Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Richard Dawkins, the famous biologist and author of "The Blind Watchmaker" defends "mild pedophilia" saying it causes no harm:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard ... ting_harm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.

Discuss

LeadBolt wrote:Richard Dawkins, the famous biologist and author of "The Blind Watchmaker" defends "mild pedophilia" saying it causes no harm:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard ... ting_harm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.

Discuss

I'm curious as to what JSO thinks about all of this.

UH OH

Dawkins is a nut, therefore evolution must be a false theory

I'm curious as to what JSO thinks about all of this.

It doesn't really relate to the thing I say that causes you guys to razz me. What I say that causes you guys to razz me is that certain behavior our society often refers to as "pedophilia" is not actually pedophilia.

The behavior I reference is sexual attraction of a reproductive stage member of one sex to a reproductive stage member of the opposite sex who happens to be below the "legal age" established by the society. In terms of biology it is a completely normal response. It's not "sick" in any sense. It is not "pedophilia" in particular or any type of "philia" in general.

That's not the same thing as having a male school master put a little boy on his knee then stick his hand down the little boy's shorts. The scenario described does not involve members of opposite sexes and also appears to involve a little boy who has not reached reproductive stage.

CID1990 wrote:UH OH

Dawkins is a nut, therefore evolution must be a false theory

If evolution is a false theory, and Hippie and D1B support evolution, they must be nuts.




Corollary is fun!

CID1990 wrote:UH OH

Dawkins is a nut, therefore evolution must be a false theory

At least your line of thinking is consistent. You must be torn up inside to see an icon like Dawkins be exposed as a blathering doofus. Oh the cognitive dissonance! Burn!

JSO, do you actually know the definition of pedophilia?

It's pretty clear you don't.

Dawkins is a catholic priest?

D1B wrote:Dawkins is a catholic priest?

Wow. I know how highly you think of Catholic priests, so you must really think Dawkins is a piece of shit.

Well, you are right. Not to mention a huge pussy for refusing to debate anyone past a high school education.

Good call D!

D1B wrote:Dawkins is a catholic priest?

No. But he apparently thinks like a small percentage of them.

Not the Family Feud guy?

SeattleGriz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:UH OH

Dawkins is a nut, therefore evolution must be a false theory

At least your line of thinking is consistent. You must be torn up inside to see an icon like Dawkins be exposed as a blathering doofus. Oh the cognitive dissonance! Burn!

actually i dont think on him at all - i didnt even know who he was until he came up in these threads

(science doesnt really need idols....)

he made his niche refuting ID and creationism - good for him, although it is a silly pursuit - trying to eradicate willful ignorance

that he has an unpopular (and wholly anecdotal) view on child molestation is not noteworthy in the least

except that he tweaks the IDers, creationists, and other such believers in magic and therefore this is news

JohnStOnge wrote:

I'm curious as to what JSO thinks about all of this.

It doesn't really relate to the thing I say that causes you guys to razz me. What I say that causes you guys to razz me is that certain behavior our society often refers to as "pedophilia" is not actually pedophilia.

The behavior I reference is sexual attraction of a reproductive stage member of one sex to a reproductive stage member of the opposite sex who happens to be below the "legal age" established by the society. In terms of biology it is a completely normal response. It's not "sick" in any sense. It is not "pedophilia" in particular or any type of "philia" in general.

That's not the same thing as having a male school master put a little boy on his knee then stick his hand down the little boy's shorts. The scenario described does not involve members of opposite sexes and also appears to involve a little boy who has not reached reproductive stage.

My neighbor's daughter is 9 and is getting her period (but that's probably due to all the steroids and crap in our meats. But, I digress) So, would you say that a 31 year old having sex with a 9 year old (who is getting her period) isn't a pedophile?

Hey, JSO...





AND, what the DSM has to say about it (I can confirm this as we have the DSM 3, 4, and 5 (as well as all revised copies put out) in our house.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphili ... 0Sheet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

eww creepy

can we get back to mumbo jumbo shamanism plz

kthx

There isn't enough information in that snippet for me to make a judgement. Seems like it could be an attempt to smear Dawkins by manipulating people's emotions about child sex abuse.

Honestly, I think there are too many people that more oppose child sex abuse more because it's weird and gross and not because it's very unhealthy and damaging, and that's sad.

What's crazy is that the idea of not liking 15-year-old girls having sexual relations with 17-year-old males makes you a palin-fundie-abstinence-only-education-jesus-freak-prude while if it was a 19-year-old male it becomes some kind of terrible crime which we attach the word "rape" to. A lot of what our laws deem as acceptable sexual relations is more based on our own "ick" factors than it is what the actual health effects of those relations and the capacity of people of different levels of physical maturity to consent. That's basically the reason a lot of people oppose same-sex-marriage...it's not about the Bible no matter what some people on both sides of the issue say. It's because those gays are icky.

Tar and feather away if you want, but if you take a rational and unemotional look at this, you know I'm right.

Pwns wrote:There isn't enough information in that snippet for me to make a judgement. Seems like it could be an attempt to smear Dawkins by manipulating people's emotions about child sex abuse.

Honestly, I think there are too many people that more oppose child sex abuse more because it's weird and gross and not because it's very unhealthy and damaging, and that's sad.

What's crazy is that the idea of not liking 15-year-old girls having sexual relations with 17-year-old males makes you a palin-fundie-abstinence-only-education-jesus-freak-prude while if it was a 19-year-old male it becomes some kind of terrible crime which we attach the word "rape" to. A lot of what our laws deem as acceptable sexual relations is more based on our own "ick" factors than it is what the actual health effects of those relations and the capacity of people of different levels of physical maturity to consent. That's basically the reason a lot of people oppose same-sex-marriage...it's not about the Bible no matter what some people on both sides of the issue say. It's because those gays are icky.

Tar and feather away if you want, but if you take a rational and unemotional look at this, you know I'm right.

I've never said this before (and, likely, never will again), but, both pwnsy and St. Wronge are right.

A dollop of emotion and a sprinkling of religion into issue and chaos not conducive to rational debate ensues.




And, besides, you KNOW Palin was bangin' her gym teacher back in junior high.....

andy7171 wrote:

D1B wrote:Dawkins is a catholic priest?

No. But he apparently thinks like a small percentage of them.

Small percentage? Where are you getting your numbers? The Catholic Church?

So, would you say that a 31 year old having sex with a 9 year old (who is getting her period) isn't a pedophile?

Yes. Assuming "having her period" means she is capable of bearing offspring she has reached reproductive stage. If she has it is perfectly normal, in terms of biology, for males of her species to pursue sex with her. Such behavior is not "pedophilia."

You may not like it. But it's the truth.

JohnStOnge wrote:

So, would you say that a 31 year old having sex with a 9 year old (who is getting her period) isn't a pedophile?

Yes. Assuming "having her period" means she is capable of bearing offspring she has reached reproductive stage. If she has it is perfectly normal, in terms of biology, for males of her species to pursue sex with her. Such behavior is not "pedophilia."

You may not like it. But it's the truth.

Gotta get to them before they put on the middle school 15.

You guys are some sick fucks up in here.

CID1990 wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
At least your line of thinking is consistent. You must be torn up inside to see an icon like Dawkins be exposed as a blathering doofus. Oh the cognitive dissonance! Burn!

actually i dont think on him at all - i didnt even know who he was until he came up in these threads

(science doesnt really need idols....)

he made his niche refuting ID and creationism - good for him, although it is a silly pursuit - trying to eradicate willful ignorance

that he has an unpopular (and wholly anecdotal) view on child molestation is not noteworthy in the least

except that he tweaks the IDers, creationists, and other such believers in magic and therefore this is news

I'm guessing you are the one on the right of your avatar, eh Jethro.

I expected better of you, but apparently not.

Next!

SeattleGriz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
actually i dont think on him at all - i didnt even know who he was until he came up in these threads

(science doesnt really need idols....)

he made his niche refuting ID and creationism - good for him, although it is a silly pursuit - trying to eradicate willful ignorance

that he has an unpopular (and wholly anecdotal) view on child molestation is not noteworthy in the least

except that he tweaks the IDers, creationists, and other such believers in magic and therefore this is news

I'm guessing you are the one on the right of your avatar, eh Jethro.

I expected better of you, but apparently not.

Next!

dont be mad, bro

i didnt force you to try to defend magic

Gotta get to them before they put on the middle school 15.

You don't "gotta" get them at all. But a reproductive stage member of one sex being sexually attracted to a reproductive stage member of the opposite sex is biologically normal. It just is. It's the way nature works and society making laws establishing what is and what is not legal age doesn't change that.