims in a recent London Times interview.


It's almost as if the **** is courting controversy to publicise his book.

Interview here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/the-world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#

Mod reqest: Please change name of thread to "Brown Bomber posts tripe. In other news bear defecates in the wood".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fresh from his recent idiotic comments about Muslims and Nobel Prize winners Richard Dawkins, a child victim of sexual abuse himself, has played down the impact of paedophilia on it's victims in a recent London Times interview.

Interesting that you want to impose todays standards retrospectively. Do please explain how you apply this to the relationship between the author of the Koran and his wife Aisha.

Geomy

Im amazed at the contradictions and points being scored in this thread.

I think it should be locked because it's going to turn into a circular argument, and already it's getting personal. ...

Nodin

Geomy wrote: »

Im amazed at the contradictions and points being scored in this thread.

I think it should be locked because it's going to turn into a circular argument, and already it's getting personal. ...

This is mad. I don't believe in psychic powers, yet something tells me that remark isn't really about this thread.....spooky.

Hotblack Desiato

I listened to the interview in full and don't appreciate what the big deal is.

Yes he had something unpleasant and wrong happen to him. He'd rather it hadn't happened, but he can't honestly say it left him traumatised, he got on with his life, and as he explicitly stated, wouldn't wish for a second to trivialise the suffering of those who suffered rape by comparing his experience to theirs.

I had members of religious orders do far worse to me when I was a kid but it was just mindless violence, not sexual. So that's ok then...

magicbastarder

this notion that people didn't know what paedophilia was in the 50s and 60s doesn't hold water.
a collague of mine in his mid 50s went into the toilets in arnotts when he was 8 and a man exposed himself to him - so my colleague fled and told his mother, and the gardai were there in very short order and took the issue seriously.

Hotblack Desiato

That just proves he was a compulsive flasher, it doesn't mean he desired to have sex with a child.

<amateur psychologist mode on>Generally, flashers have a compulsion to transgress the sexual mores of society by exposing themselves. Their desire is to shock others. They are likely to be sexually impotent, or have crushing anxieties preventing sexual performance.<amateur psychologist mode off>

Flashing your cock at a random eight year old is going to horrify them, by contrast paedophiles are subtle and exploitative. They build up false trust not only in their intended victims, but in adults also (parents, colleagues, etc.)

Everyone in the 70s knew what a flasher was, but nobody had then heard of paedophilia.

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

Im amazed at the contradictions and points being scored in this thread.

I think it should be locked because it's going to turn into a circular argument, and already it's getting personal. ...

Well considering that the first post was essentially "I hate it when Richard Dawkins shows up my religion. Therefore everything he says is evil. I'll post something evil he said. It is evil because Richard Dawkins said it." I think we passed that event horizon even before we saw it.

Galvasean

I wonder do the people who leap on Dawkins' latest perceived gaff of the week ever take the time to properly read what he said in context before whinging about it? There seems to be an overbearing sense of desperation in some quarters to make the guy look as bad as possible. This thread is almost as bad as the time the Daily Fail tried to out him as a slave owner.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I know, saying or posting something to stir **** and provoke reactions!

What an awful person!

Lets break this down.

In the red corner, an influential cult figure with a large flock of devotees who religiously offer him unconditional love who has trivialised specific forms of paedophilia and it's impact on it's victims in a well-regarded international publication which reaches a large audience.

In the blue corner, me, an anonymous internet user posting his comments on the internet.

And which of the above stirs your emotions enough to speak out? The paedophilia trivialiser? No. The bloke talking about his comments on the internet.

That is some seriously ****ed up set of priorities you have. Suggest recalibration.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets break this down.

In the red corner, an influential cult figure with a large flock of devotees who religiously offer him unconditional love who has trivialised specific forms of paedophilia and it's impact on it's victims in a well-regarded international publication which reaches a large audience.

In the blue corner, me, an anonymous internet user posting his comments on the internet.

And which of the above stirs your emotions enough to speak out? The paedophilia trivialiser? No. The bloke talking about his comments on the internet.

That is some seriously ****ed up set of priorities you have. Suggest recalibration.

...rather presuming he was trivialising paedophilia there. That's not a given.

Regarding his notion that it's wrong to impose todays standards retrospectively - do please explain how you apply this to the relationship between the author of the Koran and his wife Aisha.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Let me guess this straight you're lambasting a victim of child sex abuse (is that true btw? Never knew.:o) for playing down the harm it does. Even if Dawkins was talking about the present it wouldn't have been surprising if he played it down. Victims very often do that. To criticise them on that action is not very empathetic to their plight.

Also I think you completely misunderstood him in that quote in the first place. The above paragraph was just addressing the interpretation you gave in the op.

Taken at face value Dawkins doesn't consider himself a "victim" at all. Nor the countless other children sexually assualted by "mild" peados during the same period.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets break this down.

In the red corner, an influential cult figure with a large flock of devotees who religiously offer him unconditional love who has trivialised specific forms of paedophilia and it's impact on it's victims in a well-regarded international publication which reaches a large audience.

In the blue corner, me, an anonymous internet user posting his comments on the internet.

And which of the above stirs your emotions enough to speak out? The paedophilia trivialiser? No. The bloke talking about his comments on the internet.

That is some seriously ****ed up set of priorities you have. Suggest recalibration.

Again as many have pointed out, your interpretation is incredibly suspect as is your description above. I don't argee that any of those things are true.
Second I wasn't upset by your attempt to stir **** and provoke reactions.

I was just humorously and flippantly pointing out your hypocrisy in doing exactly what you are accusing Dawkins of: Making controversial statements that you don't really believe to serve an ulterior motive.

And I thought I was on ignore?
Do you only pretend to put me on it or do you take me off periodically when you're in the mood to play the victim?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again as many have pointed out, your interpretation is incredibly suspect as is your description above. I don't argee that any of those things are true.
Second I wasn't upset by your attempt to stir **** and provoke reactions.

I was just humorously and flippantly pointing out your hypocrisy in doing exactly what you are accusing Dawkins of: Making controversial statements that you don't really believe to serve an ulterior motive.

And I thought I was on ignore?
Do you only pretend to put me on it or do you take me off periodically when you're in the mood to play the victim?

Instead of being "flippantly humorous" which is just a fancy way of admitting to trolling why don't you try to engage in an adult conversation instead?
__________________
Dawkins refused to condemn the numerous "mild" sexual assaults that took place on children by peados charged with their care because he believes it didn't do the victims any real harm - a victimless crime.

For reasons that should be clear he was trivialising what he shamelessly describes as "mild paedophilia".

How exactly do you believe these things not to be true? Can you condemn "mild" sexual assaults by adults on children?

ninja900 wrote: »

I listened to the interview in full and don't appreciate what the big deal is.

Yes he had something unpleasant and wrong happen to him. He'd rather it hadn't happened, but he can't honestly say it left him traumatised, he got on with his life, and as he explicitly stated, wouldn't wish for a second to trivialise the suffering of those who suffered rape by comparing his experience to theirs.

I had members of religious orders do far worse to me when I was a kid but it was just mindless violence, not sexual. So that's ok then...

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

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well considering that the first post was essentially "I hate it when Richard Dawkins shows up my religion. Therefore everything he says is evil. I'll post something evil he said. It is evil because Richard Dawkins said it." I think we passed that event horizon even before we saw it.

Can you give your crystal ball another rub there and tell me what "my religion" is? Cheers. I'll look forward to your non-response...

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Instead of being "flippantly humorous" which is just a fancy way of admitting to trolling why don't you try to engage in an adult conversation instead?

Lol why? Given this comment:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you condemn "mild" sexual assaults by adults on children?

it's clearly not what you are looking for.

I mean if it was, you could have addressed any of the points by other posters who explain how you and others are taking the comments out of context and twisting them, or that Dawkins just said something stupid.
But nope, you apparently took me off ignore to talk about mine for some reason. (While of course, ignoring the point I made.)

You don't care about the comments or about discussing them. You're just looking for more examples of closed minded and hypocritical we all are.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Lol why? Given this comment:
it's clearly not what you are looking for.

I mean if it was, you could have addressed any of the points by other posters who explain how you and others are taking the comments out of context and twisting them, or that Dawkins just said something stupid.
But nope, you apparently took me off ignore to talk about mine for some reason. (While of course, ignoring the point I made.)

You don't care about the comments or about discussing them. You're just looking for more examples of closed minded and hypocritical we all are.

Don't know if you noticed but your response was post 2. It stands to reason that your post would be the frst I read and respond to. Similarly, Jernal's was post 3 and was the next post I responded to.

You do realise you have failed to condemn "mild" paedophilia? Any specific reason you have done this?

Oh, and who is this "we" you a referring to?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't know if you noticed but your response was post 2. It stands to reason that your post would be the frst I read and respond to. Similarly, Jernal's was post 3 and was the next post I responded to.

And yet the flippant "trolling" post gets more words than the post that directly addresses your mistake you're making...

And again, this is a post that you must have taken me off ignore to read.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do realise you have failed to condemn "mild" paedophilia? Any specific reason you have done this?

Because my glorious leader, the Great Dawkins said it was ok.

That is the answer you're hoping for right?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, and who is this "we" you a referring to?

Atheists.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And yet the flippant "trolling" post gets more words than the post that directly addresses your mistake you're making....

So?

King Mob wrote: »

And again, this is a post that you must have taken me off ignore to read.

Yes, that function is available. Not sure what the relevance is though.

King Mob wrote: »

Because my glorious leader, the Great Dawkins said it was ok.

That is the answer you're hoping for right?

Not at all. I am looking for your honest opinion though I do find it disturbing that you have had two opportunities do condemn "mild" peadophilia and have not done so.

King Mob wrote: »

Atheists.

Who made you the spokesman for "atheists"?

So what precisely is the difference between your own views on "mild" peadophilia and Dawkins' belittling of the damage caused to the victims?

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

And I thought I was on ignore?
Do you only pretend to put me on it or do you take me off periodically when you're in the mood to play the victim?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Instead of being "flippantly humorous" which is just a fancy way of admitting to trolling why don't you try to engage in an adult conversation instead?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you give your crystal ball another rub there and tell me what "my religion" is? Cheers. I'll look forward to your non-response...

King Mob wrote: »

But nope, you apparently took me off ignore to talk about mine for some reason.

King Mob wrote: »

And yet the flippant "trolling" post gets more words than the post that directly addresses your mistake you're making...

And again, this is a post that you must have taken me off ignore to read.

Moderator Lordship helmet and armour on: Can we please get past the personal histrionics? Nobody here following the discussions wants to read about whether a user is on ignore or personal swipes. Discuss the issue of Dawkins remark not stuff like the above.

Thanks.

Brown Bomber

Akrasia wrote: »

All Dawkins is saying is that there are degrees of abuse

He has said it in a clumsy way and of course those who have an agenda to discredit him are jumping all over it, but how can any deny that there are degrees to these things with some forms of abuse being absolutely horrific and other forms of abuse being so mild that it barely causes any damage to the victim.

If someone is traumatised because of years of persistent abuse from a trusted authority figure then they deserve our deepest and sincerest sympathy

However, if someone was 'abused' in the mildest imaginable way (whatever that is) and they spend the rest of their lives playing the victim card and claiming that it has destroyed his/her life, then clearly the abuse was not the problem there, there are underlying issues there, and equating the two 'victims' as if they are the same is clearly devaluing the horrors experienced by the former.

There are paedophiles out there who were praying on innocent children and then compounding the issue with threats and psychological abuse, then absolutely, these people are vile immoral people who should be absolutely condemned, but they are not in the same category as the drunk uncle who asks his 12 year old niece to sit on his knee at christmas one year and never takes it any further or does any harm to any other children. The 12 year old niece might feel violated, but it's hardly a life changing event

Could you clarify if you believe the uncle making sexual contact with the child should be condemned or not? It's not clear.
+
Does the existence of gang-rape make rape any less condemnable?

Is it okay for a grown man to hide in a bush at a beach and perv on kids? Afterall, ther3 is no victim, it causes no harm to anyone.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

................


Can you give your crystal ball another rub there and tell me what "my religion" is? Cheers. I'll look forward to your non-response...

Hi. Third time trying for an answer here - Regarding his notion that it's wrong to impose todays standards retrospectively - do please explain how you apply this to the relationship between the author of the Koran and his wife Aisha.

If you'd be as good, thanks.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all. I am looking for your honest opinion though I do find it disturbing that you have had two opportunities do condemn "mild" peadophilia and have not done so.

I haven't answered the question because it's clearly a disingenuous one.
You are asking it to again, provoke reactions and stir ****.

Any sexual contact with children is bad.

And before you ask I think murder and stealing are bad too.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who made you the spokesman for "atheists"?

I was not aware I was or claimed to be it.

I used the word we because I was referring to atheists.
My point was that your entire motive for this thread (and all of your threads here) is to provoke reactions you can use to confirm your opinions of "militant" atheists.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So what precisely is the difference between your own views on "mild" peadophilia and Dawkins' belittling of the damage caused to the victims?

I don't understand the question.
I've already explained that I think you are mistaken in claiming that Dawkins is belittling anything.

I think he said his point in a stupid, poorly thought out way.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Hi. Third time trying for an answer here - Regarding his notion that it's wrong to impose todays standards retrospectively - do please explain how you apply this to the relationship between the author of the Koran and his wife Aisha.

If you'd be as good, thanks.

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

Geomy

I can't believe that some of you guy's are actually arguing on the side of the stupid comments.

It's the highest order of hypocrisy, I think Atheists are taking it as a dig at Atheism, which is absolutely ridiculous, its about something that was said which can be quite hurtful.

If this thread was moved to after hours maybe it might invoke a more balanced response, im not Atheist or Religious, tk God im neither.

Who needs a personal label when they can be themselves. ...

He was playing with fire with his comments, and for his sake I hope it blows over and he admits his gaff....