I'm talking about ANY injustice. Dawkins' argument focused on the idea that whatever you are complaining about, you shouldn't because others have it worse. This argument doesn't hold up well when you think of all the things you could justify/ignore using it.
Then he clarified it and said that no, in fact he didn't believe there was ANY injustice on RW's part and as such, unless you think his clarification was dishonest, you're wrong.
Furthermore, before accusing one of Tu Quoque you have to consider the context. He was addressing a feminist activist, and through a reductio ad absurdum argument, basically said "don't we have bigger battles to fight than this?" That's no more tu quoque than my boss criticising me for working on software project A because we have more pressing concerns on software project B.
The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is that they are not literal by nature and it if you're not careful you can leave yourself open to interpretation... and of course your deterants will always assume the worst possible interpretation.
The guy in question asked the girl back to his room to hear more of her drivel. You can argue that's harmless, but it's pretty obvious that wasn't what he had in mind.
Why? What information do you have the the rest of us don't have that would lead you to that conclusion? Just a suggestion, but if you find it so hard to believe that a man could respect a woman to such a degree that he would want to hear her thoughts over coffee, maybe you should reconsider your view of a woman's place in the world?
And even if it was, it isn't an appropriate place to invite a colleague or peer to hold an intellectual discussion. Again think of the context. If I asked you to list 3 things people commonly do in a hotel room, sex would more than likely make the list. There is a very definite sexual connotation in inviting a woman to your room.
Yes, and being aware of this connotation he went out of his way to try to get her to not "take this the wrong way".
Had he genuinely wanted to continue listening to her ideas, he could have suggested doing so at a different time in a more appropriate location. If I attend a conference I would never invite a colleague to my room alone, even if we represent the same institution and knew each other.It's just obviously inappropriate.
I guess he's the first person to ever act without first identifying the best possible course of action? You arrange the angry mob and I'll organise the fire torches!
As for her profession, it doesn't matter what she does for a living, at a conference academics, professionals and anyone affected by the issue has a right to be heard and treated with respect. It is only appropriate to conduct yourself in a professional manner.
This wasn't a work event and unless elevator guy was on one of the panels or officially involved at the event, he wasn't her peer. And besides, RW has specifically stated that she met a number of her previous boyfriends at events like this one. So she certainly doesn't see it the way you do. Though she does contradict herself a lot.