Drama in /r/MensRights over Richard Dawkins' 'mild date rape' tweets (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
44 ups - 0 downs = 44 votes
261 comments submitted at 04:37:49 on Aug 1, 2014 by Alexandra_xo
Drama in /r/MensRights over Richard Dawkins' 'mild date rape' tweets (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
44 ups - 0 downs = 44 votes
261 comments submitted at 04:37:49 on Aug 1, 2014 by Alexandra_xo
Dawkins has long had a knack for saying things that he knows will create buzz. His quote about rape was "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 was making a point about logic, and not rape itself
And yet, that logic is flawed because it is based on the premise that some forms of rape are worse than others. Rape is a subjective experience first and foremost, but more importantly categorizing it as "bad" and "worse" is a step backwards. The myth that "date rape" is somehow "better" than a stranger in the bushes only serves to invalidate the experiences of rape victims.
> His quote about rape was "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."
No, he said quite a bit more than that, and it's important to understanding his point. He also said:
> > “Being raped by a stranger is bad. Being raped by a formerly trusted friend is worse.” If you think that hypothetical quotation is an endorsement of rape by strangers, go away and learn how to think.
…and:
> > 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 properly.
He wasn't ranking different types of rape. This is obvious because the two different "rankings" are the opposite of one another. Rather, he was making a point that saying that one thing is bad and another thing is worse does not constitute an endorsement of either.
> that logic is flawed because it is based on the premise that some forms of rape are worse than others.
No, it wasn't.
> The myth that "date rape" is somehow "better" than a stranger in the bushes only serves to invalidate the experiences of rape victims.
Do you understand he wasn't saying that date rape is better?
I may not be understanding the situation completely, but didn't he say that bit about the trusted friend after he got a bunch of crap for his original tweets? If so, that's a bit of a back-peddle IMO...
Also, you're right, I shouldn't have used the word "better" and should have stuck with the degrees of "bad" and "worse" as he did.
> didn't he say that bit about the trusted friend after he got a bunch of crap for his original tweets?
His original tweets included:
> > If you prefer to think date rape is worse than knifepoint, simply reverse my syllogism. To say Y is worse than X is not an endorsement of Y.
He was very obviously not ranking different types of rape, but talking about the logic involved.
> If so, that's a bit of a back-peddle IMO...
He wasn't back-pedalling at all, he made his point very clear from the start and hasn't deviated from it.
> Also, you're right, I should have used the word "better" and stuck with the degrees of "bad" and "worse" as he did.
It sounds as though you're still not getting it though. He wasn't ranking anything as bad or worse. He was saying that the act of doing so does not constitute endorsement.
For instance: "Purple is bad. The number five is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of purple, go away and learn how to think."
Now, we can both agree that it makes no sense at all to rank purple and the number five, right? But you agree that somebody saying such a silly thing clearly does not approve of purple? I mean they would literally be saying "purple is bad". And you agree that me explaining this is not an attempt by me to rank purple and the number five? And do you think that my logic is flawed when I point out that somebody saying "purple is bad" is not endorsing purple regardless of their opinion of the number five?
Isn't reversing the syllogism still ranking them? Look, I get where you're coming from, but this is a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease at best.
> Isn't reversing the syllogism still ranking them?
No.
Do you think I have I ranked purple and the number five? Do you think I have an opinion on which is better or worse?
> this is a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease at best.
This is a mind-bogglingly simple concept to grasp and it was stated very clearly. I think he was shocked that so many people couldn't grasp the point. I don't really think foot-in-mouth is a particularly good description.
X is worse than y = y is better than x.
>Do you understand he wasn't saying that date rape is better?
I don't know about that. X is Bad Y is worse pretty clearly says that X is better than Y.
What you're saying is that if I said "X is small, Y is smaller" you would say that doesn't mean X is bigger than Y. And well. That'd be just flat wrong.
Since "bad" to a victim is subjective. He's pretty clearly saying the victims opinion doesn't matter.
In the end there's a point to his rambling tweets, but let's be honest he just picked rape and date rape so he could be edgy. There's piles of other examples that would offend people you can use to explain logic. He keeps on losing my respect the more he acts like a petulant kid. Grow up and stop courting controversy for controversy's sake. It doesn't make him look smarter or more logical.
> > Do you understand he wasn't saying that date rape is better?
> I don't know about that. X is Bad Y is worse pretty clearly says that X is better than Y.
But he wasn't saying that. He was saying that somebody who did say that wouldn't be saying that either were acceptable.
> What you're saying is that if I said "X is small, Y is smaller" you would say that doesn't mean X is bigger than Y.
No, that's not right at all. I don't even understand how you arrived at that.
> He's pretty clearly saying the victims opinion doesn't matter.
He's saying nothing of the sort. I suggest you read my example using the colour purple and the number five elsewhere in the thread.
> let's be honest he just picked rape and date rape so he could be edgy.
No, the emotive component is part of the point he was making.
> There's piles of other examples that would offend people you can use to explain logic.
And he did use a selection of examples, these weren't the only ones.
> But he wasn't saying that. He was saying that somebody who did say that wouldn't be saying that either were acceptable. >
Um...
"Somebody who did..." = no he wasn't, he was on fucking twitter and he KNEW how this would be taken.
"wouldn't be saying that either were acceptable." = no, he was saying that one of the two would be better or worse than the other. For a fucking atheist, you would think he would know a thing or two about relativism now.
>But he wasn't saying that. He was saying that somebody who did say that wouldn't be saying that either were acceptable.
Sure. And in doing so he stated that X is better than Y. (Relatively more preferable). I get his point. It's just that in making his point he made a secondary asinine comment. And that's what people are bashing him on.
>No, that's not right at all. I don't even understand how you arrived at that.
By replacing bad with small and better with big. It's the exact same statement.
>No, the emotive component is part of the point he was making.
And it completely overshadowed any attempt at a point by just coming across as edgy and wrongheaded.
Dawkins is smart, but he likes poking the hornets nest too much and it comes back to bite him.
> He wasn't ranking different types of rape. This is obvious because the two different "rankings" are the opposite of one another. Rather, he was making a point that saying that one thing is bad and another thing is worse does not constitute an endorsement of either.
It is not an endorsement, but it is a ranking. How does one objectively rank a subjective experience? I'm not offended on the basis that he considers one form of rape not as bad as another (fallacy of relative privation), but because his argument has no real legitimacy. Is he arguing that a rape victim that is bleeding and was beaten deserves priority in an emergency room over a rape victim who isn't bleeding and wasn't beaten? If he had been perhaps his argument would have some validity. Was he arguing that under the law, if one crime is deemed lesser than another then it doesn't deserve the same process that leads to conviction of a criminal and protection of a victim? Well, that would be a flawed argument if he did try to make it. No, his argument was entirely ontological and experiential. Multiple times he brings up the fact that he has experienced sexual assault. Multiple times he refers to tweets from others supporting him who also claim to have been assaulted sexually. What this means is that his isn't a ranking from some logical standpoint, void of emotion, but is entirely emotional, and it built on the subjective experiences of others. That is why I'm offended, because he somehow thinks that he can apply to others some sort of objective format of ranking subjective experiences, all while calling it some "logical argument".
You still make his point: Despite him stating, in clear words, that he doesn't approve of any form of rape, you construct, in many words, that he somehow does.
He even explicitly states that he does not endorse X by stating "Y is worse". The fallacy of relative privation is the exact opposite – stating "Ignore X because Y is worse". Which he didn't do.
While we're on that, your entire reply is one large appeal to emotion. That's a logical fallacy, as well. You have a right to be offended, but so what? Logic doesn't care. Just because something offends you doesn't make it wrong. I'm offended by his tweets, as well, for different reasons, but that doesn't change a thing.
I don't think you understand the words you're using. I'm offended intellectually, and my argument was an appeal to logic, and the lack of logic he and his supporters seem to have.
>Despite him stating, in clear words, that he doesn't approve of any form of rape, you construct, in many words, that he somehow does.
You see, this is a strawman. This has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't care which is worse, that doesn't matter to me.
> I don't think you understand the words you're using.
Please be more specific.
> I'm offended intellectually, and my argument was an appeal to logic, and the lack of logic he and his supporters seem to have.
I don't understand what you're saying. Don't you mean, when you say you're offended, that your upset and angry? What does it mean to be offended intellectually?
Your post is one huge appeal to emotion. You even dig out the image of bleeding and beaten rape victims. Are you really sure the only thing you find offensive is his application of logic?
>What does it mean to be offended intellectually?
Exactly what I said? Upset over a lack of logic, not upset over some moralistic point.
I brought up bleeding rape victims not to elicit emotion alone, but to drive home the point that it would be logical to say that someone with worse injuries should be treated first in a hospital. (which, if you think is an appeal to emotion, you clearly have no understanding what that actually is).
Why is it that I always need to re-state what I've already said multiple times in arguments like this? Why can't you understand it the first time?
> Why is it that I always need to re-state what I've already said multiple times in arguments like this? Why can't you understand it the first time?
guys that "argue" by listing logical fallacies usually aren't that bright
> What this means is that his isn't a ranking from some logical standpoint, void of emotion, but is entirely emotional
You talk about "his" ranking and how he arrived at it, but he didn't rank them. He was talking about how rankings don't imply endorsement.
> That is why I'm offended, because he somehow thinks that he can apply to others some sort of objective format of ranking subjective experiences, all while calling it some "logical argument".
Wow, you have completely misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't saying there was an objective way of ranking different types of rape, or what such a ranking would be. He was saying that if you say that two things are bad but one is worse, then you think both things are bad, not that one is okay, and that this is true even when the subject is highly emotional.
If you find that difficult to follow, then I gave an example elsewhere in the thread that might clear it up.
You clearly haven't understood my comment. I understand exactly the point he was trying to make. And that he attempted to make it by making an objective ranking of subjective experiences. The entire premise required that his ranking be objective, and the nature of the argument, i.e. experiencing rape, made it that it also had to be based on a subjective experience.
In other words, his entire premise is flawed, regardless of any point (that I did not "completely" miss) he tried to make.
> The entire premise required that his ranking be objective
No, it doesn't. It doesn't even have to make any sense at all.
X is bad. Y is worse.
Somebody making those claims does not approve of X. That is true whether ranking X and Y is objective, subjective, or completely nonsensical.
>That is true whether ranking X and Y is objective, subjective, or completely nonsensical.
Well it has to be one to make any type of sense, right? And if he was only making a subjective point, then perhaps Y is actually worse than X for some people. But that wasn't his point. He made it very clear that one was worse than the other. And that was what the point was. And that requires the idea that his system of ranking is objective, based on subjective experiences. Which is logically inconsistent.
> He made it very clear that one was worse than the other.
No he didn't, and the fact that you think he did just shows that you really don't understand the point that he was making.
He literally says y is worse than x* . I mean, maybe you should re-read his argument, because I don't think you understand it.
"X is bad. Y is worse." His actual words.
> He literally says y is worse than x.
As part of a hypothetical statement. Do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean he is actually saying Y is worse than X.
Did you see my example involving the colour purple and the number five? I said:
Purple is bad. The number five is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of purple, go away and learn how to think.
Those were my actual words.
Do you believe that I think that the number five is worse than the colour purple? Or can you grasp the concept that when I said that, it's a hypothetical statement and not actually what I believe?