Dawkins Trivialises Paedophilia

HansHolzel

From the Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory (J. A. Cuddon, 1992):

"Jargon (Old French 'warbling of birds')... by the end of the 15th c., and perhaps earlier, it came to signify unintelligible or secret language... We are accustomed to using it derogatorily now to describe the private or technical vocabulary peculiar to a trade or profession..."

MrPudding

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

I am not aware of any formal qualification in being an asshole, but you are most certainly impling such a qualification.

MrP

HansHolzel

Impling?

Whatever about 'impling', calling somebody what you just did can get you banned ;-)

swampgas

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

I didn't detect any such implication myself. Perhaps it is more correct to say that you inferred the qualification?

HansHolzel

To infer means to deduce.

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not aware of any formal qualification in being an asshole, but you are most certainly impling such a qualification.

MrP

Now, now, it is a Sunday. Let's keep things civil.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

...he did not imply a qualification, he did not state outright he had a qualification.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....as I said, trying to personalise the debate won't work with me. You know full well what I mean. .

Again, I am not trying to personalise the debate. Let me clarify the situation.

You used the term "fondling" to describe child molestation. I have shown you that to fondle means to lovingly caress.

There are two possibilities here as I see it, and I do hope you clarify because right now this conversation is giving me the creeps. The first is that you didn't understand the actual meaning of the term "fondle". In which case you should now correct yourself. The second possibility is that you consider kiddy-fiddling as being "loving" and "caressing" sexual assaults.

Nodin wrote: »

.So fondling is the same as penetrative rape? .

"Fondling"? Again? Really?

We both know it's not the same. However, because there are various forms of sexual crimes against children with some being more extreme than others the difference is academic. All sex crimes against children are horrific. None register onto any "acceptable" scale. There is no such thing as "mild paedophilia", and only a sick ****er could believe so.

Please tell me you agree,,,

Nodin wrote: »

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

Lets keep honest. I said the public school boarding school environment would have changed little since Dawkins was there. It's core values, ethos, routines and so on would have changed little.

Turtwig

If we're going to be pedantic about semantics and definitions can we please use the term "paedophilia" in an accurate way. It is NOT child molesting.

HansHolzel

Nodin wrote: »

...he did not imply a qualification, he did not state outright he had a qualification.

To imply does not necessarily mean to convey a meaning intentionally.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There are two possibilities here as I see it, and I do hope you clarify because right now this conversation is giving me the creeps. The first is that you didn't understand the actual meaning of the term "fondle". In which case you should now correct yourself. The second possibility is that you consider kiddy-fiddling as being "loving" and "caressing" sexual assaults.

Or option 3: you are sticking to an overly narrow definition of a word, ignoring the context and intent of the person who wrote it so you can feign your outrage and disgust and pretend that it's possible that person actually does think that some child molestation is sometimes acceptable.

And to save you the time allow me to twist what jernal said for you.

"Pedophilia isn't child molesting? Surely you don't mean that pedophilia is acceptable!? I'm not accusing you of holding that position, I'm just implying you are by asking that silly question that has an obvious answer."

Brown Bomber

Anyone know how close Dawkins in to Peter "secularist of the year" Tatchell?

I know they co-organised the anti-pope protests together.

Tatchell a gay and secularist activist once wrote a in a letter ot the Guardian that "not all sex with children is abusive and unwanted". Sick man. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html

He was also hooked in with the paedophilia advocacy organisation the Paedophile Information Exchange who wanted to legalise "consensual" :rolleyes: sex with children.

Who decides who the "secularist of the year" is? And why did they award this scum.bag?

HansHolzel

I do hope that no one, in trying to distinguish paedophilia (the thought) with child molesting (the deed), is actually mixing up paedophilia with pederasty.

Benny_Cake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He was also hooked in with the paedophilia advocacy organisation the Paedophile Information Exchange who wanted to legalise "consensual" :rolleyes: sex with children.

Not true, according to the man himself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/nick-griffin-bnp-smear-tactics_b_1987761.html

That claim originates from those lovely people in the BNP.

MagicMarker

HansHolzel wrote: »

I do hope that no one, in trying to distinguish paedophilia (the thought) with child molesting (the deed), is actually mixing up paedophilia with pederasty.

Just...what?

Sarky

Well by the logic that seems to be in use for this thread, this obviously means Brown Bomber supports the BNP, right?

This has been a very confusing thread.

Brown Bomber

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Not true, according to the man himself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/nick-griffin-bnp-smear-tactics_b_1987761.html

That claim originates from those lovely people in the BNP.

No, it originates in Tatchell writing a chapter in a book published and edited by the paedophile information exchange.

n 1984 he contributed to a book called "The Betrayal of Youth" (For crossword fans, the title is an acrostic that spells The B.O.Y). Tatchell wrote the chapter entitled 'Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent.’

It was followed by a chapter called ‘Ends ‘and Means; How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable.’ The author was Roger Moody, at the time reported to be a PIE executive. One of his contributions to consent law was the following: ‘Specifically, this means we don’t work to lower the age of consent, but to abolish it, and we don’t argue that rights over kids be transferred from courts to parents, but that the only people who have the right to kid’s rights – are the kids themselves.’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100193589/im-a-tatchellite-and-i-love-my-gay-friends-but-cameron-imposing-gay-marriage-on-us-marks-a-new-intolerance/

This is his letter to the Guardian in full.

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is 'shocking' that Gay Men's Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike. Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[4]

Secularist of the year? :rolleyes:

HansHolzel

So now there's a wee bit of a contradiction with the "I have always condemned adults having sex with children" line in the Huffington Post piece.

Benny_Cake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, it originates in Tatchell writing a chapter in a book published and edited by the paedophile information exchange.




This is his letter to the Guardian in full.



Secularist of the year? :rolleyes:

He clarifies his position on this here.

I might not agree with everything Peter Tatchell says, but he has been a tireless human rights campaigner over the years, not just on gay rights, but also on issues as diverse as religious freedom, animal rights, and social justice. He's an extremely courageous man.

Hotblack Desiato

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyone know how close Dawkins in to Peter "secularist of the year" Tatchell?

Well, this is a new low. 'A is a secularist, and B is a secularist, and B said something bad, therefore A believes in this bad thing as well'

Now whether Tatchell indeed said something bad is another argument, perhaps you could open a thread about it on LGBT or something.

Brown Bomber

Benny_Cake wrote: »

He clarifies his position on this here.

I might not agree with everything Peter Tatchell says, but he has been a tireless human rights campaigner over the years, not just on gay rights, but also on issues as diverse as religious freedom, animal rights, and social justice. He's an extremely courageous man.

... don't forget paedos rights.

So how close is he to Dawkins?

Benny_Cake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So how close is he to Dawkins?

Does it matter? Is it even relevant?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, I am not trying to personalise the debate. Let me clarify the situation.

You used the term "fondling" to describe child molestation. I have shown you that to fondle means to lovingly caress. .

Its threads like this and posts like these that remind me why I have never, since day one, had any time for your nonsense.

I'd suggest entering the word "fondle" into a thesaurus.

Brown Bomber wrote:

We both know it's not the same. However, because there are various forms of
sexual crimes against children with some being more extreme than others the
difference is academic. All sex crimes against children are horrific.
None register onto any "acceptable" scale. There is no such thing as
"mild paedophilia", and only a sick ****er could believe so.

So they aren't all the same, but they are? You seem very confused on the issue.

Brown Bomber wrote:

Lets keep honest. .

Aha. Haha.

Brown Bomber wrote:

I said the public school boarding school environment would have changed little since Dawkins was there. It's core values, ethos, routines and so on would have changed little.

Really? From the mid 1950's? Dear o dear.

Brown Bomber wrote:

Anyone know how close Dawkins in to Peter "secularist of the year" Tatchell?

...no idea. Quick, throw the mud and hope it sticks!!!!!!!!!!!

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... don't forget paedos rights.

So how close is he to Dawkins?

He shown that Tatchell does not hold the position you state he does. Have the decency to acknowledge that and move on.

Nodin

HansHolzel wrote: »

To imply does not necessarily mean to convey a meaning intentionally.

.....and just because somebody reads something into a post, doesn't mean it was there.

HansHolzel

Nodin wrote: »

.....and just because somebody reads something into a post, doesn't mean it was there.

No, you hang up.

Turtwig

Closing this mess.

Brown Bomber

I asked a question in the thread on the atheist "intellectual" Dawkins and his disgusting"mild " paedophilia position ". It was regarding gay activist and and co-organiser with Dawkins of the British anti-Pope protests Peter Tatchell.

He is equally if not more deranged on his views on children and sex is the "secularist of the year" for 2012. He is the creepy looking hypocrite in the green shirt.



Tatchell has a long history of gay activism and has crossed paths with pro-paedophilia organisations.

He was a leading member of the "Gay Liberation Front" which assimilated into it the "Paedophile Action For Liberation" . PAL were exposed and then dissolved.

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/the-vilest-men-in-britain-25-5-75/

They had earlier merged with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) another group of paedos Tatchell was associated with.

i

n 1984 he contributed to a book called "The Betrayal of Youth" (For crossword fans, the title is an acrostic that spells The B.O.Y). Tatchell wrote the chapter entitled 'Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent.’

It was followed by a chapter called ‘Ends ‘and Means; How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable.’ The author was Roger Moody, at the time reported to be a PIE executive. One of his contributions to consent law was the following: ‘Specifically, this means we don’t work to lower the age of consent, but to abolish it, and we don’t argue that rights over kids be transferred from courts to parents, but that the only people who have the right to kid’s rights – are the kids themselves.’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cr...w-intolerance/

PIE were formed in Scotland by the humanist Ian Dunn in 1960s. Tatchell would later write Dunn's obituary.

Ian Dunn's exposure by the Sunday Mail.
http://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/sundaymail25384.jpg

Tatchell along with the pro-paedophilia groups allied themselves in the 70's with National Council For Civil Liberties who lobbied at the time

"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

This is line with Tatchell's own words in a letter published in The Guardian in 97

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is 'shocking' that Gay Men's Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike. Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[4]

Which bring us back around to Dawkins who believes in a form of "mild paedophilia".

The same Dawkins who is an "Honory Associate" at The National Secular Society, the group who honored Tatchell as the "Secularist of The Year".
http://www.secularism.org.uk/honoraryassociates.html

---

So what I wanted to find out is why are the secularist society honoring such a man? What his connection to Dawkins is and why don't atheist speak out against their fellow atheists in such cases?

Another prominent example is the atheist founder of NAMBLA - the North American Man Boy Love Association.

smacl

Back so soon BB?

Howard Juneau

Ah look, a well balanced post as usual