IMO, you might be missing the real value in Dawkins’ logical puzzle here: There is something to be said about the assumptions that people make when reacting to discussions about taboo subjects. Think of how difficult it is to have discussions about sensitive subjects. There’s a lot of walking-on-eggshells, and rhetorical sandbagging that has to go on because, especially on the internet, people will take offense and make assumptions about you simply for saying anything about the topic to begin with. People will hear an argument, and make an assumption about “what he’s really saying” and respond to that straw man instead. Topics of conversation get derailed, and suddenly no one is getting anything out of the experience. We can all probably cite numerous examples from personal experience*: Shoot, just look to a political thread on your discussion forum of choice and you’re likely to see all sorts of “well you must be a liberal union thug/bigoted republican/whatever” non-sequiturs from people responding to arguments that others haven’t really made. The idea that someone can say “Y is worse than X”, and get met with a “why do you like X?” response is right in line with that brand of (lack of) logic. To me, it makes it more difficult to talk about problems than they need to be. Just look at this story here, and all the wild tangents the comments section has taken from people that are offended by ideas that Dawkins never even mentions. (I’m sorry but since no-one is advocating “to limit resources for rape victims to those who ‘really’ need it”, I’m afraid even elements of your otherwise excellent statement fit the bill here) By making it harder to talk about difficult things (like rape, Israelis and Palestinians, Justin Bieber, etc.), it makes it more difficult for us to ever get something out having those conversations. It makes it that much harder to (for example) have a conversation about how locker room culture feeds the “rape culture” of many of our nation’s athletically inclined young men, when you know that the discussion is going to take strange detours because some people are offended that we’re neglecting to mention prison rape or backwoods incestuous rape. And when the conversation is difficult to have, how are we ever supposed to learn from it? * A few of my recent examples: 1- I’m fairly moderate politically (more liberal than anything, really), but in recent weeks I’ve made comments about (a) Bill Clinton probably should’ve come out stronger in some of the humanitarian crises that hit Africa during his presidency and (b) sometimes unions can overdo it and when that happens it can be a real pain to work in a company that has one. In both cases, I got reactions that made me out to be the third Koch brother. 2- A month or two ago, when the Donald Sterling scandal broke out and the NBA had just announced that they would force him to sell his team, I had a debate with a guy at a sports bar about the legality of the NBA kicking him out of the league and forcing him to sell his team. The other guy had started it with an idiotic “it’s a free country/free speech” comment, and I was rebutting that the NBA has every right to deal with people that give them bad publicity (like if you were a car salesman who got fired for telling customers that your cars suck). His reaction? Somehow he got to ranting about Jesse Jackson, hypocrisy and the idea that you need to have a history of being reliable before people should “have” to listen to your opinions (kind of an ironic topic for this guy to land on, really).