Posted on 09/10/2013 6:44:15 PM PDT by Viennacon
How much pedophilia is just enough, or perhaps a wee bit too much remains unclear in the opinion of Oxford lecturer and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins described sexual abuse among former classmates as "mild touching up" that allegedly did no “lasting harm.”
Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Kinda like democrats are moderate communists.
Lol, no doubt, a know-it-all like him is sure he has all the answers to the universe.
Richard must be remembering some moderate abuse in his past that he remembers fondly..
Moderate abuse being something you kinda liked.. but didnt choose..
Easy with slide rule morality.. or no morality at all..
To wit; Dawkins is not as smart as he looks..
Idiot pervert.
Richard Dawkins has been caught in so many contradictions that I think his supporters will grow tried.
I also see him as someone that speaks his mind without fear and will also reverse his positions when his time comes.
Very much like Anthony Flew, as he lay dying.
Reminds me more of "eying little girls with bad intent..."
I must ask you, honestly who here on FR really knows Dawkins and what he has contributed to his cause over the years ?
You get comments to your post that take the headline as easy bait for their own (justified) moral outrage without any understanding of the damage this man has done over the course of his career.
I suppose it would require some people to read a lot of stuff.
See, Aqualung is a victim if you follow the narrative.
Too old too rock’n’roll is the authority.
Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
_____________________________________________________________
Well done.
Dawkins position ? No
His fellow traveler certainly yes.
Flip the scenario and I bet Dawkins wished he had a gun.
The issue with human intelligence is we have the unique ability to argue our illogical positions with deep conviction. Dawkins is an obtuse know-it-all. Reminds me of a brilliant family member of mine who excells at what he does, but then thinks he knows just about everything about every subject in the world.
We’re just talking about the moderate pedophiles.
Like the moderate Islamist Rebels in Syria that give the Christians in Syria a “chance” to convert or be beheaded, at least they are giving “their peace” a chance....
Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
Moral relativism would demand that Dawkins die ie. survival of the fittest...
Exactly. I’m sorry that went over so many heads.
More like the “Pied Piper” from the same album.
The issue with human intelligence is we have the unique ability to argue our illogical positions with deep conviction.
______________________________________________________
Couldn’t agree more.
Humans, people have an amazing capacity to rationalize virtually anything.
The question, objectively if that is even possible, rests in the foundations of belief.
It is the “why” that modern science won’t allow into the equation.
Dawkins is committed to materialism and as a result, the “why” is never considered. It simply is not allowed.
People don’t operate the way Dawkins and his ilk would like to believe. He would have you believe that compassion, love and altruism is a hard wired condition that you have no control over.
He and his mates are very happy in their effort to convince mankind that their questions are only an illusion.
Nice.
Milton Bostock’s got nothing on you.
“Dawkins position ? No”
I’m not sure how assessments of “right” or “wrong” or “unfair” fit into his scientism. All that seem to be left are urges, and assessments about how to satisfy them. Pharmaceuticals might be more efficient for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.