Author Topic: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia  (Read 4743 times)

Shoulders?-Stomach!

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Mr Moose is up! It's done done done!
    • http://jackanderton.jamendo.net/
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2020, 01:22:57 PM »
Quote
prefer manufacturing some kind of conflict with religious types

A statement that would be utterly ridiculous in the UK even 30 years ago, and still is for the majority of the globe.

chveik

  • I feel like swimmin' in rat piss
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #121 on: September 11, 2020, 01:24:07 PM »
nah you don't get it

Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #122 on: September 11, 2020, 02:01:46 PM »
The Dear Muslima letter might win the hypocrisy award. Isn't one of his things moaning how atheists are discriminated against, and the whole tyranny of religion in the US? Oh no, they put the ten commandments in front of public buildings? Bohoo, not like you risk being arrested, lynched for blasphemy, or forced into exile with death squads looking to hunt you down. Should stop moaning if you ask me. I'm smart.

Oh and the fact that he refused to attend an event Rebecca Watson was due to speak at so she got canned. Sure he's all over how dangerous cancel culture is.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #123 on: September 11, 2020, 02:46:40 PM »
It's indefensible, really. He defended his mild paedo stuff badly, but I think he could make a passable argument in support of the kind of thing he was trying to say, namely that some forms of religious abuse of children are worse than sexual abuse.

Dear Muslima is a pure example of arguing against a strawman - Watson never said that being chatted up in a lift is equivalent to FGM, so the fact that he treated it as if she had is enough to dismiss the rest of what he says, but then as icing on the cake he titles it "Dear Muslima" and writes the rest of it like your mum on Facebook.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #124 on: September 11, 2020, 02:54:31 PM »
you'd think those supposedly smart scientists would take some of their time to undertand how religion really works. but they prefer manufacturing some kind of conflict with religious types. it's no suprise the skeptics turned out to be so morally bankrupt

I think there are two schools of thought, really. The binary approach of Dawkins that religious beliefs are unscientific and need to be shouted down at all costs because of it, and more nuanced approaches which agrees that religious beliefs are unscientific but also can largely be ignored when they're not trampling on other people's rights or affecting the public sector.

I'm in the latter camp, having spent a brief period in the former one, and my early life in the camp of being religious myself. I'd agree with Dawkins that mutliation of children's bodies or decisions about appropriate healthcare[1] shouldn't be in the realm of religion, but to suggest - as he seems to - that simply telling a child about religious ideas is tantamount to abuse is absurd, and I'd have to see a lot of evidence to the contrary to convince me otherwise.
 1. Depending on the condition, of course. Praying for a nettle sting is fair enough, preventing blood transfusions not so much.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #125 on: September 11, 2020, 03:42:42 PM »
that simply telling a child about religious ideas is tantamount to abuse is absurd

Solid agree.  If nothing else it's a little bit of further education isn't it.

Blue Jam

  • Crabs is sewage-proof
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #126 on: September 11, 2020, 08:00:18 PM »
I'm very glad I never decided to go to TAM London, because the organised atheist scene, like you, leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

To be fair TAM London was over before Elevatorgate and before that whole New Atheism thing kicked off. I think the thing that did TAM London in was the ticket prices being north of £200. I went both years and had a lovely time but I was working there and got in for free, and I'm not sure I would have gone as a paying punter.

I remember would-be punters complaining that the entry fee was a bit steep, especially as many London-based peeps would have already seen Dawkins, Brian Cox, Richard Wiseman, Simon Singh etc at London Skeptics in the Pub for a couple of quid a pop. The official response was that a conference is quite different and that you can't bring in all the big hitters and put on dinners, accommodation and social events if you do it on the cheap (which was fair enough).

...and then some bright entrepreneurial spark had the radical idea of hiring a venue *gasp* outside central London and booking novel speakers and launched QEDcon, with tickets starting at £99... I guess a UK edition of TAM simply had to be in London but it just wasn't sustainable.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #127 on: September 11, 2020, 09:28:29 PM »
Solid agree.  If nothing else it's a little bit of further education isn't it.

At its mildest it’s no worse than the tooth fairy really. I genuinely feel that the religious aspects of my upbringing were detrimental on some ways, but to say it’s in anyway comparable to if a priest touched my cock is ridiculous.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #128 on: September 11, 2020, 09:32:58 PM »
To be fair TAM London was over before Elevatorgate and before that whole New Atheism thing kicked off. I think the thing that did TAM London in was the ticket prices being north of £200. I went both years and had a lovely time but I was working there and got in for free, and I'm not sure I would have gone as a paying punter.

I remember would-be punters complaining that the entry fee was a bit steep, especially as many London-based peeps would have already seen Dawkins, Brian Cox, Richard Wiseman, Simon Singh etc at London Skeptics in the Pub for a couple of quid a pop. The official response was that a conference is quite different and that you can't bring in all the big hitters and put on dinners, accommodation and social events if you do it on the cheap (which was fair enough).

...and then some bright entrepreneurial spark had the radical idea of hiring a venue *gasp* outside central London and booking novel speakers and launched QEDcon, with tickets starting at £99... I guess a UK edition of TAM simply had to be in London but it just wasn't sustainable.

What work were you doing there? I find the attendees at most SitP events to be tedious enough (with many delightful exceptions), but if I’d ever dropped hundreds to be there I’d be gutted.

Blue Jam

  • Crabs is sewage-proof
Re: Dicky Dawks defends paedophilia
« Reply #129 on: September 13, 2020, 02:20:55 PM »
I met some tedious people at SitP but most people were very nice and I made some good friends there. Post-Elevatorgate though I do wonder if a certain factions of Skeptics fell down the New Atheism rabbit hole, particularly after Atheism + and the suggestion that the Skeptic movement be a bit more inclusive. It reminded me a bit of Gamergate, Reddit STEMlords who don't want girls joining their tree house club.

Also as I have mentioned elsewhere a few of my now former friends from SitP ended up going full Glinner and now spend most of their days ranting about toilets on Twitter.

Tags: