Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophelia"?!?!?!?

[Jono]

I am not an expert, but there must be a high level of psychopathic tendency in these people for them to not to acknowledge what they do/did is wrong.

I do not buy the 'power' theory or the other one that 'if abused, you will do the same' crap.

As with habitual/serial rapists, the only thing I know of that has worked (short of actual castration or lobotomy) is 'chemical castration'. Kill the sex drive, and they quit (as a general rule). I just don't know how well, or widely, implemented this treatment is though.

 

[Jono]

I started having sex at the age of 17 which was 4 years under the age of consent.

Age of consent at 21? Sounds a bit harsh, where was this?

 

[bruto]

Serious question- what's "mild" pedophilia?

Romeo and Juliet?

 

[Darat]

Age of consent at 21? Sounds a bit harsh, where was this?

The UK (specifically England).

 

[Craig B]

The UK (specifically England).

Here are the ages of consent, again, of European countries. None as high as 21 years.

13 Spain
14 Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia
15 Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden
16 Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Northern Cyprus, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom
17 Cyprus, Ireland
18 Malta, Turkey

 

[Rat]

Here are the ages of consent, again, of European countries. None as high as 21 years.

You're missing two really very obvious things.

 

[Darat]

Here are the ages of consent, again, of European countries. None as high as 21 years.

 

[Mark6]

Serious question- what's "mild" pedophilia?

35 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl?

Which was common enough in ancient Egypt and India, and not unheard of in medieval Europe.

 

[Checkmite]

Here are the ages of consent, again, of European countries. None as high as 21 years.

Maybe right now they aren't; but Darat is in his seventies (or somesuch) and it's safe to imagine things were different back then.

 

[Soapy Sam]

 

[Rat]

Maybe right now they aren't; but Darat is in his seventies (or somesuch) and it's safe to imagine things were different back then.

Seventies? I think he would prefer 'ageless'.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Age of consent at 21? Sounds a bit harsh, where was this?

Not to derail, but the legal age to do all kinds of things varies by country and also changes over the years.

21 was considered "legal age" for many things in the uk for a long time.

Now we have progressed some of us think that alcohol in the U.S at 21 is a tad draconian, but are shocked that school kids can drive over there

A few years ago the uk legal age for buying tobacco products was increased from 16 to 18. I approve of this.

Personally I believe no one should be legally allowed to do anything until they are 33

/OldManDerail OFF

 

[Cayvmann]

Of course we do. First, second, third degree murder, manslaughter, sexual harassment, sexual assault, robbery, armed robbery, etc., etc. There are different degrees for pretty much any crime you care to name. Sometimes we give different names to them, sometimes we don't. And obviously not all crimes that fall into the same category are exactly the same, so modifiers such as "mild" or "severe" are frequently used. I really can't imagine why anyone would think pedophilia would be any different.

Because outrage is sooooo important to some folk.

 

[angrysoba]

It seems that Dawkins tried to use Twitter to clarify his point.

Once he had clearly made the point he was trying to make, that by expressing that one thing is worse than another is not an endorsement of either, everyone saw sense and calmed down.




Ha ha! No, they didn't. Dawkins just got into more of slanging match. Reason: It's Twitter!

 

[Rat]

I saw his Twitter comments before I set off for work this morning, and immediately knew what the reactions would be. As so often, I agree with the point, but agree that it was made poorly. He could have picked any number of examples (several were offered in the comments on his 'final word' blog article), but picked ones that were absolutely guaranteed to provoke a reaction. I genuinely cannot decide whether he did so deliberately, with the conscious intention of provoking such a reaction, or whether it was just done with astounding clumsiness. I just don't know what to make of picking paedophilia and rape as his two examples, when he has had so much stick for those two subjects before, almost as if he picked those examples precisely because he has had so much stick.

 

[Dani]

I saw his Twitter comments before I set off for work this morning, and immediately knew what the reactions would be. As so often, I agree with the point, but agree that it was made poorly. He could have picked any number of examples (several were offered in the comments on his 'final word' blog article), but picked ones that were absolutely guaranteed to provoke a reaction. I genuinely cannot decide whether he did so deliberately, with the conscious intention of provoking such a reaction, or whether it was just done with astounding clumsiness. I just don't know what to make of picking paedophilia and rape as his two examples, when he has had so much stick for those two subjects before, almost as if he picked those examples precisely because he has had so much stick.

Knowing his body of work, I'm pretty sure he did it because of that. In the short-term, I don't think it helps convince the people who from the beginning were too outraged to calmly analyze his claims. I think at this point people are more outraged by his arrogance than by the (valid) point he is making.

Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with that because on the other hand with his influence and arrogance he sparks many debates where other people can take advantage of the uproar to make the same point, but express it more mildly . Dawkins makes many people want to debate just to prove him wrong.

Not that I admire his approach, but I think it has interesting collateral consequences.

 

[Checkmite]

It strikes me as a clumsy attempt at misdirection. Now he says that saying "mild pedophilia" is not as bad as "violent pedophilia" isn't saying that "mild pedophilia" is not bad at all, as if such a comparison was the heart of the issue.

The problem is, the original ruckus was caused by his statements regarding "mild pedophilia", which he hasn't retracted, and which didn't merely state that "mild pedophilia", described my him as molestation, was "not as bad" as a more violent assault. Rather, he explicitly stated that it did not cause any damage to anyone at his school it was done to, and further that we would be wrong to think badly of the perpetrator(s) for doing it.

Question: if a "bad thing" doesn't hurt anyone or break anything and the people who do it can't or shouldn't be considered bad people for doing it, what's the point of calling it bad at all? It becomes an empty, arbitrary, and meaningless term.

So no, in that sense, his statement that "mild pedophilia is not as bad as violent pedophilia, but that's not saying mild pedophilia isn't bad" doesn't hold water, because he's already made other statements that do, in fact, imply exactly that. So he can kindly take his suggestion that people need to "learn how to think" and place it in a nice warm fuzzy safe box somewhere under his bed.

 

[Rat]

So no, in that sense, his statement that "mild pedophilia is not as bad as violent pedophilia, but that's not saying mild pedophilia isn't bad" doesn't hold water, because he's already made other statements that do, in fact, imply exactly that. So he can kindly take his suggestion that people need to "learn how to think" and place it in a nice warm fuzzy safe box somewhere under his bed.

Has he? Where? I have never inferred that from anything of his that I've heard or read.

 

[Checkmite]

Has he? Where? I have never inferred that from anything of his that I've heard or read.

The same post you've just quoted explains it. If his previous statements about child molestation at his school are true, then calling such "mild pedophilia" bad is arbitrary and meaningless. What's the difference between a "bad thing" that causes no harm and whose perpetrators can't be judged negatively for it, and a not-bad thing?

 

[MattusMaximus]

This is why Twitter sucks.