Right you pesky feminists, which sort of rape is *worse* <Dawkins related>

petula - seems to me that what he said was entirely clear - whether you may think abhorrent thing A is a shade better or worse than abhorrent thing B in no way implies you think that either is OK. Anyone given to thinking that their bad behaviour is justified by not being the worst should be given no comfort at all from that - quite the opposite. Can we just state that clearly in case we have your hypothetical person lurking who thinks Richard Dawkins said it's ok to date rape his girlfriend (or attack a stranger in an alley) that he actually meant the opposite ?

Trying to convey this via twitter - where it's so easy to lose context - was what's wrong. Avoiding talking about all difficult issues which affect real people is a cop-out - but it needs to be done properly. (and doing it at this time of night via MN probably isn't too clever either.

Carol, rational discussion is perfectly possible, the problem is Dawkins chose an example to grab attention without bothering to do any research or even stop and think about whether it was a valid example. It is Dawkins who is being wilfully ignorant. And patronising when people who know rather more about it point out his limitations.

He could have made his technical point about logic without derailing his argument. He chose not to. Why would someone who claims to be intelligent do that?

I Agree that be is being disingenious. What is this Fabio he is takling about? It has only just started to be ok to aknowledge that rape and ongoing sexual abuse happens in marriages/relationships, så poliser to a man's right. I'm so cross and Yes hurt. Some men use that tactic to minimise their violence and it is not on.

Richard Dawkins, for example, is a twat.

Let me just bold that up for you.

I commented on a blog about this, and about how men like to use rape when they are being all devil's advocatey and edgy and a bit shit

I was told that my endless ignorance merely proves his point.

I might have a badge made with that line on it.

And exactly what the actual fuck is mild paedophilia? Paedophilia is a mental illness, you either are a paedophile or you're not, there are no degrees of it. Being sexually assaulted, no matter to what degree, as a child, is a life changer. I have never met anyone personally or professionally who has been undamaged by being the victim of a paedophile or even a hebephile. Telling survivors that what they experienced as children has a spectrum and that the thing that changed their entire childhood is viewed as 'mild' is twattery.

he's talking about this argument form

The thing is, that he is trying to say that you can have the moral scale, x is worse than y - then completely ignore the part where you make a conclusion from that starting point.

I have read his article, and I think he is being completely disingenuous. Yes sometimes we might use extreme examples to really clarify our thoughts (is there a scale? Is there a line? Why is it there?) but the questioning is not the end aim, the end aim is to validate particular types of behavior. So when you say there is scale of rape (just that one act) you say there might be a line.

It's another reason to dislike the man.

If he just apologised and said he was wrong, it would help. Instead, a massive post about why he said it. My toddler knows to say sorry first, before even attempting to explain.

Wtf is mild paedophilia?

If you know there is going to be a shit storm, you either avoid it, or take proper cover. Being able to use 140 words only is not taking cover. It's inviting the storm to rage on around you.

But it's ok. He has an umbrella of logic.

Idiot

"Of course, I readily see that. Just reverse my X/Y. Whichever you say is worse, it doesn't mean you endorse the other. "

But either way, it's illogical. It's like saying it's worse for a left handed person to have their left arm cut off that for a right handed person to have their right arm cut off. It's not an absolute.

Thing is - if he was any good at logic, he would know you have to be bloody careful with the examples you choose. There is a reason why there are standard simple examples to explain different forms of arguments.

He choose the rape example because it would be 'edgy' and further his own pr. I imagine he really didn't think much about the fact that the example doesn't even make sense.

Rape is rape, it is a violent act by itself. The only way the example makes sense is if you start talking about aggravating factors, which is okay I guess, but not helpful when you are supposedly just trying to explain a simple form of argument.

AB He was putting forward a logical argument that you can say one thing is worse than another without supporting the first thing. He almost certainly was, (I don't speak for him) implying that stranger rape was worse than date rape, as I suspect most men would think if asked. When someone pointed this out and suggested that the trust issue may make date rape worse, he responded:

Of course, I readily see that. Just reverse my X/Y. Whichever you say is worse, it doesn't mean you endorse the other.

It is basically a version of the 1st world problem which arises on other threads.

seven at no point did he say date rape or mild paedophilia are not that bad, he just said there are worse things

Well I assume he has emotional distance.

Even if he doesn't, and especially if he doesn't, it seems a bit harsh to berate a random cross section of the public for not meeting his standards.

The hand-wringing about the lack of "rational discourse" comes from a man with emotional distance from the subject matter.

He knows that many of the people responding to him emotionally will be rape victims and / or paedophilia victims. And then he gets arsey because they don't have emotional detachment from the subject.

Honestly, the man's a total cock.

So he started by talking about Israel, then went on to say that "date rape" and "mild paedophilia" weren't that bad and then was surprised when people didn't engage in "rational discourse" on TWITTER?

And responded by saying people were thick - where's the rational discourse there.

Man's a dick.

Carol

Here's the tweet:

"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," one tweet said.

Why use date rape and stranger rape? If he'd used "rape" and "rape at knifepoint" then it would be clear that the differentiator was the aggravating factor. But by using the prefixes to rape, he's implying that, without the knife, stranger rape is worse than date rape.

He was using this as an example of areas where rational discussion is near impossible, moving on from a discussion on Israel. The responses on Twitter and on here suggest he is right that a large number of people are unable to either:

• read what has been said, rather than commenting based on imperfect knowledge
• have a rational discussion and abuse his POV, but just abuse him

It would be simple to point out that, in fact, the UK sentencing guidelines make no distinction between stranger rape and 'date' rape, but rape of an old women is 'worse' than the rape of a younger woman (over 18), which is less worse than the rape of a child.

Basically he hasn't got a clue about the issues surrounding all of this, or the law, and yet he has waded in anyway, and when lots of people (unsurprisingly) round on him he calls them thick.

He said

"date rape" and "mild paedophilia".

People are more than happy to discuss the aggravating factors of rape. There have been many discussions on here when cases have been in the news.

The law as it stands is fine. The implementation of it needs work but the law itself is good. What is it that you think he wants to discuss? Why do you think he wants to discuss it? What direction is he trying to take the conversation in by using words like "mild" and the horribly minimising term "date rape".

Is it shut down by noise and aggression? Really?

Rape is rape and it has a sentencing guideline.

Additionally to that there are sometimes aggravating factors.

The rape itself is not more bad or less bad because of the aggravating factors; the aggravating factors may lead to further impact on the victim, just as being held at knife point without being raped would be a traumatic experience too.

abland Not sure he used the phrase 'mild rape'.

Exactly the point he is making. In the theft case, we can quite happily have a discussion on the aggravating factors, on the various sentences and how we should deal with criminals, but for rape, that discussion is shut down by noise and aggression, which we ought to be able to discuss in the same way.

It's mixing up the circumstances with the rape itself though.

The law on rape in the UK is very very clear and I would not wish to see it changed.
Similarly the guidelines around aggravating factors are very clear and are all taken into account (or supposed to be). I would not wish to see this changed.

What is the discussion. Is he arguing for a change in the law? I don't think so as he doesn't seem to know what the law says. Is he arguing that "date" rape is not "real" rape and is not "bad" rape - yes I think so.

I am not sure what the purpose of his comments is. I know that the effect of them will be to reinforce the idea in society at large that "date rape" isn't something that should be taken too seriously, and given that is what society thinks already, I fail to see what he's up to with this. There's nothing controversial in what he says, it is a position he shares with the majority of the public including law enforcement, judiciary etc etc.

The only people who will find his remarks controversial are a minority group comprising rape victims, feminists, and others who are that way inclined. Everyone else will say no shit sherlock of course he's right and merrily carry on as they are.

One isn't "mild theft" though!

Lots of crimes have different sentences based on aggravating factors. Theft is still theft if your nanny steals your purse or an opportunist grabs it through an open window, but being in a position of trust is, I think, an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing those two crimes.

My view on what he was saying, and Twitter is not the right medium for it as it does not give you enough space, is:

We currently give convicted rapists different sentences, based on the circumstances of the offence.
As a society we therefore have different 'levels' of rape
Why that is and whether it is right is up for discussion, but we should be able to have that discussion
If we do not have this discussion, then actually the descision on what the levels are are made by middle aged middle class male judges and not from the better knowledge of women and victims.

I'm not proposing it, that was another poster.

Who was reacting to you being aghast at the very idea.