In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called "mild pedophilia," which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes "lasting harm."
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts," and that to condemn this "mild touching up" as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said.
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."
https://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/
This is not the first time. Multiple times he has tried to normalize pedophilia.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1iSxEtgEGs
What the hell is wrong with this man?
Wikipedia on him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Dawkins has been awarded many prestigious academic and writing awards and he makes regular television, radio and Internet appearances, predominantly discussing his books, his atheism, and his ideas and opinions as a public intellectual.
He has won numerous awards and is known as one of the world's top scientists. Seriously.
view the rest of the comments →
burnitalldown ago
I'm so not shocked by this. I've always hated this guy.
He's an atheist too. Never trust an atheist.
crashing_this_thread ago
I'm an atheist and I have been here since pizzagate.
scarlettm512 ago
There are different types of atheists, just as there are different types of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. If someone is an atheist just because they need to see proof of something before they can believe in it, I respect that. Atheists like Dawkins, however, are atheist simply because they wish to destroy religion. That is a very different type of atheist. They don't mind people having blind faith in something -- they just want that blind faith to be science, not God. Many of this type of atheists actually worship science in the same way that religious people worship a god or gods. Their "holy books" are scientific tomes. Their saints and priests (who cannot be questioned but should be followed blindly) are scientists. They are pushing a religion themselves. I am a fan of science (although I am probably not smart enough to understand a lot of it when it gets beyond the basics -- I don't have a low IQ, but I am certainly no genius), but I despise "Scientism".
eucalyptus_spearmint ago
Man, you are so on point! I keep on loving all of your comments. Preach! 😁