Richard Dawkins under fire for comments about rape

originally posted by: Aural
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.

That's a very interesting theory. I wonder if Dawkins is an isolated, introspective person/thinker (or worse) who does absolutely no real scientific research, and as I stated previously, does not interview subjects to gain data/insight into his questionable theories.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: beezzer

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

Your opinion, but I think it speaks to the OP. Does motive affect result?

a reply to: beezzer

Societal views effect reactions and motive is not even needed to be known for societies views to play in. Also a persons own personal feelings and limits effect things. They do not have to question motive but they could gain more resolve depending who raped them if they simply just did not know what they were doing mixing up unclear signals or they have a disorder as opposed to someone who knew what they were doing and had every intent to do harm to them.

There isnt really a simple yes or no answer since its not really black and white.

a reply to: Aural

Thank you for the reply. Not sure I understand, however.

Let me put it this way. . .

If I hit your hand with a hammer, regardless of my motivation, your bones, skin, tissue will be damaged regardless.

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.

2 women posters in this thread have admitted to being raped.

Both agree with Dawkins opinion.

And, just to add, to make it clear -- no way did he ever condone rape

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Krazysh0t
No, it was your emotional response to my post. Anyway, way off topic. It's a very controversial subject.

Fine, you've proved that you don't know what emotional responses are. But it certainly isn't off topic. Emotional responses are what got Dawkins criticized to begin with.

originally posted by: Aural
There is a huge difference. Hes not reading this.

What difference does that make? We all make statements on here all the time and people read them. People in the general public. ATS is not all that different than Twitter. We write things and other people read them. It's not like it's private...

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.

He did not tell rape victims to shut up! You're making things up now.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.

2 women posters in this thread have admitted to being raped.

Both agree with Dawkins opinion.

And, just to add, to make it clear -- no way did he ever condone rape

I never said he condoned rape, I said that he has no frame of reference due to a lack of collecting data from those that have actual experience, which is bad science. He should stick to what he thinks he knows...evolution and decision-making with the lower animals.

In reality, that logic creates a hierarchy among rape survivors. It uses some women's experiences to demean other women's experiences. It places them in a strange sort of 'class system', where some induce more 'sympathy' than others.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

a reply to: InTheLight

Why does he need to collect data on the topic anyways? Why would he need to talk to rape victims to come to the conclusion that some rape is worse than others? It's clearly obvious, if you are drugged and passed out while getting raped, the emotional toll would be less than if someone forced you down with a knife and raped you while you are conscious. Not to mention, there is a widely held belief in America that male rape either doesn't exist or is even made fun of when people talk about going to prison.

You can also look at legal precedent to gain this opinion. Like I've stated earlier in the thread, other crimes (murder being one of them) have different legal severities with the penalties for each being different depending on the situation (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder). In the case of murder, the victim is still dead. They aren't in a different state of being dead. Dead is dead, but we still look at the actions of the perpetrator to determine the severity of the event. Therefore, the mentality of the victim who was raped would be just one part of a puzzle when determining if different types of rape are more severe.

ETA: To be honest, I would say that interviewing or talking to rape victims about this would be a bad idea. Talking to them can lead to emotional toll and you could end up sympathizing with them and skew the results of your claim because of your own emotions.

originally posted by: InTheLight

I said that he has no frame of reference due to a lack of collecting data from those that have actual experience, which is bad science. He should stick to what he thinks he knows...evolution and decision-making with the lower animals.

Is this an assumption on your part?

As far as I know, he is a very intelligent, well read man.

I just gave you actual experience. The 2 women in this thread that have been raped agree with his opinion.

EDIT: and BTW, Huffington Post is a platform for opinion pieces. Dawkins had and opinion, author at HP is giving an opinion.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: InTheLight

I said that he has no frame of reference due to a lack of collecting data from those that have actual experience, which is bad science. He should stick to what he thinks he knows...evolution and decision-making with the lower animals.

Is this an assumption on your part?

As far as I know, he is a very intelligent, well read man.

I just gave you actual experience. The 2 women in this thread that have been raped agree with his opinion.

I too am an intelligent well read woman who believes scientists should not comment on topics of which they neither researched, nor have direct experience, nor have the educational background to aid them in fully exporing and understanding issues, such as rape.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

Why does he need to collect data on the topic anyways? Why would he need to talk to rape victims to come to the conclusion that some rape is worse than others? It's clearly obvious, if you are drugged and passed out while getting raped, the emotional toll would be less than if someone forced you down with a knife and raped you while you are conscious. Not to mention, there is a widely held belief in America that male rape either doesn't exist or is even made fun of when people talk about going to prison.

You can also look at legal precedent to gain this opinion. Like I've stated earlier in the thread, other crimes (murder being one of them) have different legal severities with the penalties for each being different depending on the situation (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder). In the case of murder, the victim is still dead. They aren't in a different state of being dead. Dead is dead, but we still look at the actions of the perpetrator to determine the severity of the event. Therefore, the mentality of the victim who was raped would be just one part of a puzzle when determining if different types of rape are more severe.

ETA: To be honest, I would say that interviewing or talking to rape victims about this would be a bad idea. Talking to them can lead to emotional toll and you could end up sympathizing with them and skew the results of your claim because of your own emotions.

Not unless you were a well educated and trained scientist in that field.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: InTheLight

I said that he has no frame of reference due to a lack of collecting data from those that have actual experience, which is bad science. He should stick to what he thinks he knows...evolution and decision-making with the lower animals.

Is this an assumption on your part?

As far as I know, he is a very intelligent, well read man.

I just gave you actual experience. The 2 women in this thread that have been raped agree with his opinion.

I too am an intelligent well read woman who believes scientists should not comment on topics of which they neither researched, nor have direct experience, nor have the educational background to aid them in fully exporing and understanding issues, such as rape.

It is your assumption he hasn't.

It is not fact as you seem to want to present it. Unless you can prove it.

BTW, are you claiming personal knowledge and experience of rape?

a reply to: InTheLight

You would possibly be correct if he had made this as a statement in a scientific journal. What he did wad give an opinion on twitter, scientists are allowed opinions outwith their field of study.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree.

There is logic in degree.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: InTheLight

You would possibly be correct if he had made this as a statement in a scientific journal. What he did wad give an opinion on twitter, scientists are allowed opinions outwith their field of study.

And, and such, I too am allowed to dismiss theories that are not based on good research processes and proven scientific methods...and I am not alone in that thought about him (many of his colleagues call him a 'coward' for refusing to stand up to his so called "science").

www.conservapedia.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

Conservapedia really? Anyway no one is saying your are not allowed to dismiss, ignore or mock his opinions if you choose. That doesn't mean he shouldn't freely give his opinion on any subject he chooses. Your rather strange idea that scientists should only have opinions on subjects they study is what I question.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: InTheLight

Conservapedia really? Anyway no one is saying your are not allowed to dismiss, ignore or mock his opinions if you choose. That doesn't mean he shouldn't freely give his opinion on any subject he chooses. Your rather strange idea that scientists should only have opinions on subjects they study is what I question.

It was also noted by his colleagues that his science and/or opinion is rarely backed up scientific resarch but rather is from his solely personal biased philosophy, so what does that tell you?

He wasn't speaking in his field of science! He was trying to illustrate that comparison does not equal endorsement. Just because one thing is worse than another, that doesn't mean I endorse the "milder".

If I steal an old couple's only dog, is it worse than if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family?
If I punish my child by beating him, is it worse than punishing him by sending him to his room?
If I lie and tell my child his father died, is it worse than if I lie, telling my friend her dress is pretty?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
He wasn't speaking in his field of science! He was trying to illustrate that comparison does not equal endorsement. Just because one thing is worse than another, that doesn't mean I endorse the "milder".

If I steal an old couple's only dog, is it worse than if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family?
If I punish my child by beating him, is it worse than punishing him by sending him to his room?
If I lie and tell my child his father died, is it worse than if I lie, telling my friend her dress is pretty?

Indeed, with all the other benign examples available to him, why would he choose the subject of 'rape'? Sensationalism?