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

[ladyblablah]

So Dawkins (self proclaimed ironic prophet) has decided that date rape is not as bad as a rape with a knife at your throat.

I have a question - what if the date rape includes a knife at the throat - what then - who wins at being the worst?

Is there a rule that date rape doesn't include knives? Do us feminists not know this rule for rapists?

People saying Dawkins never used the phrase mild rape, yes he did!!

mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494039058122039296

No, they were saying 'date' rape was worse for them, and that it's an entirely subjective, individual experience and as such, his thought process is a thoroughly bad example of logic.

Dawkins was attempting an experiment about the way language was used, while completely missing the point about the importance of language. It's difficult to think things through when you have your head as far up your arse as he does.

Basil - maybe he genuinely believes that his logic removes one pathetic self-justification from rapists and other abusers (that what they do is ok because its not, in some people's estimation the 'worst') - because logically that is what it does. Saying that people who make that excuse need to go away and learn how to think really doesn't seem much like succoring them to me.

Still incredibly stupid to have started this on twitter, and even stupider to forget the basic logic 'when you're in a hole stop digging'.

Thing is, he's so clever about everything except women isn't he

Like all those civilised, educated, liberal, humane racists in the c18.

yy Basil read about Dawkins' comments re elevators/creepy man following Rebecca Watson upstairs in hotel in early hours here

I've seen Rebecca Watson's talks on YouTube about how sexist the sceptic/atheist community can be.

He doesn't even have the 'God told me to' excuse for being a misogynist, he just is one.

It does take a special kind of arrogance to be an atheist.

I don't believe in God (and can't bear organised religion), but I don't pretend to have the first clue as to how we're here in the universe, so I'm agnostic.

It says a lot about him.

I've never thought myself arrogant JM. Occasionally guilty of smuggery, perhaps, questioning, sure, open to changing my mind based on evidence, certainly. But not arrogant.

well, my physicist & athiest brother told me recently that he believes in parallel universes (but not god). Struck me as ridiculous, but with his superior intellect he informed me that there was nothing ridiculous about it. Phew. So now I know :-| (not religious either, but i feel for my mum, every time he sneers at faith, and then in the next breath, sneers at anybody who can't get behind a parallel universe!)

I'm an athiest and a physicist and am fascinated by the concept of parallel universes. I also watch too much sci-fi

People can believe anything they like surely? As long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else (or themselves? that's an interesting question). Anyway. If there is no proof of something then clearly they can't take the piss out of someone who doesn't believe it.

And that's the point ins't it. In the absence of proof, or a credible well established theory, then no-one can say something does or doesn't exist.

I must admit I'm not that up on the current theories around parallel universes and any mathematical or experimental proofs that might have been performed. Maybe he knows something you don't?

Actually that is a total lie, I work in an office, I do have a degree in Physics though. And also do watch too much sci-fi

We do have a couple of theoretical physicists by trade on FWR so maybe they will see this and give their thoughts.

It is a bit off the topic though, the topic being what an absolute wanker richard dawkins is.

It's a long time since I studied it, but there are more logical arguments to be agnostic than to be either religious or atheist.

I personally don't care what people believe as long as people don't use their beliefs to put others down. There's certainly plenty of religious groups that use it as an excuse for misogynist behavior, but I don't think atheists are exempt from that. There have been plenty of people who have used their super science focus in ways that are just as casually oppressive and damaging imo.

Well, as one of FWR's resident theoretical physicists (and an ex philosopher), I'd say the following:

Quantum mechanics is weird. There are all sorts of whacky attempts to make sense of it (many worlds, many minds, Bohm-type hidden variables) many of which seem to me largely driven by desperation. And of course there's the council of despair - "don't try to make sense of it, just do the maths" (otherwise known as instrumentalism). Happy to supply book titles to anyone who wants (David Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience is probably the closest to a chatty version).

Atheism/agnosticism/theism. As an ex philosopher, until someone can give me (a) a theory of truth for natural languages (b) an account of how truth and knowledge work in mathematics and (c) an account of the scientific method which enables us to sort the successful theories from the unsuccessful ones upfront (not tell Whig history about them after the fact) then frankly I'm going to say anyone who says outright that they can come up with a watertight argument as to why one ought to believe in/ ought not to believe in god is talking out their arse.

Oh and Dawkins is being a total knob on the actual issue under discussion, but then that's (as has been pointed out upthread) not entirely surprising as he has form for being a misogynist.

Oh, and am I alone in thinking the beginning of the "God Delusion" has the most delightful unintentional moment of irony, when he gives a list of evils that would not have been perpetrated had there been no religion, including the Taliban blowing up centuries old statues of Budda (conveniently ignoring the fact that the statues were only there in the first place because of... erm... religion. And yes, I know Dawkins gives Buddism an exemption on the grounds that it's a religion without god - but it's still about the intangible, uneffable, etc. and involves lots of things - Nirvanna, reincarnation, etc. which surely lie outside the scope of his scientific world view).

The double slit experiment results that supposedly demonstrated wave function collapse were debunked using instrumentation of sufficient sensitivity and delicacy to detect passage through a specific slit without causing the diffraction pattern to be destroyed completely by the observation. Parallel universe theory survived that, since it was not a branch of quantum mechanics that subscribed to wave function collapse anyway, but its still 'spooky science' that is an imagined leap to explain why the math gives the results it does. I think pilot wave theory seems more the go and it has no need for parallel universes.

Dawkins reminds me a lot of my father. That isn't a compliment. My father has such conviction about what he says that it's almost impossible to discuss anything with him - his self-belief is absolutely staggering. It is a powerful force and if he had more social skills he could have gone far. As it stands he just sits in his home office and writes page after page about astrology. He is also and out and out misogynist.
Only men have the arrogance to pronounce on things and then say any objection is invalid because of "emotion."

I didn't know the double slit experiment had been debunked, Dad - when was that? Have you got a link, would love to read it.

Only men have the arrogance to pronounce on things and then say any objection is invalid because of "emotion."

An interesting statement.

Reference please, Dadwashere - your interpretation is contrary to my understanding of the situation (e.g. the Aspect experiment). If by "Pilot Wave' you mean Bohm theory then the point about that is that the pilot fields are explicitly non-local, which is fine till you try to produce an extension to relativistic physics. AFAIK, no-one's produced a relativistic extension of Bohm. Though there were some recent experiments reported in Science (I think - may have been Nature) to the effect that one could set up a beam-splitting experiment such that the neutron "went one way" and all its properties "went the other way" - which means that one of the philosophical objections to Bohm theory (that you end up loading all the properties of "things" onto the pilot field rather than the particles themselves) seems to apply to mainstream quantum theory too.

Caillin - it's infuriating isn't it? And I suspect done quite deliberately in some instances. "Hey, let me pick this particular illustration which won't push my buttons so I can pretend it's all an academic game, but will push yours so I can dismiss you as 'over emotional' for pointing out that it's not just an academic game."

If I were to try to explain the flaw in Dawkins' absurd pronouncement (I don't want to dignify it with the term "argument") to a male lurker (or indeed a female lurker who was of the "well she was asking for it" school of thought) who hadn't got the distinction, I'd proceed thus. (Apologies and trigger warning to some of our nicer male posters - this will, I'm afraid, discuss a situation very similar to one I think one of you has actually been in. The difference, I hope, between me and Dawkins is that at least I can see that the situation is utterly horrific.)

Take the knife out of the argument for the time being. (Since Dawkins insists on it being relevant, I will put it back into the story later, but by then I think you'll be able to see it's irrelevant). Two scenarios, both start the same way: you (a man in this instance) are out socialising with friends, some of whom you know well, others who probably count as acquaintances, and you realise you've missed the last train home. In one scenario, you walk home. Half way, you're caught short, nip down an alley for a pee, and get forced to the ground and anally raped by a man (we will assume, for the sake of argument, bigger and stronger). In the other scenario, one of the "acquaintances" in your social circle offers to let you sleep on the sofa at his place. You wake to find him anally raping you (again, assuming him to be bigger and stronger). I hope it would be clear to anyone of either sex that both scenarios are rape, and both would be extremely traumatic - it makes no sense to say the first is worse because you'd vaguely known the perpetrator of the second attack before hand.

Now add the knife back in. Arguably the overall situation is worse because now in addition to the rape itself (which is utterly traumatic either way round) you now fear for your life as well. But it's not the rape that's got worse - that was always every bit as bad as a rape could be, because that's the nature of rape - it's the situation as a whole that's worse. And that's reflected in English law (as I understand it) - the perpetrator, assuming they were caught, charged and brought to trial - would be charged with rape and assault/GBH/wounding with intent/whatever the appropriate charge was.

Agree, Lurcio - if Dawkins wanted to say that rape at knifepoint was worse than rape without a knife involved, he would have made his point about logic without his crappy subjective judgement about the rape part of his statement.

He's also somewhat missed the point that a woman (or man) being raped is, realistically, in fear of further violence, given that physical dominance and profound disregard for the victim has already been expressed by the act of rape.

As a parallel, If someone is on the floor being kicked in the stomach, I expect they are in fear of their life whether or not the attacker has a knife.