Richard Dawkins recently made some ill-fated remarks that will prove to be blood in the water for Atheists in debate.
One master at his public school, Oundle, he writes, “was prone to fall in love with the prettier boys. He never, as far as we knew, went any further than to put an arm around them in class and make suggestive remarks, but nowadays that would probably be enough to land him in terrible trouble with the police – and tabloid-inflamed vigilantes.””I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” “I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”
Now this argument will and has caused problems in the Atheist community, so what you do is you keep on bringing their attention back to the subject. Many Atheists despise the Catholic church and jumped on the Atheist bandwagon for that reason alone. Now, Dawkins is marginalizing the aggressive stance on pedophilia and creating a strong counter incentive for those Atheists to continue identifying with Dawkinites.
Richard Dawkins has conflated himself with science, notice how he answers this question put to him by Neil degrasse tyson, it sounds like a red herring, but he actually thinks he is science. (https://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/appeal-to-pimp-juice-fallacy/), and anti-theists and misotheists with atheists. He conflates theists with deists and agnostics with cowards. Now all of a sudden this champion of conflation has a dichotomy about pedophilia? He doesn’t want “mild pedophilia” to be thought of or even called or categorized as pedophilia? Interesting… In his book the “god delusion” Dawkins quotes a woman as saying that emotional abuse is more harmful than physical abuse, we see at that point he was disguising his actual position on the topic. So where exactly is he on the topic of pedophilia?
He says he can’t bring himself to condemn it. I have this concept of potential tautologies, I am going to show you how I deconstruct narrative and use my SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION to understand people that are concealing and behaving strategically. What is the best description of his stance on pedophilia? How is he in relationship with the topic? He says that when a teacher put his hand in his pants and knocked his junk around it didn’t do any lasting harm? Could he be concealing? Maybe not only did it not do any harm but perhaps he enjoyed it. He also adds the unnecessary information that his teacher was attracted to the better looking students, is he flattering himself?
“I can’t bring myself to condemn mild pedophilia”
Now, depending on what the person communicating strategically is actually concealing this is a potential tautology of other statements. Nothing in the above statement would contradict the statement: I am attracted to young men and I would like to be intimate with them, I don’t feel it is all that bad. Now according to my research on psychopathic behavior the sum of the actions of the psychopath have to take them in the direction of doing their will (even if that will is frowned on by society). So as time goes on we would expect this subject to resurface.
If you really want to mess with the heads of Atheists keep on bringing the topic back to Dawkins and forcing them to defend him. Ask them to lay down some clear guide lines as to what is acceptable as far as age and what is appropriate. This entire line of questioning can’t be had without demoralizing the Atheists. If they don’t defend him they weaken their authority, if they do defend him they make themselves look bad. This is almost Vietnam style guerrilla debating. You are devastating your opponents psychologically. If they try to distance themselves from Dawkins force them to defend him and bring up his conflations and false dichotomies. Keep them on the ropes. After the debate the Atheists will hate themselves a little for the things they had to say to win this debate, lol. The intense negative emotional horror at having to argue in favor of pedophilia will really make themselves examine their stances after the argument. I am a sadist, I know, but the use of strategic behavior validates the use of strategic behavior, all the nastiness and venom of the Atheists is going to come back on them.
In the book, Dawkins mentions one occasion when a teacher put a hand down his trousers at a prep school in Salisbury, and four others at Oundle, when he “had to fend off nocturnal visits to my bed from senior boys much larger and stronger than I was”.
In my piece THE HISTORY OF RAPE (http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-history-of-rape/) I mention the writings of C. S. Lewis and how he despised the sexual harassment that he experienced in school, this is a rather common type of behavior among boys left to themselves, as much as you might hate the concept. If you examine the social structures in the military, and those created in prisons and how female inmates and male inmates create different social norms you will see that this is an innately male perspective. Lewis talked about the processes of Tarting and Fagging, Tarting was offering sexual favors as a type of money, and fagging was a way of establishing dominance and punishing others. Dawkins consistently portrays himself as a victim and suggests that he didn’t enjoy it while at the same time defending the behaviors, bizarre?
DAWKINS THE EXHIBITIONIST
Now one of the things I do is I examine behaviors and look for tautologies of a certain personality to confirm my other suspicions. I suspect that Dawkins is a closeted mild _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Now in what way is Dawkins an exhibitionist? He flaunts his Scientific authority, and he humiliates, subjugates, fundies as a kind mental queers. Dawkins made an association between science and sex at a very early age. When he exhibits his intellect he is flaunting his sexual and evolutionary prowess. He is displaying why he is the most eligible mate for sex. The question then arises who is he peacocking for?