Eden proves the rapist once again.

and here we are, whining (as Dawkins did) about her whining... or whining (as I am) about people who are whining about her whining. ...or whining (as you are - no offense) about people (like me) who are whining about people who are whining (like Dawkins) about her whining. Or... well, you get the idea.

"Any guy who would listen to her would never rape a woman or seriously even entertain the thought." I am intrigued that you have that much faith in the moral compases of random atheists... I, on the other hand, though an atheist myself, believe that they are perhaps also capable of committing a crime... including, regrettably, against a woman. Perhaps on average less likely, but still capable. Besides, who's to say that he was there to listen to her... obviously he failed to listen to her in one key regard - or he wouldn't have propositioned her in the first place after she said what she said. Perhaps he was there only to ogle her and hit on her. Not unheard of for guys to do that. On the other hand, I can't help but feel a bit sorry for the hapless sap (not knowing him at all). I think of Steve Bartman, the Chicago Cubs fan, who has been vilified for a momentary lapse in judgement in trying (quite naturally) to catch a foul ball. We've all said things we've regretted. Well, I imagine so.

@manganese, lol.

Crime rates among atheist are the lowest of any religious group "dexter morgan" lol

@manganese: that bracelet's for decoration! *cries in a corner*

@dexter: yeah, but why are we doing it (whining)? (and yes, we are, I'm with you. no offense taken. lol.) I know I'm doing it because I saw it being discussed on a forum while I was checking up on an online game that's a hobby of mine... and that I wouldn't go to the trouble of posting a video response except as a not-as-clever-as-I'd-like-to-think-it-would-be satire of the first video response. likewise I assume you're not here because the notion was so offensive you had to speak, but rather because you were checking up on a forum you post on and saw this and decided to comment.

meanwhile, the ostensible purpose of her post was to... what? teach us guys how to pick her up? really don't understand except to whine.

and one's belief (or lack thereof) in a god is completely irrelevant to one's moral compass. there are rapist theists and non-theists and there are non-rapist theists and non-theists, and the non-rapist camp greatly outnumbers the rapist camp in both. and his capacity for rape is similarly irrelevant -- by that logic no one should ever make an advance on a woman ever, simply because it's possible that on every single advance that a woman would get uncomfortable or worry about the man being a rapist. which, quite frankly, is total bullshit, because that leaves one sex with no initiative whatsoever for initiating romantic encounters simply because that sex is physically stronger on average than the other sex, which is entirely outside the control of either sex.

and if he was there just to ogle and hit on her? you prove my point: the kind of guys who do that are the kind of guys who don't listen to her and women like her, which means *her video is totally pointless because the only people to whom it's actually addressed couldn't give a shit what her video has to say anyway*. all it is is self-gratifying whining to people who agree with her anyway. and Dawkins called her on it. (ineffectively, certainly -- I still don't get what the fuck the chewing gum thing was about -- but he called it right.)

---

that said, whoever called Dawkins out on the clear contradiction with him making a comment like that is pretty spot-on too.

and this, since I missed it earlier:

"Incidentally, you might also suspect that this particular leading rationalist holds to the belief that the hypothesis of Natural Selection will be able to explain all human behaviour, may hold the view that rape was/is/will be/ not absolutely wrong. "

lol, what is this i dont even

first, explanations don't justify. saying that natural selection explains rape = natural selection justifies rape is ridiculous.

second, boiling natural selection down to "strong dominate weak" as an explanation of rape is pretty stupid, frankly. natural selection is the process of specific traits which make a member of a species more likely to survive in a specific environment being passed on to future generations by way of the members with these traits surviving longer to reproduce than members without them. the ability to rape does not allow one to survive longer to reproduce and may in fact drastically reduce one's capacity to survive longer to reproduce in a society like ours. thus, rape isn't even explained by natural selection, let alone justified.

so can we please get this weak shit out of here and address the point?

also:

"President, picture sharing a jail cell about the size of a lift with someone much more powerful than you, how would you feel about macho man's innuendo of ''sharing a coffee'' with you."

I get that some women find that unsettling, but... like I said before, I've been in that situation as the "macho" man (quotes for sarcasm -- I'm a scrawny little bitch, but still bigger than this girl by a respectable margin), asked a girl to coffee and gotten a yes out of it without the slightest hesitation. Not every woman thinks like that, and painting the brush as "all women are creeped out by being asked out in an elevator" is erroneous.

Yeah, I imagine she's not alone, but she's not speaking for all womankind here either -- she's speaking for one segment of it, the size of which is unclear, and to make a definitive statement like that is pretty faulty unless she's just talking about herself. Which she, in effect, was. Hence, making it self-gratifying whining. See above.

"picture sharing a jail cell about the size of a lift with someone much more powerful than you, how would you feel about macho man's innuendo of ''sharing a coffee'' with you."

fullhamish I don't think that is a fair analogy at all. I think you are reading way too much into it. An elevator is not a prison cell. You are only in an elevator for about a minute. Also "share a coffee" is not "innuendo ".
I asked my girlfriend about this scenario and her reaction was quite different. She told me that if she was not interested she would politely decline, but at the same time feel flattered. On the other hand, let's say the man and the woman work in the same building and regularly see each other around, and so the man this is a chance to break the ice - now my girlfriend says if she thought the guy was attractive she would probably say yes (assuming she was single).
I have heard some women say that it annoys them when they are in a bar and men approach them, for example "why can't I just enjoy a drink with my friends without guys trying to hit on us". Fair enough. But how is the man supposed to know what the woman is thinking. Those very same women in the same the same place on another day in a different mood with a man they find attractive approaching them - might feel quite different about the situation.
I suspect in the elevator scenario if the man looked like Brad Pitt or the guy in the old spice commercial that being asked for coffee might not be such a problem.

crap system errors... grr... lost a post... makes me apathetic about bothering to rewrite it. I want my money back. All of it.
Here it is in abbreviated format:
Eden, [witty remark] [knowing agreement about the forum and the importance of games] [comment about tautological statements - in particular about people who don't listen not listening, and those listening, listening... and a point about a gray area wherein people sometimes listen (and those being the target audience)] [partial agreement about moral compass - it shouldn't have any connection... except some seem dependent on fear of divine retribution] - there, that about does it.

OK....*not* a fan of Dawkins at all, being a religious/god-believing person. That being said...uh....he did **nothing** wrong in this case. This bitch is whacked. She got offended because someone (GASP!!) wanted to see her again and made that wish known...and then (GASP!!!!) did NOTHING further to pursue the matter when she said no!?!?!?!? And...she made a HUGE deal out of this guys *NORMAL* human sexuality expressing itself....and Dawkins, in a completely rational manner, compared her OVERBLOWN irritation to a situation where he would be irritated if someone where chewing gum on the elevator. Gum chewing is normal, expected behavior. So is a man expressing interest in a woman (otherwise, humans would stop procreating and cease to exist). I've simplified....but in short, his comments overall are *completely* understandable, and any attempt to besmirch his character because of this incident are asinine~!~ In fact, even as a Christian, I am MORe inclined to read Dawkins BECAUSE of this incident, because I can now see that he is a rationale thinker who can properly apply an analogy to a situation, even is most people are apparently too stupid to grasp the analogy.

I guess most people would be at least a little annoyed if they said to not do something and then someone did that exact same thing. I don't think Rebecca Watson overreacted at all, she said no, and then later said that it is kinda creepy, without naming any names. She wasn't trying to teach guys how to pick up (we already have LJ and e2 for that), just saying that that kind of behaviour is a little creepy. She wasn't bawing at all. It is good he didn't rape her, but she can't have known that at first glance, people can't read minds. She did not say that men should never try and pick up, just that in that situation, at 4am in a foreign country, alone in an elevator, after she had specifically said 'no, I don't want to be hit upon' (and other similar situations), if a guy comes up and asks her for coffee, most women will find it kinda creepy. It was coffee at 4am in his room, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmMna1EwZ1E.

Re Dawkins, I quite like him, but he does come off as a bit of a douche.

"Eden, [witty remark] [knowing agreement about the forum and the importance of games] [comment about tautological statements - in particular about people who don't listen not listening, and those listening, listening... and a point about a gray area wherein people sometimes listen (and those being the target audience)] [partial agreement about moral compass - it shouldn't have any connection... except some seem dependent on fear of divine retribution] - there, that about does it."

Response (it's almost 3 AM and this system is pretty efficient):
[witty comment] {tries to find any area of real disagreement... fails} [increasing synthesis of ideas as he realizes there's not really anything too important left to discuss] {looks back... realizes he's probably changed his tune a lot} [covers up with biting sarcasm directed at no one in particular about no thing in particular, probably theists now since we agreed about moral compass] [unsatisfying conclusion for either side]

COMPROMISE YEAAAAAAAH

I looked up this Watson woman, and stumbled over some videos, and I appreciated this one in particular: http://skepchick.org/2010/06/dont-be-a-dick-the-wish/
(great punchline at the end)

Others in the series:
http://skepchick.org/2010/06/the-will-a-psa-for-nonbelievers/
http://skepchick.org/2010/06/dont-be-a-dick-part-two-plus-cotw/

@ Manganese This little gem fascinated me:
"Incidentally, you might also suspect that this particular leading rationalist holds to the belief that the hypothesis of Natural Selection will be able to explain all human behaviour, may hold the view that rape was/is/will be/ not absolutely wrong."

We have had the debate here before where several Dawkinites stated that they were not happy to declare rape absolutely and unequivicably wrong. They envisaged circumstances in our ''hunter gatherer'' past where it perhaps might have been a rationale act. I must be clear and say that they clearly thought it wrong in today's context. Their position, however, was that it was subjectively rather than absolutely wrong. I hold that it is absolutely wrong, what is your position?

It strikes me that this might have been the unspoken agenda behind Dawkin's unprompted intervention.

Furthermore, I would ask those who instinctively support Dawkins if they believe that '' the hypothesis of Natural Selection will be able to explain all human behaviour''? I have asked this question several times on this forumn before and have been met with a stoney silence. This is especially notable with those New Atheists of an otherwise left wing disposition.

Under a proper interpretation, perhaps. The oversimplified conclusion that natural selection = strong can do whatever the fuck they want to the weak and then concluding that because we aren't just a bunch of self-interested amoral bastards therefore natural selection is incorrect doesn't count as a proper interpretation.

Curious as to what context you mean wrong, too -- I'm sure that anyone proposing that rape being used to propagate the first humans (if that's even how it happened) is not proposing that it's in any sense morally right.

@ dexter
''I don't think she (Rebecca Watson) warrants any negative reaction for her, quite natural, reaction.''

We have disagreed on a lot in the past and will again in the future no doubt, but on this we are in absolute agreement. Thank you for for your very clear human and empathetic response on this. You state the position much more eloquently than me.

''Well it's obvious you read the New Statesman article and are just going from one complaint to another. Any dirt you can find on Dawkins you will post. It's pathetic that you have to resort to character assassination in order to defend your belief in magic and sorcery over Darwinian evolution.''


Blah, blah, blah, blah................strip out the ad hominem and tell us what you think of the founding of this private university and Dawkins role in it or shut the fuck up.

Can natural selection explain all human behavior? Perhaps it could in theory. But in practice it doesn't because our knowledge is incomplete.

fullhamish do you believe human behavior is inconsistent with natural selection?

I commend Ful on his awesome powers of telepathy.

And condolences on his inability to differentiate between explaining and defending.

fullhamish: With regards to rape: Even if human behavior was completely deterministic. Even if free will were an illusion, rape would still be wrong. But I am not sure what you mean by "absolutely wrong". If you mean very very wrong, then I agree. But the distinction between moral right and wrong is something that *we* decide. If that makes it relative (the "we decide") then yes it is relatively wrong - by definition.
What do you mean by absolutely wrong and how does this differ from relatively wrong is the way I defined it?

Typo... how does this differ from relatively wrong *in the way I defined it?

I probably should have said "subjectively wrong", as you did in your earlier post.

@ Manganese ''I commend Ful on his awesome powers of telepathy.'' and ''And condolences on his inability to differentiate between explaining and defending.''

Do mean to refer to the the two analogies employed by Dawkins of of ''Muslim mysogony (genital mutilation etc.)'' and chewing gum? Is this an explanation and, if so, of what exactly?

(An answer minus the sarcastic a-h would be nice.)

@Spyman and Prersident We appear to be dancing around a little on our definitions of ''absolute and subjective'' and ''right and wrong''. Ifyou look at my first post on this particuklaar topic you will see that I employed the phrase : ''several Dawkinites stated that they were not happy to declare rape absolutely and unequivicably wrong''.

Just to clarify my position I do declare it to be ''unequivicably'' wrong. I wonder what your position(s) is?

@spyman ''fullhamish do you believe human behavior is inconsistent with natural selection? ''

This is a good question to which I will respond and thank you for posting it. It is a lovely sunny afternoon in London and I am off out in a minute, may I come back yo you later on this please?

Yes rape is wrong. Uniquivicably wrong.

Regardless what supposed Dawkenites have said, I doubt very much that Dawkins himself has ever said that rape is sometimes acceptable.

Well spyman, he may not have said it, but since he is an evilutionist, he secretely thinks it is.