Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  cofty

  truthseekeriam - What happened to your daughter was an appalling crime. I hope the perpetrator was caught and that he/she is not able to hurt other children.

  Nobody is in any way trying to minimise any sort of sexual abuse of children. I have made that very clear many times above as have others.

  I am simply trying to put Dawkin's words in context.

  He was touched by a teacher once. It left him feeling embarrassed but according to him he has no lasting damage.

  While it was a crime, and a particularly odious one, Dawkins feels that it was less serious in comparison to other types of sexual assaults.

  Dawkins only commented that he doesn't believe it did him or his friends any lasting damage. He never claimed that it could not harm others and he apologised if that was the case.

  Law courts recognise that all sex acts against children are serious crimes but also that there are degrees of sexual assault and sentence accordingly.

  It does not seem like a controversial thing to say.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Outlaw:"Who would that be Qcmbr?" ... Duh...And this thread shows that you were friends.....defender of truth

  Not were defender.."ARE"..It`s not a secret..

  Unfortunately it still doesn`t answer my question..

  I know a lot of people on the forums..

  .........................................................OUTLAW
• 

  cofty

  Outlaw - Misrepresenting the views of others is really easy. It takes no effort and it gives us a chance to win faux arguments ad infinitum.

  Making an effort to really grasp what somebody is saying takes a time and energy. We might have to ask honest questions as we try to clarify points of agreement and define our differences. Then we need to frame rational arguments to test where we disagree.

  You always choose the cheap shot and a personal insult over genuine communication. It feeds your ego but achieves nothing else.
• 

  Simon

  This is simply idiotic - people are going round in circles arguing from an emotive but logically inconsistent viewpoint. The black-white "things are wither totally good or totally evil" viewpoint is blatantly wrong for so many things but here we are, people arguing for it over something yet again.

  BTW: OUTLAW - if someone wants to post their opinion on this forum they should register and do it themselves. From a moderator perspective "someone asked me to post this" simply means "I am posting this". Your "lurker comments" have been removed. I believe it's people who are seeking to make ad-hominem attacks against Richard Dawkins of his ability to cut through their moronic religious beliefs.
• 

  Simon

  I think some people don't like Richard Dawkins viewpoint on other things (e.g. religion, evolution) and use this comment about his own personal history to try and discredit and undermine him because they lack the ability to disagree with the science and reason required on the other subjects.
• 

  Simon

  villagegirl: you were given the opportunity to apologise but chose not to. You are not welcome on this site.
• 

  Simon

  Picture a court scene.

  On trial is someone already long dead.

  The prosecutor is questioning one vicitim of his abuse who is now a well-known author. The prosecutor doesn't like the victim because their books rip to shreds their antiquated religious beliefs that a genocidal deity who has his followers massacre women and children is real and deserving of worship.

  The victiom describes how he personally thought of his experience as "mild" explaining that they don't believe it affected them to a huge degree and wasn't as bad as other, more severe cases they have heard of.

  The prosecutor goes apeshit telling the victim that they are wrong and lying etc...

  Some of the people on this topic actually want to be that prosecutor.

  Unbelievable.
• 

  Simon

  "mild in comparison" What exactly does that mean?

  It's not about the action, it's about the fear, the confusion, the trust...these are the things that never go away! Wounds heal, but the emotional aspect lasts forever.

  My daughter wasn't raped, but that doesn't change her struggles to trust again. It doesn't change the fear she lives in every single day. It breaks my heart to watch her struggle.

  Our lives were forever changed by something some may label "mild in comparasion" let me tell you, there is nothing mild about our life right now :(

  Then that isn't mild. What Dawkins was describing is his experience and his belief about it. He's not once tried to suggest that everyone else should feel the same and have the same feelings that he does but likewise - he is entitled to his own feelings and beliefs about his own experience.

  No one, certainly not Mr Dawkins, is trying to suggest how you or your daughter should feel or whether anything you experienced was mild or not.
• 

  Focus

  Simon, fwiw, I obviously agree with you about Dawkins. Nothing wrong with his article, in any sense of the word "wrong". The accusation against him is a strawman; he didn't claim what this thread accuses him of saying, and therefore arguments about how bad it is are irrelevant.

  And there ain't no atheist more antitheist than Phookus. Who in RL has reprimanded both Dawkins and Hitchens for their (relatively) wishy-washy condemnations of gOD-crimes!

  This said:

  villagegirl: you were given the opportunity to apologise but chose not to. You are not welcome on this site.

  By that token, Simon, cofty should be unwelcome too, because he refused to apologize for his scurrilous thread attacking and denigrating me... a puss of spotless (as you know, they're rosettes, not spots) reputation and integrity over about 20 years of Cult-Crimefighting.

  All because some people can't understand that if the Watchtower characterises what I wrote as "Spiritual Pornography" the reading of which comprises "Spiritual Fornication", I can view all its enablers (whether they be evil or deluded, there's no other type), including all Elders, as "Spiritual Rapists". What's sauce for the goose should serve well for the gander.

  But, as you know, I never complained to you (or any other moderator-god) about the matter, or even mentioned cofty or his thread to you. Of course I wouldn't! (Nor did I complain about all the basis-free accusations against me, by others, involving plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

  Don't misunderstand - I do not want cofty sanctioned for his folly. We all make errors.

  But - nor do I think villagegirl should be sanctioned, at least not so severely.

  For mercy should temper justice. I'm sure you recall Portia's speech to Shylock.

  Each of them has contributions to make to the site, albeit of a different kind.

  Please don't anyone else jump to conclusions about bias. One of my very first posts here on my return invoked villagegirl's wrath for reasons unknown to me, and she (?) attacked me roundly, and cofty tried to assist me. I am relatively unbiased, I think.

  Simon, I am fond of you and A because I appreciate both the very fine programming behind the site and also that it has been such a highly reliable repository of apostate folklore, unlike all its predecessor competitors.

  Kindly therefore accept my sage counsel... a last warning should suffice, right? Or, a cooling-off period if you must, but pray not an outright ban.

  __

  Focus

  ("Danie11e" Class)
• 

  cofty

  Focus - I never atacked you. I criticised your hysterical, sensationalist, tabloid-style style of posting...

  How many examples of your work would you like me to quote? I stand by every word of that criticism.

  If you can't see the difference between criticising what people say - and giving good reasons for those criticisms - and making vile personal attacks on people's character then you are not very bright.