Posted on | July 29, 2014 | 76 Comments
Prominent atheist and professional provocateur Richard Dawkins has sparked a fierce debate on Twitter after he classified certain types of rape and paedophilia as “worse” and milder than others.
“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,” Dawkins tweeted on Tuesday morning.
He had earlier tweeted: “X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.”
He followed it up with: “Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.”
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.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) July 29, 2014
Am I the only one who notices that Dawkins was not merely demonstrating a logical principle, but that both of his examples were attempts to diminish the wrongness of sexual crimes? That is to say, if he had merely wished to demonstrate the principle, he could have said, “Armed robbery is bad. Murder is worse,” etc. But he didn’t do that, did he? No, it is specifically in the area of sex offenses that The Great Darwinian insists that we must learn to see gradations of moral relativity.
If you don't find @RichardDawkins creepy, you need to go away and learn how to think.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) July 29, 2014