Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,”


Locutus
#1
says it does not cause “lasting harm”

The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up"

more

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” - Salon.com




World's most irritating stopped clock gets it wrong

..."mild pedophilia" does no "lasting harm" says Richard Dawkins.

(Actually, in context, the quote isn't all that shocking. A bit creepy. But notice how popular this sort of thing is getting. I don't see how anyone could believe that there isn't a push to normalize paedophilia.)



‘Mild pedophilia’: Cockroach Richard Dawkins brazenly defends sexual abuse of children

‘Mild pedophilia’: Cockroach Richard Dawkins brazenly defends sexual abuse of children | Twitchy
 
bill barilko
+2
#2
Cockroach is too polite a term.
 
damngrumpy
+3
#3  Top Rated Post
Please do not insult cockroaches this is lower than something that
slithers
 
gerryh
+2
#4
well, let's see the Dawkins lovers defend this one.
 
JLM
#5
Is that like being slightly pregnant? -
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

well, let's see the Dawkins lovers defend this one.

You could hear a pin drop...
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#7
As long as they're paid fair wages.
 
hunboldt
#8
Richard Dawkins must have a new Book ready to launch. Either that or he has been ignored on the talk show circuit.
either that or he is trying to pay a LARGE -out of court settlement....or some other minor issue..
 
WLDB
+1
#9
I'd have to flat out disagree with him on this one. Perhaps it did no lasting harm to him but he has no right to speak for others on that issue.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

I'd have to flat out disagree with him on this one. Perhaps it did no lasting harm to him but he has no right to speak for others on that issue.

Errr. . . Dawkins has pretty much made a career out of speaking for others. Why stop now?
 
WLDB
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

(Actually, in context, the quote isn't all that shocking. A bit creepy. But notice how popular this sort of thing is getting. I don't see how anyone could believe that there isn't a push to normalize paedophilia.)

He was speaking of a time and place in which it was "normal." The trend fortunately is moving away from that. Everyone knew that this stuff went on in those schools and did little to nothing about it at the time. Now it is far from normal and people are no longer inclined to look the other way.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Errr. . . Dawkins has pretty much made a career out of speaking for others. Why stop now?

When has he done that? His work in biology and even his militant atheism has all been his own point of view. He has never claimed to be representing anyone.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

He was speaking of a time and place in which it was "normal." The trend fortunately is moving away from that. Everyone knew that this stuff went on in those schools and did little to nothing about it at the time. Now it is far from normal and people are no longer inclined to look the other way.



When has he done that? His work in biology and even his militant atheism has all been his own point of view. He has never claimed to be representing anyone.

When one declares something to be Da Troof, one is pretty much speaking for everyone. Even when one fig-leafs it with "for me" or "in my opinion" (as, I would note, Dawkins does in his defence of shirt-lifting).
 
petros
#13
Who cares what he thinks, he's a nobody.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Who cares what he thinks, he's a nobody.

He's a good bit more than a "nobody."

That said, I still don't care what he thinks.
 
petros
#15
He's done what? Wrote a couple long winded books and has bunch of confused weirdos walking around with red A's pinned to their "Another day has gone by that I never used algebra t-shirts".
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He's done what? Wrote a couple long winded books and has bunch of confused weirdos walking around with red A's pinned to their "Another day has gone by that I never used algebra t-shirts".

I'm not gonna call anybody who googles more hits than I do a "nobody."
 
#juan
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He's done what? Wrote a couple long winded books and has bunch of confused weirdos walking around with red A's pinned to their "Another day has gone by that I never used algebra t-shirts".

Richard Dawkins taught at Oxford. He is considered an intellectual by all who are competent to judge him. By "long winded" I assume you mean you don't understand his books. Dawkins is probably the easiest to read/understand scientific writer/speaker around today. Best to quote what he actually said as opposed to what someone else said he said.

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvVlwAt3S-3B0

 
Blackleaf
#18
There is a push by the Left to normalise gay paedophilia in particular.
 
karrie
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

When has he done that? His work in biology and even his militant atheism has all been his own point of view. He has never claimed to be representing anyone.

I generally assume that when starting a foundation for the furthering of a specific point of view, your views represent to a degree, the people who have linked themselves to your foundation. No?
 
Zipperfish
+1
#20
I don't think the tweeters read the actual artilce. My guess is that they got about 140 characters into it. People witht he attention span of a gnat are probably better off avoiding Dawkins and other thinkers. CNN is better suited for them.

Dawkins likes the controversey. He says these thigns deliberately to offend (which, though he doesn't seem to realize it, is why people call him an atheist fundamentalist--because he's in your face the same way the Godbotherers are).
 
EagleSmack
#21
Well there is one defender.
 
karrie
+2
#22
Reason and science.

Reason tells us that an adult putting his hands down a child's pants, is not something that was okay in the time of Dawkins' childhood. His argument of moral relativism would only apply if it was something that, when it happened, people didn't understand was wrong. That is not the case with his molestation.

Science tells us that pedophilia does not limit itself, it escalates. What starts as small intrusions upon others becomes worse. There is no such thing as 'mild pedophilia'.

Combine reason and science in this case, and Dawkins' argument that 'mild molestation' decades ago is no biggie and didn't hurt anyone, falls quickly to pieces.
 
Christianna
#23
Quote:

The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up"

If it was between classmates it wasn't pedophilia, it was curiosity.
 
karrie
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ChristiannaView Post

If it was between classmates it wasn't pedophilia, it was curiosity.

that's not what he was talking about, no.
 
Locutus
#25
These 'controversial' and edgy intelligensia types are revered on both sides of the spectrum eh. Good for them and their fanboys.

In my books there's no room for 'mild pedophilia'. I'm quite certain most victims of such hideous abuse would agree. Although, I might be wrong again.
 
#juan
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He's done what? Wrote a couple long winded books and has bunch of confused weirdos walking around with red A's pinned to their "Another day has gone by that I never used algebra t-shirts".


A couple books???


Google
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ChristiannaView Post

If it was between classmates it wasn't pedophilia, it was curiosity.

You might wanna actually click on the link in the OP and find out what he was talking about before you comment.
 
darkbeaver
#28
Mr Dawkins has always been an advocate for some new order for the planet. My fellow posters here at Triple C might remember my warnings about this person of interest. He's not to be trusted in any way shape or form. Mr Dawkins like me, very recently, does not understand the word religion originally meant personal philosophy. So in effect what he 's been preaching is that he has no personal philosophy, but he does seem to have some philosophy of the new international globalist totalitarian kind. He's very well educated though so the misuse is intentional eh, and it probably pays the bills,whatever they may be. He's suffered no damage he says.

Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus;1797088
(Actually, in context, the quote isn't all [I

that[/I] shocking. A bit creepy. But notice how popular this sort of thing is getting. I don't see how anyone could believe that there isn't a push to normalize paedophilia.)

Look for local chapters of the LGBTP front coming soon to a town near you, oops their already here. Listen to CBC radio much?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Richard Dawkins taught at Oxford. He is considered an intellectual by all who are competent to judge him. By "long winded" I assume you mean you don't understand his books. Dawkins is probably the easiest to read/understand scientific writer/speaker around today. Best to quote what he actually said as opposed to what someone else said he said.

Richard Dawkins amp Neil deGrasse Tyson - The Poetry of Science Full - YouTube

And he thinks that Mild Pedophilia has no lasting effects which makes him a dog **** head in my book.

Roman Polanski was a good director, but he drugged and raped a teenager. OJ Simpson was an awesome football player, had comedic talent, but he killed two people.

Sorry Juan, maybe Dawkins didn't kill anybody and I'll even agree he is highly intelligent and articulate, but his view on this is first rate stupid.
 
Colpy
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

And he thinks that Mild Pedophilia has no lasting effects which makes him a dog **** head in my book.

Roman Polanski was a good director, but he drugged and raped a teenager. OJ Simpson was an awesome football player, had comedic talent, but he killed two people.

Sorry Juan, maybe Dawkins didn't kill anybody and I'll even agree he is highly intelligent and articulate, but his view on this is first rate stupid.

Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything...........

Who said that?? Before me I mean.

Even more appropriate:
"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything." G. K. Chesterton
 

Similar Threads

14
34
Richard Dawkins on Religion
by Scott Free | Nov 22nd, 2008
no new posts