Richard Dawkins under fire for comments about rape

...doublepost

a reply to: Dark Ghost

"Well, I guess since my rapist took the time to ask his friends for that drug, then waited for the perfect time to slip it into my drink, and gently guided me to the empty bedroom down the hall, so I could be niiiice and comfy, maybe I shouldn't be TOO upset about it.

a reply to: Maslo

Date rape has more than one meaning it seems. One is rape on a date another is rape with drug involvement. Im a bit confused on these two totally different things having the same name. The first one shouldnt even be considered much different than raping a stranger.

Also there is different forms of drugs involved some drug the victims while others take advantage of their already inhibited state of judgment or conciousness.

Ghb is very bad of a drug and can kill someone so thats pretty bad which isnt as bad as someone taking advantage of someone who willingly did drugs since the drugging or being drunk was not their doing. Or maybe i shouldnt say less bad but less criminal actions commited.

originally posted by: PageLC14
"Well, I guess since my rapist took the time to ask his friends for that drug, then waited for the perfect time to slip it into my drink, and gently guided me to the empty bedroom down the hall, so I could be niiiice and comfy, maybe I shouldn't be TOO upset about it.

If the intention behind your post was to come across as ignorant, misinformed and sarcastically reactionary, then congratulations because you succeeded in all three areas.

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: Dark Ghost

"Well, I guess since my rapist took the time to ask his friends for that drug, then waited for the perfect time to slip it into my drink, and gently guided me to the empty bedroom down the hall, so I could be niiiice and comfy, maybe I shouldn't be TOO upset about it.

This is a prime example of why i rarely bother posting in threads. This is what you call a loaded message designed to get an emotional response rather than a rational one and comes under the heading PROPAGANDA. People with challenging IQs cant see past the trees to see the forest and are stuck in a cyclic arguments that they spout every time.

The point PageLC14 is that if u was given the choice of being violently raped or have someone getting you drunk so they an take advantage of you which one would you choose? True you would not prefer either option but if you had to choose and you had no other options. Most sane people male or female would choose the lesser of the 2 evils and choose to get drunk. So ask yourself why would people prefer to get drunk and not violently raped? you dont think because one has less psychological impact on the mind than the other.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Ouch! Slammed from both sides. My apologies. Wasn't trying to offend anyone. I just couldn't help myself. I'm a little sarcastic as it is.

I was just wondering why this "discussion" was still going on?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Really? This is coming from a man who's magnum opus is "The God Delusion"- if that's not absolutist then I'm not here. Sure he is a good wordsmith but you can smell this mans arrogance from a mile away, but In his defense he shouldn't have got the knee jerk reactions he received because he never condoned or encouraged these acts.

You're apparently one of the people he was referring to. If you can construct a rational argument that makes more sense that justifies treating ALL rapes EXACTLY the same way, by all means, do it. He was arguing that the nature of certain crimes is more extreme than the nature of other crimes.

I didn't listen to the whole book because it was basically listing off a bunch of logical fallacies that I already knew, but it's not proper form if you're going to debate to attack the individual you're trying to debate.

I find it ironic how you're arguing that he's absolutist when he's arguing for a relativist position. It's hilarious.

a reply to: Cantbebothered

The point PageLC14 is that....

No, that isn't the point. The point is that you're right not to post in a lot of threads. Certain individuals with specific predispositions brought about by specific events in their upbringing can be hindered from seeing rationality in the arguments of others or even the irrationality in their own; the fact that sometimes certain individuals feel that the argument is referring to them directly, and not some vague general idea, only complicates the matter in question. There's no real point in even elaborating on your argument, as it is more likely than not to be at an undetectable frequency or get beat up, distorted and re-interpreted until it sounds as terrible as the subject wants it to be.

a reply to: PageLC14

Ouch! Slammed from both sides. My apologies. Wasn't trying to offend anyone. I just couldn't help myself. I'm a little sarcastic as it is.

I was just wondering why this "discussion" was still going on?

Poe's law is a B****

If you don't know, no answer will ever satisfy you. Dawkins was in exactly the same position, as the article said something about him calling "people" (women) emotional absolutists who didn't know how to think.

In case anyone replies to me. I might be unfollowing this thread. I dont wanna hear about rape. Upset over friends of mine.

a reply to: Auraltoo late to edit but i just realized i said ghb thinking it was chemical name of rohfynol... Its not hah. Im glad i cant even spell it.

The man is a shallow fool, academically he is a lightweight. Yet in England he enjoys a privileged life-style, oh how far we have fallen in such a short period of time. In him I see the makings of a very good politician.

This is my opinion

one thing this thread shows is the disconnect between rational, scientific thought and empathy.
Dawkins lacks the empathy that many religious people exhibit.
If anything, he's a very good advertisement for a wider curriculum in schools, I'm sure if he'd studied more humanities he'd not have made such a bad mistake.

I don't think he's evil, just misguided and lacking eq.


Edited to add another thought.

I don't know if any of those who agree with Dawkins have ever had a real beating. Busted nose, ribs, black eyes, cheek etc, but if you have, I'd wager the experience hasn't scarred you for life, I bet after a few days you were much better, a couple of weeks and pretty much healed. I doubt you'd have any long term trouble.
I certainly haven't had any worries over the times I've been done over.
So....since a beating doesn't scar the average person too much mentally, how can the lack of such violence significantly reduce the seriousness of a rape? It can't, can it? It's comparing apples and oranges.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

Edited to add another thought.

I don't know if any of those who agree with Dawkins have ever had a real beating. Busted nose, ribs, black eyes, cheek etc, but if you have, I'd wager the experience hasn't scarred you for life, . . .

Read back.

Two women posters who shared they had been raped -- agree with Dawkins statement.

a reply to: Annee
And I've read plenty across the web who don't.
Just a few posts above is one.

Getting a battering isn't a life changing, horrific experience, if you're an average bloke it's bound to have happened at some point.
Rape, however, is.
Based on those two points, I'd say the overt violence is minimal as far as long term damage goes, whereas the rape is hugely damaging, therefore, there's very little difference between a drug facilitated rape and one where you are beaten into submission.

a reply to: SprocketUK

There is no reason to go all "drama" on what Dawkins actually said.

No way did he condone rape.

He said there are degrees. Which there is.

Why would anyone find it necessary to extrapolate on rape in the first place? Unless he was asked a direct question.

Rape is a wicked act period. Why try to examine it in this way.

That reflects on the lurid personality of Dawkins.

Its axiomatic that there are degrees of anything

a reply to: Annee
I didn't get "all drama".
I pointed out what I see as a fallacy in his argument.
I'm very sorry you are unable to see that.

a reply to: SprocketUK
So are my experiences of being forced into perfoming sexual acts, and having sex, by women, as previously posted in this thread, just as damaging psychologically? Or does it only count when we switch the genders around?
I say there are varying degrees of rape based on my own experience, unless you think that a woman forcing sexual acts through threats is not as bad as a man forcing a woman?

I'd prefer my experiences anyday over being held down by a load of blokes who are ignoring my cries for them to stop.

a reply to: grainofsand
I don't know mate, but do you think it would have been worse if the people that abused you were men?
Therein lies the answer to the gender question I think.

a reply to: SprocketUK
Forced sex is forced sex, isn't it?