How is this statement contraversial?

-1=e^ipi · July 30, 2014

Apparently Richard Dawkins has said 'controversial' statements and people on twitter are upset:

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that is an endorsement for date rape, go away and learn how to think."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709730/Richard-Dawkins-sparks-outrage-Twitter-debate-saying-date-rape-bad-stranger-rape-worse.html

How is this controversial? I don't get it.

Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

TimG · July 30, 2014

How is this controversial? I don't get it.

He broke a social taboo. The reaction has as much logic as Muslims getting offended by images of Allah.

Dogmatic beliefs are everywhere in our "secular" society and it is mistake to assume that they are OK just because they don't come with a diety attached as the rationalization.

Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

BubberMiley · July 30, 2014

When someone disagrees with what someone says, they often find it to be controversial. When Rihanna tweets "Free Palestine", people flip out. When a kid from One Direction tweets "Pray for Gaza", he gets death threats. But any reasonable person wouldn't find those tweets offensive either.

Bonam · July 30, 2014

Like Dawkins said, people should go away and learn how to think.

cybercoma · July 30, 2014

I certainly don't have a problem with what he said. But then I'm smart enough to know what he's saying.

Hal 9000 · July 30, 2014

Any time someone says something is better or worse than something else, they are immediatly discriminating against the other. Many people can't handle that.

Shady · July 31, 2014

It's part of the PC police our society has been dictated by.

WestCoastRunner · July 31, 2014

It offends me in the way that he minimizes the impact of rape depending on the perpetrator, which is wrong. He did also come out with a statement later,

"he said he ‘was only talking logic’, and had ‘no desire to make light of the seriousness of any kind of rape or [sic] pedophilia’.

When in fact, that is exactly what he did

I also find this statement ridiculous that was mentioned above : "Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists."

What exactly are radical feminists and are all these people offended, 'radical feminists' (whatever the hell that means).

Mighty AC · July 31, 2014

I don't think his statements minimize rape at all. It seemed obvious that he was stating that all rape is bad with some situations being even worse.

WestCoastRunner · July 31, 2014

I don't think his statements minimize rape at all. It seemed obvious that he was stating that all rape is bad with some situations being even worse.

It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, the effect is the same on the victim for many many years to come. He is trying to judge the impact of what a victim goes through, depending on the severity of the crime. The end result is someone was 'raped', followed by years of self destruction for many victims. It doesn't matter if it was a date rape or being raped with the threat of a knife.

-1=e^ipi · July 31, 2014

It doesn't matter if it was a date rape or being raped with the threat of a knife.

It doesn't matter if a knife is used? Seriously? Why are you trying to devalue the relevance of the use of violent weapons against rape victims? Are you secretly working for the patriarchy?

It offends me in the way that he minimizes the impact of rape depending on the perpetrator, which is wrong. He did also come out with a statement later,

When in fact, that is exactly what he did

I think you are being one of those people that needs to go away and learn how to think.

Does saying 'being shot in the head 5 times is bad, being shot in the head 6 times is worse' minimize the impact of shooting people in the head?

Does saying 'stealing $5 is bad, stealing $50,000 is worse' minimize the impact of stealing $5?

Does saying 'aggravated assault with a potato is bad, aggravated assault with a machete is worse' minimize the impact of aggravated assault with a potato?

I also find this statement ridiculous that was mentioned above : "Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists."
What exactly are radical feminists and are all these people offended, 'radical feminists' (whatever the hell that means).

To your first question... Do you really want me to go there?

As for the second question, no. Many people can be offended for a variety of reasons, they are not necessarily radical feminists.

WestCoastRunner · July 31, 2014

It doesn't matter if a knife is used? Seriously? Why are you trying to devalue the relevance of the use of violent weapons against rape victims? Are you secretly working for the patriarchy?

I think you are being one of those people that needs to go away and learn how to think.

Does saying 'being shot in the head 5 times is bad, being shot in the head 6 times is worse' minimize the impact of shooting people in the head?

Does saying 'stealing $5 is bad, stealing $50,000 is worse' minimize the impact of stealing $5?

Does saying 'aggravated assault with a potato is bad, aggravated assault with a machete is worse' minimize the impact of aggravated assault with a potato?

To your first question... Do you really want me to go there?

As for the second question, no. Many people can be offended for a variety of reasons, they are not necessarily radical feminists.

If you were to re-read my statements, I was discussing his statements on 'rape'. Perhaps you need to go away, chill out and learn how to read.

Hal 9000 · July 31, 2014

It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, the effect is the same on the victim for many many years to come. He is trying to judge the impact of what a victim goes through, depending on the severity of the crime. The end result is someone was 'raped', followed by years of self destruction for many victims. It doesn't matter if it was a date rape or being raped with the threat of a knife.

Really? I'm sure that some woman dragged into a bush, slapped around, had her clothes ripped off and raped at knife point, is a little more traumatized than some girl who woke up realizing she'd been slipped a ruffie.

BC_chick · July 31, 2014

Dawkins is right. Bad and worse doesn't minimize bad, it just means worse is worse.

Wilber · July 31, 2014

If there were no different degrees of the same crime, there would be no need for judges to pass sentences. The sentence would be the same for each conviction of the same crime, regardless of the circumstances.

Bonam · July 31, 2014

It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, the effect is the same on the victim for many many years to come.

It's not a matter of who is the perpetrator but of the severity of the crime.

He is trying to judge the impact of what a victim goes through, depending on the severity of the crime.

No... he is judging the severity of the crime, by the severity of the crime. Astounding concept, I know.

I'll go out on a limb and agree with Dawkins here. All rape is bad. Violent rape is worse. Rape where you kill the victim at the end is even worse.

Hal 9000 · July 31, 2014

It offends me in the way that he minimizes the impact of rape depending on the perpetrator, which is wrong. He did also come out with a statement later,

"he said he ‘was only talking logic’, and had ‘no desire to make light of the seriousness of any kind of rape or [sic] pedophilia’.

When in fact, that is exactly what he did

I also find this statement ridiculous that was mentioned above : "Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists."

What exactly are radical feminists and are all these people offended, 'radical feminists' (whatever the hell that means).

I think he's suggesting that feminists come in varying degrees of feminism. Some feminists are bad and some are worse, but i'm sure you'd agree, they're all the same.

-1=e^ipi · July 31, 2014

I think he's suggesting that feminists come in varying degrees of feminism. Some feminists are bad and some are worse, but i'm sure you'd agree, they're all the same.

Yes. Feminism can mean anything from gender equalitism to misandric hate ideology.

cybercoma · July 31, 2014

Radical feminists are the idiots on tumblr who some of the most famous and respected feminists have even said don't represent feminism. They're the feminists that literally hate white men and would love to see the patriarchy replaced with a matriarchy. If you're not a radical Neanderthal you would see why this is wrong and perhaps refer to the work of bell hooks.

waldo · July 31, 2014

Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists.

Yes. Feminism can mean anything from gender equalitism to misandric hate ideology.

without qualification, you initially implied all women responding to Dawkins were 'radical feminists'. Doesn't your provided link speak to Dawkin's own apparent dismay with "people who think in absolutist terms"?

in your subsequent expressed qualification range... who exactly are the radical feminists, particularly across the breadth of those that responded to Dawkins?

-1=e^ipi · July 31, 2014

without qualification, you initially implied all women responding to Dawkins were 'radical feminists'.

I never implied such nonsense.

Radical feminists are the idiots on tumblr

Ah yes, the tumblr feminists...

would love to see the patriarchy replaced with a matriarchy.

For the record, the patriarchy does not exist (at least in most western societies).

Hal 9000 · July 31, 2014

Yes. Feminism can mean anything from gender equalitism to misandric hate ideology.

A woman who knows her true value will only put up with a man's nonsense for so long, you either get right or get left.

I believe this comment to be radical feminism....and misandy.

Black Dog · July 31, 2014

There's no such thing as misandry dudes.

Bonam · July 31, 2014

There's no such thing as misandry dudes.

Ok. Go delete this wikipedia page then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Black Dog · July 31, 2014

As for Dawkins, his point was so basic, I can't for a second believe that anyone didn't get it the first time. Pretty sure his references to rape and minor pedophilia (which he doesn't think is very harmful) were simple pot-stirring.