What does the collective think of this then

I'm with Heinlein on this - "I don't know who is cranking, but i'm glad he doesn't stop"
 
I've heard of him, I just always wondered why people listen to his BS ...

Seems he's ok with his experience as a child, and so everyone else should be the same and get over it? Yeah ... Tell that to those who's lives have been ruined because of abuse. "mild pedophilia" - seriously?? It either is, or isn't.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree. Times change, so do standards.
Just as an example, In the aftermath of the battle of Rorkes Drift, the victorious defenders buried the fallen Zulus - and shot or bayoneted the wounded. By today's standards that was a war crime but back then it was normal and acceptable.

As for who Richard Dawkins is, he is a very successful self publicist who likes to be controversial, but he is also a very accomplished scientist and thinker.
Click to expand...

Because they were only "natives"?
 
If he's telling the truth about this incident from his school days, then he has a point in a way.
Not everyone that is 'mildly touched up' automatically becomes a 'victim' and suffers long term effects.
Like all crime, it's what effect it has on the person who it's committed against.
Some cause outrage, like people fiddling thier benifits meaning I have to pay more tax, to far mores erious, a woman who's been raped for example.
I don't think he is defending what happened, I think he's simply pointing out that there's a hysteria around some crimes, which isn't always justified.
 
I have read his book the greatest show on earth:)
In it he sets out the overwhelming evidence for evolution
Do believe that he is wrong in this case though assault against children is always very wrong
The crusade against faith stems from a reaction to campaigning by right wing groups in the USA to stop the teaching of evolutionary biology
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree. Times change, so do standards.
Just as an example, In the aftermath of the battle of Rorkes Drift, the victorious defenders buried the fallen Zulus - and shot or bayoneted the wounded. By today's standards that was a war crime but back then it was normal and acceptable.

As for who Richard Dawkins is, he is a very successful self publicist who likes to be controversial, but he is also a very accomplished scientist and thinker.
Click to expand...

This is not really an example because there was no law upon which to act and was more to do with lack of medical services to stop suffering. Very harsh and terrible to contemplate but such was the practice until "modern" times.

It would be interesting to hear Dawkins view of it though as it probably would be too near the knuckle for him. In more enlightened times he is obviously wrong in his views on abuse and I fear it will diminish his authority on philosophical discussion.
 
As an atheist, Dawkins annoys me. What I dislike most about organised religion is the evangelical nature of many of its followers and their attempts to use the contents of whichever book contains their rules to set the rules for everyone. Dawkins is an evangelical, and whenever I hear him speak I end up thinking he's just as bad as the religionists that want to convert me or make me obey their commandments.

I do not seek to convert anyone to my system of (non) belief, nor do I ask that they live by my moral code, and I ask that they accord me the same respect.
 
Dawkins is an agnostic not an atheist.

Steve
 
steve_v said:
Dawkins is an agnostic not an atheist.

Steve
Click to expand...

Not really, when you read the whole text of what he said to Canterbury.
 
DemiLion said:
Not really, when you read the whole text of what he said to Canterbury.
Click to expand...

And yet ..... as a true scientist :) ..... he agrees that he cannot prove the non-existence of god and therefore he is agnostic :)

Steve
 
Col said:
This is not really an example because there was no law upon which to act and was more to do with lack of medical services to stop suffering. Very harsh and terrible to contemplate but such was the practice until "modern" times.
Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't the practice, or considered "normal and acceptable", in first world conflicts during this period. Things got a bit muddied in "savage" wars.

There are a number of possible explanations for killing the Zulu wounded, but I doubt if euthanasia was one of them. The Zulus practiced this with their own badly wounded, and habitually killed all the enemy wounded, but not the British.
 
Steve Smith said:
The best response I have ever heard to the accusation of atheism being a religion:

"Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby".


Steve.
Click to expand...

My favourite was 'Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position'

I'm not really sure what as so awful about what he said. If you actually think about what he's saying (and I don't think that's 'nothing wrong with paedophilia') then it makes some sense.

I think it's just the example he used and the term 'mild paedophilia', especially in a time where some people won't even upload photos of their kids in case a P**** climbs through the screen to get them!
 
Dawkins is always controversial.
However his point about Judging people by the standards of their own time bears some weight.

In many fields the law Judges and or sentences by the rules in play at the time of the crime.

The problem is that when it comes to sexual crimes paedophilia has been illegal for a very long time. Though the age limits and severity of punishment have changed, along with the Moral climate and attitudes of both the courts.

Perhaps it would be more just, to try all crimes as if they had gone to court at the time they were committed.

His further point "that it did him no harm" is more open to question. As his life and attitudes are far from "Normal"
 
Who decides what "normal" is though?
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Perhaps it would be more just, to try all crimes as if they had gone to court at the time they were committed.
Click to expand...

This is how it is done already. Legislation is not (usually) retrospective.

One of the recent celebrity cases was tried as "indecent assault", an offence that no longer exists in statute (as the SOA 2003 re-wrote everything).
 
viv1969 said:
Who decides what "normal" is though?
Click to expand...

Of course "Normal" covers a very wide gamut.
However his life experiences, Including this one, would go some way to positioning him with in, or beyond, that range of normality.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Of course "Normal" covers a very wide gamut.
However his life experiences, Including this one, would go some way to positioning him with in, or beyond, that range of normality.
Click to expand...

By who's judgement though?
 
viv1969 said:
By who's judgement though?
Click to expand...

No judgement needed or sought.
He must either fall somewhere with in or outside "any view" of normality.
But where he falls would have been influenced by his life's experiences.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
No judgement needed or sought.
He must either fall somewhere with in or outside "any view" of normality.
But where he falls would have been influenced by his life's experiences.
Click to expand...

We shall agree to disagree :thumbs: :)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
His further point "that it did him no harm" is more open to question. As his life and attitudes are far from "Normal"
Click to expand...

Well he certainly not normal but are you trying to say that his experience of pedophilia made him one of the most prominent and respected scientists in the country.

Steve
 
posiview said:
If you follow that logic, isn't everyone agnostic?
Click to expand...

Its not actually my logic but his. Most atheist are not so discerning they're happy to accept a deity free life without proof.

Steve
 
steve_v said:
Its not actually my logic but his. Most atheist are not so discerning they're happy to accept a deity free life without proof.

Steve
Click to expand...

They don't need proof. In the same way they don't need proof that fairies don't exist.
 
if faeries don't exist who keeps stealing my odd socks ?
 
steve_v said:
Well he certainly not normal but are you trying to say that his experience of pedophilia made him one of the most prominent and respected scientists in the country.

Steve
Click to expand...

If he was, then may be. As he is not... then who knows what the result was.

But I probably helped to make him what ever he is.


He is what I would describe as a celebrity scientist. He has acquired a great deal of attention and advancement by playing the anti- religion card, rather than by original scientific work.
As an best selling author he has managed to acquire both fame and fortune.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
He is what I would describe as a celebrity scientist. He has acquired a great deal of attention and advancement by playing the anti- religion card, rather than by original scientific work.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but that is clearly nonsense. Dawkins advancement in the scientific field predates his obsession with religion. The selfish gene and the extended phenotype are scientific works of some distinction and has won many accolades for his work. Even the Blind Watchmaker is more a critique of creationism than religion per se.

I would like to say at this point that I am no fan of Dawkins, his obsession with attacking all that is religious is becoming neurotic and he is starting to resemble a caricature of that which he ridicules. But to doubt his academic ability and claim his success is based on anti-religious soundbites is simply not true

Steve
 
onomatopoeia said:
This is how it is done already. Legislation is not (usually) retrospective.

One of the recent celebrity cases was tried as "indecent assault", an offence that no longer exists in statute (as the SOA 2003 re-wrote everything).
Click to expand...

Exactly. So, whatever Dawkins thinks, or indeed doesn't think, if something was in illegal act at the time, then really the legal standpoint is the one that counts. Not his personal opinion, which is an irrelevance. Albeit a high profile one.
 
Firstly the current use of the term paedophilia & paedophile covers a wide swathe that does not fall under its true definition, which is pre pubescent children.

Taken in its true context "mild" paedophilia is not mild at all, each action will have a negative effect on the victim.

When it comes to post pubescent children the term is ephebophilia, basically we are talking teens (I should add that the term covers ALL the teen years) so its the difference between teens and pre teens.

With teens there is a whole grey area such as the schoolgirl fantasy in later life (dressing up, role playing etc) that could be classed as mild ephebophilia, but then a lot of our fantasies can be rooted in our formative years when we where first experimenting and enjoying ourselves.

Dawkins revelation is worrying as its hard to determine what his age was (he's old enough that he could have had to wear shorts for the first few years of senior school) and I'm sorry if it offends anyone but it is worse for someone in primary school than it is for someone in senior school, though in both cases its a very serious offence.

As to him making light of it? well maybe that's his coping mechanism, maybe that's what he's always told himself but to assume that others should treat it in such a manner is wrong, each victim needs to find their own way to deal with what's happened to them in the past and not have what's happened to them trivialised.
 
Last edited:
As to him making light of it? well maybe that's his coping mechanism, maybe that's what he's always told himself but to assume that others should treat it in such a manner is wrong, each victim needs to find their own way to deal with what's happened to them in the past and not have what's happened to them trivialised.
Click to expand...


100% agree with this - best statement of the whole thread and on-topic too:thumbs:
 
MartynK said:
It certainly wasn't the practice, or considered "normal and acceptable", in first world conflicts during this period. Things got a bit muddied in "savage" wars.

There are a number of possible explanations for killing the Zulu wounded, but I doubt if euthanasia was one of them. The Zulus practiced this with their own badly wounded, and habitually killed all the enemy wounded, but not the British.
Click to expand...

I only gave this as an example of how attitudes change over time. I don't think that there was any lack of humanity by the British soldiers, after all they allowed the Zulu women to carry off their dead and wounded, it's just that once the battle was over and there were no Zulus left, they killed the wounded. They did in fact have medical resources available, although no doubt their surgeon would have been exhausted
 
to be honest they didnt have the resources, the hospital had been trashed by the zulus, and they had their own wounded to care for - the battle feild was policed up by the survivors of the battle, before the arrival of the relief force
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
He is what I would describe as a celebrity scientist. He has acquired a great deal of attention and advancement by playing the anti- religion card, rather than by original scientific work.
As an best selling author he has managed to acquire both fame and fortune.
Click to expand...

1 science & 8 nature papers, publications in new scientist and being fellow of the royal society would beg to differ.
 
POAH said:
1 science & 8 nature papers, publications in new scientist and being fellow of the royal society would beg to differ.
Click to expand...


Probably adverts for his talks on his faith:lol::naughty:
 
steve_v said:
Its not actually my logic but his. Most atheist are not so discerning they're happy to accept a deity free life without proof.

Steve
Click to expand...
Dawkins' position is that of de facto atheist. He accepts that it cannot be proven beyond all conceivable doubt that God does not exist (indeed many arguments or claims made to support the existence of God are fundamentally untestable - and therefore useless*), but he also believes that there is no objective evidence that makes it reasonable to believe that God DOES exist. It's a similar position to that which most people hold concerning elves, vampires, magical unicorns, intergalactic space-weasels, daleks or compassionate conservatives.

You could call him agnostic, I guess, but it somewhat strips that word of its usefulness. An agnostic, to my mind, is actively open to the idea that God may exist and is not convinced that the belief is unreasonable.

*on a tangent, this reminds me of the anecdote concerning Wolfgang Pauli who, when presented with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, remarked "that's not right...it's not even wrong!"
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
I only gave this as an example of how attitudes change over time. I don't think that there was any lack of humanity by the British soldiers, after all they allowed the Zulu women to carry off their dead and wounded, it's just that once the battle was over and there were no Zulus left, they killed the wounded. They did in fact have medical resources available, although no doubt their surgeon would have been exhausted
Click to expand...

I agree with you that attitudes towards the treatment of captured and wounded enemy combatants - and civilians - changed over time, but I don't agree with your hypothesis here. The Zulu dead and badly wounded weren't carried off the field. Most of the wounded were killed, and the dead - estimated at around 350 in the immediate vicinity of the mission station - were buried in mass graves by the British. There is also at least one eye witness account suggesting that some of the wounded were still alive when they were thrown into the pits. The British had very limited medical resources available, basically Surgeon Reynolds and his assistants, but I doubt if this played any part in the decision.

big soft moose said:
to be honest they didnt have the resources, the hospital had been trashed by the zulus, and they had their own wounded to care for - the battle feild was policed up by the survivors of the battle, before the arrival of the relief force
Click to expand...

More or less correct. The last attacks were in the early hours of the morning, and dawn is around 05h15 - 05h30 in Kwa Zulu Natal at that time of year. It's unlikely that the defenders realised the enemy had withdrawn until about 06h00 and, as far as we know, the British left their positions at this point and started searching the area. The Zulus reappeared about an hour later when and they retreated behind their barricades again. Chelmsford and his men arrived around 08h00 and probably took part in the mopping up operation and burial of the dead.

Various reasons for killing the wounded have been put forward, but I don't think there is any single, and compelling, explanation. It may have been a combination of post battle stress, revenge for the killing of the sick and wounded during the attack on the hospital, and concerns about leaving wounded men in the vicinity of the mission station who could still have posed a threat, particularly if there was another assault. It's also been suggested that the defenders were outraged by the Zulus ruthlessness and mutilation of the dead at Isandhlwana - in accordance with their own customs - but this is speculative. We just don't know.

FWIW, Rorkes Drift is an interesting place to visit. It's remote, and hasn't really changed a great deal since 1879. The original church and homestead/hospital were pulled down after the battle, but their replacements are in more or less the same positions and it's easy to reconstruct the events. Isandhlwana is haunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top