It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins under fire for comments about rape

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Good to know the name of every single poster who thinks there is such a thing as "mild pedophilia".




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: sepermeru

There is no such thing called "mild paedophilia", yes. Paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. There is only two levels of paedophilia: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive. Exclusive means they only enjoy children while non exclusive means they are attracted to some but not all and also like post-pubescent people. Non exclusive I suppose some could call "Mild" but that does not seem to be what he was going for. There is also separate names for different ages or stages of development of attraction with Hebephilia being the oldest with an age range of around 11 to 13 or 14 or so. Liking older than that is no longer classified paedophilia and not classified a disorder. Also the age difference must be more than just a few years to classify as having paedophilia. You can find this on any psychology site although ages listed vary a bit. Many people mistakenly think it means something else like liking someone underage, which is incorrect. The law has nothing to do with psychological diagnosis.

Also I should ad that Dawkins is also in my opinion psychologically incorrect in categorizing pedophilia like he does. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction not an action. Not all paedophiles (child assaulter) are paedophiliacs since they can lack the attraction and are only in it for abuse and not all paedophiliacs are pedophiles. In other words there are some pedophiliacs out there who do not try to touch or have sex with or rape children. Dawkins as a person more familiar with study of animals than he does humans I do see why hed think only on terms of actions since you cant talk to animals but from psychology hes not using very useful categorizations unless my use of pedophile is his use of his term "violent pedophilia" then at least I understand what hes trying to do somewhat.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Aural because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   

He goes on to say that anyone who thinks the comparison is an endorsement of date rape should “go away and learn how to think”.
This is what he said that showed how much a jerk he can be that I mentioned previous page which is what I have a problem with. He could have just said "I think it would be of best interest to re evaluate your views. " or something like that but no he acts like his usual narcissistic self instead.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Aural

Sure, he COULD have made his point with different and less accusing words. But so could you have. You call him a "jerk" and "narcissistic", certainly not meant to be flattering or diplomatic... You could have said that in different and kinder words.

You are guilty of what you accuse him of.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Emotional appeal huh? I was just trying to get a baseline of what your opinion on the matter is. Apparently it looks like you cannot discuss this subject without letting your emotions get in the way. Such a shame.

For instance I never said one or the other wasn't a sickening crime. I just asked which one you thought was worse. Yet you jump right to emotional appeal.


I kind of thought the reason was clear. There is no 'worse' or 'less worse' IMHO. Is that less of an emotional answer? The fact it is a stupid question in the first place is not an emotional response, it's a fact.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aural


He goes on to say that anyone who thinks the comparison is an endorsement of date rape should “go away and learn how to think”.
This is what he said that showed how much a jerk he can be that I mentioned previous page which is what I have a problem with. He could have just said "I think it would be of best interest to re evaluate your views. " or something like that but no he acts like his usual narcissistic self instead.


Looking at how people reacted to his comments, flying off the handle and not even considering his words before insulting him, can you blame him? It's pretty clear as soon as the word rape leaves your mouth to start a conversation, some people literally turn their rational thinking part of their head off and go through the rest of the conversation in emotion mode. It can be seen on this thread for instance.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted
I'm curious, do you think my examples as a male being forced to have sex with women through fear of threat of violence/loss of job/control/dominance/power are as equally valid? The rarity value of female-on-male is irelevant to the person experiencing the crime of being threatened to perform sexual acts.
I did as I was told through fear, but I did not want to do it, and shut my eyes into an imagined place of #ing with someone else to make it happen as the women making real threats wanted it to happen, but not because I wanted to, because I was being blackmailed. Do we require reversed genders to describe that as rape?

Or do forced sexual acts not count if the person of dominance is the one receiving penetration?
...I think we all know the answer to that question.


As a previous poster has said, rape is rape, not sure I am in a position personally to give any other answer - and I don't profess to be.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: uncommittedthe majority of which I note have a male figure as an avatar which kind of assumes they are male and do not have the first idea what they are talking about.


Yes, of course, men never get raped, do they?

Does anyone else think that a lot of the people who hate Richard Dawkins, simply because they are theists, some of whom have never read any of his work, are now jumping on this bandwagon?

Also a lot of people are ignoring the posts from women (who have admitted to being raped) who say Dawkins is right, why?


At that point in the thread, all posters with an avatar had one that represented a male which was the reason for the comment, it was in no way to suggest male rape does not happen.

I personally don't like Dawkins as he presents his opinion as fact, which I find annoying, but maybe that's just me.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Emotional appeal huh? I was just trying to get a baseline of what your opinion on the matter is. Apparently it looks like you cannot discuss this subject without letting your emotions get in the way. Such a shame.

For instance I never said one or the other wasn't a sickening crime. I just asked which one you thought was worse. Yet you jump right to emotional appeal.


I kind of thought the reason was clear. There is no 'worse' or 'less worse' IMHO. Is that less of an emotional answer? The fact it is a stupid question in the first place is not an emotional response, it's a fact.


Then just say that. There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers. Would you have preferred I make assumptions about your opinions? As that always goes over SO well.

Yes there are different levels of severity of rape. That is what this topic is about. Clearly the country considers female rape to be worse than male rape since when the topic is discussed, people don't even address it. YOU tried to suggest in this very thread that males cannot hold an opinion on the subject clearly dismissing the concept of male rape in your head. So don't backtrack on me and say they hold equal weight, your true thoughts on the matter have already been exposed. But that is what I and Dawkins was getting at. Just like murder, assault, theft, etc there are different severity levels of the crime. THAT is a fact.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Should a woman differentiate the motive of her rapist and then determine how violated she should feel based on the rapists motivation?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Emotional appeal huh? I was just trying to get a baseline of what your opinion on the matter is. Apparently it looks like you cannot discuss this subject without letting your emotions get in the way. Such a shame.

For instance I never said one or the other wasn't a sickening crime. I just asked which one you thought was worse. Yet you jump right to emotional appeal.


I kind of thought the reason was clear. There is no 'worse' or 'less worse' IMHO. Is that less of an emotional answer? The fact it is a stupid question in the first place is not an emotional response, it's a fact.


Then just say that. There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers. Would you have preferred I make assumptions about your opinions? As that always goes over SO well.

Yes there are different levels of severity of rape. That is what this topic is about. Clearly the country considers female rape to be worse than male rape since when the topic is discussed, people don't even address it. YOU tried to suggest in this very thread that males cannot hold an opinion on the subject clearly dismissing the concept of male rape in your head. So don't backtrack on me and say they hold equal weight, your true thoughts on the matter have already been exposed. But that is what I and Dawkins was getting at. Just like murder, assault, theft, etc there are different severity levels of the crime. THAT is a fact.


I can't speak for 'the country', whichever country that happens to be, but in my humble opinion, violating someones body without their consent is equally as bad whether the victim is male or female. Although he didn't specifically state, I am going to make a bold assumption that Dawkins was talking about a female being raped, and it was based on that assumption (we are all allowed to make them, not just you and Dawkins) that I made the comment I did.

Calm down anyway, you seem to be getting quite emotional.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

How so? I gave you a logical refutation of your points with no regard to how I feel about the subject. Heck I haven't even given you my stance on rape. I just see that other crimes have different severity levels and so should rape. No emotions involved with that decision whatsoever. Apparently you have trouble recognizing what an emotional appeal is and what isn't.

Regardless of what Dawkins was referring to, male rape is still rape and can be discussed in a discussion about rape. Yes people tend to value female rape as worse than male rape. Heck people joke about how you go to prison as a guy and not to drop the soap and other things of the sort. When was the last time you heard someone joke about a woman getting raped for a destination that she is going to?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
No, it was your emotional response to my post. Anyway, way off topic. It's a very controversial subject.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Should a woman differentiate the motive of her rapist and then determine how violated she should feel based on the rapists motivation?


That has nothing to do with Dawkin's statement. But, that's up to the woman. Perhaps it matters to some women and not to others. I know you have an issue with the woman making her own decisions, but for me, his motivation would hardly matter.

BUT, if I had the choice between being raped or being raped AND violently beat up (which is what the thread is about), I would choose the first. Seems VERY simple to me.

We all have our opinions. Dawkins has his.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
At that point in the thread, all posters with an avatar had one that represented a male


That's your opinion. You present it as fact! Avatars do NOT represent the gender of the poster.



I personally don't like Dawkins as he presents his opinion as fact, which I find annoying, but maybe that's just me.


We ALL present our opinions without saying, "that's my opinion". Must we add a caveat EVERY time we voice our opinion? Or will you be annoyed at everyone, including yourself?

Dawkins gave his opinion - some rape is worse than others - and I agree with him. You disagree. Must he be attacked and maligned simply because he spoke??? I think this is a LOT more about who he is than what he said.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Aural

Sure, he COULD have made his point with different and less accusing words. But so could you have. You call him a "jerk" and "narcissistic", certainly not meant to be flattering or diplomatic... You could have said that in different and kinder words.

You are guilty of what you accuse him of.
There is a huge difference. Hes not reading this. He actually gave these statements to a general public that consisted of rape victims telling them to shut up if they dont agree with him.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: Cantbebothered

How can you say one does more psychological damage to a woman than the other?? Have you ever been raped? a woman who gets raped at a drunken party is going to be just a damaged as the girl who gets raped in a ditch.



True, Dawkins would have been wise to interview rape victims before spouting off; so as to have some sort of frame of reference.
edit on 31-7-2014 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

That has to be one of the silliest rhetorical questions I have ever read...



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I keep getting the impression Dawkins observes humans the same way he observes any other animal. Humans are animals but as a human himself able to communicate with other humans he should have more insight but I feel as if he doesnt use it and sticks with an outsider view of humanity.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: uncommitted
At that point in the thread, all posters with an avatar had one that represented a male


That's your opinion. You present it as fact! Avatars do NOT represent the gender of the poster.



I'm sorry, how can the statement all posters at that point had an avatar that represented a male be an opinion? With respect, it refers to a post I made prior to you adding comments - is that your point? I did also say that due to their avatar representing a male I assumed they were male - so I made it very clear it actually was an opinion anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join