Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics' Conference

[T3X4S]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

But in Dawkins case it can make him a mysogynistic, boorish, and self-aggrandizing arse. Among other things.

LOL - misogynistic ?  really ?  

You are basing this on what exactly ?



 

[Ulyses]

6 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

LOL - misogynistic ?  really ?  

You are basing this on what exactly ?

 

If only you could be bothered with facts...

Again, read the article, it's from a respected publication: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

 

Quote

Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies.

But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter. On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist and said that everyone else should be, too.

Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”. And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.
On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them.

For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.
Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Feminists ARE shrill harridans who are just waiting to take offence...

[DocM]

3 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

LOL - misogynistic ?  really ?  

You are basing this on what exactly ?

About 200 articles, a great number by his fellow atheists in the secular press, going back over a decade but intensifying since 2010. 

 

Maybe you should read the articles that have been posted, and follow the links embedded therein to their references. Maybe even search for '"atheist sexism" dawkins'

[Ulyses]

24 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

Ulyses - you were the main reason I stopped posting in the Religion Thread - 

 

 

Was it my hateful speech? My extremist views? I don't think so.

 

 

24 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

I can't say what I think because there are a couple mods that love to give me 10 day warnings, but I will say this:

 

Yeah, I know that, it's your forte.

 

 

24 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

You are in absolutely no position whatsoever to call anyone a "bozo", "stupid", "dumb" - especially Oxford professors and celebrated neuroscientists.

 

I can make a judgement on one's character, his academic achievements do not shield him from being a bozo outside that world. Unless he is god to you.

 

 

24 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

My "brain acne" ?  Are you 12 ?  I thought I remember you being over 50 - which only makes this sadder.

 

Why? What's wrong with this metaphor?

 

 

24 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

If there was ever any uncertainty to my views - the fact you invoked the Hitler analogy just puts a little icing on my comment - so thank you for making my point.

 

Which flew over your head: don't judge a man's character by his accomplishments, judge it by his humanity. You're failing at that constantly. Dawkins is also.

[DocM]

6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Feminists ARE shrill harridans who are just waiting to take offence...

Not all of them, and there's no excuse for Dawkins remarks.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, DocM said:

Not all of them, and there's no excuse for Dawkins remarks.

The Suffragettes would be disgusted by the current flock of feminists.

 

[Ulyses]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Wow, not untill the third page. Also I believe the argument there was about intelligence, and while he was a lot of things, dumb wasn't one of them. 

 

No intelligent man would persist with these questionable views (to say the least) regarding women, unless he really really believes in them. This makes him a very intelligent while also an extremely dumb person. An intelligump. Another word for transidiots.

[HawkMan]

11 minutes ago, DocM said:

About 200 articles, a great number by his fellow atheists in the secular press, going back over a decade but intensifying since 2010. 

 

Maybe you should read the articles that have been posted, and follow the links embedded therein to their references. Maybe even search for '"atheist sexism" dawkins'

Oh damn. I didn't know I was a misogonyst. Well that's what I get for being an atheist. Some other atheists are also misogonystic and write articles so that obviously means I am to. 

[HawkMan]

7 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

No intelligent man would persist with these questionable views (to say the least) regarding women, unless he really really believes in them. This makes him a very intelligent while also an extremely dumb person. An intelligump. Another word for transidiots.

Making up words again I see. making up words/insults doesn't make your arguments any more viableyou're attacking the man not the views/arguments. 

[Ulyses]

49 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Making up words again I see. making up words/insults doesn't make your arguments any more viableyou're attacking the man not the views/arguments. 

 

Where is the insult? Where is the attack? Simply quoting and stating facts about his views. Don't like this side of him? It's not everyone else fault he is the way he is.

 

Please, take a moment and put my comments and his comments side by side. Would you say I'm attacking or he is attacking and insulting? As persona, Dawkins is Kardashian at heart, with a science twist.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulyses

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, Ulyses said:

 

Where is the insult? Where is the attack? Simply quoting and stating facts about his views. Don't like this side of him? It's not everyone else fault he is the way he is.

 

Please, take a moment and put my comments and his comments side by side. Would you say I'm attacking or he is attacking and insulting? As persona, Dawkins is Kardashian at heart, with a science twist.

so calling dawkins made up insulting words isn't insulting or attacking, and isn't attacking the person rather than the arguments ?

 

of course you also keep doing it... smh...

[Ulyses]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

so calling dawkins made up insulting words isn't insulting or attacking, and isn't attacking the person rather than the arguments ?

 

of course you also keep doing it... smh...

 

I'm pretty sure his arguments are beyond the civility limits imposed by this forum, so, yeah (by Dawkins standards also), I'm not insulting nor attacking the him.

 

He is not without flaw, and he blatantly shows it, I thought it sanitary to be aware of that, but you keep reversing his bad attitude on the responses it generates. Of course, the responses are way more civilised then his attitude, so, what's your angle? Why do you keep defending this side of him though?

[T3X4S]

4 hours ago, Ulyses said:

 

If only you could be bothered with facts...

Again, read the article, it's from a respected publication: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

 

 

Once again you fail to realize the difference between fact and opinion.

The only fact is that the article from The Guardian accused him of being misogynistic.
The opinion is that he is misogynistic.


I am only defending him in this thread because I know the comments against him aren't based on the posters' views on women - they are based on "oh he's that evolution guy who says my Sky Fairy doesnt exist"


And no - I dont think he's god.  I dont believe in things of which there is no evidence.... You know - the very standard you and most everyone else on the planet choose to invoke on every other facet of their life but throw it out the window when it comes to the possibility of perpetual playtime with dear old lost loved ones after death.




 

4 hours ago, DocM said:

About 200 articles, a great number by his fellow atheists in the secular press, going back over a decade but intensifying since 2010. 

 

Maybe you should read the articles that have been posted, and follow the links embedded therein to their references. Maybe even search for '"atheist sexism" dawkins'

I didnt read the articles, I read his books, watch his debates, listen to his lectures - 
I just think all of this smells like anti-secular masquerading as SJW bs

 “And so I occasionally wax a little sarcastic, and I when I have done that, I then have subsequently discovered some truly horrific things, which is that some of the women who were the butt of my sarcasm then became the butt of really horrible or serious threats, which is totally disgusting and I know how horrible that is and that, of course, I absolutely abominate and absolutely repudiate and abhor. "


After reading the Guardian article - I thought this quote from him was poignant - he actually mentions this same problem in The God Delusion

Anyway - I have to confess I am biased - these are just my opinions.



 

[T3X4S]

And just to finalize my thoughts on this - I thought it apropos show how his supposed tweets about women possibly asking for it if they are raped - as someone put it - were completely blown out of proportion and undeniably sensationalized  -

[FloatingFatMan]

^ As I thought, it's just people with an agenda twisting his words to suit their own purposes. He said nothing sexist there at all, just common sense.  If you want to accuse someone of a crime, and you have no evidence other than your word, you need to have been copus mentis at the time.

 

[margrave]

This reminds me of:

 

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

 

[Ulyses]

28 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

Once again you fail to realize the difference between fact and opinion.

 

 

No, I'm perfectly aware of your opinion. As it is often the case, you think a little juggle with the words and the facts magically disappear to make room for the only opinion: yours. You should get used by now, there's room for more than one opinion: yours, mine, everyone. Will you, that's the question?

 

 

28 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

The only fact is that the article from The Guardian accused him of being misogynistic.
The opinion is that he is misogynistic.


I am only defending him in this thread because I know the comments against him aren't based on the posters' views on women - they are based on "oh he's that evolution guy who says my Sky Fairy doesnt exist"

 

You know. If I ever read a self serving comment. You know nothing. And I put this mildly. He was, at some point, involved in a educated controversy, but it all devolved into a tabloid controversy the moment he started throwing judgements on things he is less educated in, to also put it mildly.

 

 

28 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

And no - I dont think he's god.  I dont believe in things of which there is no evidence.... You know - the very standard you and most everyone else on the planet choose to invoke on every other facet of their life but throw it out the window when it comes to the possibility of perpetual playtime with dear old lost loved ones after death.

 

I see, you're so much different from us. It actually goes in line with the Dawkins followers: a so called elitist gathering, calling people stupid and uneducated any chance they get, on any subject.

 

 

28 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

I didnt read the articles, I read his books, watch his debates, listen to his lectures - 
I just think all of this smells like anti-secular masquerading as SJW bs

 

You mean you are familiar with his opinions, right? And you thinking is so much different from the you knowing a few paragraphs up, what happened?

 

 

28 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

Anyway - I have to confess I am biased - these are just my opinions.

 

Oh, OK, finally. Progress.

[DocM]

1 hour ago, T3X4S said:

And just to finalize my thoughts on this - I thought it apropos show how his supposed tweets about women possibly asking for it if they are raped - as someone put it - were completely blown out of proportion and undeniably sensationalized  -

Guess the supposedly brilliant Richard Dawkins never heard of a rape kit? They're all the rage in ER's and courts because the victim doesn't have to remember jack.

 

And, if she were drunk she by definition cannot give consent, so any idiot that hops on board is a rapist no matter what his opinion of the situation is.

 

On this Dawkins loses about 40 IQ points.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think from keeping on top of good debates of recent feminism by the likes of Christina Hoff (really good interview below)

 

 

is a worrying conversation about new wave feminists going on to feel that drunken one night stands with guys they later regret can be twisted into rape claims and ultimately completely ruin a guy based upon revenge. We have to be able to debate the silly, and without a doubt abusing a rape claim is very dangerous. Just because you have a drunken fling you regret does not mean you can get a pass to ruin a guys life, because you are a women, and he is a guy.

 

As much as Dawkins can say stupid things the guys history hardly shows him to be some of the things he gets called. It's kind of similar to people pulling the racism card in the modern era for absolutely anyone who tries to hold a debate, not a witch-hunt, on anything to do with the Muslim religion. It's actively pursuing a complete shutdown of any debate/critical thinking towards real world issues, and deflecting towards shutting down the minds of those who have worthwhile things to say (even if you do not agree with them).

[DocM]

25 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

>

is a worrying conversation about new wave feminists going on to feel that drunken one night stands with guys they later regret can be twisted into rape claims and ultimately completely ruin a guy

>

As stated above, a woman who is drunk cannot legally give sexual consent. Period. Stop. Do not pass GO.

 

US and UK law is the same. In the US this is usually charged as Criminal Sexual Conduct of the 2nd or 3rd degree. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by DocM

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

7 minutes ago, DocM said:

As stated above, a woman who is drunk cannot legally give sexual consent. This is usually charged as Criminal Sexual Conduct of the 2nd or 3rd degree. 

It's really not that simple. Drunk is not a "simple" state of mind. There are different scales of drunk, and you are hiding under the sand if you cannot accept you can be drunk and give consent quite easily. Black out drunk, passed out, and not even able to string a sentence together is not the same as drunk, patchy memory, but you've been kissing a guy the majority of the night, take him home, sleep with him and then regret that when you're fully sober.

 

Yes you can genuinely be raped or sexually assaulted when drunk, no sane person is going to argue that cannot happen. Most of us are debating the silly, and unfortunately rape claims happen when individuals simply want to torch someone they regret sleeping with.

 

The tongue in cheek term beer goggles is valid for a reason, if you look into research on what alcohol can do lowering inhibition and increasing sexual confidence (to approach and engage in sexual activity) certainly happens in a lot of humans. I'd like to think nearly everyone themselves, or at least everyone knows a friend, who has slept with someone they claim they wouldn't have gone near when sober. That is what we cannot have twisted into a very serious claim of rape merely because alcohol was involved.

 

Heck half of our parents probably conceived us during drunk unprotected sex 

[DocM]

14 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

It's really not that simple. Drunk is not a "simple" state of mind.

Drunk is a state of blood chemistry, and under UK law where Dawkins lives even a lack of sleep can induce a state where consent cannot be given.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

Quote

The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

 

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

 

• The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
• Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
• Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

•  

Edited February 2, 2016 by DocM

[Ulyses]

17 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

It's actively pursuing a complete shutdown of any debate/critical thinking towards real world issues, and deflecting towards shutting down the minds of those who have worthwhile things to say (even if you do not agree with them).

 

17 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

is a worrying conversation about new wave feminists going on to feel that drunken one night stands with guys they later regret can be twisted into rape claims and ultimately completely ruin a guy based upon revenge.

 

Well, guess what? You are deflecting. The pressing real world issue of women rape is "worrying" you the wrong way. It's not the new wave feminists, there were always women lying about being raped. You just use hype words to imply there is no actual rape as a problem, but women remorse is the issue.

 

But what you don't imply is the numbers: how many rapes go unreported. Too many. Because it's still more shameful for the victims. Yes, victims, women are not the only ones being raped. But you somehow try to frame rape only into drunk women with regrets. Because it gives you a new angle: feminists. Think again.

[T3X4S]

5 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

 

 

Heck half of our parents probably conceived us during drunk unprotected sex 

Not me - I made myself, but I didnt exist before I made myself, so I couldnt have made myself because I would have to had existed before the creation (of myself) in order to create (myself)

Sounds Legit