koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,131
- 14,028
- 2,190
"
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called mild pedophilia, which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes lasting harm. Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts, and that to condemn this mild touching up as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. I am very conscious that you cant condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we dont look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and cant find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today, he said. Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, I dont think he did any of us lasting harm.
Richard Dawkins defends ?mild pedophilia,? says it does not cause ?lasting harm? - Salon.com
"Really, who needs God when we have Dawkins finely-tuned moral compass to guide our values?"
"Hes talking about a grown man a teacher, in fact deliberately and repeatedly violating young children. Yes, children; there were multiple victims of this particular pedophile, and Dawkins presumes to speak for all of them. No harm, no foul. We mustnt judge. I wonder, whom would Dawkins consider the greater threat to society: The child predators of decades past, or todays judgmental Christians who might castigate them?"
Prominent atheist: What?s wrong with a little ?mild pedophilia?? « The Greenroom
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called mild pedophilia, which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes lasting harm. Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts, and that to condemn this mild touching up as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. I am very conscious that you cant condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we dont look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and cant find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today, he said. Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, I dont think he did any of us lasting harm.
Richard Dawkins defends ?mild pedophilia,? says it does not cause ?lasting harm? - Salon.com
"Really, who needs God when we have Dawkins finely-tuned moral compass to guide our values?"
"Hes talking about a grown man a teacher, in fact deliberately and repeatedly violating young children. Yes, children; there were multiple victims of this particular pedophile, and Dawkins presumes to speak for all of them. No harm, no foul. We mustnt judge. I wonder, whom would Dawkins consider the greater threat to society: The child predators of decades past, or todays judgmental Christians who might castigate them?"
Prominent atheist: What?s wrong with a little ?mild pedophilia?? « The Greenroom
