Richard Dawkins defends pedophilia

Steinhauer

Steinhauer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
12,071
Reaction score
136
Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” - Salon.com

Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 03:47 PM EST
Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”
The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up"
By Katie Mcdonough

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.

As noted by the Religion News Service, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse.

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”
Click to expand...
 
What the HELL is 'mild pedophilia,' ?? And how the Hell does Dawkins know how it effect a child? This guy sound like a quack .
 
:shock:....someone outta' pinch his tweekie and shove their fingers up his arse....he might be singing a different tune!

Back in the old days, things of this nature were never reported....girls suffered horribly at the abuse of some of their own family members....guessing the boys did also.

Our "privates" are just that..."Private"....
 
This is one of those don't talk about things if you've not been in someone else's shoes. We can debate what is pedophilia or mild pedophilia all day long if we would like. The fact is that someone somewhere has been taken advantage of. Try talking to Joe Paterno and his family about this. I'm sure they would love to talk about this.
 
um...Dawkins is not stupid...he's likely talking about some levels of like what it was in gone-by eras, i mean marriage at 14-16 200 years ago wasn't going to rile up a riot...in fact up until about 200 years ago 'childhood' and 'teenagerhood' were non-existent... just read Phillipe Aries books would have to astonished...but unlike Muslims OLD men marrying 12 yos, in the by-gone centuries it was more like 14 yo-16 yos marrying 17-18 yos ...at that time, they were considered Adults, even a 15 yo boy 200 years ago is just young adult

he has argued that even 'mild' Christians are just as evil as 'radical muslims' as in the way society operates...and similarly I wouldn't expect half of the readers out there to 'get it' or even mistaken him for being agnostic or an atheists at full scale...i mean he has just slipped to agnosticism just to show how complex and more precisely more difficult it is to have a clear stand in terms of Philosophy...

my point is...leave Philosophy to the pros, those who are trained to understand it properly...im not defending him, im saying there's more than what news letting on, they hype to the biggest part and let emotions runs crazy...he probably didnt account for it...i dunno
 
Last edited:
Grummer said:
um...Dawkins is not stupid...he's likely talking about some levels of like what it was in gone-by eras, i mean marriage at 14-16 200 years ago wasn't going to rile up a riot...in fact up until about 200 years ago 'childhood' and 'teenagerhood' were non-existent... just read Phillipe Aries books would have to astonished...but unlike Muslims OLD men marrying 12 yos, in the by-gone centuries it was more like 14 yo-16 yos marrying 17-18 yos ...at that time, they were considered Adults, even a 15 yo boy 200 years ago is just young adult

he has argued that even 'mild' Christians are just as evil as 'radical muslims' as in the way society operates...and similarly I wouldn't expect half of the readers out there to 'get it' or even mistaken him for being agnostic or an atheists at full scale...i mean he has just slipped to agnosticism just to show how complex and more precisely more difficult it is to have a clear stand in terms of Philosophy...

my point is...leave Philosophy to the pros, those who are trained to understand it properly...im not defending him, im saying there's more than what news letting on, they hype to the biggest part and let emotions runs crazy...he probably didnt account for it...i dunno
Click to expand...


Umm ...okay?

Do you think pedophilia is wrong?

Because I sure as hell do.
 
I'm pretty certain Dawkins doesn't condone child sex porn rings, I'm pretty sure he doesn't approved of porn rings recruiting minors...and I haven't read the whole article in this thread, ...now I have just read it, and yes I think it'sbe wrong, what's private is private ... letting teachers putting their hands into their pants is really strange...like Crazypaul said,maybe he liked it...still then Crazypaul, he, as a child probably doesn't understand of the Adult's dirty mind taking advantage of the naive and young... so I disagree with Dawkins now given now I had the article...however I suppose he's probably saying that copycats of victimisation might have become a bit of a problem - i dunno- at this line I'm saying that it could be a reason why he (Dawkins) said this - to get people think again , like 'was it real? or was it nothing' the lines, can be shifted and maybe the teachers (not in his story), may have never slided hand up but lapped holding the child doing nothing and the kids could be imagining it? 'false memories' have dismissed a lot of cases...what about the recent news of Coronation Street star being cleared of child sex charges?
 
Grummer said:
I'm pretty certain Dawkins doesn't condone child sex porn rings, I'm pretty sure he doesn't approved of porn rings recruiting minors...and I haven't read the whole article in this thread, ...now I have just read it, and yes I think it'sbe wrong, what's private is private ... letting teachers putting their hands into their pants is really strange...like Crazypaul said,maybe he liked it...still then Crazypaul, he, as a child probably doesn't understand of the Adult's dirty mind taking advantage of the naive and young... so I disagree with Dawkins now given now I had the article...however I suppose he's probably saying that copycats of victimisation might have become a bit of a problem - i dunno- at this line I'm saying that it could be a reason why he (Dawkins) said this - to get people think again , like 'was it real? or was it nothing' the lines, can be shifted and maybe the teachers (not in his story), may have never slided hand up but lapped holding the child doing nothing and the kids could be imagining it? 'false memories' have dismissed a lot of cases...what about the recent news of Coronation Street star being cleared of child sex charges?
Click to expand...
My children belonged to no one but me so no one could touch them, not even lapping on a male teacher's leg (what the hell for?).

Even in college (NTID), one gay teacher tried to touch me and I told him not to ever do that again because if he did that again, he would be badly hurt.

What is a false memory? I have heard of good and bad memories but never heard of false memories.
 
google it it usually more to do with victims who were young
it's a known thing that its always investigated in court cases, or pending cases, psychologists tend to look for that to be sure...etc
 
CrazyPaul said:
My children belonged to no one but me so no one could touch them, not even lapping on a male teacher's leg (what the hell for?).

Even in college (NTID), one gay teacher tried to touch me and I told him not to ever do that again because if he did that again, he would be badly hurt.

What is a false memory? I have heard of good and bad memories but never heard of false memories.
Click to expand...


"false memory syndrome" I looked it up for you , I knew what it was.


"an apparent recollection of an event that did not actually occur, esp. one of childhood sexual abuse arising from suggestion during psychotherapy."

But if a child tell an adult that someone touch them and it made them feel uncomfortable that child needs to be taken very serious .
 
Back
Top