Home » Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design » More ice, please: Darwin’s arch-atheist Dawkins earns intelligent design community’s sympathy

More ice, please: Darwin’s arch-atheist Dawkins earns intelligent design community’s sympathy

Bio_Symposium_033.jpg

credit Laszlo Bencze

The day had to come. The day that the political correctness mob, feminist division, turned on Dawkins and his atheists. Apparently, in a response to a complaint about sexual harassment, Dawkins had said,

The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that….Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Bet Dawkins doesn’t know what hit him. He failed to buy into the “I feel like a victim, therefore my accusations are just” line that governs modern, materialist culture. And that’s just unforgivable.  :oops:

In “Atheists, your moral and intellectual superiors” (July 7, 2011), Canada’s Five Feet of Fury opines

Just to be clear: Individuals whose obvious pride in their own super rational mega-intelligence is one of their most common (and unattractive) characteristics are now arguing vehemently online about…

The semantics of a really bad pick up line and/or an innocent if clumsy invitation to talk — and What It All Meanstm.

What I hope it all means, FFF, is that most communities are running out of patience with freelance “victims.” The atheists are one of the few remaining ripe targets. That is, many attendees at an atheist meet could still be vulnerable to the emotional, social (and often legal) scam. Whereas countless communities that have been through the Shakedown already from “human rights commissions,” powered by the Tyranny of Nice, will sympathize with Dawkins, and will take a distinctly bored view of the complaint, given the actual circumstances.

Any attractive young single woman will find herself the recipient of many invitations, of all types, from men (available, semi-available, not really available, undisclosed availability, on day pass from psych ward, on day pass from jail, on day pass from… ? ).

Yes, of course! They’re all spreading Dawkins’ famous “selfish genes,” right?

Naw. Any middle-aged woman who rides the bus to her well-paying job is of similar special interest to new car dealers, honest or otherwise.

God? Evolution? Whatever. As long as you don’t believe in “human rights” commissions on hurt feelings, believe what you want.

O’Leary, J: Clerk, I direct you to drop the charges against Dawkins. And like I said, more ice, please! This water is disgustingly lukewarm. The service nowadays, honestly …

Note: If any feminist shock troops want to go after Uncommon Descent, they must deal with O’Leary. No exceptions.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to More ice, please: Darwin’s arch-atheist Dawkins earns intelligent design community’s sympathy

  1. Ms. O’Leary, you may get a kick out of this:

    Global Warming and Dinosaurs (AllPainNoGain.org) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcNw5p1OlPU

  2. “Just words”? Does Dawkins truly think that words are less painful than slaps? Sexual harrassment and verbal abuse aren’t laughing matters.

  3. When I realized that God really did speak reality into existence, I became much more concerned with the truthfulness and impact my words had on others. Indeed God considers our words of monumental importance;

    Matthew 12:36
    But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

    And indeed, though I surely don’t think it is ‘The Judgement’ spoken of in scripture, the ‘Life Review’ testified to in Near Death Experiences surely gives weight to the fact that ‘every careless word’ will be looked at in the presence of God:

    Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    The following video and article are very suggestive as to providing almost tangible proof for God ‘speaking’ reality into existence:

    The Deep Connection Between Sound & Reality – Evan Grant – Allosphere – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4672092

    Music of the sun recorded by scientists – June 2010
    Excerpt: The sun has been the inspiration for hundreds of songs, but now scientists have discovered that the star at the centre of our solar system produces its own music.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci.....tists.html

  4. Barb,
    There was no “sexual harassment” or “verbal abuse” … but the word of the foolish and wicked woman who kicked off this brouha, there was no such.

    Hint: you response is *exactly* thet sort of thing Mrs O’Leary is criticizing.

  5. [that was supposed to be "... [by] the word …”]

  6. A young woman suggested on her blog that being hit on by a stranger in a hotel elevator at 4 am made her uncomfortable and advised guys not to do this if they find themselves in a similar situation.

    Dawkins felt that her use of the word “creepy” was excessive, but responded in a way that suggested their was no merit at all to her post. This was insensitive of him because many woman in such situations would be uncomfortable due to the threat of sexual assault (even if in the majority of cases the men involved have no such intentions).

    No one is suggesting that any legal action be taking, this is a debate about how people should behave if they want to be respectful and considerate, and Dawkins is probably wrong.

    This of course has almost nothing to do with religion or intelligent design. But from my standpoint, Denyse’s post is somewhat remarkable in continuing her streak of being on the wrong side of every contentious issue.

  7. When a woman accuses a man of being “creepy,” she almost always means something like “How dare some mere man to whom I am not irresistably sexually attracted speak to me, much less acpress interest in me.

    If another man, every bit as much a stranger, whom she had immediately fi\ound sexually attractive, had said exactly the same thing to her, in exactly the same manner and situation, we’d not be hearing or talking about it.

  8. Thanks to thoughtful commenters. I live in a country where “nothing” situations like this HAVE become court cases and ruined people’s lives, under new “human rights” commissions/tribunals that are not required to abide by our regular laws.

    They inevitably become the enforcement arm for social thugs* with hurt feelings. And once entrenched, they are very difficult to get rid of. I recommended some books above; you might also try Mark Steyn’s “Lights Out on Liberty,” if interested.

    You should be interested if the jurisdiction in which you live is considering such a system. Every one of the authors of these books was attacked in our “near-utopia” which gives random power to hurt feelings.

    * A social thug can be male or female; their basic premise is: I feel bad, you pay. And new laws enable me to make that happen to you big time.

    I for one am glad that Dawkins took a stand during the initial phase, which is, “Omigosh, political correctness has been offended. A self-identified victim feels hurt. Who must we burn at the stake to cleanse our community?”

    Pressure for laws comes later.

    Ilion at 7 is exactly right. Nothing happened except that the guy made a bad call. Honest men will admit that it happens a lot …

    If that had been an ID conference, I wouldn’t want to even think what the publicity would be. ID sympathizers are doing themselves a favour backing Dawkins on this one.

  9. ID sympathizers are doing themselves a favour backing Dawkins on this one.

    In this case, Dawkins is correct. It would be intellectually dishonest, and morally unjust — to say nothing of short-sighted with respect to the social and legal implications — to join the pile-on just because it’s Dawkins.

Leave a Reply