60 years ago at Shawnigan Lake Boys' School. (I delivered newspapers there and quite often arrived on the scene minutes after a severe thrashing had been administered).
Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,”
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
60 years ago at Shawnigan Lake Boys' School. (I delivered newspapers there and quite often arrived on the scene minutes after a severe thrashing had been administered).
Again.... 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 don't get how that's not seen as excusing/defending pedophilia.
He didn't say mild pedophilia was a good idea. He said it didn't do lasting harm. It has been written that the British Public School system made men of boys. I have no comment on that.
And that's what "defend" means. If he had said it was a good idea, that would be "advocating" or "supporting."
I can't say whether Dawkins is a pedophile or not nor can I say that sticking your hand inside a kid's shorts is in all cases going to cause irreparable harm, but I can say with a certain amount of certainty that Dawkins is as odd as a $3 bill and won't be baby sitting my grand kids in the near future.
He is talking about something that happened years ago. He also talked about having to fight off older boys in his bed. Was that commonplace or was it rare? I don't know.
What he's saying is that it was accepted and considered normal 60 years ago, and that makes it okay. You know, and I know, that's not true. We all know it was not acceptable for a teacher to put his hands down a student's pants when Dawkins was growing up. How is it Dawkins doesn't know that?>>>because even 'mild pedophilia' causes harm. His denial implies that it did damage... somewhere, somehow, someone convinced him it was normal at that time, to be touched, and he still doesn't understand it wasn't. There are enough men on this forum his age, surely you guys know it was not considered the norm.
Yes, so he's speaking for himself, about his own feelings, and saying he knows of no evidence of that kind of thing doing lasting harm, either to him or anyone else. I think you can take from it that he's forgiven that old teacher for whatever harm it did at the time, and I'm sure we've all been told forgiveness is an admirable thing to do. I don't take from it that he's defending or approving the behaviour, he's just saying yes it happened to some of us, it doesn't appear to have done any lasting harm, it was a long time ago and it doesn't matter any more, move on. And there is a relevant matter of degree here too. He was touched, probably fairly gently from the way he describes it, and however repugnant that might be to us, it's not like the teacher was forcibly sodomizing the boys in his care.
You don't know that. You only know that he didn't forcibly sodomise Dawkins.
Assuming Dawkins is telling the whole truth.
How do you come to that conclusion? Have you known many pedophiles who draw a line at gently touching young boys' genitals?
This whole topic absolutely baffles me. This is a highly educated individual, attempting to say that what his teacher did to him, is as far as it went, and did no lasting harm. That is so incredibly flawed.
When I was young (grade five) I fell at the skating rink. I hit my hip, hard. My substitute teacher at the time, proceeded to try to 'rub it better', groping my ***, noticeably, until I actually yelled at him. He kept giving students unsolicited shoulder rubs, and even told a student her tag was sticking out, pulling her shirt open to 'tuck it back in for her', despite the fact that, no, shirts don't have tags in the front. It was 'mild pedophilia', and no, it left no lasting scars on us.
But don't delude yourself to think he stopped there. We were just him getting his nerve up. What he did later put him in jail, did damage. Left scars.
As I've pointed out to juan, the mere fact that Dawkins somehow ended up convinced that this was normal in your generation, is proof of the damage that pedophiles in positions of power over their victims, can hold.
Dawkins on rushmore:
My former wife was the victim of sexual touching in school and effected everything about her life. I generally believe that judicial punishment should be about rehabilitation not revenge, because we really are not in a position to judge the latter. However another sentencing theory is deterrence, and on that basis I think that teachers and other people who molest should be sentenced so severely that it provides real deterrence to the next creep who considers it. Of course the problem with increasing penalties is something I think the US is experiencing. If the penalty is too severe criminals start killing victims, engaging in high speed chases and shoot outs to avoid capture. Nonetheless these touchy-feely teachers and other pedos should be deterred to the greatest degree possible that is still consistent with public safety.
When something happened and how many were involved does NOT reduce the severity of the crime/sin.
So if the event was so trivial why bring it up in the first place?
So if the event was so trivial why bring it up in the first place?