http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKG_AZKogg&feature=recentlik

Not featured on any major british media network.

Nealster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKG_AZKogg&feature
> =recentlik
>
> Not featured on any major british media network.

Yes it was. I watched it yesterday. Not all of it, but enough to get the gist of it.

It was ironic that the man standing behind Richard Dawkins and waving a placard, Peter Tatchell, is campaigning for the reduction of the age of consent to 14 and has stated that he believes that sexual relations between adults and children as young as 9 are not harmful to the child.

With attitudes like that, you have to wonder why Peter Tatchell was at a rally protesting about priests having sex with children. And why Richard Dawkins allowed him to share his platform?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2010 06:06PM by matt.

There is growing evidence that girls in western societies are starting their periods at younger ages which may be why Mr. Tachell believes what he believes.

Still, I think Matt is right. For the sake of public perception, Mr. Dawkins probably shouldn't have been on the same platform as Mr. Tachell.

Come to think of it, I wonder, given Mr. Tachell's views on when young girls should be considered old enough to accept sexual favors, if he would have approved of one Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen Mar Kimball.

Here's what I gathered from Wikipedia

"In 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent to 14 to adjust for studies which showed nearly half of all young people - gay and straight - had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old and to counter them from being "treated as criminals by the law".[40] The campaign positioned there should be no prosecution at all if the difference between the ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years - and providing it is backed up by earlier, more effective sex education in schools"

and

"Tatchell in the Irish Independent on 10 March 2008 repeated his call for a lower age of consent to end the criminalisation of young people engaged in consenting sex and to remove the legal obstacles to upfront sex education, condom provision and safer sex advice"

That doesn't seem too crazy. I think that is the law in Ontario, Canada where I grew up. The three years age difference is the key.

This part is probably confrontational:

"In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about 'boy-love', calling the work "courageous" before writing:

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[43] "

It doesn't seem that he is condoning, or asking for it to be allowed. I can see how it is controversial, though.

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article to which you refer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_tachell

Assuming the article is true (anyone can edit Wikipedia entries), then I change my mind and now agree with Danny on this issue. Mr. Tatchell appears to recognize complexeties within human beings that the law (and other humans) do not always recognize. This doesn't mean that I condone pedofilia or Joseph Smith's actions regarding Helen Mar Kimbel (correct spelling, I think), but it *does mean* that I agree with the proposition that our statutory rape laws may not be realistic.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is growing evidence that girls in western
> societies are starting their periods at younger
> ages which may be why Mr. Tachell believes what he
> believes.
>
> Still, I think Matt is right. For the sake of
> public perception, Mr. Dawkins probably shouldn't
> have been on the same platform as Mr. Tachell.
>
> Come to think of it, I wonder, given Mr. Tachell's
> views on when young girls should be considered old
> enough to accept sexual favors, if he would have
> approved of one Joseph Smith's relationship with
> Helen Mar Kimball.

I started my periods at the ripe old age of nine. That hardly means I was ready for sex with anyone of any age.

Despite my response to Amartin's post, I find myself in agreement with you. Just because one's first period occurs at nine years of age does not necessarily mean that one is ready to engage in sexual activity at that age.

I don't know anything about Peter Tatchell. I've not heard Dawkins say anything that makes me think he endorses Tatchell (yet).

Is it your position that Dawkins should be responsible for what every one around him says? Should Dawkins control all opinions on his platform? Dawkins is not likely to agree with all atheists on many topics, BTW.

Have you represented Tatchell's views fully here? He sounds like a nut from what you have said.

Anytime you have a WEAK argument, go ahead and pull out the 'Hitler' Card. Calling others Hitler or acting like Hitler is such a straw man argument that people in Politics or other areas use know, that 'using the like Hitler argument' is starting to be used as a term for argument.

ie. The reason you guys all left the Church is because you are just like Hitler. Before Hitler people would refer to Napoleon or some other 'bad' leader.

Sadly, I have represented his exact views on that matter. He expressed them in the left-leaning Guardian newspaper and caused a firestorm, with many people who had previously supported him in his various campaigns (gay rights, the right to out people who didn't want the pubic to know they were gay, gay marriage, green politics, human rights, etc,) publicly disowned him.

In my opinion it was reckless of Dawkins to allow Tatchell anywhere near him, least of all allowed him to share his platform.

It's already been noted on some blogs that it was odd that Tatchell had joined the paedophile priest campaign, given his previously stated views on campaigning for the reduced age of consent and his views that sex with 9 year old children is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as the child did not mind or instigated it.

When I saw Tatchell standing behind Dawkins waving his placard about I thought: "What the HELL is HE doing sharing that platform with Dawkins?"

I would have a hard time believing Dawkins did not know of Tatchell's views on this subject.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2010 06:27PM by matt.

Weirdly this makes me respect Dawkins more. It shows me he is not trying to police what other atheists should be doing like many tend to accuse him of doing.

I don't think we should discredit Dawkins because he doesn't hang around with ditto heads that only favor his own views on everything.

I don't think Dawkins needs Tatchell to kiss his ring. Apparently they both have their own reasons to protest the Pope. Remember, trying to get atheists to agree on everything is like herding cats.

If Tatchell is being a hypocrite, he will have to defend himself.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weirdly this makes me respect Dawkins more. It
> shows me he is not trying to police what other
> atheists should be doing like many tend to accuse
> him of doing.
>
> I don't think we should discredit Dawkins because
> he doesn't hang around with ditto heads that only
> favor his own views on everything.
>
> I don't think Dawkins needs Tatchell to kiss his
> ring. Apparently they both have their own reasons
> to protest the Pope. Remember, trying to get
> atheists to agree on everything is like herding
> cats.
>
> If Tatchell is being a hypocrite, he will have to
> defend himself.

I don't even know if Peter Tatchell is an atheist.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dagny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Weirdly this makes me respect Dawkins more. It
> > shows me he is not trying to police what other
> > atheists should be doing like many tend to
> accuse
> > him of doing.
> >
> > I don't think we should discredit Dawkins
> because
> > he doesn't hang around with ditto heads that
> only
> > favor his own views on everything.
> >
> > I don't think Dawkins needs Tatchell to kiss
> his
> > ring. Apparently they both have their own
> reasons
> > to protest the Pope. Remember, trying to get
> > atheists to agree on everything is like herding
> > cats.
> >
> > If Tatchell is being a hypocrite, he will have
> to
> > defend himself.
>
> I don't even know if Peter Tatchell is an atheist.

I agree with Matt. I would not want to be asociated in any way with Tatchell. I am sure Dawkins has many forums ferom which he can express himself. He does not need to share a forum with someone like this.

Peter Tatchell is nuttier than a fruit cake, that much is generally nown, and for his despicable views on the rights of homosexuals (outing them and lowering the age of consent), he has been widely criticised.
The point in posting this video was to show the content of Dawkins speech, NOT to show the quality of the company he keeps.

As for the British media; I was talking of television. That The Guardian would have jumped on this does not suprise me, but I wonder how many other newspapers did?

Nealster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Tatchell is nuttier than a fruit cake, that
> much is generally nown, and for his despicable
> views on the rights of homosexuals (outing them
> and lowering the age of consent), he has been
> widely criticised.
> The point in posting this video was to show the
> content of Dawkins speech, NOT to show the quality
> of the company he keeps.
>
> As for the British media; I was talking of
> television. That The Guardian would have jumped on
> this does not suprise me, but I wonder how many
> other newspapers did?

I was talking of television. It was either BBC1 or Sky, probably the latter.

I don't care who stands on the platform by him,near him, etc.

His speech was excellent.

libby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care who stands on the platform by
> him,near him, etc.
>
> His speech was excellent.

You know what they say? He who lies with dogs will get fleas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2010 07:21PM by matt.

Don't make me sprinkle flea powder all around your posts.

Or maybe I should say to keep your posts away from my mangy dog posts! You might catch something itchy.

libby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care who stands on the platform by
> him,near him, etc.
>
> His speech was excellent.

Suppose the pope were standing on platform with this nut. Would you be saying the same thing?

...making such a proclamation.

He strikes me as a bitter, arrogant, and narrow-minded little man.

He asserts that religion, and the belief in a Creator, is silly and irrational.

I assert that he is silly and irrational to dismiss the core question of how something came from nothing and the intuitive understanding that a cause greater than the physical world initiated it.

A very bitter, arrogant little man.

He is doing nothing different than you are when you assume a god came from nothing. Why don't you decide a cause greater than god would be required to create god?

At least Dawkins is not adding an additional layer to explain.

Besides, although Dawkins is a biologist I'm guessing he understands a thing or two about physics.

Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity and has a God complex.





He strikes me as a bitter, arrogant, and narrow-minded little man.

He asserts that religion, and the belief in a Creator, is not silly and irrational.

I assert that he is silly and irrational to dismiss the core question of how his false god came from nothing and the intuitive misunderstanding that a cause greater than the physical world initiated it.

A very bitter, arrogant little man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2010 12:41AM by Dave the Atheist.

while polititians grovvled around his presence and Hotel Owners and other businesses accepted his dirty cash.

I don't know if you remember but Tatchell risked it somewhat protesting and it resulted in Mugabe's henchmen punching him.

Tatchell has my respect in that capacity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2010 01:24PM by zeezrom.

zeezrom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> while polititians grovvled around his presence and
> Hotel Owners and other businesses accepted his
> dirty cash.
>
> I don't know if you remember but Tatchell risked
> it somewhat protesting and it resulted in Mugabe's
> henchmen punching him.
>
> Tatchell has my respect in that capacity.



Yes, me too. Apparently it resulted in brain damage for him.

Why would a supposed scientist be protesting religion? Is it that he is really practicing pseudo science and has an agenda? Sounds suspect. Its one thing to practice science, but quite another to also harbor an agenda at the same time. Wouldn't pure/real science stand on its own without the religion bashing? Inquiring minds want to know. Just saying....

I do believe you have left out a few republicommie buzzwords. Did you forget to watch faux news today ?

Actually I'm not a republican more likely to watch something more liberal like cnn or listen to NPR than Faux news.

So all people that question Dawkins' money making motives are somehow republican? That logic makes alot of sense.....not.

ae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I'm not a republican more likely to watch
> something more liberal like cnn or listen to NPR
> than Faux news.
>
> So all people that question Dawkins' money making
> motives are somehow republican? That logic makes
> alot of sense.....not.


Dave the atheist doesn't do logic. Maybe it's against his religion? Oh! It can't be that, can it? ;oD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2010 07:40AM by matt.

I think it's admirable that Dawkins staged a protest against the figurehead of the negligent religion responsible for the many, many egregious cases of child sex abuse, and it's unfortunate that a nut shared the camera with him, but honestly I don't really care that much.

My lack of belief is pretty simple. I.. uh.. don't believe in God. It doesn't get much simpler than that, and what Dawkins or Tatchell or whoever does or doesn't do in another country has no bearing on that. It's not the same as when the Catholic church brings shame upon its believers by allowing through negligence the sexual abuse of innocent children. There is no leader of atheism and there are no followers or even believers, because it's a non-organization and a non-faith. At least that's how it is for me. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I think there is a naturalistic explanation for everything in the Universe. Well, except for Raymond.

I'm completely neutral on the subject of Richard Dawkins. In fact, the first time I heard of him, I thought he was the host of Family Feud.

And now that I've offended believer and non-believer alike, I will be off to my next engagement! *whoosh!*

Makurosu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's admirable that Dawkins staged a
> protest against the figurehead of the negligent
> religion responsible for the many, many egregious
> cases of child sex abuse, and it's unfortunate
> that a nut shared the camera with him, but
> honestly I don't really care that much.
>
> My lack of belief is pretty simple. I.. uh..
> don't believe in God. It doesn't get much simpler
> than that, and what Dawkins or Tatchell or whoever
> does or doesn't do in another country has no
> bearing on that. It's not the same as when the
> Catholic church brings shame upon its believers by
> allowing through negligence the sexual abuse of
> innocent children. There is no leader of atheism
> and there are no followers or even believers,
> because it's a non-organization and a non-faith.
> At least that's how it is for me. I don't believe
> in an afterlife, and I think there is a
> naturalistic explanation for everything in the
> Universe. Well, except for Raymond.
>
> I'm completely neutral on the subject of Richard
> Dawkins. In fact, the first time I heard of him,
> I thought he was the host of Family Feud.
>
> And now that I've offended believer and
> non-believer alike, I will be off to my next
> engagement! *whoosh!*


For God's sake man! Don't forget to take the beer with you!! :oD