Richard Dawkins and pedophilia/sexual abuse

[Buddy]

So, it's like when some people turn to some area outside their specialty, their mind short-circuits and they can't seem to make an intelligent statement on the subject.

Eh...child abuse is not a "specialty", it requires no extensive research to understand, it is the ABUSE of a child by an adult. Anyone who sanctions it has no empathy. I am not surprised that Dawkins thinks it is "ok", everything he has ever said or wrote points to him being an 'empty" human being.

Exactly. Anyway, if child abuse was indeed 'a specialty' that Dawkins is no proficient in, shouldn't he refrain from making any comments on the subject?

I don't understand this part of the conversation. In my reply, the word "specialty" referred to his work in evolutionary biology, which in this case, as I stated, is based largely on "translating" the achievements of two others. And, "...on the subject" refers to "some area" which their minds turned to outside that specialty. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.

 

[obyvatel]

So, it's like when some people turn to some area outside their specialty, their mind short-circuits and they can't seem to make an intelligent statement on the subject.

Eh...child abuse is not a "specialty", it requires no extensive research to understand, it is the ABUSE of a child by an adult. Anyone who sanctions it has no empathy. I am not surprised that Dawkins thinks it is "ok", everything he has ever said or wrote points to him being an 'empty" human being.

Exactly. Anyway, if child abuse was indeed 'a specialty' that Dawkins is no proficient in, shouldn't he refrain from making any comments on the subject?

I don't understand this part of the conversation. In my reply, the word "specialty" referred to his work in evolutionary biology, which in this case, as I stated, is based largely on "translating" the achievements of two others. And, "...on the subject" refers to "some area" which their minds turned to outside that specialty. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.

I think the point being made is that it does not need much intellect or specialized knowledge in any subject to recognize that abuse of a child by an adult is wrong - any normal human being would recognize that. Rationalizing it, the way Dawkins seems to, is a manifestation of pathology, and not ignorance in areas outside his specialization.

So, your original statement about " not being able to speak intelligently about topics outside one's specialty" in this context was a little odd IMO which is what the others were responding to.

 

[Buddy]

I think the point being made is that it does not need much intellect or specialized knowledge in any subject to recognize that abuse of a child by an adult is wrong - any normal human being would recognize that. Rationalizing it, the way Dawkins seems to, is a manifestation of pathology, and not ignorance in areas outside his specialization.

OK, I get that point and I agree with it and I appreciate your explanation.

So, your original statement about " not being able to speak intelligently about topics outside one's specialty" in this context was a little odd IMO which is what the others were responding to.

To clarify, that wasn't my original statement. I specifically said "they can't seem to make an intelligent statement on the subject."

This: "an intelligent statement" was meant to refer to the statement in the original article which includes the phrase "mild pedophilia," but of course I see now that no one could have realized that since I didn't say it. Mild pedophilia? Mild?? There is no such thing to me. Pedophilia in any "degree" is wrong as I see it and I too have strong feelings about it. I'm getting tired of not being able to phrase what I want to say exactly right the first time. Maybe it's just my own pathology or whatever. I'm sorry I added the extra noise to this thread.

 

[obyvatel]

So, your original statement about " not being able to speak intelligently about topics outside one's specialty" in this context was a little odd IMO which is what the others were responding to.

To clarify, that wasn't my original statement. I specifically said "they can't seem to make an intelligent statement on the subject."

Yes, I was paraphrasing. I did find the original statement a little odd nonetheless.

[quote author=Buddy]
This: "an intelligent statement" was meant to refer to the statement in the original article which includes the phrase "mild pedophilia," but of course I see now that no one could have realized that since I didn't say it. Mild pedophilia? Mild?? There is no such thing to me. Pedophilia in any "degree" is wrong as I see it and I too have strong feelings about it. I'm getting tired of not being able to phrase what I want to say exactly right the first time. Maybe it's just my own pathology or whatever. I'm sorry I added the extra noise to this thread.
[/quote]

The question I would be asking myself if I were in your place is "why did I choose to comment on Dawkins' brilliance and contributions in evolutionary biology in this specific context when I feel strongly against what he was actually saying about the main topic under discussion?" It was not about phrasing things exactly Buddy. We rarely nitpick about that kind of stuff.

 

[Buddy]

The question I would be asking myself if I were in your place is "why did I choose to comment on Dawkins' brilliance and contributions in evolutionary biology in this specific context when I feel strongly against what he was actually saying about the main topic under discussion?" It was not about phrasing things exactly Buddy. We rarely nitpick about that kind of stuff.

The choice 'to comment on Dawkins' brilliance and contributions in evolutionary biology' was not to praise him for that, but to provide a contrast to the final thought in the post. I know of Dawkins through the work I mentioned, plus that whole 'selfish gene' and meme thing and the recent snafu over his 'muslim' tweet. The link to pedophilia was new to me. I was sitting here feeling really bad and not knowing why exactly. Since I couldn't really put words to what I was feeling and since I would agree with anything anyone else could say against child sexual abuse, I chose, instead, to show what I perceive as his deteriorated mental capacity from a different angle. That's all I seem to be consciously aware of at the moment as it relates to your question.

Apologies for the 'nitpicking.' I don't like being perceived as saying 'odd' things and yeah, sometimes I guess I just don't get a point that seems clear enough to others.

 

[SeekinTruth]

A somewhat lame IMO Dawkins's explanation with a ping-pong argument:

_http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/9/11/child-abuse-a-misunderstanding#

It's not just a lame explanation, he misrepresents and OMITS most of what he ACTUALLY said. What he actually said was:

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t 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 can’t 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 don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

I'm not sure who he thinks he is speaking for when he says "we don't 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", but he's certainly not speaking for me. That's the problem with people like him, they live their whole lives projecting their own deviant inner landscape and "paramorality" onto everyone else. In the case that such types gain the ear of the public and are promoted, they can have definite ponerizing influence on others.

Exactly! Why shouldn't we condemn slavery, for instance, because in certain periods and places it was a widespread practice (most of history actually, and even now many different forms of slavery - the overt and the covert). This type of argument just doesn't make sense. I still condemn slavery in every age and place. PLUS, there were people at those times condemning it! It's the difference between those with a functioning conscience and those without, I think.

It's the same thing with rape and other deplorable acts during events such as war, etc. There are those who participate, those who make arguments like Dawkins about the times and events and how you have to take these into consideration when condemning such acts, and those who are outraged and can't accept the unacceptable - such extreme abuse of others - under any circumstance. That's what it comes down to, I think.

 

[obyvatel]

The link to pedophilia was new to me. I was sitting here feeling really bad and not knowing why exactly. Since I couldn't really put words to what I was feeling and since I would agree with anything anyone else could say against child sexual abuse, I chose, instead, to show what I perceive as his deteriorated mental capacity from a different angle.

Buddy, it does not look like you felt much differently from others who were responding in this thread. If you had written how you felt, like you did here

Mild pedophilia? Mild?? There is no such thing to me. Pedophilia in any "degree" is wrong as I see it and I too have strong feelings about it.

there would not be misunderstanding. But you chose to not divulge your feelings at all in your first post and instead intellectualized the response with information that gave a different slant.

[quote author=Buddy]
I'm getting tired of not being able to phrase what I want to say exactly right the first time.
[/quote]

Maybe going forward, something you could experiment with would be to ask yourself how you feel about a certain topic. Then when you respond, you read the post and see if the emotion you are feeling is being expressed in the response with the data and comments you provide. I have a feeling that sometimes your posts are difficult to understand because you choose to override how you are feeling with intellectualization. There is perhaps an unconscious conflict that takes place inside of you which makes your expression obfuscated at such times. If you are able to identify your feeling, even if you cannot reconcile it with what your intellect wants, (it happens to most of us I would guess), and want to respond, just say something like " I feel ..... but I think .....". Your expression then becomes an honest expression of your inner state and does not feel like obfuscation.

You do write posts that are clear, genuine and helpful. Can you sense a difference in your state when you write something that causes misunderstanding and when it does not?

fwiw

 

[Buddy]

Can you sense a difference in your state when you write something that causes misunderstanding and when it does not?

Sure, I know what it is and when I'm doing it but without feedback I have no idea how it's coming across until somebody says something so that I understand that's the point being made. It's when I'm not sure what I'm feeling about it, so I mention something else I know, or think I know about the subject or something associated with it just to be participating while the thread is hot, so to speak. At other times, when the topic is much more serious and very important to people (of course pedophilia is serious and important, but that Dawkins is not), like your PP thread which I still haven't got to yet, I restrain myself more until I'm sure that I can add something that seems like it's directly connected.

So, now that this is all a little clearer to me, I think I can improve something - at least the signal to noise ratio as it's perceived on here.

If you are able to identify your feeling, even if you cannot reconcile it with what your intellect wants, (it happens to most of us I would guess), and want to respond, just say something like " I feel ..... but I think .....". Your expression then becomes an honest expression of your inner state and does not feel like obfuscation.

I like that plan. I'll use it in the appropriate circumstance. Thanks.

You do write posts that are clear, genuine and helpful.

That means a lot coming from you. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Dawkins has built his fame on what can be described, IMO, as an "anti-life" thesis - human beings as machines. Strangely enough, this is true according to Gurdjieff, yet the goal is to grow out of mechanicalness and towards consciousness and conscience. Dawkins thwarts such efforts by lobbying for the mechanical nature of humanity as the high point in its evolution.

Thank you, very enlightening. I think this kind of characters can be OP-type, very smart indeed, but which by their very nature can never conceive go beyond certain limits. Or believe in the existence of high ideals. What he says for Christianity is valid in a certain context, be critical to an terrible institution. But apparently it really means is that spirituality is a lie that leads people to madness. Well, obviously this only speak for himself and not the people. Reminds me an example that once Laura said, about another scientist, Carl Sagan, telling to his last wife before dying that they would never see again. So, this speeches, it almost seems that humans are just animals, or less than them. Because humans know they will die, generating more psychological suffering. So our race invent all kinds of crazy hypothesis to calm down (religions, philosophy and all kinds of cosmogony), just to get to the same destination of the rest of the animals. But again, this kind of talk just speaks for whom it is produced. I mean, talk about their own experiences. Maybe death is like breathing according Gurdjieff, that not all individuals take the same nutrients from the air. Perhaps with death occurring the same: each individual will experience it in their own way.
If Dawkins is really an OP, I wonder what is the difference with a obyvatel? (if the question makes sense, since we are all OP unless we begin to develop consciousness). The obyvatel did not believe in human spirituality either, right? (I mean, that of the narcissists and and pathological and all who not do the work). Perhaps only the place in society, which means that one have media time and the other not?

 

[obyvatel]

If Dawkins is really an OP, I wonder what is the difference with a obyvatel? (if the question makes sense, since we are all OP unless we begin to develop consciousness). The obyvatel did not believe in human spirituality either, right? (I mean, that of the narcissists and and pathological and all who not do the work).

Gurdjieff's comments on the "obyvatel" from ISOTM are here . It does not mean that a obyvatel does not believe in human spirituality. A good obyvatel is serious about the right things -i.e he/she has a practical attitude towards the important questions in life like spirituality and is not easily taken in by fancy words and imaginations of others.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Thank you very much Obyvatel. Both, for the clarification and the link, wich I will reread because not fully understand the issue yet.