[Ed] Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. - Page 27

blutoski · 16th August 2013, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by s_pepys

ok....its time to pick a side.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...comment-670469

Or opt out.

Joe Random · 16th August 2013, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Or opt out.

Best side to pick : spectator (just stock well up on chips and sodas before getting too comfy).

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

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.

Dissolution · 16th August 2013, 10:52 AM

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.

Skeptic Ginger · 16th August 2013, 11:10 AM

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.

Amazer · 16th August 2013, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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.

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 11:30 AM

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.

Rrose Selavy · 16th August 2013, 11:33 AM

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/

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

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.

ravdin · 16th August 2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

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.

cnels · 16th August 2013, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

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.

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

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.

Dissolution · 16th August 2013, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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?

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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.

Rrose Selavy · 16th August 2013, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

? 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.

Natural Born Skeptic · 16th August 2013, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by s_pepys

ok....its time to pick a side.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...comment-670469

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.

Dr. Keith · 16th August 2013, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

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.

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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

Yes you misread it...Read some of the preceding posts eg:

My apologies. I now remember having read your posts.

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

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).

Rrose Selavy · 16th August 2013, 12:23 PM

Deleted.
(was going to ask a question which I've now been able to answer myself)

Dissolution · 16th August 2013, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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."

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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".

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

This Guy · 16th August 2013, 12:43 PM

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.

Natural Born Skeptic · 16th August 2013, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

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".

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

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?

Dissolution · 16th August 2013, 12:50 PM

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 · 16th August 2013, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

dasmiller · 16th August 2013, 12:59 PM

deleted - ninjad

Checkmite · 16th August 2013, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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.

Lorentz · 16th August 2013, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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?

Dissolution · 16th August 2013, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

This Guy · 16th August 2013, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lorentz

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!

Cleon · 16th August 2013, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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?

SimplyAghast · 16th August 2013, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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

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.

Cleon · 16th August 2013, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

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.

Natural Born Skeptic · 16th August 2013, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dissolution

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.

This Guy · 16th August 2013, 01:28 PM

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?

16th August 2013, 10:34 AM	#1041
blutoski Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,454	Originally Posted by s_pepys ok....its time to pick a side. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...comment-670469 Or opt out.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

16th August 2013, 10:48 AM	#1043
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by BenBurch 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 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 11:14 AM	#1046
Amazer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,711	Originally Posted by Dissolution 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 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,711

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

16th August 2013, 11:37 AM	#1049
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy 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 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 10:46 AM	#1042
Joe Random Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,935	Originally Posted by blutoski Or opt out. Best side to pick : spectator (just stock well up on chips and sodas before getting too comfy).

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.

16th August 2013, 11:10 AM	#1045
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman 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.

16th August 2013, 11:33 AM	#1048
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica 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/

16th August 2013, 11:39 AM	#1050
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy 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.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ 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

16th August 2013, 11:40 AM	#1051
cnels Student Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 36	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay 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 Student Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 36

16th August 2013, 11:42 AM	#1052
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by SimplyAghast 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

16th August 2013, 11:43 AM	#1053
Dissolution Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,306	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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?

16th August 2013, 11:45 AM	#1054
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 11:55 AM	#1055
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by Dissolution 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

16th August 2013, 11:56 AM	#1056
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 3,395	Originally Posted by SimplyAghast ? 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.

16th August 2013, 12:05 PM	#1057
Natural Born Skeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,459	Originally Posted by s_pepys ok....its time to pick a side. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...comment-670469 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.

16th August 2013, 12:06 PM	#1058
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,180	Originally Posted by ravdin 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.

16th August 2013, 12:07 PM	#1059
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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 Yes you misread it...Read some of the preceding posts eg: My apologies. I now remember having read your posts.
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 12:17 PM	#1060
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by SimplyAghast 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

16th August 2013, 12:23 PM	#1061
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica 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.

16th August 2013, 12:27 PM	#1062
Dissolution Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,306	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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."

16th August 2013, 12:28 PM	#1063
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 12:37 PM	#1064
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by Dissolution 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

16th August 2013, 12:41 PM	#1065
SimplyAghast Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 228

16th August 2013, 12:43 PM	#1066
This Guy Master Poster 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.
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,140	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

16th August 2013, 12:48 PM	#1067
Natural Born Skeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,459	Originally Posted by SimplyAghast 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.

16th August 2013, 12:50 PM	#1068
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by SimplyAghast 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

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.

16th August 2013, 12:54 PM	#1070
Dissolution Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,306	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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.

16th August 2013, 12:59 PM	#1071
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell 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

16th August 2013, 01:06 PM	#1072
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 27,696	Originally Posted by Dissolution 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.

16th August 2013, 01:06 PM	#1073
Lorentz Muse Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 973	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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 Muse Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 973

16th August 2013, 01:14 PM	#1074
Dissolution Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,306	Originally Posted by Checkmite 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.

16th August 2013, 01:18 PM	#1075
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,140	Originally Posted by Lorentz 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!
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,140	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!