IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Closed Thread
Old 16th August 2013, 10:34 AM   #1041
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
Or opt out.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 10:46 AM   #1042
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Or opt out.

Best side to pick : spectator (just stock well up on chips and sodas before getting too comfy).
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 10:48 AM   #1043
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
I can't decide who is honest, how can I pick a side?
I'm not sure where "honesty" comes into it. The bullying behavior is what makes me so opposed to the usual FTB/A+ M.O. They have demonstrated an us vs. them mentality that eliminates all skepticism. Look at the comments on the FTB threads about Radford and Shermer and even yesterday's Mr. Deity video. Mr. Deity implies that people have the right and ability to control their drinking and he's instantly labeled a bad guy who support sexual assault. David Silverman simply "liked" the video and he's been equally tarred.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 10:52 AM   #1044
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
I hate the way that's been presented.
Either accept that Myers acted sensibly and accept unsupported, anonymous accusations or be lumped in with rapists and paedophiles.
Disgusting.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:10 AM   #1045
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
It's full of examples of how people build straw men and lump people into stereotyped groups.

How is it still held as truth that all the people who post rape profanity on the blogs represent all of us?

Or why is it if we hold to skeptic critical thinking principles that we are supporting the rapists?

It's very fundamentalist of them.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:14 AM   #1046
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,711
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
I hate the way that's been presented.
Either accept that Myers acted sensibly and accept unsupported, anonymous accusations or be lumped in with rapists and paedophiles.
Disgusting.
Par for the course there, i'm afraid.
Amazer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:30 AM   #1047
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Yet another account from a woman who doesn't appear to belong to "atheist plus" or "Free Thought Blog", but has been lumped together with them for appearing circumstantially on the same side of an issue and attacked.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:33 AM   #1048
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
Critics of Myers and Watson, this is clearly the sort of company you are associated with...

Quote:
The guy who has been pestering Skeptics Guide to the Universe to fire Rebecca Watson, and is also associated with the always lovely pro-harrasment site A News, and who created the anti-Rebecca Watson facebook page, has been revealed. It’s Cecil Fuson. Mr Fuson really, really hates Rebecca. He’s really disgusted with this feminist stuff.
Mr Fuson is also a registered sex offender who was convicted and went to prison for “indecent liberties with a minor” in 2003.
It was probably those damned feminists who railroaded him.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sted-interest/
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:37 AM   #1049
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Critics of Myers and Watson, this is clearly the sort of company you are associated with...



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sted-interest/
What an interesting claim. I don't support Myers or Watson, therefore I'm equivalent to this guy in some unpleasant manner.

If only there were some kind of name for a logical fallacy in which a person is deemed guilty by association.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:39 AM   #1050
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Critics of Myers and Watson, this is clearly the sort of company you are associated with...



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sted-interest/
The ad on the page features a busty woman in a low cut top with the caption "Google Banned This Video!" Ah PZ, you sensitive feminist you.

To the main point, I'm glad the anti-RW creep was busted. It's cowardly to carry out that sort of campaign without putting your name to it.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:40 AM   #1051
cnels
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
A guy can be sleazy and not get laid a lot.
And also not be a rapist. Kind of the flip side of the coin of female slut shaming I'd say.
cnels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:42 AM   #1052
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
What an interesting claim. I don't support Myers or Watson, therefore I'm equivalent to this guy in some unpleasant manner.

If only there were some kind of name for a logical fallacy in which a person is deemed guilty by association.
It's not "strawman"; that's the logical fallacy which your second sentence represents.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:43 AM   #1053
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Yet another account from a woman who doesn't appear to belong to "atheist plus" or "Free Thought Blog", but has been lumped together with them for appearing circumstantially on the same side of an issue and attacked.
I think that she's probably been attacked for strawmannning the hell out of people that disagree with those she's defending, actually.
Her suggestion that those wishing to hear something vaguely approaching evidence before supporting an accusation aren't taking rape seriously is as disgraceful and it is misleading.

If someone were to accuse PZ Myers of killing someone, would anyone wanting to know who he killed or see the body be murder apologists and part of a murder culture?
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:45 AM   #1054
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's not "strawman"; that's the logical fallacy which your second sentence represents.
? I could be mistaken or failing to notice sarcasm, but it seemed that Rrose Selavy was associating me with the company of the radio host guy because I'm a critic of Myers and Watson when he/she said, "Critics of Myers and Watson, this is clearly the sort of company you are associated with..."

Perhaps I misread the sentence.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:55 AM   #1055
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
I think that she's probably been attacked for strawmannning the hell out of people that disagree with those she's defending, actually.
Per the post I linked to,

Quote:
I felt then, and still feel now, that Stefanelli’s post showed a deep ignorance of how rape and assault survivors respond to trauma, and that his attack on Myers was unwarranted.

And so that’s exactly what I said on Stefanelli’s Facebook. I didn’t accuse Shermer or anyone else of rape. I said, simply, that I was disturbed by Stefanelli’s post for the reasons I described above.

Cue the abuse. I got immediately swarmed by atheist anti-feminist men and the situation escalated until one of them threatened to kill me. Several times, in fact. Al’s since deleted the threats, but as far as I know, he still acknowledges that the threats were made. The person making the threats is possibly unwell; he also told me he’s a genetically engineered soldier. But that doesn’t make me feel any better about the fact that someone repeatedly threatened to kill me.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 11:56 AM   #1056
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
? I could be mistaken or failing to notice sarcasm, but it seemed that Rrose Selavy was associating me with the company of the radio host guy because I'm a critic of Myers and Watson when he/she said, "Critics of Myers and Watson, this is clearly the sort of company you are associated with..."

Perhaps I misread the sentence.
Yes you misread it..I thought about adding a "sarcasm" emoticon but it's a double edged statement..Read some of the preceding posts eg:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
I hate the way that's been presented.
Either accept that Myers acted sensibly and accept unsupported, anonymous accusations or be lumped in with rapists and paedophiles.
Disgusting.

Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 16th August 2013 at 12:03 PM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:05 PM   #1057
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
Looks like PZ has now gone into martyr mode, he fancies himself some type of hero willing to risk it all, as opposed to an angry man willing hurt people by publishing unsubstantiated allegations.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:06 PM   #1058
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,180
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
To the main point, I'm glad the anti-RW creep was busted.
As someone who could easily be characterized as anti-RW and anti-PZ, I agree.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:07 PM   #1059
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Per the post I linked to,
I certainly don't understand making threats against a person on Facebook. I do, however, think that you're not acknowledging the author's condescending use of buzzwords intended to shut down all discussion. You can't just shout "rape culture" and expect everyone to agree with you and start crying. People are suggesting that women have control over how much they drink? Blaming the victim!!!!1! You disagree with me?!?!?! Male privilege!!!11!!!!

These concepts are the antithesis of skepticism. PZ made an extraordinary claim and offered piddling evidence. This is why he is getting blowback from non-FTBullies and has legal action pending.

Most of all...we don't even know if there are "victims" in the Shermer case. Who are we "protecting"?

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Yes you misread it...Read some of the preceding posts eg:
My apologies. I now remember having read your posts.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:17 PM   #1060
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
I certainly don't understand making threats against a person on Facebook. I do, however, think that you're not acknowledging the author's condescending use of buzzwords intended to shut down all discussion.
The blog post is a response to abuse she received before she ever used "buzzwords" (I didn't note any actual buzzwords, but I did see the sentiment expressed about victim-blaming).
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:23 PM   #1061
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
Deleted.
(was going to ask a question which I've now been able to answer myself)

Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 16th August 2013 at 12:26 PM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:27 PM   #1062
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The blog post is a response to abuse she received before she ever used "buzzwords" (I didn't note any actual buzzwords, but I did see the sentiment expressed about victim-blaming).
Did you not find the following passage extremely misrepresentative, at best:

"And then these leaders are accused of abuse: sustained sexual harassment, even rape, all directed at women, an under-represented demographic in this community. Rather than treat these allegations with respect and serious inquiry, there is backlash. These women, people say, are sluts. They are liars. They exaggerate. They can’t take a joke. They shouldn’t have been drinking. Their allies are traitors. They should be sued."
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:28 PM   #1063
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The blog post is a response to abuse she received before she ever used "buzzwords" (I didn't note any actual buzzwords, but I did see the sentiment expressed about victim-blaming).
"And then these leaders are accused of abuse: sustained sexual harassment, even rape, all directed at women, an under-represented demographic in this community. Rather than treat these allegations with respect and serious inquiry, there is backlash. These women, people say, are sluts. They are liars. They exaggerate. They can’t take a joke. They shouldn’t have been drinking. Their allies are traitors. They should be sued."

She's strawmanning all of the critics of the way things have been handled. PZ did not handle his accusation with "respect" or "serious inquiry" because he didn't say, "Why in the world are you telling me?!?!? Call the police!"

"You might also guess that a community centered around the pursuit of reason would react…reasonably, and treat these allegations seriously. But you’d be wrong about that too. Shermer et al enjoy devoted followings and these followers have reacted viciously to the suggestion that their heroes could be capable of abuse."

Again, if you make unsubstantiated claims in the earshot of skeptics, you will get blowback. They should have called the police. We react viciously to unsubstantiated rumor being mistaken for fact. Why? Because we're skeptics.

"Cue the abuse. I got immediately swarmed by atheist anti-feminist men and the situation escalated until one of them threatened to kill me. Several times, in fact. Al’s since deleted the threats, but as far as I know, he still acknowledges that the threats were made. The person making the threats is possibly unwell; he also told me he’s a genetically engineered soldier. But that doesn’t make me feel any better about the fact that someone repeatedly threatened to kill me."

She's ignoring the many people who criticized her for her kafkatrapping and lack of critical thinking and those who simply disagreed with her.

"This isn’t reason in action, it’s fundamentalism. If your response to the suggestion that you take rape seriously is threaten and abuse me, then you are not rational. If your response to anyone making these allegations is to blame them for their own trauma, you are not rational. If you immediately assume that a woman who says she’s been raped, assaulted or harassed is lying, you are not rational. If you refuse to believe even the possibility that someone you admire is capable of assault, then not only are you irrational, you are actively protecting a toxic subculture."

Again...if you take crime seriously, YOU CALL THE POLICE ABOUT IT. NOT A BLOGGER GUY WHO IS A FRIEND OF A FRIEND. And it's not fair to say that you're blaming someone for their trauma...the public at large has not been told what the trauma is. All we got is innuendo that is extremely subjective. "Put me in a position in which I couldn't consent" means a lot of things and is subject to opinion. Roofies in a drink? Okay, that's a crime. Offering glasses of wine that are freely accepted and consumed? Not a crime. (Unless the drinker is eight years old or something.)

"I commented on Stefanelli’s article because I know what it’s like to be attacked when you finally come forward about sexual assault. If your response to that is to wish me dead or otherwise abuse me, that says more about you than it does about me. It tells me that you’re fanatical. You’ve bought into this idea of culture war and just like the Christian fundamentalists I knew, you’re willing to sacrifice the vulnerable in order to protect your movement. If survivors have become collateral damage for your cause, then something has gone terribly, tragically wrong."

I don't see there was any proof of sexual assault in the alleged Shermer case. That's what courts are for. What about Krauss? Radford?

"See you in the middle."

She doesn't engage the people who try to tell her that "women control how much they drink" doesn't equal "rape apologist." She's not in the "middle" at all.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:37 PM   #1064
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
Did you not find the following passage extremely misrepresentative, at best:

"And then these leaders are accused of abuse: sustained sexual harassment, even rape, all directed at women, an under-represented demographic in this community. Rather than treat these allegations with respect and serious inquiry, there is backlash. These women, people say, are sluts. They are liars. They exaggerate. They can’t take a joke. They shouldn’t have been drinking. Their allies are traitors. They should be sued."
I don't know; I don't engage on this issue outside of these couple of threads here on this forum. Is there any reason to think they're not representative of the majority of communication she has received on the issue, in the form of tweets, Facebook replies, and emails?

Obviously, her opinion that people aren't treating the allegations with "respect and serious inquiry" is just as much that - an opinion - as those expressed in this forum that people voicing support for the accusers in this case "aren't engaging in actual skepticism/critical thinking".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:41 PM   #1065
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I don't know; I don't engage on this issue outside of these couple of threads here on this forum. Is there any reason to think they're not representative of the majority of communication she has received on the issue, in the form of tweets, Facebook replies, and emails?

Obviously, her opinion that people aren't treating the allegations with "respect and serious inquiry" is just as much that - an opinion - as those expressed in this forum that people voicing support for the accusers in this case "aren't engaging in actual skepticism/critical thinking".
She's made a claim and you believe it without evidence. Kewl.

"Opinions" aren't the problem in this mess. "Allegations of SERIOUS CRIMES without evidence"...there's the problem.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:43 PM   #1066
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
So if you don't think un-evidenced, anonymous accusations of criminal activity should be posted on a web page, you belong in the same group as sex offenders?

I do understand that making a charge of rape against someone is probably a very hard thing for someone to do. It has a LOT of "baggage" attached to it. I get that.

That does not change the fact that in America someone charged with a crime has the right to face their accuser, and to be tried by a jury of their peers. Using the Internet as a short cut to accuse and condemn someone is not what I consider good. The legal system is in place for just these matters. If Shermer and anyone else have committed a crime it should be dealt with via the legal system. Not some vigilante web crusade.

But, that's just my opinion.
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:48 PM   #1067
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
What an interesting claim. I don't support Myers or Watson, therefore I'm equivalent to this guy in some unpleasant manner.

If only there were some kind of name for a logical fallacy in which a person is deemed guilty by association.
This is Myer's and his fans favorite tactic. Find some lowlife sleazeball that spews hate or make rape threats, and then make out as if that's what everyone who disagrees with Watson et al are.

It's already being used here (on free thought blogs). Anyone that questions whether Myer should have published these accusations hates women and is a supporter of rape culture and now "needs to take a side".

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 16th August 2013 at 01:16 PM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:50 PM   #1068
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
She's made a claim and you believe it without evidence. Kewl.

"Opinions" aren't the problem in this mess. "Allegations of SERIOUS CRIMES without evidence"...there's the problem.
I lean toward it being true, without evidence yes - although as I mentioned before, I'm willing to change my mind if presented with something compelling otherwise.

I think somebody else on another thread said it best: What would constitute "evidence" in this case? A woman said Shermer had sex with her, without consent. What kind of evidence could she present to you now in order to prove her claim?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:50 PM   #1069
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
The side taking thing was one of the main reasons that A+ got so much bad publicity early on.
You'd think that they might have learned a lesson or two along the way.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:54 PM   #1070
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I think somebody else on another thread said it best: What would constitute "evidence" in this case? A woman said Shermer had sex with her, without consent. What kind of evidence could she present to you now in order to prove her claim?
Given that we don't know any of the circumstances, it's hard to say.
Were there other people present that could account for her physical state at the time?
Is there CCTV of the area, so that we could get an objective view of how part of their interaction played out?

With such a vague accusation I don't think that we're in a position to even make any claims about what would count as evidence.
Suggest a hypothetical situation involving two nonexistent individuals who can't possibly sue anyone and we'll see.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:59 PM   #1071
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,544
deleted - ninjad
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:06 PM   #1072
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
Given that we don't know any of the circumstances, it's hard to say.
Were there other people present that could account for her physical state at the time?
Is there CCTV of the area, so that we could get an objective view of how part of their interaction played out?
I asked what kind of evidence she could present. She doesn't and wouldn't have access to CCTV recordings of the night in question. There's at least one poster in this forum who has recalled her being distressed immediately after the incident in question; but saying anything is that other person's prerogative, not hers - at at any rate if her claim isn't "evidence", neither is anything anyone else merely "says".

Is there anything you can think of that she'd be able to present as "evidence"? Anything at all?

I don't think there is.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 16th August 2013 at 01:07 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:06 PM   #1073
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I lean toward it being true, without evidence yes - although as I mentioned before, I'm willing to change my mind if presented with something compelling otherwise.

I think somebody else on another thread said it best: What would constitute "evidence" in this case? A woman said Shermer had sex with her, without consent. What kind of evidence could she present to you now in order to prove her claim?
A detailed account of what happened, preferably with some parts having one or more witnesses who are willing and able to support this account, followed by a defense by Shermer that has obvious holes, or otherwise admits to the most salient parts of the account.

We're unlikely to get any part of that until things go to court, in my view. Until then, I'm firmly undecided and am taking the "on the fence" side, even if that's where all the other rape-apologist misogynists sit.

Any fellow rape-apologists want some popcorn?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:14 PM   #1074
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I asked what kind of evidence she could present. She doesn't and wouldn't have access to CCTV recordings of the night in question. There's at least one poster in this forum who has recalled her being distressed immediately after the incident in question; but saying anything is that other person's prerogative, not hers - at at any rate if her claim isn't "evidence", neither is anything anyone else merely "says".

Is there anything you can think of that she'd be able to present as "evidence"? Anything at all?

I don't think there is.
You're claiming that there's no other evidence, but what are you basing that on?

If all that's available is one person's claim and the denial of that claim by the accused, then there's clearly not enough evidence to support the claim.
It's literally a case of she said, he said.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:18 PM   #1075
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
A detailed account of what happened, preferably with some parts having one or more witnesses who are willing and able to support this account, followed by a defense by Shermer that has obvious holes, or otherwise admits to the most salient parts of the account.

We're unlikely to get any part of that until things go to court, in my view. Until then, I'm firmly undecided and am taking the "on the fence" side, even if that's where all the other rape-apologist misogynists sit.

Any fellow rape-apologists want some popcorn?
Buttered please!
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:20 PM   #1076
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,586
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
If all that's available is one person's claim and the denial of that claim by the accused, then there's clearly not enough evidence to support the claim.
It's literally a case of she said, he said.
So therefore, in your view, if all that's available is a "he said/she said," the only wrong that's been committed is the sullying of the (alleged) rapist's reputation. Do I have that right?
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

Last edited by Cleon; 16th August 2013 at 01:22 PM.
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:23 PM   #1077
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I lean toward it being true, without evidence yes - although as I mentioned before, I'm willing to change my mind if presented with something compelling otherwise.

I think somebody else on another thread said it best: What would constitute "evidence" in this case? A woman said Shermer had sex with her, without consent. What kind of evidence could she present to you now in order to prove her claim?
Do you apply this kind of thinking to anything else in your life? Do you believe that psychics are real BY DEFAULT? Do you take astrologers at their word? "A priori" is "a problem".


Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
And therefore, in your view, the only wrong that's been committed is the sullying of the (alleged) rapist's reputation?
Until further evidence is presented, YES.

Update: You changed your statement; that's fine. We don't have a "he said/she said." We have a "PZ said someone else said/he does the proper thing and seeks recourse through the legal system."

You wouldn't accept "science" that is the result of assertions made without the benefit of shown work and peer review. Why are allegations of SERIOUS CRIMES any different? Science plays by rules and so does the criminal justice system.

Last edited by SimplyAghast; 16th August 2013 at 01:27 PM. Reason: To address CLeon's update.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:26 PM   #1078
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,586
Originally Posted by SimplyAghast View Post
Until further evidence is presented, YES.
Well, that's kind of disgusting, but at least you're honest.

I assume, of course, that the same holds true for altar boys accusing priests of abusing them 10, 20 years earlier? The Roman Catholic Church stands to win a lot of money from suing these men for slandering those innocent priests.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

Last edited by Cleon; 16th August 2013 at 01:27 PM.
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:27 PM   #1079
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
The side taking thing was one of the main reasons that A+ got so much bad publicity early on.
You'd think that they might have learned a lesson or two along the way.
It's part and parcel of who they are, why would they learn a lesson? In fact, it's obvious PZ THRIVES on it.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 01:28 PM   #1080
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
A friend told me that Checkmite raped them. She has no pictures, video, or audio. No witnesses, and I won't tell you her name. But I'm sure she's telling the truth. She's afraid to go to the police or ID herself because Checkmite might retaliate.

Another friend told me that she was with the first friend right after she was raped and knows that the raped woman was very emotionally distraught.

Anyone have any ideas on what kind of evidence I should produce to back these claims up, or should we just all set Checkmite on ignore?

OK, of course this is all BS. I don't have any friends. And Checkmite, I don't mean anything by picking on you. Just trying to make a point and you seemed like a good target
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

Last edited by This Guy; 16th August 2013 at 01:35 PM. Reason: to add to the spoiler
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.