It depends on the crime mate. The guy who sets out with a packet of rohypnol? and the guy who sets out with the knife, how are they different, because their tools to subdue the victim are different?
You will find that crimes amass or change into different offences depending on what transpired, if you rob someone and you have no knife or weapon it is robbery, if you have a knife, it is armed robbery. They are two different crimes, not a scale as you call it
We've actually gone off point (partially my fault!) The point is if in my opinion act A is worse than act B, it doesn't mean that I think act B was not a disgusting and vile act and the person shouldn't be imprisoned for life.
Besides Dawkin's point is moot, there is no fixed sentences for rape of *****philia. In almost all cases it depends on the circumstances and outcome of the court case. ****s have been caught with images and get off lightly, others not. Rapists have got short and long sentences. There is no standard, no set punishment anyways and mostly it is down to your legal team's skill and all too often it is also influenced by your social standing too. So Dawkins words are meaningless.
I made a better point lad. What is the difference between the guy who sets out to rape someone with a knife and the guy who uses some pills? They both plan to subdue a victim and then rape them. You see, the guy with the knife will face different charges to the guy with the pills as they are breaking different laws to go with the rape. Rape is not simple rape, it is how it is carried out, you say the knife is worse, but what if the knife guy doesn't use it, just scares the victim and does his businesses and leaves and the guy who used the pills done his businesses and then the victim puked while drugged and choked on it after he left and died. You see what I am getting at here.
Dawkins has a point. Unfortunately, as is his wont, he uses the most inflammatory and sensationalist method of framing his point. Realistically, that shouldn't diminish the validity of his point- but it will, and he does himself no favours with his choice of example and metaphor. This reminds me a little of the response to John Lennon's point about the Beatles and Jesus.
Your hatred of educated people is obvious "Just STFU and accept what you are told! Have faith! Don't think!"
You didnt answer my question though. Knife or pills, which is worse, according to Dawkins the knife is worse unless I am mistaken?
It's a load of nothing, as per usual, twitter just shows that those in the minority are always the most vocal, Can find no reason to fault what RD has said. If i were to be raped, I'd far rather be unconscious than living every second of it
You are exactly the person he was getting at with his point. You might not think there's a difference in those acts, and I would be able to agree with you that there's really not much difference in the examples he gave. But if he thinks that date rape isn't as bad as knife-point rape, he's not saying that date rape is good.
Ah yes, different opinion and you attack me. Not what I said, that's a fail astro and you know it. I hate educated people Probably the dumbest f**ing thing you've ever said. It is costing me an arm and a leg to put my kids through a decent education, what a stupid f**ing comment you dumbass. "just accepting what you are told", cornerstone of an idiot's future, if i get it wrong on the way to getting it right.. I am still on the right course, duhh
Of course it is mate, but it's at least a bit of craic seeing different opinions, funny how all the "men" here are experts on women and rape
Although 1 in 10 reported rapes are of men, in actuality could be much higher but men are less likely to want to go to the police about it apparently.
Rape and **** deviance are things are a social ills that should be stamped out, if that means draconian measures then so ****ing be it. just because potentially one could be "not as bad" as the other doesn't mean we should start scaling it down. Why? because the potential outcome is a life ruined or ended
False stat, most rapes of women are not reported and when you read s**t like this thread is it any wonder. I read somewhere 12% reported?
Dawkins "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think." Firstly, no one think he is endorsing date rape. Secondly In both cases the victim can die, in both cases they can be affected for years of their life or their entire life depending on the individual.What a stupid f**ing thing to say for someone who is so "educated". This is what I am talking about, he is being totally impractical and is simplifying it. It is not and never is that simple. someone should rape the prick twice, with pills and then with a knife, I bet his arse will burn either way, he will feel violated either way and he will wonder if he brought it upon himself and wonder if he will be believed, he will be humiliated by the examination at the hospital afterwards, he will be scared going out in future, this is what happens when a woman gets raped. Some of you are f**ing delusional.
Am I required to answer your question? I prefer to put my point in a way that accurately reflects my views rather than simply answer yes or no to someone else's loaded questions. I wouldn't presume to pass judgement on which experience is worse, having mercifully suffered neither. Neither, we assume, has Richard Dawkins. However, I think that you, and some others, are missing the point that he is making, ie that saying one thing is worse than another is not saying that the lesser evil is somehow trivial or acceptable. Dawkins being the sensationalist self-publicist that he is, he (stupidly, imo) is using an example that is so emotionally charged that the validity of his point gets lost in the resulting moral outrage.
You are not required to answer, I asked you to, that doesn't mean you are required, it was a request, are you eating lead paint? I can't put it any simpler mate. if you set out to rape someone with pills. The charge and sentence should be there abouts the same as if you set out with a knife. if you commit more crimes in that act, as in separate chargeable offences then the sentence will be longer but, both initial intents are the same crime. The drugging of the woman is an offence in its self, setting out to commit any crime with a weapon is an offence in it's self Then there is the separate charge of rape, it may or may not include violent assault, again a separate charge. Should a rapist not be held accountable if the woman was allergic to the pills and died? This is the outcome of lessening that offence and it's bolocks I really can't be any clearer, it is not one offence and that is why Dawkins is a f**ing idiot out of touch with reality because of the myriad of things that can happen in either case knife or pills, and it serves no one, let alone a man who was never raped or lived in the real world to be honest, to pass judgement on it. Then there is the outcome, the impact on the victim's life. Who is Dawkins to say which victim suffers more? That can only be answered by the victims. he should have just kept his mouth shut tbh, but then again, this c**t likes to be heard, maybe he can do another TED talk on this subject. Reminds me of the judge in Australia, another old fart who says ****s are not all bad. people out of touch with reality say s**t like this. if someone raped my other half, they would die, whether it was pills or a knife, I would take no less time killing them slowly
I lent Swarbs 'The Blind Watchmaker' 18 months ago and I've still not got it back. Those mancs - thieving twats and they call us Not a derail. Dawkins wrote it
