Scrutable

Oh. bl..dy. Hell. How is this man given any credence or respect anymore?

Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. And while the quote itself is quite jarring, especially to those who look to Dawkins for his influential writings on atheism (but haven't noticed some of his other strange stances), it's far from the first time that the scientist has launched a defense of the behavior.
....
His reasons for defending the behavior seem to focus on three points. First, that "hysteria" over a fear of pedophilia is overblown by society; second, that instilling a child with fundamentalist religious beliefs is actually a worse way to abuse a child; and third, that he personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/311230/

link isn't working, correct one is link

("archive/2013/09" instead of "archive/201.3/09")

insignificant wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 11:49 am

link isn't working, correct one is link

("archive/2013/09" instead of "archive/201.3/09")

So why is this 7 year old story coming up now?

Two foaming flagons of your finest mild paedophilia, stout yeoman of the bar.

Even if it's seven years old, it hasn't lost much of its c.nt power.

I don’t want to appear ageist (but I probably will), but I’m reminded that it’s not exactly unprecedented for people who did brilliant work in their prime to spout off about crap that is unconnected with their area of expertise in later life.

Yeah, he's not exactly taking a rigorous approach there. "I was molested as a kid, and so were all my friends, and it never did us any harm, whereas this other lady who was brought up Catholic said that her religious upbringing was really traumatising, therefore religion is worse than 'mild paedophilia'" is a pretty shoddy argument, and he clearly hasn't thought through how to make his case to people who'll disagree with it (something that, for instance, The Selfish Gene does fairly well).

It seems to be a mixture of the totally banal (some kinds of abuse are worse than others) and the obnoxious (religion is worse for kids than sexual abuse).

To be honest, even though I lost the faith I was brought up with roundabout the time Dawkins started his atheism crusade, I never found him massively compelling on that front. It seemed to be a very smug sort of "ooo aren't I clever for not believing in God like pretty much everyone else in history has, behold my massive throbbing capacity for reason" which, again, could only ever be preached to the converted.

individualmember wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:08 pm

I don’t want to appear ageist (but I probably will), but I’m reminded that it’s not exactly unprecedented for people who did brilliant work in their prime to spout off about crap that is unconnected with their area of expertise in later life.

To be honest, it’s not exactly unprecedented for people who didn't do brilliant work in their prime to spout off about crap that is unconnected with their area of expertise in later life, either. Or for people who don't have an area of expertise to spout off about crap. Or for young people to spout off about crap.

People love spouting off - though I suspect that people who have done brilliant (or at least popular) work are more likely to have their spoutings-off widely reported.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:32 pm

It seemed to be a very smug sort of "ooo aren't I clever for not believing in God like pretty much everyone else in history has, behold my massive throbbing capacity for reason" which, again, could only ever be preached to the converted.

One word: Brights.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:07 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:32 pm

It seemed to be a very smug sort of "ooo aren't I clever for not believing in God like pretty much everyone else in history has, behold my massive throbbing capacity for reason" which, again, could only ever be preached to the converted.

One word: Brights.

That was my thought on seeing that post as well.

This is an interesting piece on empathy fails, partly to do with COVID but mostly from the POV of a historian.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/ou ... ves-others

People often say 'I can't imagine how they could do that/think that' of people in the past both in the sense that they did something we now find horrible (eg bear baiting) or just because something didn't affect us, how can it affect/have affected anyone else? This latter is exactly what Dawk does - I was fine therefore it's not so bad. It's not just empathy that fails with people like Dawk, it's a total lack of imagination.

You'd think a scientist would be capable of observation if not of actual empathy and see that not everyone is the same. But then, that doesn't suit his supremacist narrative.

Yes, people of all ages can spout crap but there's something different about the crap of older people, a weight of assumed authority and experience, and a 'respect your elders' attitude. Older women do it too but men are generally worse offenders because they've had a lifetime of male privilege to bolster their egos and insulate them from the consequences. My dad used to say things with great authority and he was nearly always factually wrong. #NotAllMen