As Dawkins said this morn.

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I wouldn't put something like rape in a scale. Those two cases are different, sure, but I wouldn't say one is worse than the other. Just they are different. To say one is worse than the other is opinion surely, not evidence based.
  2. This is typical of Narcop
    On rape, that's not any sort of "friend" who got "carried away" : that's an abuser. It is equally and possibly worse depending on the survivor. And to suggest that breach of trust is somehow less than stranger danger is inappropriate. Breach of trust is what destroys the psyche of many babies and children in abusive environments.
    P J Thompson likes this.
  3. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    And another sign of how Dawkins' head works is that he opted to use rape and pedophilia to illustrate his 'point' in the first place.
    These two things are very real with very real victims suffering very real consequences. Everyone knows this.

    And Dawkins decided it was fine to ignore how those people may feel about him using the crimes they endured/endure to score cheap points on twitter.....

    A real sweetheart.
  4. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    In cases of date rape there's also the effect on your trust in yourself. Not just others but yourself. This must be hugely damaging and it could well come loaded with feelings of guilt about your choices, your judgement of character...all of which has been forced upon you by someone else who was 'cleverly' playing you all along. The inner turmoil must be potentially huge and enduring.

    And yet Dawkins doesn't appear to consider any of this because you weren't dragged down an alley and DA seems to agree.

    Dawkins does a good job of illustrating the point, 'you become what you fight'.
    He has become diametrically opposed to religion to the point that his take on scientific method has become his religion.
    He exhibits the same hard line behaviour as the hard-line god believers he calls deluded.
    And some of his personal casualties appear to be empathy and compassion. It appears he would rather we got rid of unscientific stuff like this and...emotion.
    That we made all our choices using his line of reason and logic. That we throw babies out with bath water.

    He's nowt but a zealot and a dangerous one at that. Imho.
  5. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    What's a Narcop?
  6. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    If I was interested in ethical dilemmas I'd be interested in the opinions of people involved in or around these sorts of cases.
    Social workers and health professionals probably have to deal with some awfully difficult situations. Legal and law enforcement professionals would also have interesting opinions.
    I really don't know what an Oxford Biology professor could bring to an ethical discussion about abortion and rape.
    ..but because it's Richard Dawkins people listen and takes sides. The man's a controversy magnet.

    Even in the area of science the man divides opinion.
    I quite like this exchange in "Dawkins vs. Tyson".
    That's Neil deGrasse Tyson, not Mike Tyson. Although if anyone has a video of "Dawkins vs Mike Tyson" then I think we'd all like to see it.
    Tyson points out the problems with Dawkins approach, and I think his criticisms of Dawkins are spot on. It's just a shame that Dawkins ignores the criticism and has such a witty response.
  7. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    What do you mean? I'm sure that he has carried out many rigourously scientific studies on both subjects which qualify him to state the things he has....oh wait...

    He's not a controversy magnet in these cases. He's a controversy creator. He felt it was ok to put his (strictly scientific of course) views out there and that caused controversy. Rightly so. Because his views are abhorrent and devoid of humanity.
    btiw2 likes this.
  8. No you don't. But you wish it were true.
  9. Full marks to you for being such a new man, but if you leave out the sanctimoniousness, can you answer - honestly now - which do you reckon is the worse scenario in both awful incidences?

    I am asking you to be both thoughtful and honest.
  10. Come on, PJ - enough of the cop outs.

    You KNOW what the issue is here. You KNOW (or should do) what Dawkins was saying (in his oft-typical blunt style).

    You tell me - which is worse?
  11. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    I'm not playing your game DA. The record of both your view and my view is there in the posts above.
  12. Well, I think we've cut to the chase of where you're coming from, Sparks.

    Tell us who your heroes are?
  13. This is honestly not a game, PJ, and I'm genuinely disappointed that you won't address the actual issue here - one that you brought to this table.
  14. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

  15. Hmmmm.

    So let's take account of recipient's 'state of mind'? Let's pander to the deluded? Let's couch facts in a way that's more amenable, more palatable?

    Let's criticise the guy for all this. As if it would make any difference. 'Cos it wouldn't.

    Tyson is trying to play a higher card here; "Sod your 'facts', matey, we're on a higher plane of thinking here! Fnurrrrrr." (I make no apology for that 'fnurrrr', so don't you start...)

    But let's not get down to what the issue actually is - these are the facts, and you are stupid if you don't see it.

    Let's put it another way - let's look at some examples of how these 'states of mind' 'think' (and try as hard as you can to find these comments reciprocated t'other way...):

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2017
  16. Do I?

    I do most certainly admire and respect him, to a huge degree.

    But (never mind the irony) I also do recognise that he can sometimes come across as smug, patronising and arrogant.

    I can live with that. It doesn't affect the content of what he says. It certainly affects how some defensive folk will take it.

    So, whatevs. These folk ain't going to accept it either way. I can live with that - it's writ large on this very forum.

    What I can't accept is wilful ignorance.
  17. PJ must feel so reassured to have you on side to defend him.

  18. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    You can make up summat to be disappointed about all you like, I've given my view already.
    I've also stated that I'm disappointed you actually have headed off down a line of supporting Dawkins' views that show zero empathy and compassion....and zero understanding of the subjects.

    Never mind eh.

    ETA. I just saw your 'defend' comment. Poor effort. Try harder to be a reasonable debater. You're back to fallacy and diversion again :(
    fillyboy likes this.
  19. If you have given your view, I have regretfully missed it.

    Here's mine: some victims of hellish crimes will find it harder to deal with what's happened to them than others will - we are all different. We all have different levels of security and resilience and innate psychological strength.

    So, let's assume an 'average' victim who has been subjected to the heinous crime of rape - being forced into a sexual act without their consent (notice I'm being gender neutral here - aren't I good?).

    One is dragged into an alleyway by a hooded perp, threatened with extreme violence and even death, and is brutally raped.

    Another goes out with a friend, they have a good evening, have a few drinks and one assumes more than they should. When told "NO!", they still carry on with the attack.

    Yet another has a steady partner and consents to sex right up until the last moment when they change their mind. The other partner feels too aroused to stop, and wonders why this night should be any different in any case. They are bitterly regretful afterwards.

    There you go - make up a few more scenarios that fit evenly in between.

    They are all heinous in their own ways. They are all rape.

    Now tell me they are all of the same level of criminality.

    I agree with Dawkins - they are not.

    What do you think, PJ?
  20. I've only just watched this to the end - and now recognise btiw2's 'rony.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice