Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lorentz said:
Heh, you've really got it into your head that we must be woman-haters, right? It's a delusion that you just can't seem to let go of. It is however, both untrue and ridiculous.

(at this point I really no longer believe that Tsig is consciously trolling).
Click to expand...

I don't know...I think he/she/it/xir..whatever is intentionally trolling and has been trolling this thread for a long time now.
 
Myriad said:
If Shermer really did rape anyone (by the conventional legal definition of rape) then I make no excuses for him.
Click to expand...

Me neither.

Their PR defense against the accusation of defamation appears to be to pretend that any questioning of whether the legal definition of rape actually applies to the extremely sketchy scenario revealed so far is actually dismissing the word of one or perhaps several women that anything untoward happened at all.
Click to expand...

Until there's any evidence that these women actually exist, we're going off the word of not one woman, not several women, but one man...PZ Myers. A man who, let's not forget, is a rival of Shermer's, for political reasons. A man whose allies have often expressed a desire to take down Shermer, because they don't like having libertarians in their movement. And, lo and behold! suddenly PZ has some damning charge against this man who has been a thorn in their side. What a...coincidence.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I'd be a fool not to be suspicious. It's not like PZ is a completely disinterested party here. How would people react if the Arkansas Tea Party said they had an anonymous woman who claimed Obama raped her?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Me neither.



Until there's any evidence that these women actually exist, we're going off the word of not one woman, not several women, but one man...PZ Myers. A man who, let's not forget, is a rival of Shermer's, for political reasons. A man whose allies have often expressed a desire to take down Shermer, because they don't like having libertarians in their movement. And, lo and behold! suddenly PZ has some damning charge against this man who has been a thorn in their side. What a...coincidence.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I'd be a fool not to be suspicious. It's not like PZ is a completely disinterested party here. How would people react if the Arkansas Tea Party said they had an anonymous woman who claimed Obama raped her?
Click to expand...

BANG! Shot the messenger.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you think they are wrong because they used statistics for domestic violence not murder and as such those are not the statistics for violence because murder is worse?

That sounds exactly like moving the goal posts. But I guess as long as you win the victim Olympics those who only come in second don't matter.

Eta:so as murder is worse than rape should we start ignoring that to focus on the more serious crimes?
Click to expand...
Why don't you re-read the exchange from the beginning. You are off on some kind of straw man here that has nothing to do with the actual exchange.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how did it change from domestic violence to domestic homicide with out a goalpost shift then?
Click to expand...
Not willing to re-read what you missed, I see. :rolleyes:
luchog said:
It was originally about domestic violence, not domestic fatality. The goal posts have been moved, since the DV rate is about 60-40/50-50 depending on the study.
Click to expand...
Ming boggling how people can make up their own versions of reality and pretend other people interacted in that made up reality.

A review:

This exchange was originally about police ignoring women's charges of domestic violence resulting in failure to prevent murder and escalating serious injuries. That changed a couple decades ago when the practice of 'wink wink' between the police and the male abusers came to social and political attention. The result was many police departments creating domestic violence tasks forces and enacting automatic arrest policies.

The unsupportable claim was then made that somehow this change was originally about police never arresting female abusers. I've no doubt some women were also not charged when the problem was at its peak but that paled in comparison to the serious injuries and deaths that the police were allowing because of their very sexist attitude the woman probably deserved the abuse or egged it on.

This era in police failure to prevent continued escalating domestic violence because they ignored domestic victims is well documented, well known, and the sexism still lingers though it is somewhat better, in the US at least.

If you want to say, hooray, they are prosecuting some of those women finally, be my guest. I don't doubt the police also let said female abusers off the hook.

But the men were never dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing women in the numbers women were dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing men.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not willing to re-read what you missed, I see. :rolleyes:
Ming boggling how people can make up their own versions of reality and pretend other people interacted in that made up reality.

A review:

This exchange was originally about police ignoring women's charges of domestic violence resulting in failure to prevent murder and escalating serious injuries. That changed a couple decades ago when the practice of 'wink wink' between the police and the male abusers came to social and political attention. The result was many police departments creating domestic violence tasks forces and enacting automatic arrest policies.

The unsupportable claim was then made that somehow this change was originally about police never arresting female abusers. I've no doubt some women were also not charged when the problem was at its peak but that paled in comparison to the serious injuries and deaths that the police were allowing because of their very sexist attitude the woman probably deserved the abuse or egged it on.

This era in police failure to prevent continued escalating domestic violence because they ignored domestic victims is well documented, well known, and the sexism still lingers though it is somewhat better, in the US at least.

If you want to say, hooray, they are prosecuting some of those women finally, be my guest. I don't doubt the police also let said female abusers off the hook.

But the men were never dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing women in the numbers women were dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing men.
Click to expand...

Being women they were probably just lying about dying.:mad:
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Me neither.

Until there's any evidence that these women actually exist, we're going off the word of not one woman, not several women, but one man...PZ Myers. A man who, let's not forget, is a rival of Shermer's, for political reasons. A man whose allies have often expressed a desire to take down Shermer, because they don't like having libertarians in their movement. And, lo and behold! suddenly PZ has some damning charge against this man who has been a thorn in their side. What a...coincidence.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I'd be a fool not to be suspicious. It's not like PZ is a completely disinterested party here. How would people react if the Arkansas Tea Party said they had an anonymous woman who claimed Obama raped her?
Click to expand...


I suppose that possibility has to be kept in mind, but I'm more interested in a more likely (though still hypothetical) scenario in which sexual acts of dubious propriety did take place and make people upset, but fail to approach the legal definition of rape, resulting in the post being genuinely defamatory.

After all, in PeeZee's Playhouse, where rumors and anonymous accusations can be called "corroboration" or "testimony" (as tsig did a few posts ago) without a trace of irony or shame, might a person treated poorly in an opportunistic but consensual sexual encounter call it "rape" and genuinely believe it was really rape? When people feel free to define words however they want, how can we know when they mean a word for real?

They've gotten away with calling people douchebags, ********, misogynists, rape enablers, potential rapists, and rape apologists on the flimsiest pretexts. And as far as the law in the U.S. is concerned, they should get away with it, because those words are vague insults without legal standing. But calling someone a rapist (like, we sometimes forget, calling someone's conduct fraudulent) is in a different legal category. Like pulling a knife in a boxing ring, it's a seemingly small escalation that nonetheless changes everything.

Nothing for it but for the grownups (in this case, lawyers and judges) to step in. Then, playtime's over. Less than 24 hours remain until Neufeld Marks' retraction deadline. After that, if Myers doesn't comply, the most likely next steps will be a petition for an injunction, and perhaps also some legal correspondence with the University of Minnesota. We'll see who's bluffing and who's playing word games, though it could take a while.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not willing to re-read what you missed, I see. :rolleyes:
Ming boggling how people can make up their own versions of reality and pretend other people interacted in that made up reality.

A review:

This exchange was originally about police ignoring women's charges of domestic violence resulting in failure to prevent murder and escalating serious injuries. That changed a couple decades ago when the practice of 'wink wink' between the police and the male abusers came to social and political attention. The result was many police departments creating domestic violence tasks forces and enacting automatic arrest policies.

The unsupportable claim was then made that somehow this change was originally about police never arresting female abusers. I've no doubt some women were also not charged when the problem was at its peak but that paled in comparison to the serious injuries and deaths that the police were allowing because of their very sexist attitude the woman probably deserved the abuse or egged it on.

This era in police failure to prevent continued escalating domestic violence because they ignored domestic victims is well documented, well known, and the sexism still lingers though it is somewhat better, in the US at least.

If you want to say, hooray, they are prosecuting some of those women finally, be my guest. I don't doubt the police also let said female abusers off the hook.

But the men were never dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing women in the numbers women were dying or suffering serious physical injuries from abusing men.
Click to expand...

So it seems you be you are moving the goal posts a lot. It starts off with you bringing up domestic violence by itself as something police have trouble prosecuting(true). When it gets pointed out to you that this impacts men as well as women because the real rates of domestic violence are a lot more even that you want them to be you decide that all male victims must be homosexual because women don't do that.

Then you get confronted with evidence that women really are violent and abusive you move the goal post from domestic violence to domestic murder.

Why the constantly shifting goalposts instead of recognizing that the problem of domestic violence effects both men and women?
 
You butt in to a conversation midstream, miss the first half and now you're arguing what the discussion was about? :rolleyes:
 
tsig said:
If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?
Click to expand...

A robbery kit would consist of a camera to photograph any injuries, witness statements, descriptions, camera footage and the like.

A rape kit collects considerably more evidence, such as fluids, bloor, hair, fibres as well as photographs, statements, video footage and the like. Why is this? You're claim seems to be that more evidence is collected because you have to prove to the cops you have been raped. More evidence is collecting in a homicide case too. Is this so that the victim can prove that they were murdered?

I find it bizarre that you would attempt to characterize rape kits as one more weapon in the oppression of rape victims. They are used precisely because rape is considered to be such a serious crime.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You butt in to a conversation midstream, miss the first half and now you're arguing what the discussion was about? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not rereading almost 8000 posts. So where did this part of the conversation start?

Can we at least agree that you believe gay men must be incredibly abusive to account for 40% of abuse with 4% of the population? Because you were real clear that that must be were male abuse victims come from.
 
squealpiggy said:
...
I find it bizarre that you would attempt to characterize rape kits as one more weapon in the oppression of rape victims. They are used precisely because rape is considered to be such a serious crime.
Click to expand...

Appears quite normal if the intent is to troll.
 
Myriad said:
I suppose that possibility has to be kept in mind, but I'm more interested in a more likely (though still hypothetical) scenario in which sexual acts of dubious propriety did take place and make people upset, but fail to approach the legal definition of rape, resulting in the post being genuinely defamatory.
Click to expand...

Assuming that Shermer can sue in California, as his legal team has asserted, what authority do you have for the proposition that your hypothetical scenario constitutes defamation under California law?
 
qwints said:
Assuming that Shermer can sue in California, as his legal team has asserted, what authority do you have for the proposition that your hypothetical scenario constitutes defamation under California law?
Click to expand...

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law

For example, an allegation that the plaintiff is guilty of a crime is defamatory on its face pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 45a.

So from what I read from the link if shermer's legal team can prove PZ statements are false then PZ is guilty of deframation.
 
lopeyschools said:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law

For example, an allegation that the plaintiff is guilty of a crime is defamatory on its face pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 45a.

So from what I read from the link if shermer's legal team can prove PZ statements are false then PZ is guilty of deframation.
Click to expand...

How will they prove a negative? Is the burden of proof on Shermer?

And if they can prove to a reasonable standard of evidence that it did not happen, would PZ genuinely believing that it did happen, not be a valid defense for him?
 
lopeyschools said:
So from what I read from the link if shermer's legal team can prove PZ statements are false then PZ is guilty of deframation.
Click to expand...

First, a minor point: one is guilty of a crime, one is liable for a civil cause of action. Shermer's demand letter seems valid on its face, falsely accusing someone of the things listed in PZ's posts would have a negative effect on its reputation. The question I had was directed at Myriad's hypothetical scenario where Shermer and a drunk woman had sex that she was upset by, but that it didn't meet California's legal definition of rape. [Aside: I don't know California law enough to know if that scenario is even possible]

Let's look at the actual statements from PZ's post that would give rise to a claim:

"It’s a direct report of unethical behavior by a big name in the skeptical community"
[quoting the unnamed source]
" Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me."
"the event at which I was raped,"
"I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) "
Click to expand...

My question for Myriad is what authority does he have for the proposition that these statements would be false for the purposes of a defamation claim given the scenario he posits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom