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

Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    It's a bad statement from someone who's worshiped the world over, almost a demi god to some.

    He's a loose cannon that's for sure, I think he may have had an "Intelligent Idiot moment"

    Just goes to show how his giving out about religion etc backfired on him, karma at its best. ...

    Some here might realise it was a stupid statement, but anyone it effected won't look at it that way...


  • Options
    #63
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....then what's your criticism precisely and exactly?
    That Dawkins is trivialising specific forms of paedophilia, What he refers to as "mild" paedophilia which in his case case involved a teacher putting a child on his lap and molesting him.

    By Dawkins refusing to condemn these perverted acts on him and describing them as "mild" he must surely be gravely offending the victims of paedophilia who haven't been able to come to terms with their own sexual assaults against them.


  • Options
    #64
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    smacl wrote: »
    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.

    Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

    I'll make it worth your while. If you can find such a thing then I'll delete my account.


  • Options
    #65
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That Dawkins is trivialising specific forms of paedophilia, What he refers to as "mild" paedophilia which in his case case involved a teacher putting a child on his lap and molesting him..

    So this fondling is as severe as actual rape?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    By Dawkins refusing to condemn these perverted acts on him and describing them as "mild" he must surely be gravely offending the victims of paedophilia who haven't been able to come to terms with their own sexual assaults against them.

    For the second time, he did not refuse to condemn them. Read your OP.


  • Options
    #66
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

    .

    Again - Dawkins didn't say what you claim. This is getting rather tired.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic.

    I'll make it worth your while. If you can find such a thing then I'll delete my account.

    Are you sure? Instances of Catholic bishops covering up sex crimes aren't exactly hard to find. You don't even have to qualify the word crime, just looking for crimes that bishops have covered up, they're predominantly sex crimes.

    If you want a more specific case, this one involved a personal friend, who was really put through the mill by the Catholic hierarchy. Your term 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?". pretty much sums it up. The number of of similar cases repeated across the Catholic world is large and well documented. You should perhaps read the Murphy report.

    Edit: If you're referring to boards threads that include support for the church stance in clerical abuse, you'll find plenty in the clerical abuse thread.


  • Options
    #68
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Huh. Well, bye BB, in that case...


  • Options
    #69
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    So this fondling is as severe as actual rape? .

    Fondling? I find your choice of words troubling.
    1. Fondling - definition of Fondling by the Free Online Dictionary ...To handle, stroke, or caress lovingly.


    Nodin wrote: »
    For the second time, he did not refuse to condemn them. Read your OP.
    So when he refuses to condemn the molestation of children that happened 50 years ago what exactly was he doing then?

    And can you explain the difference between a boarding school headmaster molesting a child years ago and a headmaster molesting a child today.


  • Options
    #70
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    smacl wrote: »
    Are you sure? Instances of Catholic bishops covering up sex crimes aren't exactly hard to find. You don't even have to qualify the word crime, just looking for crimes that bishops have covered up, they're predominantly sex crimes.

    If you want a more specific case, this one involved a personal friend, who was really put through the mill by the Catholic hierarchy. Your term 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?". pretty much sums it up. The number of of similar cases repeated across the Catholic world is large and well documented. You should perhaps read the Murphy report.
    Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
    "Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."


  • Options
    #71
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
    "Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."
    You might have to show the first part first.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you kindly pay more attention to what you quote in future. This is what you responded to:
    "Prove it then. Find a thread were a Catholic official said something comparable and this forum's users were so understanding and apologetic."

    Check out the clerical abuse thread, plenty of apologists for the Catholic church there. Bye now.


  • Options
    #73
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Fondling? I find your choice of words troubling..



    ....trying to personalise the debate won't work with me, I'm afraid.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So when he refuses to condemn the molestation of children that happened 50 years ago what exactly was he doing then?.

    He did not refuse to condemn it, nor did he give a blanket pass to "molestation". What he stated was

    "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 in your own OP as a quote, so why I have to explain it is beyond me.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And can you explain the difference between a boarding school headmaster molesting a child years ago and a headmaster molesting a child today.

    So you are imposing todays standards retrospectively? Righty-o.

    What's the difference between Muhammed marrying a nine year old years ago and somebody doing the same now?


  • Options
    #74
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    "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."

    So slavery was not too bad then, just a child of its time, like, say, if they enslaved Muslims particularly, as they don't have many Nobel Prizes.

    This guy is a joke and an embarrassment to the scientific community. But he's not alone e.g. Watson, the DNA guy, is even worse.


  • Options
    #75
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Where exactly do you get slavery from in reference to the Dawkins' quote?


  • Options
    #76
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....trying to personalise the debate won't work with me, I'm afraid.
    I am not personalising it. You said that the child molestation suffered by Dawkins was "fondling" which means that the headmaster "caressed" Dawkins genitals "lovingly" and without any consent.

    Do you stand by this?
    Nodin wrote: »
    He did not refuse to condemn it, nor did he give a blanket pass to "molestation". What he stated was

    "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"

    And what we learn from that is that he has less than full condemnation for child "mild" child molestation if it happened some years ago. He is not explicit in whether his condemnation lies between none at all or partial condemnation. His coining of the phrase "mild" paedophila offers a clue though and must have paedophilia advocates around the world rubbing their hands together with glee.
    Nodin wrote: »
    So you are imposing todays standards retrospectively? Righty-o.

    What's the difference between Muhammed marrying a nine year old years ago and somebody doing the same now?
    There are different social constructs involved but it's still inexcusable as the impact on the child is the same.

    Not the case with the British toff boarding schools though. Which are essentially the same as then as now, and of course the impact on the victim is the same.


  • Options
    #77
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    smacl wrote: »
    Where exactly do you get slavery from in reference to the Dawkins' quote?

    So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??


  • Options
    #78
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I am not personalising it. You said that the child molestation suffered by Dawkins was "fondling" which means that the headmaster "caressed" Dawkins genitals "lovingly" and without any consent.

    Do you stand by this?..


    ....as I said, trying to personalise the debate won't work with me. You know full well what I mean.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And what we learn from that is that he has less than full condemnation for child "mild" child molestation if it happened some years ago. He is not explicit in whether his condemnation lies between none at all or partial condemnation. His coining of the phrase "mild" paedophila offers a clue though and must have paedophilia advocates around the world rubbing their hands together with glee..

    .....'attempted lynching by obtuse semantics'

    So fondling is the same as penetrative rape?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    There are different social constructs involved but it's still inexcusable as the impact on the child is the same...

    So you're calling Mohammed a child molester. Fair enough.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Not the case with the British toff boarding schools though. Which are essentially the same as then as now, and of course the impact on the victim is the same.

    The 1950's held the same attitudes as now? This is fascinating news, because everyone else and the records from the era say otherwise.


  • Options
    #79
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??

    ....well the Brits had abolished it by the 1830's in Britain, so you might want to tighten up your references a tad.


  • Options
    #80
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Touching up children was never officially cool or encouraged, not even in Plato's day.


  • Options
    #81
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Touching up children was never officially cool or encouraged, not even in Plato's day.

    He didn't say it was........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....well the Brits had abolished it by the 1830's in Britain, so you might want to tighten up your references a tad.

    Even that's a fair few decades into the nineteenth century. Then thirty years later there was a bit of unpleasantness in the United States. Come off it.


  • Options
    #83
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Even that's a fair few decades into the nineteenth century. Then thirty years later there was a bit of unpleasantness in the United States. Come off it.


    ....so you think Dawkins was talking about the pre-emancipation period relating to the USA....these new smart crystal balls are truly amazing.


  • Options
    #84
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....so you think Dawkins was talking about the pre-emancipation period relating to the USA....these new smart crystal balls are truly amazing.

    I'm moving you around like a pawn, time-wise. You were in the 1830s, which you now seem to have implicitly conceded were in the nineteenth century, and now you're up to the 1860s.

    Anyway, reasonable people abhorred slavery in the centuries Dawkins himself named.

    Reasonable people have always deeply frowned on molestation too.


  • Options
    #85
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    To suggests that
    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

    in some way implies condoning slavery is nothing short of ridiculous. As per Brown Bomber's inclusion of rape and gang rape when mild pedophilia wasn't working for him, extrapolating racism to slavery as a device to attack Dawkins' statements is pure raving. Sorry, but that's all it is. Weak.


  • Options
    #86
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    To play down racism in a past period when slavery was racism's chief feature is disgusting but if you want to continue to believe in this guy I can't stop you. Or make you think about what you're defending.


  • Options
    #87
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Richard Dawkins wrote:
    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

    To put this comment in context, if Uncle Tom's Cabin were written and published today it would be considered incredibly racist, and rightly so. But we don't condemn Harriet Beacher Stowe for this, we rightly praise her as among the forefront of the black emancipation movement in the US. At the time of publishing the book, Beacher Stowe's views were radically progressive in their view of black people, giving them a humanity and equality far above what was commonly viewed as their place in 19th century America.

    And let us not forget some of the words of Abraham Lincoln re black people:
    I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

    But because he rose above this petty bigotry and ugly racism, and became the man who lost his life because he freed the blacks, we rightly regard Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest statesmen of all time.

    Of course times change and mores evolve to match, and it is because people are big enough to grow out of the petty faults they have and embrace a stronger, better morality. By casting away the old fears and hates do we create a stronger and better world.


  • Options
    #88
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Sigh.

    Again, for the hard of reading:

    "So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??"


  • Options
    #89
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Sigh.

    Again, for the hard of reading:

    "So, eh, what was the most practical meaning of racism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Not getting served in a pub??"

    You got a large number of proper responses dealing with the illogicality of your position.

    Deal with it.


  • Options
    #90
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    It is the moral relativism of Dawkins' remarks that seems to be above a few heads here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Including yours.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement