[Kizzy]

Logically I think his theory only makes sense if you take the victim out of the equation and are left with the rapist and the question of intent.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Logically I think his theory only makes sense if you take the victim out of the equation and are left with the rapist and the question of intent.

well said Kizzy. What does it say about him that he only sees the crime and not the victim? That he can see the impact of a crime only as the act itself, and not the impact on the victim. He doesn't seem to have any concept of people as individuals, or that you can commit the same exact crime on 50 different people and it will have 50 different impacts, because only Richard Dawkins exists in Richard Dawkins head. He's a prick.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well said Kizzy. What does it say about him that he only sees the crime and not the victim? That he can see the impact of a crime only as the act itself, and not the impact on the victim. He doesn't seem to have any concept of people as individuals, or that you can commit the same exact crime on 50 different people and it will have 50 different impacts, because only Richard Dawkins exists in Richard Dawkins head. He's a prick.

To be fair to him lots of people do that, criminologists do this as do those who work in law I suppose.