I agree some people attempt to generate as much controversy as possible and some people seem to seek out this stuff just to act offended. The fact is ANY rape is horrendeous crime and shoudl not be denegrated to just "bad" as there's a victim. That said all the examples quoted are things that under the law are "aggravating factors" and can be considered separate crimes. for example rape and murder.. two crimes, child abuse and then threatening whatever is threatened.. It is a dangerous topic for a football board IMO
Most things are subject to gradation. The study of Biology, as well as literally being the study of life, is the study of continuums. Once the subject as emotive as child molestation is raised, very few people can separate logic from their visceral disgust at the topic. Dawkins, like with the vast majority of his views, has a valid point, but he will never get the support he would like due to the intense feelings engendered by the subject matter (a bit like religion, really).
Dawkins creates the environment that he wants. He is in control of the communication techniques that he employs. On this occasion he appears to have used a form of words that draws more attention to himself than it does to the topic that he is supposed to be pontificating on. So it would appear to be merely another piece of self-promotionalism rather than a true attempt to further discussion on the topic.
That's a fair point, Dave. The man is a master of self-promotion. I've seen him raise this point before, so it's nothing new, really. However, agree or disagree with the man (I know you differ on him on most things), any awareness-raising of all *****philia can only be a good thing, surely? As the J.S. and R.H., etc., cases have shown, it wasn't so long ago that these sorts of matters were not discussed and, thus being taboo, were not discussed which resulted in prominent *****philes having instances of abuse swept under the carpet by the authorities or the Church.
Have you seen True Detective with Woody Harleson and Matthew Mohanguey (sp). Harleson's character is a policemen who beats the **** out of two youths in a cell who'd shagged his teenage daughter., rather than try and prosecute them for statutory rape. Good result all around, really.
You can answer it better if you are a victim, Dawkiins is a knob jockey, a buffet intellectual. I'll just frame the ludicrousness because it totally passed you by. ask a rape victim, "would it have been not as bad had the guy not had a knife" "would have it been better for you if the rapist was smiling and non violent" Ask a victim of Savile what would have made it a lesser offence. Might wanna stand back a few paces. You see, this is what people who just study all the time and do not live in the real world come up with, out of touch with reality. Dawkins is just that on this subject The victim is the only one qualified to weigh the gravity of those events because it is their life that has been impacted by it. Anyone sitting in a comfy chair reading his ass off, knows nothing about rape. The minute you start bring in "interpretation" you end up with c**ts getting away with murder unjustly. in a nutshell, this is utter bollocks from that useless tit. You might as well say a brutal stabbing was less of an offence because the guy was drunk when he committed the crime, the outcome is the measure, FFS not how it was carried out. Why do you think you get done for armed robbery with a plastic fake gun? because you instill the same ****ing fear in the victims of armed robbery real gun or not, having real guns means extra charges and plastic guns never means lessening the initial offence of armed robbery.
I wonder how much less recovery time it is for a victim of rape because the attacker had no knife or was drunk. I wonder how much less it affects a kid because the **** that raped them was a nice ****. Give me a break, Donga you have some f**ed up logic. "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse." Says an old buffet intellectual who never experienced rape. f** off
I'll give you an example Sisu and maybe you can tell me which one of these scenarios is worse. A. A man and a woman are both drunk, man puts in hands in inappropriate places on the womans body after she passes out. (She might also never know, but was still raped) B. Man lurks in bushes waiting for <15 -year old girl to walk past. Jumps out and rapes and murders her. Thinking B is worse (it is by the way) doesn't mean that A is OK. There you have Dawkin's point.
All rape is bad but like murder, not all is equal. Its that simple. I cant imagine much is worse than gang rape, or being made a sex slave for some vile creature.
Dude, one is murder and rape, the other is rape. They are not even comparisons. That is not even apt. As for the sleeping drunk scenario, it is boiled down to no resistance, being asleep is no different than not resisting if you are awake, the crime is the same. If a woman lies there and just lets the rapist do his thing, is that less a crime than if the guy has to beat he first to subdue her? So in this logic, the actions of the victim can make it a worse or lesser crime? f**ing idiotic No is the simple answer, Dawkins is not qualified to talk this s**te
To stop this being so dark and non-footie related: I think Bayern Munich are better than Barcelona. This doesn't mean that Barcelona are ****.
Take the murder out then, and the other one touched a breast and then removed his hand. Should these 2 individuals if caught face the same sentence?
Gang rape is the same crime carried out by several people. It is many counts of one rape, not a different crime worse or better. it is worse for the victim as it is a sustained attack. I suppose being stabbed once is a lesser crime than being stabbed 10 times, the latter obviously worse but is the crime less?
Touching a breast is sexual assault, not rape, so lets put it simple, is touching one breast less of a crime that touching both? Or is it less ofa crime if the victim is sleeping? No it's not ffs, what planet are you living on. If you rape someone, f** them, whether you are drunk and they are sleeping, or not, it is no less of a crime, the victim may experience less if they are sleeping but the intent to do the harm for sexual gratification is no less of a crime. You start talking like that and then rapists put you out with drugs first then rape you, ah sure it is a lesser crime. if you really want answers, let yourself be ass raped in prison at knife point and then let yourself be drugged and ass raped and tell us which was worse, until then your opinion is worth less than the page you posted it to, and that is my point about Dawkins. raping a kid, no matter how you go about it, it does not lessen the crime and the minute we start thinking like that then...
Why don't we just have Justice By Numbers, then? If you can't recognise that there are degrees of severity of crimes without accusing those who do of being apologists for said crime then there is no point in having a discussion. There's also no point in having a judge. Just impose the maximum sentence on everyone who is deemed guilty of committing a crime that falls into the same broad category. That is justice from the Dark Ages, I'm afraid.
Lets take te comparison given. Knife point rape is worse than Date rape. To who is it worse or less? Dawkins? But he's never experienced both. This is my issue with these ****ing idiots who do nothing but learn learn learn, practicality and real life experience goes out the ****ing window
