Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,”
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
You might wanna actually click on the link in the OP and find out what he was talking about before you comment.
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.
Look for local chapters of the LGBTP front coming soon to a town near you, oops their already here. Listen to CBC radio much?
Locutus;1797088 (Actually said:
Look for local chapters of the LGBTP front coming soon to a town near you, oops their already here. Listen to CBC radio much?
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
Dawkins is "mild creepy".
There is no such thing as mild creepy, Nug. You is or you ain't.
As in "mild pedophilia". You is or you ain't.
Another example of notoriety seeking pond scum ...............mildly speaking.
There is no such thing as mild creepy, Nug. You is or you ain't.
As in "mild pedophilia". You is or you ain't.
Another example of notoriety seeking pond scum ...............mildly speaking.
I think this is way overblown. I didn't check all the links in the OP, just the first one, and on that basis I don't think it's correct to say that Dawkins was defending "mild pedophilia." All he said was that he doesn't think it does any lasting harm, he didn't say he thought it was acceptable behaviour.
Really? What he specifically said was that he can't find it in himself to condemn his teacher for sticking his hand down Dawkins' pants.
I find it an odd hair to split between 'acceptance', and 'not condemning' an action. I also find the 'mild pedophilia' label as repugnant as the 'true rape' label.
Where do the differences come in?
I suppose if one goes back to the root words "pedo" and "philia" originally it means love of children (without sexual ramifications) so maybe 500 years ago "mild" pedophilia was honourable, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust a "mild" pedophile today. -
Absolutely ridiculous. Dawkins was educated in English Public Schools at a time when caning by the headmaster on the bare bottom of a student was considered acceptable. That to me, was more than mild pedophilia. I don't think the practice continues but it wasn't all that long ago. Saying Dawkins shouldn't be trusted around kids is not even worthy of comment.
So do you agree with his statements that being fondled by a teacher was not something that should be condemned?
No. What I'm saying is that the caning was much worse and it wasn't even mentioned. Dawkins did not defend pedophilia.