Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
aliasghark

Richard Dawkins Defends 'mild Pedophilia'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” 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"

 

richard_dawkins2-620x412.jpg

EnlargeRichard Dawkins (Credit: Reuters/Andrew Winning)

 

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

 

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

 

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

 

Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

 

Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.

 

As noted by the Religion News Service, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse.

 

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

Edited by aliasghark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“...you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours...” he said.

 

^For once I agree with that half-wit. This is why morality shouldn't revolve around propriety because it is highly subjective and given to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^For once I agree with that half-wit. This is why morality shouldn't revolve around propriety because it is highly subjective and given to change.

True, but I'd also argue that the standard of the past is not a standard by which all things can be measured either. It is just as subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think morality is either objective/absolute, or subjective/relative. People should decide which one they want to go with. I feel like people like him switch sides whenever it's convenient (when criticizing the Prophet they become absolute and say he married too early, even though others at the time did so as well). Then they also say morality changes over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somewhat agree with him.  Not the fact that mild paedophilia is okay.  It's absolutely not.  But that standards have changed.  200 years ago, if you got raped, the man was killed and you were expected to get on with your life.  Today, if you get raped, you're expected to have a victim-like "woe is me" mentality for several years.  If you don't, then you aren't a true victim.

 

So yes, standards have changed.  Modernly, people are taught that if they are abused sexually, it is the worst possible crime (worse than murder and genocide) and that you HAVE to let it destroy your life.  Previously, it was just another crime against a human whereby the criminal was punished and the victim got on with their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somewhat agree with him.  Not the fact that mild paedophilia is okay.  It's absolutely not.  But that standards have changed.  200 years ago, if you got raped, the man was killed and you were expected to get on with your life.  Today, if you get raped, you're expected to have a victim-like "woe is me" mentality for several years.  If you don't, then you aren't a true victim.

 

So yes, standards have changed.  Modernly, people are taught that if they are abused sexually, it is the worst possible crime (worse than murder and genocide) and that you HAVE to let it destroy your life.  Previously, it was just another crime against a human whereby the criminal was punished and the victim got on with their lives.

 

Have you ever experienced sexual abuse?  Because I have.  It's hard to get over it when sex triggers memories of abuse and the perpetrator is a family member.  No, it hasn't destroyed my life, but it has caused serious problems in my marriage.  And I really don't think you can judge how victims of sexual abuse dealt 200 years ago.  Maybe they didn't talk about it as much, but that doesn't mean it didn't affect them for years afterwards.

Edited by Fatima Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever experienced sexual abuse?  Because I have.  It's hard to get over it when sex triggers memories of abuse and the perpetrator is a family member.  No, it hasn't destroyed my life, but it has caused serious problems in my marriage.  And I really don't think you can judge how victims of sexual abuse dealt 200 years ago.  Maybe they didn't talk about it as much, but that doesn't mean it didn't affect them for years afterwards.

Yes, I have.  I was raped by a man when I was 8 years old.  Over and over and over.  So you don't need to lecture me about coping.  But I chose to move on with my life and not play the victim card forever.  I don't need sympathy from anybody so it seems absolutely pointless to ever bring it up.  And am I hurting that [Edited Out] by dwelling on it?  Nope, I'm only hurting myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have.  I was raped by a man when I was 8 years old.  Over and over and over.  So you don't need to lecture me about coping.  But I chose to move on with my life and not play the victim card forever.  I don't need sympathy from anybody so it seems absolutely pointless to ever bring it up.  And am I hurting that [Edited Out] by dwelling on it?  Nope, I'm only hurting myself.

I'm just saying, don't judge how other people cope.  People are going to react differently to tragic events in their life.  Some people aren't as strong as you maybe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying, don't judge how other people cope.  People are going to react differently to tragic events in their life.  Some people aren't as strong as you maybe.  

I'm not judging how other people cope.  If somebody is truly stuck in a victim mentality for their entire life, they have nothing but sympathy for them.  What I'm against is the modern attitude that encourages this sort of mentality.  The modern attitude that tells people that if they are a victim, they are a victim for life.  It's sick that people are encouraging this type of mentality in victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person slaps me in the face.  Now, should I get over it because it is in the past?  By the way, what is mild pedophilia?  Anything that does not leave a visible scar?  Pedophilia is a crime and should be punished and any man or woman who is found guilty, once they are released from their long prison sentence, should be banned from ever working, mentoring, raising, or co-habituating with youth again or face permanent incarceration.  It is in the past only when the victim and the perpetrator have both gone to their reward.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Polymath, as long as they wear a GPS tracking device that will place them either away or at the next crime scene pervert attack crime on a child.  Jesus was not clear on what to do after the second slap.  So...

Edited by gteverette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suicide rate began climbing exactly when the insurance companies started paying out for soldier who committed suicide.  So far, this is the only correlation that has been made with the climb in suicides.  You can't get that type of plan in any other line of work.  It is a big inducement for men who think they are worth more to their families dead then alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suicide rate began climbing exactly when the insurance companies started paying out for soldier who committed suicide.  So far, this is the only correlation that has been made with the climb in suicides.  You can't get that type of plan in any other line of work.  It is a big inducement for men who think they are worth more to their families dead then alive. 

Wrong thread, I think you meant to reply to this one: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235017503-more-american-soldiers-died-of-suicide-than-wars/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...