Richard Dawkins receives massive backlash after calling some kinds of rape worse than others - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45572686]That's just their mistaken viewpoint. Rape is bad, no matter how it happened, and he doesn't deny that. But some sorts of rape will be much more traumatic on a purely objective level. You can't compare a date rape and a gang rape, just as an instance.[/QUOTE] You can compare them, they are both traumatizing to said person being raped. It's ridiculous to compare levels of trauma from two horrific events.

Bad things can be compared to each other, and their "badness" can be put on a loosely defined, comparative scale. That most people would understand. Like so, in order from bad to baddest: A high-five that was too hard < stubbing your toe < smacking your thumb with a hammer < breaking your leg < amputation of arm < death. Making a scale like this doesn't mean I condone any of the lesser actions. Just like Dawkins doesn't condone date rape. I mean... I'm baffled that people don't understand that. Or that they are willing to criticize him on such weak grounds.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45572716]You can compare them, they are both traumatizing to said person being raped. It's ridiculous to compare levels of trauma from two horrific events.[/QUOTE] so such conversations, thoughts, discussions shouldn't ever happen? I'm serious when I say "Why the fuck not"

By saying one is worse, you're inadvertently saying that one is therefore better. It's a technicality, but it's still fucking stupid of him to say.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;45572731]By saying one is worse, you're inadvertently saying that one is therefore better. It's a technicality, but it's still fucking stupid of him to say.[/QUOTE] no that's not really the case at all

[quote]I mean... I'm baffled that people don't understand that. Or that they are willing to criticize him on such weak grounds.[/quote] I blame the keyboard warriors and internet paladins who want to show how self-righteous they are to the world at large.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45572691] except in this case it isn't like murder someone survives, one person with horrible traumatic memories of violence, and the other with less violence. Are you saying those things CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be talked about? Good, you're doing absolutely nothing of value by saying that though. You're just another reactionary who's declaring what can and can't be talked about. if you think a comparison validates one, then that's entirely on you. No one else.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? I think raped should be talked about but how is saying "this kind of rape is bad but this one is worse" going to accomplish? Did Dawkins get into a fight between two rape victims? The comparison works because in one the person suffers less than the other. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45572729]so such conversations, thoughts, discussions shouldn't ever happen? I'm serious when I say "Why the fuck not"[/QUOTE] Go ahead and talk about it, its just a dumb conversation.

Dawkins is a good evolutionary biologist, but his view on other issues should carry no more weight than anybody else.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45572750]What the hell are you talking about? I think raped should be talked about but how is saying "this kind of rape is bad but this one is worse" going to accomplish? Did Dawkins get into a fight between two rape victims? The comparison works because in one the person suffers less than the other.[/QUOTE] i don't think the comparison works at all unless you think trauma and emotional damage from surviving violence is non existant, are you saying that? so, again, I ask, are statements like his so bad they're deserving of such criticism? No one here even wanted to talk about what he said, just attack him for it. He literally said the more violent act is the more wrong act. Are you currently saying that is wrong or not worth saying ever?

[QUOTE=Cone;45572710]well since he started that i mean. mainly i just don't really get why he had to even bring up rape to begin with in an unrelated topic, like did he intend to just make some weird little aside stab at someone or what? and like you said it's not the first time he's made a bizarre statement like this so the big uproar is fairly understandable as far as i'm concerned [editline]2nd August[/editline] like if someone you knew actually got date raped what would be the relevance of saying "well there are worse kinds of rape you could have been subjected to and traumatized by!" what kind of atrociously backwards, asocial, unlikeable individual blunders in with a statement like that?[/QUOTE] He could have just been trying to come up with an example without it being some secret jab at something. Also that second part is dumb. What kind of conversation would that be. Clearly being beaten and raped is worse than being raped, and if you can't immediately use some basic logic to deduce that then there's nothing more to say.

I don't know, is drugging somebody so that they loose control of their minds and bodies somehow less bad that being forced to do something at knife point?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45572782]I don't know, is drugging somebody so that they loose control of their minds and bodies somehow less bad that being forced to do something at knife point?[/QUOTE] Yes.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45572782]I don't know, is drugging somebody so that they loose control of their minds and bodies somehow less bad that being forced to do something at knife point?[/QUOTE] yeah, if you're roofied, as bad as that is, there is very little memory from it. so the trauma in that sense is minimized, it's still fucking terrible but they didn't have to be concious, in a hyper aware state with a knife to their neck and more adrenaline running through their bodies than you've ever experience making every second tick slower and slower. oh wait, I forgot, observations are bad

you've gotta ask yourself on some level "what does this statement accomplish?" and if the answer is either nothing or worse than nothing then it's a really dumb statement, and one that i would hope that a former professor (as he likes to frequently remind everyone) should know better than to make. just cos you're not a politician doesn't mean you're suddenly the kind of socially inept cretin who makes hideously controversial statements about rape in a situation which couldn't be further removed from it

[QUOTE=Cone;45572795]you've gotta ask yourself on some level "what does this statement accomplish?" and if the answer is either nothing or worse than nothing then it's a really dumb statement, and one that i would hope that a former professor (as he likes to frequently remind everyone) should know better than to make. just cos you're not a politician doesn't mean you're suddenly the kind of socially inept cretin who makes hideously controversial statements about rape in a situation which couldn't be further removed from it[/QUOTE] I don't think people should censor themselves from making controversial statements if they believe they are true.

[QUOTE=Cone;45572795]you've gotta ask yourself on some level "what does this statement accomplish?" and if the answer is either nothing or worse than nothing then it's a really dumb statement, and one that i would hope that a former professor (as he likes to frequently remind everyone) should know better than to make. just cos you're not a politician doesn't mean you're suddenly the kind of socially inept cretin who makes hideously controversial statements about rape in a situation which couldn't be further removed from it[/QUOTE] I understand the whole "What's the point of this obvious matter?" but going on to insult someone just because of that is fucking retarded, calm down and learn to communicate normally, I swear every single one online resorts to insults at everything they oppose, do you insult your parents when they say something unnecessary, jesus christ. "You should drink more water, it's good for you." "NO SHIT MOM, YOU INEPT CRETIN, AND YOU NEED TO BREATHE TO LIVE WOW"

honestly don't see anything wrong with his point

The fact that he's digging his heels in over some useless blanket statement says to me he's just trying to provoke people. Saying that all instances of one abstract "variety" of rape are worse than another abstract variety rape is a meaningless statement which doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't help anyone heal or conjure up any sympathy for victims or apprise anyone of any valuable information or help the justice system function more effectively. He's just being a pedantic dick.

I'm just going to watch this shit burn from over here

what he's saying is logical it's just like why the fuck say it? you're only going to upset people. it's like comparing two different mass murders or genocides or catastrophic space exploration disasters. they're all bad. why do we need to examine which one was worse? does it add anything to the discussion? does it help anyone? does it help anything? why even bring it up. it's such a waste of breath and a waste of getting everyone riled up for no good reason so basically dawkins continues to be an unnecessarily divisive and offensive man. and we hadn't heard anything from him so long! it's almost on cue isn't it. it's almost like he makes money off of the publicity. yeh

I think it's important for us as a society to choose our language (which is a real and meaningful thing which affects the world around us) carefully and one part of that is that we should be careful not to say anything which assuages the guilt of rapists and victimizers. Being a pedant about which kind of rape you think is technically worse than another accomplishes nothing but that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45572793]yeah, if you're roofied, as bad as that is, there is very little memory from it. so the trauma in that sense is minimized, it's still fucking terrible but they didn't have to be concious, in a hyper aware state with a knife to their neck and more adrenaline running through their bodies than you've ever experience making every second tick slower and slower. oh wait, I forgot, observations are bad[/QUOTE] You forget about the trauma of knowing you were drugged and abused by someone you trusted.

but of course the rampant logic parade comes into town defending 'logic' and 'truth' to the death because apparently they mean something?? if you say something that is 'true' then it's okay no matter what it is. human empathy is secondary to logic in too many people's minds

Hey Dick Dawkins, how about you [i]don't[/i] stare out into the internet and tell all the date rape victims out there how their experience wasn't as bad as it could have been?

[QUOTE=Judas;45572604]Richard Dawkins is a fucking idiot[/QUOTE] Judas on Facepunch is being a fucking idiot.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45572884]but of course the rampant logic parade comes into town defending 'logic' and 'truth' to the death because apparently they mean something?? if you say something that is 'true' then it's okay no matter what it is. human empathy is secondary to logic in too many people's minds[/QUOTE] Should empathy out weigh logic? This is what you're saying. Empathy is hugely important. I'm a highly empathetic person in my day to day life. That doesn't mean I can't value logic over hugely over reactionary discussion and circle jerking about how terrible something is with no ability for anything but what YOU want to be said to be said. I don't think any circle jerk is a good circle jerk. There should always be condescension and questions in our minds. Even when empathy comes into play, questions should always be asked. Maybe this statement he made wasn't of great value, but was needlessly attacking him for it, and assumed things he's saying because you want to read things a certain way of ANY value either? [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=asteroidrules;45572878]You forget about the trauma of knowing you were drugged and abused by someone you trusted.[/QUOTE] I agree, that is very much real and very terrible.

I've been sitting here laughing for 5 minutes at the "kings of rape". I'm a horrible person.

His original argument wasn't even about rape. He used it as one terrible example in a string of examples. He should've stopped before getting there. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] Though the argument wasn't really necessary at all.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45572793]yeah, if you're roofied, as bad as that is, there is very little memory from it. so the trauma in that sense is minimized, it's still fucking terrible but they didn't have to be concious, in a hyper aware state with a knife to their neck and more adrenaline running through their bodies than you've ever experience making every second tick slower and slower. oh wait, I forgot, observations are bad[/QUOTE] I would disagree. Being violently held down vs being drugged, or being tied up vs having a trusted teacher or adult take advantage of your emotions and naivete so that they can sleep with you. In both cases the scars will be deep and long lasting, and oftentimes the victims will have self image issues. These people won't think they're worth anything a lot of the time. So this guy comes along and says "Mild rape isn't as bad as violent rape, and you need to learn how to think logically if you disagree," Almost as if these emotional abuse or drug victims don't have the right to be as or even more upset as other victims who were threatened with violence. As if emotional abuse wasn't a thing as serious as physical abuse, and somehow doesn't destroy lives all the same. As if their voices don't count as much because the severity of the crime isn't as bad, so they take a lower priority on the scale of rape severity. How are you supposed to react to that if you are an emotionally damaged individual because you were raped, like in my example? Are you supposed to get a slap in the face to just snap out of it and to be "more logical?" So yeah, I would be totally inclined to disagree with what he's saying. Sitting here and playing at what subjective experience is objectively worse does not help anybody, and only serves to alienate people and make victims feel even less self-worth and hope.

Could we be mad at Dawkins for legitimate reasons like inventing the word "meme"? [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45573018]I would disagree. Being violently held down vs being drugged, or being tied up vs having a trusted teacher or adult take advantage of your emotions and naivete so that they can sleep with you. In both cases the scars will be deep and long lasting, and oftentimes the victims will have self image issues. These people won't think they're worth anything a lot of the time. So this guy comes along and says "Mild rape isn't as bad as violent rape, and you need to learn how to think logically if you disagree," Almost as if these emotional abuse or drug victims don't have the right to be as or even more upset as other victims who were threatened with violence. As if emotional abuse wasn't a thing as serious as physical abuse, and somehow doesn't destroy lives all the same. As if their voices don't count as much because the severity of the crime isn't as bad, so they take a lower priority on the scale of rape severity. How are you supposed to react to that if you are an emotionally damaged individual because you were raped, like in my example? Are you supposed to get a slap in the face to just snap out of it and to be "more logical?" So yeah, I would be totally inclined to disagree with what he's saying. Sitting here and playing at what subjective experience is objectively worse does not help anybody, and only serves to alienate people and make victims feel even less self-worth and hope.[/QUOTE] This is pretty simple logic, man. Violence outside of self-defense is immoral. Rape is violent. Ergo, the more violent the rape, the more immoral it is.