Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • villagegirl

    Cofty-To acknowledge that there are degrees of sexual assault is not so say anything controversial is it?

    Yes Cofty it is controversial and to use your favourite terms it is "dumb"

    "intellectually dishonest" and "ignorant" of basic definitions in Law and Science

    of what sexual abuse of children is and how it impacts the formation

    of the individual. Internalizing the violation and these effects have been studied,

    documented and volumes of scientific literature exist on this subject.

    Cofty your constant habit of calling people"dumb" "ignorant"

    "intellectually dishonest" and "The days when you could attack

    somebody behind a keyboard with impunity are gone."

    That applies to YOU Cofty. You attack all you please and then

    complain loudly and insult everyone who challenges you or your

    (to coin your phrase "ignorant") opinions.

    You are the keyboard attacker Cofty, YOU. You also LIE,

    you posted here that you PM'd me to apologize and I "insulted you"

    My reply was two words: Yes Master.

    Nothing to compared to the insults on this thread alone.

    "Child abuse law provides the rules for holding individuals who harm children legally accountable for their actions. These laws are directed at parents, guardians, caretakers, and anyone else responsible for a child’s wellbeing. Child abuse is not limited to physical harm. Most child abuse statutes also include emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, as well as acts or failures to act that result in an imminent risk of danger to the child. Allegations of child abuse can result in criminal charges and/or the initiation of a child neglect case in civil court. Statutes prohibiting child abuse have been enacted at the state and federal level." from :


    Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect, Summary of State Laws
    Abusive Sexual Contact
    Abusive sexual contact includes intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing,…….Abusive sexual contact does not involve penetration
    . Noncontact sexual abuse can include the following:
    1. Acts which expose a child to sexual activity (e.g., pornography; voyeurism of the child by an adult; intentional exposure of a child to exhibitionism);
    2. Filming10 of a child in a sexual manner (e.g., depiction, either photographic or cinematic, of a child in a sexual act);
    3. Sexual harassment of a child (e.g., quid pro quo; creating a hostile environment because of comments or attention of a sexual nature by a caregiver to a child);

    As far as me "accusing" anyone of child abuse, I would have to know

    that individual and the child he/she abused. My very ACCURATE statements

    about Dawkins stand. There are two men who posted they were victims

    themselves and believe it "caused them no harm" I doubt either of these

    men have been to a psychiatrist/psychologist or 12 Step recovery program,

    or they would know that part of classic sublimation is denial.

    To deny or minimize harm. It creates a false self and magical thinking.

    Without outside help they have little hope of real insight into their

    own emotional patterning and how they were violated. As far as pedophiles

    being on this site: Since this is a site full of Jehovah's Witness Elders and ex-Elders,

    in the thousands ?? And since the WT has had a long standing policy, which no

    Elder following instructions in the Shepherding the Flock Elders' manual, did not

    know about and understand, and which none of them objected to, or was willing to

    violate, then it stands to reason there is culpability somewhere in this group, just

    as a statistic. Pedophiles were released, protected, offended

    and then served as Elders. None of this was stopped or changed

    by the Elders themselves. It was outside forces that changed those policies

    because of legal liability. No heroes here. Statistically, the chances are high

    we have here among us both victims and offenders. Thats a fact.

    My comments to the man on this site were based on his lack

    of awareness and therefore his acceptance of Dawkins remarks,

    which were and are, completely unacceptable. The fact it was

    his own personal story is not relevant to the criminality.

    I did not imply or accuse the poster, since I could not,

    since I do not even know who he is or his age or history

    or anything about him, except his own revelations.

  • cofty

    VindictiveGirl - You assert that the single incident of inappropriate touching that Dawkins experienced is just as harmful as the most violent child rape and to suggest otherwise is "dumb".

    What happened to Dawkins was a crime and had the potential to cause long-term lasting harm. In Dawkin's own estimation he suffered nothing more than embarrassment. Others may have been affected differently.

    If I had the most powerful magnifying glass in the world I still could not locate my interest in discussing it with you further.

    You have plumbed new depths of vindictiveness and personal attack in this thread and you remain unapologetic about it.

    You go on endlessly about your faith. Why hasn't it made you a nicer person?


    Outlaw - Your reading comprehension skills are letting you down.

    You even highlighted the part that contradicts your conclusion.....Cofty


    The Pedophile who Sexually Abused Dawkins,also Sexually Abused his Class Mates..

    Dawkins doesn`t want to Judge his Serial Sexual Abuser,by Todays Standards..

    He`d like to Assign a different Set of Standards,that Minimilizes the Crime of Serially Sexually Abusing Children..

    Obviously Your Good With That..


    Dawkins admits to "No lasting Harm" from the Sexual Abuse..So there was Harm Done..

    Your Good With That Also..




    ...................................................................... photo mutley-ani1.gif...OUTLAW

  • cofty

    I have to much self-respect to join you in the gutter Outlaw.

    You put words in my mouth - and Dawkin's mouth - because you only care about scoring points.

  • DJS


    Very glad to see you using an easel and artist’s brush rather than a roller or spray gun. First, I know nothing of Richard Dawkins. Nothing. My atheism belongs to me, and the only people who influenced my atheism are Christians or Dubs.

    Second, as I pointed out before, in my entire life in the Borg, including the nearly decade in the servant body (MS and elder), I was never on a JC, Re-instatement committee, counseling session or even aware of child sexual abuse in our congregation or any other. I spoke to a friend of mine the other night about this topic, asking him if he was ever aware of such. Like me he was in the Borg for decades and served in the servant body (and like me has been out for a long while). We are both intelligent, sentient, highly aware individuals. He also had no knowledge of any incidents. We are sure they occurred, but in our collective decades, much of which was spent in different cities/areas/congregations, neither of us heard of or experienced any JCs or cover-ups on this subject. Very nice to see your more moderate tone on this as well. Thank you.

    And VG, we both were almost always aware of the reasons behind JC decisions, removal of privileges, DFing, marking, etc., based in part on being in the servant body, on JCs, etc., but primarily on the fact that when sh$$ happens people talk. Most things become fairly widely known apart from the elders. I know you want to believe otherwise, but the elders I dealt with were mature and kept confidential stuff confidential. I do not know if that was typical; likely not.

    Dawkins is likely a highly rational person on the MBPTI scale. Such individuals typically speak in the manner in which he is relating his experiences and views. He probably isn't capable of forming the types of emotional responses that you feel so deeply and quickly. Neither of you are right in your responses; neither of you are wrong. Just different. I look at the context of his words, who he is and what he is trying to say and bring no value judgment to it. You and a few others read what he wrote and see red. That is ok. We are entitled to view his words/views based on our own personality types, our experiences, etc.

    Having said that, there are varying differences in the types of offenses which fall into what constitutes sexual abuse of a child. Some are merely legal restrictions, which make absolutely no sense (I illustrated one). FTS illustrated what other cultures currently view as normal and acceptable; I alluded to them. Simon also gave simple but compelling examples.

    Dawkins and others have alluded to past practices where similar behaviors were not considered wrong, immoral or abusive.

    That does not mean that many of these practices shouldn’t be illegal and strictly enforced now, but it also doesn’t mean that rational thought, clear thinking and fair-mindedness shouldn’t be brought to this issue. And it certainly does not mean that those who do not share the extreme emotional reaction of some are secret closet pedophiles, which I have been accused of being on this site, because I agreed with the team of professionals (who spent months analyzing and evaluating Allen's behavior) and the judge and court system which did not castrate Woody Allen. I don’t know if he was guilty, but many experts believed that he wasn’t. Some may have thought he was but couldn’t find enough real facts and evidence to prove otherwise. I was routinely blasted by highly emotional, usually irrational people on this site because I didn't simply react and 'feel' the way they did.

    Thanks again for the artist’s brush. Nice painting.

  • villagegirl

    Cofty - Faith makes me a STRONGER person -

    No longer "submitting" to bullieslike you. I do not seek

    your approval. Your petty meanness knows no end and your inability to

    defend yourself liks a gentleman cause you to resort to name-calling

    and even distorting my fictious name here.

    These are the actions of a weak bully. And you still do not

    get the point at all, or understand the issue. You are too dense

    to debate with and you have no honest intent.

  • villagegirl

    DJS - When a man of Dawkins stature and position and public

    influence makes statements that are published and read by the

    public and his followers and admirers; it takes on a greater significance

    than an ordinary chap at a pub talking among his mates. The fact that

    this man is a scientist, obligates him to be aware, he should have known

    the possible implications and controversy and potential harm, his words have.

    Many could interpret what he says, as permission to "mild" forms of pedophilia.

    A truly free and autonomous and creative individual capable of achieving

    their goals and connecting with others in meaningful healthy non-depedent

    relationships and productive communities, is so rare in this world.

    Why is that ? Because so often the world is not safe for children.

    They are programmed, thwarted, blocked, shamed, frightened by

    thier own families, schools, churches and institutions.

    What accounts for the drug addiction, sexual dysfunction, and dissatisfaction,

    so many people experience in thier lives ? Lack of self awareness.

    Self awareness is not a possession of all people. All of us here, hopefully,

    have shared the experience of 'Awakening'. To interfere with a child

    for your own purposes is to interfere with their innocence

    and ultimately with their own awakening.

  • villagegirl

    Cofty - Demanding only women "be nice" and "sweet" is a sexist

    bully thing to do. When a woman stands up to you, right away you

    attack her for not being sweet enough ? Instead of addressing the flaws in

    your argument you always revert to the personal attack. So predictable.

    And yes Kate, when attacked I will not submit and play dead. Predictable.

    Kate you better be sure you agree with Cofty

    and do be "sweet" about it. xx kisses

  • frankiespeakin

    I find this discussion of viewpoints very interesting which would be more productive if we try to focus on issues and not who can claim the higher moral ground, it acts like, i don't know, maybe chatter is the word I'm looking for.

    I appreciate the NetGeo video I think it sheds some light on the subject of value/moral systems and what not related to the subject at hand. And if we want to include evolution in the mix we can also notice how this all became taboo as I'm sure it has existed with the homo sapien from time immemorial.

  • villagegirl

    It even exists with animals, protection of the young.

    In ancient cultures, they just killed the offenders who violated children.

    Female elephants lead the herds and drive out the males.

    Many animals have similar tactics to protect the young.

    There are of course exceptions but we are talking about the general rule.

    The idea of the female as a required virgin at marriage,

    was around protecting her as a child and young women in general,

    from sexual interference. The taboos that existed around various

    sexual behaviors were often to protect the young.

    The very term "Age of Consent" implies an "Age of Innocence"

    that civilized behaviour would protect. However, there have always

    been it seems, predators and selfish bastards. The sexual exploitation

    of young boys has been more hidden I believe, but equally traumatic for a boy or girl.

Share this