ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st September 2014, 01:48 AM   #761
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Read on, Grasshopper because you obviously missed this exchange:





It really is tiring having to lead you through everything that has already been posted. A little diligence on your part to keep up, and keep the conversation organized n your mind, would really go a long way to moving the discussion along. Just sayin'.
No, that still doesn't actually answer the question I've asked you.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 01:50 AM   #762
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I see you ascribe to the theory that 'after 5 years RemieV suddenly approached Poppy who was surprised and gladdened as she was just polishing up her August Offensive posts for PZ on assault and misogyny in SkepticLand'.

Ok. I beg to differ. But even if this lightning struck, it's still clear RemieV has entrusted her story and made report to a motley crew indeed. So you will have to pardon my skepticism that she is too scared / embarrassed / whatever to go to the police.
That's quite a long-winded way of saying "yes, Squeegee, I did post an assumption of mine as if it were an established fact."
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:01 AM   #763
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,561
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Okay



So I looked it up, and the legal dictionary agrees with my definition of rape, not yours. What now?
Did you miss the bit where RemieV retracted the "rape" allegation?

Or am I confused? Did she or didn't she retract the rape allegation?
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:07 AM   #764
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's quite a long-winded way of saying "yes, Squeegee, I did post an assumption of mine as if it were an established fact."
I find your assumption Poppy didn't approach her as unsupportable as you find my considered theory to be.

I guess all we can say is she was involved and stand mute in the face of common sense.

Luckily (as I pointed out) it makes no difference to the point being made.

Last edited by Brive1987; 21st September 2014 at 02:16 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:24 AM   #765
colander
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Did you miss the bit where RemieV retracted the "rape" allegation?

Or am I confused? Did she or didn't she retract the rape allegation?
She did not.
colander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:29 AM   #766
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Did you miss the bit where RemieV retracted the "rape" allegation?

Or am I confused? Did she or didn't she retract the rape allegation?

She said she wished she hadn't used the word but it was still rape.

From Buzzfeed:

Quote:
If she had to do it over again, Smith said, she would not use the word “rape” because “that seems to get people’s backs up immediately. If people prefer to use the term ‘creep,’ that’s fine.

It seems rather fluid ... creep, rapist.

Though upthread she confirmed she stood by the 'sexual incident' (as she also prefers to call it in Buzzfeed) as being in fact a rape.

On second reading of her latest comments (below), she seems a touch PA. she complains that people actually took the rape allegation seriously and dissected it. OMG. Obviously not to determine its legitimacy but to "find a loophole". Goes to my argument that serious charges require a serious venue for airing.

It's probably worth reintroducing her upthread comments. They lay out the so far elusive witnesses required to give corroboration, clarify confusion over how she views this incident plus her reaction to how the un-evidenced criminal rape accusations were received.


Quote:
I cannot believe I'm going to comment in this thread, but hey, it's questions of fact, so how bad could it be.

1. No, it was not reasonable to be lost. I organized TAM, for god's sake, and had been on-site doing that and renting a condo there for three months. This is the TAM I was most involved in. I had my hands in everything about that one.

2. Why yes, there are witnesses. Plenty of them. For whatever reason, they were not used in the article (though they were offered).

3. One of these witnesses is the same one I called right after leaving the party (alone!). This person both heard Shermer catch up to me, and spoke to me immediately after I had left his room to go find me since I didn't know where I was, and the span of time is two hours, not several.

4. Another witness is one who was at the party and saw me and I was so drunk I was babbling to myself.

5. After I got back to my room, I only stayed there half an hour and then insisted I had to return to the condo as I couldn't stand being in the same hotel as Shermer. At that point, I remained so drunk that I had to be removed from the hotel in a wheelchair.

Is that clear enough now?

Also, I never, ever said that I was confused about what to call this. I'm not. What I said was that I wish I hadn't referred to it as rape in the original article because it "gets people's backs up immediately". As in - maybe if I had said here is what happened, make your own determination on what to call it people wouldn't have dissected every single thing trying to find some kind of loophole.

Glad to help. I'll be back over here, ignoring this again.

Last edited by Brive1987; 21st September 2014 at 02:54 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:30 AM   #767
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The victim must be pristine, pure as the driven snow and never known to make a foolish move.

Then there must be witnesses, a police report, a medical exam and finally a willingness to go over all the gory details with whatever voyeur wants a piece.
Imagine a break and enter into your home and the police attempt to dust for prints when you loudly declare that checking for evidence is a part of burglary culture and that the police and courts should simply believe your claim.

Gathering evidence to present for a criminal trial is prudent and to characterise it as voyeurism is baffling.

Quote:
And rock solid, iron bound proof she did not in any shape or any way lead the man to think she consented.
Well if she gave the appearance of having consented in a situation where consent is the issue then there is no case. Outwardly consenting but not really meaning it (in the absence of coercion) means that one cannot reasonably claim that consent was not given.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You're not explaining why you've made the robber drunk if not to bring in the classic 'she was drunk so she's responsible for the sex' argument. Now you're confirming that it's exactly the reasoning you're using by talking about her choice of getting drunk. If you wanted a more analogous situation, the shopper keeper would be the drunk one. It would probably go like this: A tipsy or drunk guy walks into a liquor store with the clerk nearly passed out at the counter and the guy takes a few bottles, asking if he can have them free. The clerk doesn't answer because she cannot, so the guy takes the booze. That's robbery shoplifting right? But, but, the clerk was drunk, and chose to get drunk! Irrelevant.
Imagine if the clerk was drunk but not passed out, imagine that the clerk was instead happy drunk and being generous in a way that was out of character. He gives a few bottles away to the tipsy guy because his judgment is impaired. Is the tipsy customer guilty of stealing?

If the clerk was unconscious then yes it would be stealing. If he was conscious but had his judgment impaired by alcohol to the degree that he gave away his wares then no reasonable person would call this theft.

Quote:
Even if someone chooses to get drunk, that doesn't mean they also chose to have sex.
But drunk people do choose to have sex. Are we now to assume that the question is one of the level of impairment?

Quote:
No one is treating her like a child. That doesn't even follow. It's simply not a requirement for this argument that someone else got her drunk or not for the incident under discussion to be rape.
The description of events insinuates that Shermer was hiding his drinks and ordering other glasses to be filled. This was a part of the narrative and was suggestive of somebody wishing to get his alleged victim drunk so he could have his wicked way with her. This became a non-factor after it was shown that he was not in fact in charge of ordering drinks and that everybody was having their glass filled.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:44 AM   #768
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,561
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
She said she wished she hadn't used the word but it was still rape.

From Buzzfeed:




It seems rather fluid ... creep, rapist, whatever.

Though upthread she confirmed she stood by the 'sexual incident' (as she also prefers to call it in Buzzfeed) as being in fact, you know, rape.

On second reading she seems a touch PA complaining that people actually took the rape allegation seriously and dissected it. Obviously not to determine its legitimacy but to "find a loophole". Goes to my argument that serious charges require a serious venue for airing.

It's probably worth reintroducing her upthread comments as they lay out the so far elusive witnesses required to give corroboration as well as clarify the confusion over how she views this incident:
Cheers. Clear as mud!
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:48 AM   #769
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Did you miss the bit where RemieV retracted the "rape" allegation?
Evidently. If you could quote it, that'd be gravy.

Quote:
Or am I confused?
This seems more credible.

Quote:
Did she or didn't she retract the rape allegation?
Not as far as I'm aware. All she's done is add more details to the allegation and say that she regrets using the word "rape", while still maintaining that that's what happened.

But, even if she had, she is not the arbiter of the definition of the word "rape". There are legal systems and any number of organisations which do that, and they all concur that having sex with somebody without that person's consent is rape. So the only thing that Remie not defining rape in that way would change would be that instead of you being wrong about what is or is not rape, both you and Remie would be wrong about what is or is not rape.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:53 AM   #770
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I find your assumption Poppy didn't approach her as unsupportable as you find my considered theory to be.
What assumption is that? Please quote the post in which I voiced such an assumption.

Quote:
I guess all we can say is she was involved and stand mute in the face of common sense.
Or we could avoid presenting assumptions as if they were facts and instead present assumptions as if they were assumptions and reserve facts for being presented as if they were facts. That's the only way I know of to discuss things honestly. Similarly, treating assumptions as if they were assumptions and reserving facts for being treated as if they were facts I find to be a good way to avoid fallacious reasoning.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:55 AM   #771
colander
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Imagine a break and enter into your home and the police attempt to dust for prints when you loudly declare that checking for evidence is a part of burglary culture and that the police and courts should simply believe your claim.

Gathering evidence to present for a criminal trial is prudent and to characterise it as voyeurism is baffling.
But nobody is asking the police or courts to do anything here and nobody is gathering evidence to present at a criminal trial. The claimant here has nothing to gain by submitting to your questioning.



Quote:
Well if she gave the appearance of having consented in a situation where consent is the issue then there is no case.
So what? The majority of rapes reported to the police don't even make it to court. That doesn't mean they weren't rapes. It just means the authorities didn't think there was enough evidence to convict on. You may not be convinced by any given public claim, but so what? If the claimant's intention is merely to warn people who may be at risk, they have no reason to care whether you believe it.





Quote:
But drunk people do choose to have sex. Are we now to assume that the question is one of the level of impairment?
Of course the level of impairment is a relevant question.

Last edited by colander; 21st September 2014 at 03:05 AM.
colander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 03:20 AM   #772
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
What assumption is that? Please quote the post in which I voiced such an assumption.

Or we could avoid presenting assumptions as if they were facts and instead present assumptions as if they were assumptions and reserve facts for being presented as if they were facts. That's the only way I know of to discuss things honestly. Similarly, treating assumptions as if they were assumptions and reserving facts for being treated as if they were facts I find to be a good way to avoid fallacious reasoning.
You are the place similes go to die.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 03:40 AM   #773
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Not my job to answer that.

You cut off the rest of my post.

"Rape" involves the use of force. Look it up.

RemieV isn't saying Shermer forced her to have sex.
Incorrect.
wikipedia
Quote:
The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 03:47 AM   #774
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
You are the place similes go to die.
In other words, you can't quote where I've voiced such an assumption because I didn't and, rather than admitting that in words like an adult, you've decided to try to make it seem as if your failure is somehow my fault.

I'll never understand some people's aversion to simply saying "I was wrong".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 03:50 AM   #775
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
But drunk people do choose to have sex. Are we now to assume that the question is one of the level of impairment?
Indubitably that is the question.

That's been the only question that matters ever since we learned beyond doubt that they did have sex then and there. That's why the wheelchair detail (and associated witness) matters a great deal. Not only was she apparently that badly impaired, but there is someone who can testify to that fact.

Of course the bit about the wheelchair and the witness could still be a lie, but that seems pretty unlikely, since it's just begging to be verified at some point in the future.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 04:08 AM   #776
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Indubitably that is the question.

That's been the only question that matters ever since we learned beyond doubt that they did have sex then and there. That's why the wheelchair detail (and associated witness) matters a great deal. Not only was she apparently that badly impaired, but there is someone who can testify to that fact.

Of course the bit about the wheelchair and the witness could still be a lie, but that seems pretty unlikely, since it's just begging to be verified at some point in the future.
If it is verified she was in a wheelchair then the question will become why she was in a wheelchair, the Shermer apologists will just claim she used the wheelchair to bolster her claims and without a blood alcohol test no one can know and so it will go.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 05:02 AM   #777
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
In other words, you can't quote where I've voiced such an assumption because I didn't and, rather than admitting that in words like an adult, you've decided to try to make it seem as if your failure is somehow my fault.

I'll never understand some people's aversion to simply saying "I was wrong".
No, I am comfortable with my interpretation that the coordination was no fluke. To interpret grenade you will form some inductive concept of how Poppy came to email PZ. You appear not to accept my view which leaves you with Poppy being approached by Smith.

This was a minor part of my greater point. A point you have chosen to ignore in favour of a compulsive knit-pick over how Smith came to make yet another report to a party other than the police.

Your failure to see the wood for the twig is another character flaw you wish to obsessively and humourlessly ponder.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 05:19 AM   #778
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
If it is verified she was in a wheelchair then the question will become why she was in a wheelchair, the Shermer apologists will just claim she used the wheelchair to bolster her claims and without a blood alcohol test no one can know and so it will go.
Are you saying that providing more evidence is pointless because some people will require a lot of evidence?

Or are you saying providing evidence is pointless because some people will require ever more evidence to avoid being convinced?

Or are you saying this is a forum full of rape apologists where all discussion is pointless?

Or is there another option I've missed, because frankly I'm unsure.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 06:45 AM   #779
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,236
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
No, I am comfortable with my interpretation that the coordination was no fluke.
That is not the issue. The issue is in your presenting your interpretation as if it were a fact.

Quote:
You appear not to accept my view which leaves you with Poppy being approached by Smith.
Again, if you could quote the relevant post where this is established, that'd be cool.

If you want to know my opinion, ask me. Assuming things isn't always a reliable way of determining reality. Which is why it's a bad idea to treat your assumptions as if they were facts.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 07:33 AM   #780
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Indubitably that is the question.

That's been the only question that matters ever since we learned beyond doubt that they did have sex then and there. That's why the wheelchair detail (and associated witness) matters a great deal. Not only was she apparently that badly impaired, but there is someone who can testify to that fact.
Pretty much this. Of course, the anti-PZ partisans may well counter that the bearer of said wheelchair has been known to post at FtB.

*not factual, AFIAK
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 07:36 AM   #781
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
So Alison Smith has rushed a post over to PZ Myers to publish at Pharyngula.

The man and network currently under sustained criticism from every thinking atheist from Nugent, Coyne Dawkins down. The man accusing Nugent of being an official gate-keeper for Big Atheism. Someone clearly in the midst of a "turn".

Ground Hog Day.

And she's done it largely because she was nervous he might be doubting her.

Quote:
I thought it would be good to at least know in case you were having any concerns about the truth of what I’m claiming.

Any remaining consideration I may have had for her judgement or self awareness has vanished in a puff.

The next time she comments publicly on this subject it should be with the name and statement of her witnesses.

It is quite possible her story will pan out, that the witnesses are willing, that this has just been a poorly handled exercise. In that case, for all our sakes, sort it out. It they were willing to be quoted on Buzzfeed, wheel them out somewhere else and be done with it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...rs/#more-20714

Last edited by Brive1987; 21st September 2014 at 07:52 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 07:55 AM   #782
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Pretty much this. Of course, the anti-PZ partisans may well counter that the bearer of said wheelchair has been known to post at FtB.

*not factual, AFIAK
errr does that mean I have to hand in my anti-PZ partisan membership card now?

p.s. Colander already raised a pertinent question about the colour of the wheelchair upthread.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 08:06 AM   #783
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
So Alison Smith has rushed a post over to PZ Myers to publish at Pharyngula.

The man and network currently under sustained criticism from every thinking atheist from Nugent, Coyne Dawkins down. The man accusing Nugent of being an official gate-keeper for Big Atheism. Someone clearly in the midst of a "turn".

Ground Hog Day.

And she's done it largely because she was nervous he might be doubting her.
As some might be doubting her, as we have been doing here.

I can entirely understand why she might have chosen to do that. Having come out on this forum and revealed additional details, then seeing those discussed here and additional questions raised, it's understandable that she'd want that information also available at grenade ground zero.

I have little respect for PZ, but I can accept that not everyone sees him in the same light and he did champion her cause unquestioningly (which you or I have not).
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 08:10 AM   #784
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,970
Sorry I missed this one yesterday.

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
We're talking about underreporting of crimes. It seems as though you are using the fact that some crimes are underreported as one of the reasons you believe the worst of Shermer.
No, I am not. I was trying to provide you an answer to your question about why these accusations unfold the way they did. I had taken it as an honest question, and not an attempt to discredit the accusations en mass or count it as a red flag about the accusations.

Quote:
I am saying this is unfair. When it comes to a crime as incredibly serious as serial rape, both accuser and accused deserve to have their case considered on the merits. Not on some imagined phantom inference that BECAUSE rape is underreported, THIS PARTICULAR ACCUSATION may have validity.
That's not the argument. The argument is that the way these accusations unfolded is consistent with the crime in general and is not support for the idea that this particular accusation doesn't have merit. It's a counter.

Quote:
With my discussion of alcohol in relation to this case and others, I am voicing my frustration that people often remove responsibility from the accuser. NOT for the rape, but for the intoxication. As I said before, it's evil to have sex with someone who is passed out or incoherent or who clearly cannot consent to the act.
As I said repeatedly above, it's not necessary for my argument, nor for any of the arguments I've read here (although you could quote one I may have missed in the same way I missed this post) that responsibility for getting drunk be anywhere specific. If the accused drugged them somehow (including with alcohol concealed), then that's another way to facilitate rape, but not the one under discussion here.

And what responsibility would you put on the imparied person for their choice of getting drunk? As we're talking about rape and sexual assault, I really hope you're not saying that's one. You've said not, but what else? As we're talking about rape and sexual assault, what else could people possibly be 'treating them like children' about?

Quote:
I find it an unfair red herring to say that Shermer's accuser didn't know how much she was consensually drinking before, I believe, she led him into the bathroom. It's insulting to suggest that the accuser didn't know that alcohol intoxicates a person, reduces their inhibitions and the like.
Ummm, what?

Quote:
We have no physical evidence to suggest how drunk either party was that night. (Which is why I like when the police investigate! We get physical evidence!) The level of intoxication in this case is a classic he-said, she-said and I don't think it's fair to indict a man on long-delayed words channeled by PZ alone.
Legally indict? Nope. Morally? You betcha it is. If he said he was going to take her to her room and he takes her to his, that's enough to call him a sleazy scumbag. And we have accounts, which is more than he said she said because there are other people and what he said doesn't add up, and again, is enough for me to met out my social punishment of speaking out against him, and venues that host him.

Your standards may vary.


Quote:
I never said this and I don't believe it to be true.
See above. What are you talking about? The getting drunk itself? Fine. How does that relate to the topic? More importantly, how does that relate to your question about what makes these things tend to come out the way they do?

Quote:
This is an unfair assertion. I bring up the drinking because that is the crux of the argument in this particular case and in the MO created by PZ's accusations.




I already said I agreed.
The aspect you focus on isn't, and only is if what you say your aren't saying is what your are saying. Drinking is not the crux of the argument. Taking advantage of someone who is in no condition to consent is. Again, how does this relate if not for the exact reason you say you're not arguing?


Quote:
I suppose that our impassable disagreement is this: I do not feel that the evidence in this case is strong enough to indict Shermer. Am I fully open to the possibility that he's a terrible monster? Sure. Will I accept evidence to that effect? Of course.
So you really have abandoned your concern/curiosity for the question I was trying to answer for you?



Quote:
Again, this is whispered innuendo in passive language, all of which is channeled through people who have, for the past several years, demonstrated that they don't have a tenable grasp on reality.

Having different conclusions based on different evidence is innuendo and passive? No. You don't get to poison the well. I don't care who reported it first, I care what evidence there is for it. The ultimate sources are different people in different situations. That you have criticisms of PZ et all (and again, so do I!) is meaningless. The allegations against Shermer and against Radford are different cases and it's wrong to lump them together as you are doing. Yes, not in every way, but in the 'that group is crazy' way. That's unfair, and definitely not critical thinking.




Quote:
As should be clear, I have near-infinite sympathy for victims of rape and near-infinite contempt for those who commit such heinous crimes. However, police need to handle these matters. Real investigators. That's just the way it is. The law and society are contrived in such a manner to protect the accuser and to shame the accused (something that can't be taken back after exoneration!). Justice is simply something that we must work for.

I'm a large proponent for justice and a well functioning justice system. I personal think it's massively important. Justice in general is an important concept for me. It's the reason for my screen-name. But justice isn't limited to courts and laws, and it never has been. While I have large concerns about the damage of false accusations, I also recognize how massively difficult it is to come forward at all, let alone to try to go through the justice system. Ultimately I can't blame people who decide not to one bit, regardless of what I think should happen for bet long term and society wide outcomes. The hurdles for social recourse are lower because the punishment is massively lower, as well they should be.

It's nowhere near as simple as 'let the courts handle it'. Let the courts handle the law, and let society have other limited forms of recourse. The most important and the least that can happen, I'll say the most basic level of justice, is to get the warning out, get the story out, and let people decide. You decide differently than me? Fine.

I so far still decide that Shermer is a scumbag who has no place at events I'd want to attend.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 08:27 AM   #785
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,970
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Imagine if the clerk was drunk but not passed out, imagine that the clerk was instead happy drunk and being generous in a way that was out of character. He gives a few bottles away to the tipsy guy because his judgment is impaired. Is the tipsy customer guilty of stealing?
Nope, but this again moves away from accounts and becomes less direct an analogy. Also, I'd say it's pretty stupid to take things given to you by obviously drunk people. Unless it's the keys to their vehicle so they don't drive that is.

Quote:
If the clerk was unconscious then yes it would be stealing. If he was conscious but had his judgment impaired by alcohol to the degree that he gave away his wares then no reasonable person would call this theft.
No. The clerk would not have to be unconscious, simply incapable of consenting to the taking of the booze. Even stone cold sober, stealing does not become not stealing just because the clerk didn't try to stop you.



Quote:
But drunk people do choose to have sex. Are we now to assume that the question is one of the level of impairment?
My point was there that we can't assume that because someone was drunk they consented to sex, that that drunk people don't ever consent to sex.

And yes, level of impairment is a question. If a person is so impaired they cannot clearly articulate consent (keep in mind that 'articulate' doesn't have to mean 'say out loud'), then they cannot be said to have consented. Accounts of the level of impairment greatly raise the likelihood of this having been the case.


Quote:
The description of events insinuates that Shermer was hiding his drinks and ordering other glasses to be filled. This was a part of the narrative and was suggestive of somebody wishing to get his alleged victim drunk so he could have his wicked way with her. This became a non-factor after it was shown that he was not in fact in charge of ordering drinks and that everybody was having their glass filled.
While that would be an interesting fact if true, that's not related to my condemnation of his actions and certainly isn't necessary for the later event being rape and/or sexual assault. It wasn't needed to prove rape, but it would have spoken to warning of his characterization of someone looking to get people drunk and warning people this is what he does.

That's obviously not the only explanation for that specific action. As someone who doesn't drink alcohol at all in public (only with my most trusted friends and family in private), I can see how one could let others drink as much as they wanted. However, ordering for others and assuming they'll say no if they don't want one is what I'd call a bad assumption, but not necessarily malicious.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 08:37 AM   #786
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That's obviously not the only explanation for that specific action. As someone who doesn't drink alcohol at all in public (only with my most trusted friends and family in private), I can see how one could let others drink as much as they wanted. However, ordering for others and assuming they'll say no if they don't want one is what I'd call a bad assumption, but not necessarily malicious.
Very much dependent on prevailing cultural norms. Even in my small country I know some areas in which always refilling as a courtesy is the norm. In other areas it would be considered presumptuous.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:00 AM   #787
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,970
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Very much dependent on prevailing cultural norms. Even in my small country I know some areas in which always refilling as a courtesy is the norm. In other areas it would be considered presumptuous.
I actually had the problems this pattern causes in Japan in mind when I wrote that. There it is culturally accepted that one should pour for other people, and it's rude not to keep the glasses full. It's also, like it so often is here as well, considered rude to not drink, or refuse gifts. This leads to people, especially those of lower status than the one pouring, getting far more drunk than they wanted to. Similar social pressures exist in the US, where the pressure is to drink, and status does still play into that because, well, that's human psychology.

Being a norm doesn't mean it's not a problem, and for the exact reason I said. The assumption that they'll refuse if they don't want it is a faulty one. One should at least be aware of this and build 'outs' into the offer, and of course make sure it's always framed as an offer!
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:23 AM   #788
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,420
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
The description of events insinuates that Shermer was hiding his drinks and ordering other glasses to be filled. This was a part of the narrative and was suggestive of somebody wishing to get his alleged victim drunk so he could have his wicked way with her. This became a non-factor after it was shown that he was not in fact in charge of ordering drinks and that everybody was having their glass filled.
I thought this too but then realized I was conflating two events. The first event was where a woman claimed he poured her wine until she was too drunk to resist. A witness came forward and stated that Shermer did not pour any wine, and only on one occasion did he suggest the waiter refill the glasses.

In the Smith incident he wasn't pouring alcohol, either. It was being poured for him. He declined the drinks but people kept bringing them so he hid them under the chair he was sitting on and switched to water, only pretending to drink.

That is not unusual behaviour and I have used it myself in order to remain sober because I had to get up early in the morning. Remember, he was a speaker at this conference and a fairly prominent person so getting drunk was not a good idea. It is also not a good idea to refuse drinks from drunk people because it requires long explanations and arguments as to why you aren't, but should be, drinking with them. Been there, it's quite boring.

Smith caught him not drinking and called him out on it. He got teased by others in the room but there is no information as to whether he resume drinking to quiet them or just took the teasing and stopped even trying to hide the fact he wasn't drinking.

Like I have said repeatedly, there is no evidence that Shermer did anything untoward prior to leaving the party so discussion of party events is pretty much a waste of time.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 21st September 2014 at 09:28 AM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:28 AM   #789
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,420
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I actually had the problems this pattern causes in Japan in mind when I wrote that. There it is culturally accepted that one should pour for other people, and it's rude not to keep the glasses full. It's also, like it so often is here as well, considered rude to not drink, or refuse gifts. This leads to people, especially those of lower status than the one pouring, getting far more drunk than they wanted to. Similar social pressures exist in the US, where the pressure is to drink, and status does still play into that because, well, that's human psychology.

Being a norm doesn't mean it's not a problem, and for the exact reason I said. The assumption that they'll refuse if they don't want it is a faulty one. One should at least be aware of this and build 'outs' into the offer, and of course make sure it's always framed as an offer!
There is another norm in Japan and that is that what a person does when drunk will not be held against them. . . or at least there used to be. Weekly drinking sessions were deemed a necessary way for people to blow off steam and cope with the pressures of daily life. Even telling one's boss exactly what one thought of them would not get you fired. (Still probably wasn't a good idea though!)
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:31 AM   #790
colander
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Are you saying that providing more evidence is pointless because some people will require a lot of evidence?

Or are you saying providing evidence is pointless because some people will require ever more evidence to avoid being convinced?
As far as providing additional evidence goes, it's pretty clear we've passed the point of diminishing returns. Right now, most of the people asking for more evidence from Smith in this thread seem to care a lot less about determining the truth than they do about punishing her for giving "political ammunition" to entities they consider to be their deadly enemies in some kind of super serious and gravely important blog war.

Last edited by colander; 21st September 2014 at 09:39 AM.
colander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:32 AM   #791
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,420
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Very much dependent on prevailing cultural norms. Even in my small country I know some areas in which always refilling as a courtesy is the norm. In other areas it would be considered presumptuous.
I learned this the hard way with food.

Note to self: When you are at an old school Ukrainian woman's house for a dinner for her son, your plate will be refilled until you leave it mostly full and get up and leave the room. If you finish what's on your plate it will be refilled regardless of your objections.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 09:43 AM   #792
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,420
Originally Posted by colander View Post
Right now, most of the people asking for more evidence from Smith in this thread seem to care a lot less about determining the truth than they do about punishing her for giving "political ammunition" to entities they consider to be their deadly enemies in some kind of super serious and gravely important blog war.
I hadn't noticed that.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 10:09 AM   #793
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,935
Originally Posted by colander View Post
Right now, most of the people asking for more evidence from Smith in this thread seem to care a lot less about determining the truth than they do about punishing her for giving "political ammunition" to entities they consider to be their deadly enemies in some kind of super serious and gravely important blog war.
I've noticed that.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 10:15 AM   #794
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,659
Sheesh, the pro-Shermer arguments sure have gotten decidedly impotent over the last couple of days.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Stellafane; 21st September 2014 at 10:18 AM.
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 01:32 PM   #795
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I've noticed that.
That's a silly comment. There have been three issues, her story, the way it's been communicated and the wider FtB context. For the former there has only been a constant request she back her case with the witnesses she keeps alluding to. And a general tendency to instinctively believe more of her story than Shermer's.

Delivery? Well clearly I don't feel she has communicated her allegations well or through reputable channels.

FtB? You only have to read their blogs to know the game they are playing and the fuel required.

But punishment? That's a new one.

How about you point out these punitive actions before making three word "me too" quips.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 01:41 PM   #796
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
As some might be doubting her, as we have been doing here.

I can entirely understand why she might have chosen to do that. Having come out on this forum and revealed additional details, then seeing those discussed here and additional questions raised, it's understandable that she'd want that information also available at grenade ground zero.

I have little respect for PZ, but I can accept that not everyone sees him in the same light and he did champion her cause unquestioningly (which you or I have not).
Re her actual experience, mostly we have simply requested evidence withheld from all except Buzzfeed. While acknowledging such evidence would likely change our views on what's still a he said / she said case.

Odd that there are only a couple here, on this skeptical board, who appear so inclined.

By contrast PZ is a polemic only concerned with his predetermined narrative. To turn to him as an ally, while still not offering evidence, sends a strong signal.

Last edited by Brive1987; 21st September 2014 at 02:45 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 01:43 PM   #797
platonov
Master Poster
 
platonov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,339
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
So what? Does under reporting affect the truth of the claim? You seem to be claiming it does.



I never said that once but for someone who is so keen on making the "under reported so true" fallacy you seem to be very forgiving of someone who makes sure the rapes he knows about don't get into the official record and can be used for his personal gain. Yeah, you care about rape victims.



I wouldn't think that what you are doing falls under the umbrella of critical thinking. In fact, your claim of being concerned about about rape victims, which your post debunk for everyone reading, seems to merely be an opportunity to turn of any critical thinking you are capable of.

Again

Wow. What a bizzare post.

I have not given an opinion on this 'case' you seem to be discussing. Nor will I.
The last thing needed [IMO] is yet another guy on the internet telling a woman who claims she was raped how she should proceed and what she should do. If I were to persist in giving unsolicited advice or questioning her she might rightly [IMO] consider that I was more than a little creepy.

But I will make a general comment which might address what you among others seem to think is a pressing matter.
Should a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted and doesn’t report it to the cops feel she wants to publicise the matter, then that’s her choice.
Why she should be deprived of her free speech rights ?

If we follow your logic then the 'victim' in this instance, the guy accused of rape, has recourse to the law (civil in this case). He can sue.
Or does this logic only apply to rape victims but not rapists.

Given the level of conviction rates for rape it may be a victims only form of redress and would serve to warn other women (and rapists) although obviously it has downsides (for the victim). As has reporting to the cops for that matter. Not that I'm convinced that this is an option usually exercised by victims.

The argument that women shouldn’t have or exercise this option is either founded on complete ignorance of this issue in the real world or alternatively is a rapists charter.

This appears to me to be the bleedin' obvious – I'd be very surprised if other posters have not made these arguments.

As regards the danger of this approach I don’t rate this very highly in the context of the whole field of sex crime. There are more pressing matters.
In fact in a general sense I'm probably more concerned about the effects of alien visitation on the availability of parking spaces in Alabama.

I hope this clears up any confusion. Should any replies contain the word Myers I shall assume that there a forum software glitch which is surreptitiously altering the contents of my posts when they are viewed by others.

Last edited by platonov; 21st September 2014 at 02:05 PM.
platonov is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:38 PM   #798
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Quote:
Should a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted and doesn’t report it to the cops feel she wants to publicise the matter, then that’s her choice.
Why she should be deprived of her free speech rights ?
You haven't really followed the discussion through have you? The parts that saw a distinction made between communicating what happened to you and making an explicit criminal charge.

Last edited by Brive1987; 21st September 2014 at 02:42 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:49 PM   #799
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,420
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Sheesh, the pro-Shermer arguments sure have gotten decidedly impotent over the last couple of days.
There never were any pro-Shermer arguments, those exist only in the minds of non-skeptics. What there has been plenty of is people saying "You have little to no evidential basis for your claims. What little you do have really sucks. We choose not to destroy a human life on witch hunt mentality."
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:58 PM   #800
platonov
Master Poster
 
platonov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,339
It was the major theme of the post !

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
You haven't really followed the discussion through have you? The parts that saw a distinction made between communicating what happened to you and making an explicit criminal charge.

You haven't really followed/read my post through have you? You snipped the parts that addressed the distinction between communicating what happened to you and making an explicit criminal charge.

Last edited by platonov; 21st September 2014 at 03:08 PM. Reason: Title
platonov is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.