Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

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.

King Mob

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...

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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....

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does the existence of gang-rape make rape any less condemnable?

Any less condemnable than what? By using the term less than you're implying a spectrum of how heinous a crime actually is. This is also how the judicial system sees it, insofar as sentences for a given stated crime vary based on the degree of the crime. Terrible as one crime might be, the simple truth is another may be considerably worse. This is also exactly the point Dawkins was making; crimes are not black and white, they are committed, prosecuted and hence exist in degrees. Good of you to reinforce his argument, but what exactly is your point?

Geomy

The thing is, what might not effect one person could have a life long effect on someone else.

Any form of sexual interference to any one is absolutely disgusting and sick. ...

I can't believe im reading some of the comments here, im shocked really.

Goes to show doesn't it....

Dave!

Geomy wrote: »

The thing is, what might not effect one person could have a life long effect on someone else.
.

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

Geomy

Dave! wrote: »

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

I can see your point.

smacl

Geomy wrote: »

Any form of sexual interference to any one is absolutely disgusting and sick. ...

If you look at the original quote, all Dawkins says is that while your attitude above is the accepted norm now, it wasn't when he was growing up. He hasn't condoned anything at all, he's simply stated that social attitudes were different thirty odd years ago, and we can't judge the past by todays standards. This is patently the case. I remember growing up in the 70s where homosexuality was illegal, contraception unavailable and the nuns and brothers preyed on the innocent throughout our educational system. Unfortunately, turning a blind eye and denying everything was the norm at that point in time.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

Any less condemnable than what? By using the term less than you're implying a spectrum of how heinous a crime actually is. This is also how the judicial system sees it, insofar as sentences for a given stated crime vary based on the degree of the crime. Terrible as one crime might be, the simple truth is another may be considerably worse. This is also exactly the point Dawkins was making; crimes are not black and white, they are committed, prosecuted and hence exist in degrees. Good of you to reinforce his argument, but what exactly is your point?

You'll find it was a question; not a statement. I don't believe an occurrence of gang-rape makes rape any more palatable. While gang-rape generally would be considered to be more extreme than rape that doesn't mean that every victim of gang-rape would automatically be more traumatised than a rape victim. Just like every victim of peadophilia would not have had the same reaction to it as Dawkins. I would be quite sure there would be many now adult victims, still suffering reading his egotistical comments and would be deeply sickened.

Can you imagine the responses in this forum if a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?".

I can. It's nothing like the shoulder-shrugging and /or defending the statements that has gone on here.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

Which is exactly Dawkins' point - it didn't traumatise him or leave a life-long effect on him, and he's not going to pretend it did.

No. Dawkins point was that as the sexual assault didn't traumatise him and didn't traumatise any of his schoolmates (how he could know this is unclear) that they should be considered "mild" acts of sexual acts against children and as these sexual assaults happened some years ago then he doesn't feel that they should be condemned,

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

....then what's your criticism precisely and exactly?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Dawkins point was that as the sexual assault didn't traumatise him and didn't traumatise any of his schoolmates (how he could know this is unclear) that they should be considered "mild" acts of sexual acts against children and as these sexual assaults happened some years ago then he doesn't feel that they should be condemned,

....if you re-read your OP you'll see that is not what he said.

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you imagine the responses in this forum if a Catholic Bishop had downplayed the sexual abuse of kids by priests some decades ago by saying "it's no big deal really, all part of growing up. Sure what harm did it really do anyway?".

They have and do. It's been a pretty major topic of debate in the media over recent years in case you missed it.

I find the opening argument and much of what you've added to be entirely divisive. Dawkins uses the term mild peadophilia and you imply that he somehow condones it. It doesn't get the desired response, so you raise the stakes by throwing in mentions of rape and gang rape. Divisive, disingenuous and unpleasant.