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

[angrysoba]

This is why Twitter sucks.

Fortunately there is lengthier commentary on these Tweets in the Independent:

Richard Dawkins is wrong to suggest that there can be varying degrees of severity involved in rape

It’s not up to men to try and define women’s experiences of violence for them

Uh-oh!

The idea that there are degrees of rape – as suggested on Twitter by Richard Dawkins today in a discussion about syllogism– is a popular and enduring rape myth. It’s based on the idea that rape by a partner – otherwise known as ‘date rape’ – is less violent than rape by a stranger.
But this is simply not true. All rape is violent.

And, in the Guardian, Richard Dawkins is not only considered wrong, but arrogant as well. However, the style of the writer's argument seems to be to rattle off things we know he has said as though these things were self-evidently wrong as though there was no need to explain why:

Dawkins has been arrogant for years, a man so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he believes the one domain in which he happens to be an expert, science, is the only legitimate way of acquiring or assessing knowledge. All of his outbursts in recent years follow from this belief: he understands the scientific method, a process intended to mitigate the interference of human subjectivity in data collection, as a universally applicable way of understanding not just the physical world but literally everything else as well. Hence his constant complaint that those appalled by his bigoted vituperations are simply offended by clarity; feeble-minded obscurantists who cling to emotion, tradition or the supernatural to shield themselves from the power of his truth bombs.

Jerry Coyne gives his own thoughts in which he thinks Dawkins could probably have avoided courting so much opprobrium, but thinks he was given too much of it anyway.

I think we are just watching a flame war here.

 

[I Ratant]

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

.
And done miltary or civil/social service for 4 years.