So do you take issue with me saying they shouldnt be punished ( people seem to have ignored my post, maybe it was too much, or maybe it was just ******ed, I dont know)? What is the purpose of punishment?

Again, I am not saying people should just get to do what they want, but punishment seems a kind of insane idea to me.

The question was addressed to whether he was treated leniently, it seems he was, 14 counts of sexual abuse resulting in a 15 month, subsequently increased to 30 month sentence.

Why do you think they feel more confident about coming forward? There were people at the BBC who knew about the behaviour of people on it's payroll yet the behaviour was allowed to continue, if it wouldn't be allowed to continue now what has changed?

It seems you're telling Dawkins how to feel about something that happened to him and I don't know how helpful that is to this discussion.

Punishment is justified on consequentialist grounds e.g. deterrence, protection of public etc. But I appreciate there is a common concept of punishment (desert) that goes beyond this... a punishment over and above the benefits that is just "because they deserve it". That isn't what I'm talking about here, if you are.

Yes this. It's like MB (and others) are imagining that Dawkins has made a legal pronouncement to the effect that abusers shouldn't be prosecuted, rather than just reporting his personal feelings about an event in the context of a friendly interview about his memoirs.

I dont think the use of the word punishment is useful here, as it has no meaning other than "because they deserve it". It implies "You have done wrong, therefore you must pay". but I guess its not that important. Im pretty sure MB means it in the "because you deserve it" sense though.

Well I can agree tentatively with "they deserve" "punishment" but not over and above the benefits of the "punishment". It would be too much of a digression to start pulling out all the possible meanings of these words, and I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand. The point I'm making is that Dawkins condemnation or lack of is a reporting of an emotional state, which is completely separate to an act of punishment (replace "punishment" with "prosecution", if you like). It's a descriptive act, not a prescriptive act.

Neeel,
I think you touched on an interesting point. Punishment vs. discipline: typically punishment is carried out more along the lines of "well you deserved it". Whereas discipline carries with it a goal to be corrective. I think the western penal system is basically broken. For the most part it seems like people have given up on the idea of rehabilitation/corrective measures. It is much easier to punish than actually try and discipline in a constructive way to an end of correcting behaviors.

I dont know, I think discipline and punishment are basically the same .

"you have been bad, you must be disciplined".

although I guess its possible for them to be slightly different.

Was the western penal system ever about rehabilitation/corrective measures? Does disciplining someone ( I imagine that the means to discipline someone are mainly punishment) ever teach anyone anything, or help people to understand anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MKPxMrnoBU

Neeel,
I think the distinction is very important. It is kind of semantically confusing because discipline is not always used in conversation to mean "corrective". IMO people wrongly equate discipline and punishment.

Punishment is a cause and effect process in the name of retribution.

Here is one of the definitions of discipline:
training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character

I don't see much value in punishment but discipline seems quite clearly necessary and good.

Imagine that instead of Dawkins and his sexual abuse story, what had happened was that a well known female politician, a role model type in a position of power and authority who's opinions are given weight, had given an interview and told a story about how it was common when she started out for female politicians to be 'mildly' sexually harassed by men in their place of work but it was normal back then, she doesn't think she was harmed by the experience and she can't find it in her to condemn the men that did it.

Now, she might be perfectly unharmed by the experience, she may be correct in that by the standards of the time and the prevailing attitudes it was much less of a crime that it would it be considered now, but.... would not women's libbers all over the place be slapping their foreheads and saying 'zomg, are you serious'...?

Regardless of how intellectually harmless what she's saying is, there might still be a public perception that it's undermining all the progress that has been made by her appearing to make light of what happened.

Three problems with that example

1) There is an extremely important difference between Dawkins and a politician in that a politician actually affects policy. Therefore there is a much more reasonable expectation that a comment on her personal feelings is a de facto comment on her views on policy. This expectation doesn't exist for an evolutionary biologist (or any other profession in the world). I've got to say, I think using a politician as an example is a pretty blatant attempt to circumvent the argumentative force of my argument here:

A politician is pretty the only profession where those lines are blurred, which makes me a bit suspicious of you picking it.

2) We still don't actually have a comment in your example that clarifies whether this view is prescriptive. It would be reasonable to immediately ask the politician if she thought current legislation was too strict. If she doesn't think so, then what is the problem? Similarly, Dawkins said in the original article (which I'm gonna guess you still haven't read) that he was happy that standards had changed to be more strict.

3) The issue of whether or not we should expect women's libbers to be slapping their foreheads or public perception seems irrelevant. The point I'm arguing is your assertion that Dawkins is wrong to not condemn his abuser. If your argument is reduced to "he's wrong cos some people might not like what he says" then I'll consider my work done.

Ok, it was important that the person in my analogy be a public figure, someone who's opinions might be influential regardless of the subject on which they're speaking, which is why I chose politician but it could have been an academic, or a business women or anyone who fit the criteria.

What I've realised during the course of this discussion is that it's public perception of what Dawkins said, that he might undermine progress in changing attitudes and treating child sexual abuse more seriously by appearing to make light of his own experiences, that I have issue with. That he may not have actually done anything logically wrong is something that I think most people won't understand, myself included (originally). What I think most people will hear is 'I was abused but it didn't harm me' and won't understand the moral relativism involved so whilst trying not to appear to be unduly self pitying he might come across as making light of something that due to much effort, has come to be perceived as very serious.

As someone pointed out, Dawkins is in the 0.01 percentile for intelligence but even if you increased that by an order of magnitude, you'd still have 99% of the population who potentially will misunderstand what he said because they don't have his intellect and understanding of logic and philosophy.

I'm not sure his philosophy is particularly great fwiw and you don't need to be as intelligent as him to understand what he's saying.

They are his memoirs they should be honest. Do you think he should lie? Do you think he should have said nothing?

Maybe not as intelligent 'as him' but certainly intelligent enough to grasp that what he said wasn't intended to make light of the sexual abuse of children. Like I said, I think that I think what most people will hear is 'I was abused but it didn't harm me' and won't understand moral relativity or what 'can't condemn' actually means, and surely that is detrimental to the contemporary perspective on the sexual abuse of children.

I'd always prefer people to tell the truth and who am I to determine what he should and shouldn't say? We're simply discussing the ramifications of what he did say.

I also don't think you need to be particularly intelligent to know he's not making light of the sexual abuse of children.

I'd drop the references to moral relativity from your argument I don't think it's illuminating. I'm also not sure that your failure to understand what can't condemn means should be projected on to the rest of the intended audience.

Compare with this.

Isn't this contradicting what you've just posted?

That depends on how we interpret 'mild' when used to describe abuse that he claims caused him no harm, wouldn't you say? You might even be guilty of imposing a contemporary perception here, that there's nothing 'light' about abusing children sexually, given that his whole forgiving attitude is based on the fact that 50 years, a bit of a grope wasn't considered that bad, right?

Forget about whether or not he is right or wrong about not condemning his abuser. I've moved on from that because I've accepted that it's just my personal opinion. What I've realised is what I was objecting to on a gut feeling level and it's that 'I was abused but it didn't cause me any harm' and 'I can't condemn my abuser' could come across in a way that potentially undermines the change in attitude toward sexual abuse that has been achieved since then.

Yes it is but I think you missed the point where I capitulated (when I said 'I've realised' earlier ITT). I've accepted most of the arguments (I reserve the right to still be a bit uncertain about a couple of them) used to counter positions I've argued ITT. I'm essentially presenting a new position based on an understanding recently achieved. In fact, you were the main factor, when you asked me what had changed that victims were more confident about coming forward, the answer kept coming back to 'attitudes have changed' which was a bit devastating to my position

There may be nothing light or mild about sexually assaulting children but relative to other instances of abuse one may be considered milder just as someone being exposed to is a milder form of sexual assault than rape. One will be considered more severe and in part that will be an acknowledgement that one offence usually has greater negative consequences to the offended.

Okay I don't think it's either right or wrong for him to not condemn his abuser, it's a personal reaction from him. With regard to the potential to undermine the change in attitude since then I don't see it. I think people will understand that Dawkins considers it mild in relation to the other more extreme occurrences of child abuse and possibly mild in terms of it's longer term impact on him but it does nothing to undermine our response to the range of abuses that children may face.

Okay cool this makes sense.

Not to pile one, but I seem to remember an incident involving Dawkins where a female colleague accused him of an untoward sexual advance in an elevator at one of these atheist functions.

It might be relevant.

Edit: Apparently, it wasn't Dawkins in the elevator, but it was Dawkins who was subsequently scorned for making highly public "innapropriate" comments about the incident.

This article, though, might clear up to Neeel why it seems like I don't "like" atheists. I have witnessed this kind of reaction in atheist spheres many times. Enough so that I no longer have any faith in a secular-based moral system.

"Hundreds of atheists have informed me that either they wanted to rape me, someone should rape me so that I will loosen up or that no one would ever rape me because I am so ugly"

For someone who was supposedly an atheist, you really talk a lot of ****e about atheists and atheism.

for example, you appear to be implying here " hes an atheist, what do you expect, hes morally corrupt. These atheists, they will say and do anything ",

I have stated before that atheists have more moral breathing room than believers do, when push comes to shove. I see that as no big shocker. It seems apparent, in fact.

Edit: The same kind of idea informs my ideas on politics. I see the left in america very willing to compromise and "cheat" on major issues. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, "but"... Abortion is not a "good" thing BUT...

This is why some of the most atheistic countries on earth are totalitarian states. All of the "cheating" and small moral compromises finally adds up, and you wake up one day and before you even knew it, you can no longer gather to pray openly, or own a gun, and the government is so huge and entrenched that the individual is completely powerless to do anything about it.

I will find my post on this. I made one a few months ago.

That may be true, but I could point out any number of christians who have done or said outrageous or messed up things, so its not like, in reality, there is that much difference in breathing room between both sets?

With regard to your edit, no , it hasnt cleared up why you appear to dislike atheists. Are you saying hes bad for failing to condemn the man for asking her for coffee? Or what? I dont really get it.

I'm not even going to respond to your absurd mischaracterization of the events that the article reported on. I know a lost cause when I see one.

I have said before, as an atheist, I ran in atheist circles, and all but abandoned my christian friends. From my own personal experience, I have found the most politically vocal atheists to be far worse misogynists and racists than any southern baptist I have ever met. I was not at all surprised to see Alec Baldwin use an anti-gay slur on his twitter, nor was I surprised that his appearances and movies weren't being protested. I am not surprised at all to read that to this day the woman in the story above gets regular rape threats and death threats. I have found these people to be the very same people who morally castigate you openly for your "heartless" beliefs, and who take demonstrative "moral" stances on abortion, women's rights and so on, but have no problem using bigoted slurs and racist comments behind closed doors. I guarantee you there aren't names and addresses attached to her regular influx of death and rape threats, but if there were, you might be shocked to find out who they are who are making them. I wouldn't be. I know exactly who they are.

But why?

Because they are anti-christian, FIRST. It is what drives them. Torching their strawman version of the christian is more important than any moral concerns, at bottom. This is the spirit of the anti-christ in action. Satan appears as an angel of light, a wolf in the clothing of a sheep.

Ofc, it doesn't apply to most atheists, perhaps. I won't put a number on it. I know it is real, though. If you don't believe me, check that gal's email box.

What's funny to me is everytime you describe this intense negativity you see coming from Atheists, it always seems to stem from what you did and experienced as an athiest.

Did you ever just think maybe it was your priorities that were out of whack, and maybe Atheism was incidental, or perhaps a convenient cover?

Nice try, in trying to shift it all over to what *I* truly thought or felt. Ofc, that is not what I was speaking on.

I never claimed that I was a racist or a misogynist.

Also, to be clear, I want to almost rule women out of this equation completely. Most of the vocal, politically active women, I found, to be genuine and consistent in their beliefs. This is almost squarely a male phenomenon.

Maybe you could just say that boys will be boys, but there is something much deeper happening below the surface.