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

Dawkins should have known better. Straight white upper-class males are not allowed to talk about rape.

Well of course some kings of rape are worse then others. Like rape emperors.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;45576495]Well of course some kings of rape are worse then others. Like rape emperors.[/QUOTE] There's an entire feudal hierarchy of rape.

yeah he's not wrong, but it's still a gross stupid insensitive thing to say. like, it's not even necessary to say either. i like richard dawkins but far out he needs to know when to just shut up

[QUOTE=Turnips5;45575676]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[/QUOTE] Also countless others including the Daily Mail and the Independent have smeared Dawkins before, it's a damn shame, it's resulted in these manufactured controversies overshadowing the great things he's done, yeah sometimes he's really stuck his foot in it by saying something unnecessary or being a bit out of his depth but he'd never condone the things people seem to be getting from it all

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45576749]yeah he's not wrong, but it's still a gross stupid insensitive thing to say. like, it's not even necessary to say either. i like richard dawkins but far out he needs to know when to just shut up[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think anybody who said that would thereby be endorsing date rape, go away and learn how to think."[/QUOTE] The truth is always insensitive isn't it?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45577096]The truth is always insensitive isn't it?[/QUOTE] A quick murder is bad, slowly killing someone through torture is worse. Buy my book "the CoD delusion," available in stores now. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] Besides his earlier biological work, the man makes a living selling controversy. He's technically correct, but what he said didn't need saying. Not much more to say.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45577096]The truth is always insensitive isn't it?[/QUOTE] why say it? what has he gained or proven by saying that? not a single person in the world will deny that a violent murder rape of a child is worse than a date rape or something, but at the same time most normal people aren't going to bother with comparing the two because it's not necessary

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45577159]Besides his earlier biological work, the man makes a living selling controversy. He's technically correct, but what he said didn't need saying. Not much more to say.[/QUOTE] You know he was making a point when he said it, right? He didn't just randomly tweet out "Date rape sucks, yeah, but [I]gang[/I] rape's worse!"

Dawkins was molested by a priest as a child. While this doesn't lend any validity to his statements by itself, it does show that he's actually put some thought into a situation which he's also experienced. He's not some buffoon on an anti-feminist tirade or whatever else some of you seem to think. Either way, the massive hatebase for Dawkins will despise him for anything he says at this point, so there's no reason to try and justify his statements at all.

I don't think him comparing them is all that bad, but everything gets 100 degrees of fucked when you try to put [I]objective worth[/I] on human suffering. Getting almost fucking killed while being rape is a much more violent and live threatening rape situation than date rape, but [I]when[/I] would you possibly need to compare the severity of the two outside of this situation right now?

The problem is less that he said the original thing and more that he constantly acts like a petulant child any time someone dares challenge him on something he said. (Although even using the phrase "mild pedophilia" is colossally stupid) If he wants to be a spokesman for science and atheism he needs to learn to watch what he says because that's literally the [i]only[/i] job of a spokesman.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45577618]I don't think him comparing them is all that bad, but everything gets 100 degrees of fucked when you try to put [I]objective worth[/I] on human suffering. Getting almost fucking killed while being rape is a much more violent and live threatening rape situation than date rape, but [I]when[/I] would you possibly need to compare the severity of the two outside of this situation right now?[/QUOTE] Person gets punched in the face, receiving a black eye. Person gets stabbed multiple times and suffers permanent organ damage. Which case is worse? They're both cases of assault and both are cases of human suffering. Is one objectively better or worse than the other?

[QUOTE=Explosions;45577673]Person gets punched in the face, receiving a black eye. Person gets stabbed multiple times and suffers permanent organ damage. Which case is worse? They're both cases of assault and both are cases of human suffering. Is one objectively better or worse than the other?[/QUOTE] is it something anyone needs or wants richard dawkins to explain to them?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45577703]is it something anyone needs or wants richard dawkins to explain to them?[/QUOTE] I don't think Dawkins gives a damn about whether or not there's a "need" to explain anything. He doesn't need a motive to make an observation. I'm getting a "it's an unpleasant truth that we don't want to acknowledge so just shut up" vibe from this thread.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45577731]I don't think Dawkins gives a damn about whether or not there's a "need" to explain anything. He doesn't need a motive to make an observation. I'm getting a "it's an unpleasant truth that we don't want to acknowledge so just shut up" vibe from this thread.[/QUOTE] is drowning in diarrhea objectively worse than drowning in water?

[QUOTE=Explosions;45577731]I don't think Dawkins gives a damn about whether or not there's a "need" to explain anything. He doesn't need a motive to make an observation. I'm getting a "it's an unpleasant truth that we don't want to acknowledge so just shut up" vibe from this thread.[/QUOTE] So he just woke up one day and took a bunch of facts out of a hat and decided to post them for no reason? I don't believe that for a second. A man like him doesn't say anything unless he has a very specific goal to achieve in saying those things. People very rarely just say things for no reason. "I don't have an agenda, but [contreversal statement comes here.]" Really? is that what I'm expected to believe? [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E[/media] This basically sums up the majority of the thread.

at this point, I don't think anyone actually read the damned article. [QUOTE]Originally Professor Dawkins tweeted his argument without giving examples. He wrote: "X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of X, go away and don't come back until you've learned how to think logically."But it was when substituted the unknowns for rape and paedophilia that the backlash started.[/QUOTE] and his original tweet is damned right

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45577618]I don't think him comparing them is all that bad, but everything gets 100 degrees of fucked when you try to put [I]objective worth[/I] on human suffering. Getting almost fucking killed while being rape is a much more violent and live threatening rape situation than date rape, but [I]when[/I] would you possibly need to compare the severity of the two outside of this situation right now?[/QUOTE] "It's important that you [I]know[/I] that one is worse than the other. It's extremely important that you [I]know[/I] I'm right." That's basically the vibe I'm getting from most of the people defending him. So okay, here I am, I'm admitting it. Sometimes people have shittier lives than other people, you were all right. What have you accomplished by this victory? What battle was won, what ground was gained in proving definitively that some victims of crime have it worse than others? What political or social barrier was overcome? What understanding and knowledge was gained? Be specific. Because other than simply being right for the sake of being right, I don't understand what the need for this ridiculous pedantic argument is.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45577773]is drowning in diarrhea objectively worse than drowning in water?[/QUOTE] Yes.

Well honestly it's dumb comment to make. I mean it's true yeah, but in the way that it's so obviously true that it doesn't need to be said. One is worse but just because one is worse doesn't devalue the severity of every other kind of rape.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45577944]"It's important that you [I]know[/I] that one is worse than the other. It's extremely important that you [I]know[/I] I'm right." That's basically the vibe I'm getting from most of the people defending him. So okay, here I am, I'm admitting it. Sometimes people have shittier lives than other people, you were all right. What have you accomplished by this victory? What battle was won, what ground was gained in proving definitively that some victims of crime have it worse than others? What political or social barrier was overcome? What understanding and knowledge was gained? Be specific. Because other than simply being right for the sake of being right, I don't understand what the need for this ridiculous pedantic argument is.[/QUOTE] But Dawkins wasn't trying to win some victory or make political ground, as has been pointed out in this thread (namely right between your last two posts), he was making a statement about a logical fallacy. I don't know why people are so insistent that he was making some grand statement, or how he used rape as a way to draw attention to himself. Read what was actually said, or don't comment on it. [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=General J;45578010]Well honestly it's dumb comment to make. I mean it's true yeah, but in the way that it's so obviously true that it doesn't need to be said. [B]One is worse but just because one is worse doesn't devalue the severity of every other kind of rape.[/B][/QUOTE] You see this? This is [I]literally[/I] the point he was making.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45578025]But Dawkins wasn't trying to win some victory or make political ground, as has been pointed out in this thread (namely right between your last two posts), he was making a statement about a logical fallacy. I don't know why people are so insistent that he was making some grand statement, or how he used rape as a way to draw attention to himself. Read what was actually said, or don't comment on it.[/QUOTE] No, he didn't just choose rape and pedophilia out of a hat. He could have said "bread covered 50% in mold is worse than bread 20% covered in mold. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating eating bread covered in 20% bold." No, he went out of his way to make statements about rape and child molestation. He could have chosen from an infinitely wide pool of things that are not controversial, yet he chose to make a controversial statement. And he doesn't say things for no reason. He had an agenda in specifically picking those two things. I want to know what that is. That, or he really truthfully [I]didn't[/I] see this coming, which I sincerely doubt if Dawkins is half as smart as people think he is. So I'm gonna opt to assume that he's [I]not[/I] an idiot, and that he said those things for a very good reason.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45577671]The problem is less that he said the original thing and more that he constantly acts like a petulant child any time someone dares challenge him on something he said. (Although even using the phrase "mild pedophilia" is colossally stupid) If he wants to be a spokesman for science and atheism he needs to learn to watch what he says because that's literally the [i]only[/i] job of a spokesman.[/QUOTE] He's not and has said repeatedly he doesn't want to be a spokesperson or whatever for atheism, it's just been a major preoccupation of his for a long while for a number of reasons

[QUOTE=Gentry;45572614]i'm more of a baron of rape[/QUOTE] Count Rapeula?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45577773]is drowning in diarrhea objectively worse than drowning in water?[/QUOTE] i'd say so, especially if you were really thirsty beforehand

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45572601]he's basically saying the more violent act is more wrong are people actually mad about that?[/QUOTE] yes but the examples are completely out of touch with everything. I mean, both kinds of rape are awful, but if we want to look at it from a ~rational~ point of view like Dawkins, Date rape is more fucked up in a sense because you are deceitful to the person you are "dating" about your intentions. Someone who comes and points a knife at you and rapes you is straight up honest about his intentions. Once again, in both cases it's rape. It's one of the worst crimes you can commit. It's not even worth indulging in that kind of analysis.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45578054]No, he didn't just choose rape and pedophilia out of a hat. He could have said "bread covered 50% in mold is worse than bread 20% covered in mold. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating eating bread covered in 20% bold." No, he went out of his way to make statements about rape and child molestation. He could have chosen from an infinitely wide pool of things that are not controversial, yet he chose to make a controversial statement. And he doesn't say things for no reason. He had an agenda in specifically picking those two things. I want to know what that is. That, or he really truthfully [I]didn't[/I] see this coming, which I sincerely doubt if Dawkins is half as smart as people think he is. So I'm gonna opt to assume that he's [I]not[/I] an idiot, and that he said those things for a very good reason.[/QUOTE] his agenda is that he was fucking abused :l

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;45578900]Count Rapeula?[/QUOTE] Why has noone in this thread acknowledged the Daedric Lord of Rape?

[QUOTE=Steele92;45578878]He's not and has said repeatedly he doesn't want to be a spokesperson or whatever for atheism, it's just been a major preoccupation of his for a long while for a number of reasons[/QUOTE] If he didn't want to be a spokesman for atheism he wouldn't write books and give speeches where he assumes to speak for atheists. [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=certified;45583663]Why has noone in this thread acknowledged the Daedric Lord of Rape?[/QUOTE] Because GODS ARE NOT REAL [b]LEARN TO THINK[/b] and buy my book