You know, for people who, generally, claim to be rational, atheists can be a ridiculously irrational lot. A lot of that I blame on the liberal mindset, liberals really aren’t good at setting aside their emotions and just dealing with the facts as they are presented, but when it comes to some of the typical liberal bugaboos, there’s just no dealing with them intellectually.
Case in point, recently Richard Dawkins tweeted about rape, trying to differentiate between two bad situations and pointing out that one was worse than the other. He specifically said that pointing out that one was a worse situation than the other in no way was an endorsement of the lesser bad situation. Of course, the emotional liberal atheist crowd went apeshit and started saying Richard Dawkins was a rape apologist.
You people are fucking idiots.
What he said was 100% correct and logical, yet because it mentioned rape, people who pretend to understand logic turned off their brains and started ranting online. He even went back and presented a generic example of the argument to show people their logical failings. They still didn’t get it. I’m not surprised.
Of course, Dawkins knows this, it was an example of what he says in a new article called “Are there emotional no-go areas where logic dare not show its face?” Indeed, there are such things and this is proof. It’s a hot button issue that liberals are not able to think intelligently about. I understand what he was saying because hearing the word “rape” doesn’t switch off my higher brain functions like it does with liberals.
So let’s look at another example, using the same format. “Getting shot in the head at point blank range by a murderer is bad. Getting tortured to death by having parts of your body cut off slowly with a dull, rusty knife is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement for getting shot in the head at point blank range by a murderer, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.” Is there anyone out there… ANYONE… who wouldn’t agree with this statement? At all? Anyone who thinks that the first option is qualitatively equivalent to the second? Is anyone that stupid? And does anyone think that by pointing out this blatant and clear fact, that I’m somehow advocating the first option?
Why is this? Due to the prevalence of extremist feminist bullshit in atheism, rape is seen as the worst crime imaginable. It’s worse than murder, worse than torture, worse than anything imaginable and to even dare suggest that any instance of rape is less horrible than the Holocaust is going to get you attacked by these crusading hyper-feminist fucktards. There simply are no intelligent or moderate voices among the liberal atheists when it comes to this crime, none at all.
I’m sorry though, but when given a choice between being raped and being slowly dismembered by a chainsaw, I’m going to say the second is worse. That’s just my opinion, of course, others are welcome to disagree and I’m not saying that either of them are good options, just that one is qualitatively worse than the other. No one should ever be raped, just like no one should ever be slowly dismembered by a chainsaw, but given a choice, I pick the first over the second if I absolutely had no choice but to have one done to me. If you can’t think about that rationally, if you can’t step back and evaluate ideas dispassionately and intellectually, then there is something seriously wrong with you.