Originally published October 7 2014
Richard Dawkins' date rape is better than stranger rape comment draws criticism from women
by PF Louis
(NaturalNews) Richard Dawkins tweeted this statement and others that were potentially shared by his 17,900 followers: "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 had previously tweeted, "Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and learn how to think." So what qualifies Richard Dawkins to tell others how to think?
He is the atheist author of The God Delusion and a staunch evolutionary biologist. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, which means he's retired from teaching but remains involved with Oxford with his titles intact. He had been the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science for over a decade until 2008.
So he has his books and his titles and his position as a spokesperson representing academia in Great Britain, which makes him quotable in the UK media.
The U.S. counterpart is vaccine inventor and highly ranked pediatrician Paul Offit, who draws American media to quote his comments on how infants can easily tolerate 10,000 (amended to 1,000) vaccinations, while claiming that supplements are quackery.
Dawkins defended his statements, which do have some common sense compared to "burns are bad but 3rd degree burns are worse." But he later shot back, mocking those who criticized him for lacking compassion by tweeting, "'Stealing £1 is bad. Stealing an old lady's life savings is worse.' How DARE you rank them? Stealing is stealing. You're vile, appalling."
He also commented on how Twitter folks are absolutists and offered that he was merely giving examples of syllogisms. Well, that makes no sense Dawkins, absolutist atheist/Darwinian academic guy.
Dawkins' statements are not technically examples of synergistic reasoning or logic
One person accurately commented on the UK Independent:
Those aren't syllogisms... Once again, Dawkins convinces many, many people that he actually knows what he's talking about, and that he's a logical human being, instead of a heavily biased individual who throws rhetoric in your face and calls it science and logic [like Offit]. Those aren't syllogisms, and this isn't logic. Go away and learn how to think, Dawkins.
Okay then, what is a syllogism? It's a form of deductive reasoning that demands a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. And the conclusion makes sense only if both the major and minor premises are valid and true.
Here's an example: Major premise: ABC bookstore sells only used books; Minor premise: These books were purchased at ABC bookstore; Conclusion: These books are not new.
Did you notice any major and minor statements leading to conclusions on Dawkins' tweets? Not even close.
Well, maybe Dawkins meant that his tweets were enthymemes, or truncated syllogisms with an implied premise. These are often used in politics and advertising. In other words, they are slick ways to lie. The person or public has to insert the minor or major premise to create what is commonly a leap in logic.
An enthymeme example: Paul Offit asserts that an infant can tolerate 10,000 vaccinations. Even if regarded as hyperbole, it's from a vaccine expert. So the public assumes that, if they're safe and meant to confer immunity, then they're good and necessary for children's health.
But Dawkins' tweets don't even imply any other premise to lead to any conclusion. His tweets were simply comparative statements, somewhat like "2nd degree burns are bad, but 3rd degree burns are worse."
It's amazing how some highly credentialed "authorities" are so "newsworthy" and quotable for spouting anything. What's worse is that they often taken seriously.
Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://grammar.about.com
http://grammar.about.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml