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

[QUOTE=Flapadar;45573832]However, it is highly likely that a survivor of a slightly less violent form of abuse (e.g. coercion vs gangrape at gunpoint) is less likely to have as severe trauma.[/QUOTE] This is kind of not relevant to the backlash Dawkins has been receiving (which I think is overboard), but I think it disregards a lot of peoples feelings to say that some kinds of rapes are objectively worse. Some people might be more traumatized when the rapist is someone they know and trust for example, as it can damage their ability to trust people in the future. I'm not saying violent assault rapes aren't sometimes (or perhaps most of the time) worse than date-rapes or similar, but I think it's ignorant to assume they objectively always are. I realize you write "less likely", so this is more of a general comment on the opinion that seems to be recurring in this thread.

It basically comes down to this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/Z8nPJlI.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=gudman;45574077]the scale of "immorality" of the act is often (and I support it) judged based on the intention/motivation of the perpetrator.[/QUOTE] Well if the perp intends to get non-consensual sex via physical force and violence, I'll judge them more harshly then a perp who intends to get the same via coercion.

[QUOTE=Golgo 13;45573962] Both are terrible crimes, but the point Dawkins made was that some rapes are worse than others, and that is a fact.[/QUOTE] But why compare?

[QUOTE=Kardia;45574187]Well if the perp intends to get non-consensual sex via physical force and violence, I'll judge them more harshly then a perp who intends to get the same via coercion.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but is your judgment based on moral aspect, or on damage those do to the victims? From my point of view, the intention (non-consensual sex) makes those more or less close to the same level of terrible.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574287]But why compare?[/QUOTE] It can put things in perspective. People may see that they didn't have it as bad as others. Some people have been [I]killed[/I] in the process of rape, they don't even have the chance to reflect on what happened to them. It can also mitigate future tragedy as well - by raising awareness of the multitude of differing forms of rape. Also, he might have been trying to make a point. Not sure what that was... but I think just making comparisons for the sake of it is worth it.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574287]But why compare?[/QUOTE] Why do you need a reason? It's an observation; you don't need a reason to point out that some buildings are taller than others.

What Dawkin's said wasn't stupid, but him not expecting to receive any kind of backlash is.

[QUOTE=Kardia;45574362]It can put things in perspective. People may see that they didn't have it as bad as others. Some people have been [I]killed[/I] in the process of rape, they don't even have the chance to reflect on what happened to them. It can also mitigate future tragedy as well - by raising awareness of the multitude of differing forms of rape. Also, he might have been trying to make a point. Not sure what that was... but I think just making comparisons for the sake of it is worth it.[/QUOTE] They still got raped. People who have been raped don't need somebody going going "I know you where forced to have sex with someone, but think how much worse it could have been". As like everyone who has been through a tragic event. And are you joking? Raising awareness of different rape? What awareness is needed? That if your going to get raped you should try to get raped by someone you know as opposed to a stranger?

Rape is rape but the interactions built around it alter the severity of the act as a whole. Not the inherent act of rape itself. does that even make sense i dunno

[QUOTE=gudman;45574341]Fair enough, but is your judgment based on moral aspect, or on damage those do to the victims? From my point of view, the intention (non-consensual sex) makes those more or less close to the same level of terrible.[/QUOTE] Are you trying to say that damage has nothing to do with moral evaluation? If someone intends to have sex, but they plan to do it without consent. I'll judge them not on their intention, but on the damage that they would do. This is in the same way I would judge people who intend to rape via blackmail or via violence, etc. Both the method and intent are important for moral evaluation. At least to me.

[QUOTE=Tacooo;45573201]I really want this guy to fuck up really bad and turn out to be a racist or something just so I can listen to the wails and cries of his neckbeard legion, that would be hilarious[/QUOTE] Erm, I'm not entirely sure that I want one of the largest proponents of evolution to be discredited when creationists are still trying to get creationism taught in schools in my country. I mean yeah he's a dick a pretty irritating portion of the time but I'm not sure that it'd really help anyone if that were to happen.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45574376]Why do you need a reason? It's an observation; you don't need a reason to point out that some buildings are taller than others.[/QUOTE] Its a pointless observation. "Jews killed under hitler had generally less painful deaths than civilians killed by Pol Pot" Thats an observation, but its pointless and dumb. It has no context and even if it did it would still be a pointless comparison.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/d5CSFDx.png[/img] Wow Sensationalist Headlines, the Daily Beast has you beat step up!

[QUOTE=froztshock;45574450]Erm, I'm not entirely sure that I want one of the largest proponents of evolution to be discredited when creationists are still trying to get creationism taught in schools in my country. I mean yeah he's a dick a pretty irritating portion of the time but I'm not sure that it'd really help anyone if that were to happen.[/QUOTE] If Richard Dawkins vanished from the scene I'm sure it would help the cause for elevation. No one wants to listen to someone who comes off as Dawkins does, even if he is on your side.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574463]Its a pointless observation. "Jews killed under hitler had generally less painful deaths than civilians killed by Pol Pot" Thats an observation, but its pointless and dumb. It has no context and even if it did it would still be a pointless comparison. Its an observation, but[/QUOTE] It is a fundamentally pointless thing to say, true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. I'm not sure why someone would actually suggest that people should only voice opinions and observations when they have a "point", and that's not saying anything about the fact that whether or not something has a point is totally subjective.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574482]If Richard Dawkins vanished from the scene I'm sure it would help the cause for elevation. No one wants to listen to someone who comes off as Dawkins does, even if he is on your side.[/QUOTE] True, but I'd rather he simply shut up. It'd be worse if he was made an utter fool of somehow.

[QUOTE=Kardia;45574447]Are you trying to say that damage has nothing to do with moral evaluation? If someone intends to have sex, but they plan to do it without consent. I'll judge them not on their intention, but on the damage that they would do. This is in the same way I would judge people who intend to rape via blackmail or via violence, etc. Both the method and intent are important for moral evaluation. At least to me.[/QUOTE] In my opinion the method is secondary, because it's driven by motivation and intent. I tend to break intent and motivation down a bit more (see my previous posts), so it might get a bit blurry from there. If put bluntly, "intent = non-consensual sex", yes, it does seem like method is as important to me as well.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45574493]It is a fundamentally pointless thing to say, true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. I'm not sure why someone would actually suggest that people should only voice opinions and observations when they have a "point", and that's not saying anything about the fact that whether or not something has a point is totally subjective.[/QUOTE] You don't have to have a point, but if you say something that is insensitive, such as comparing the severity of different forms of rape, don't act like you don't know why everyone is upset. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;45574495]True, but I'd rather he simply shut up. It'd be worse if he was made an utter fool of somehow.[/QUOTE] He is already view as a fool by many. It's a shame he marred his scientific legacy with being know as an arrogant prick. He is so full of his self though I doubt he will ever realize it.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574522]You don't have to have a point, but if you say something that is insensitive, such as comparing the severity of different forms of rape, don't act like you don't know why everyone is upset.[/QUOTE] Except he never did actually compare the two. The phrase that spawned the backlash was used as an example for a different point. It wasn't a statement on it's own. The point was simply that saying that "X is bad, and Y is worse" in no way means endorsement of X. That's what's said in the article. I admit though, I couldn't manage to find what made him bring that point up.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574522]You don't have to have a point, but if you say something that is insensitive, such as comparing the severity of different forms of rape, don't act like you don't know why everyone is upset. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] He is already view as a fool by many. It's a shame he marred his scientific legacy with being know as an arrogant prick. He is so full of his self though I doubt he will ever realize it.[/QUOTE] Yes, but there's "being a prick" and then there's "being an evolutionary biologist who apparently believes black people or women are inferior" or something along those lines. One's just annoying, but the other is enough to convince at least some people to ignore what he's associated himself with, right or not. Just like how feminism is a wonderful movement that's now got an image problem because for some reason there's no shortage thought from its stranger proponents that idiots can pull up and use to plead their case that the whole thing is bad. Basically, I'm with you, I'd rather he stopped talking. But at the same time, if he ever generated a shitstorm on such a level as described in the original post, I'm not sure that I'd be laughing.

So what he's saying is like: Getting raped is terrible. Getting raped and stabbed at the same time is worse. Yeah makes sense to me.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45574522] It's a shame he marred his scientific legacy with being know as an arrogant prick. He is so full of his self though I doubt he will ever realize it.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with you here, but regardless of that, people who think that someone's scientific legacy is in any way "marred" by who the scientist is and what his views are, should be disregarded anyway, their opinion is worthless. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] Yeah I really shouldn't attempt to automerge.

[QUOTE=gudman;45574518]"intent = non-consensual sex"[/QUOTE] When you look for the intent of any given rape, why do you simplify intent to be = non-consensual sex? Why not look at deeper intents? "intent = pleasure" or even "intent = neural process satisfaction". What if the rape is more complex. And intent includes the demoralization of a group? Or the intent to demonstrate dominance? My point here, is that an intent can be the result of a multitude of other intents. Trying to figure out which intent is most relative and judging morality solely on that one intent, ignores all other more detailed intents and baser intents.

[QUOTE=Kardia;45574681]When you look for the intent of any given rape, why do you simplify intent to be = non-consensual sex? Why not look at deeper intents? "intent = pleasure" or even "intent = neural process satisfaction". What if the rape is more complex. And intent includes the demoralization of a group? Or the intent to demonstrate dominance? My point here, is that an intent can be the result of a multitude of other intents. Trying to figure out which intent is most relative and judging morality solely on that one intent, ignores all other more detailed intents and baser intents.[/QUOTE] Which is my point. You can't directly compare two motivations, "desire to make the victim suffer as much as possible due to one's own deeper complexes" (common case of violent rape) and "desire to satisfy/calm one's own sexual frustration" (common case for drug rape), but I personally place them roughly on the same level of being morally reprehensible. In that light, the method becomes secondary in my eyes.

[QUOTE=gudman;45574646]I don't agree with you here, but regardless of that, people who think that someone's scientific legacy is in any way "marred" by who the scientist is and what his views are, should be disregarded anyway, their opinion is worthless. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] Yeah I really shouldn't attempt to automerge.[/QUOTE] His legacy as a whole, as a person, is generally going to be that of an asshole. I wasn't wanting to suggest his works will be disregarding, they won't for the most part and shouldn't be, but right now Dawkins is more know for his anti religious work, a lot of which is poorly thought out and sophomoric, and not his contributions as a scientist.

[QUOTE=gudman;45574727]You can't directly compare two motivations[/QUOTE] If you are using motivations to measure the morality of an act, but motivations are incomparable. How do you compare any acts at all? I still don't understand why you consider method to be secondary. That's the only way I can see moral comparisons being made.

despite being an atheist, i never really cared for dawkins

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45572825]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.[/QUOTE] there is context in what he's saying. he was sexually abused as a child, but according to him he didn't suffer trauma in the long term from it, and somewhere along the track he made the point that not all sexual abuse is equal. this led people to react, and this is then a response to that I can't believe the article doesn't mention this (oh wait, it's the daily mirror, I can believe anything) and I can't believe I didn't say this sooner [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] I repeat, dawkins was abused as a kid [url]https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/child-abuse-a-misunderstanding-w-polish-translation/[/url] [url]https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/physical-versus-mental-child-abuse/[/url] it actually makes me a bit angry to see a salon article entitled "Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”" because that is misrepresentation of the absolute worst kind

ops nevermind