Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[devnull]

Why does this sort of thing often end up infantilizing women? Why must a woman be compared to, or treated as, a child to make your point?

Well, because obviously women like Alison must be treated as such, as when they say "that wasnt right, I was taken advantage of when I was unable to consent, that is rape" we must constantly question their motives, persist with the stupid idea that it's a big conspiracy to destroy Shermer, and find every possible excuse for Shermer's behaviour. Obviously Alison is just too silly and irresponsible, right? Sounds like a child to me.

 

[wareyin]

Well, because obviously women like Alison must be treated as such, as when they say "that wasnt right, I was taken advantage of when I was unable to consent, that is rape" we must constantly question their motives, persist with the stupid idea that it's a big conspiracy to destroy Shermer, and find every possible excuse for Shermer's behaviour. Obviously Alison is just too silly and irresponsible, right? Sounds like a child to me.

I am not sure why you think that calling the person you are championing a child makes your point better, but from here it doesn't.

 

[devnull]

I am not sure why you think that calling the person you are championing a child makes your point better, but from here it doesn't.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[H'ethetheth]

My point is that I believe an exception is being made in Alison's case. Why, I cannot fathom. All the evidence and testimony points to Shermer being a rapey SOB, but everyone loves the tapdance.

Why do you believe that? I think the consensus is precisely that Shermer is an unsavory person. The fact that this took a lot of time, is that not everbody knows the people involved, and hardly any actual evidence was presented for ages.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thankyou.

My point is that I believe an exception is being made in Alison's case. Why, I cannot fathom. All the evidence and testimony points to Shermer being a rapey SOB, but everyone loves the tapdance.

I haven't seen anyone supporting him or claiming he wasn't a scumbag. But there are a lot of totally legal ways someone can be a scumbag, it is if they feel comfortable labeling him a rapist. As a lot of those who are calling him a rapist use a very low bar for calling people rapists it gets caught in details of what is or is not rape.

The testimony fails to convince people that this case involved rape, I have seen no one, well other than maybe scrut trolling, claiming he isn't scum.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, because obviously women like Alison must be treated as such, as when they say "that wasnt right, I was taken advantage of when I was unable to consent, that is rape" we must constantly question their motives, persist with the stupid idea that it's a big conspiracy to destroy Shermer, and find every possible excuse for Shermer's behaviour. Obviously Alison is just too silly and irresponsible, right? Sounds like a child to me.

This is a sceptic forum. Questioning peoples motives is inevitable, as is the person making the claim getting disproportionate focus. People's interest in different sides and different questions isn't necessarily driven by considerations of fairness and balance. For myself, which side I find more interesting to pick at often has little to do with which side I think is fundamentally right. If I had to choose, I'd go with her story being true, but equally I find her story more interesting to question. That may have a lot to do with my having the impression that her supporters are making much stronger claims to know the truth than his supporters.

 

[shuttlt]

Why do you believe that? I think the consensus is precisely that Shermer is an unsavory person. The fact that this took a lot of time, is that not everbody knows the people involved, and hardly any actual evidence was presented for ages.

blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

 

[ponderingturtle]

blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

Yet they are hardly considered skeptics. Being a true believer is not exactly something most here would generally encourage.

 

[devnull]

Why do you believe that? I think the consensus is precisely that Shermer is an unsavory person. The fact that this took a lot of time, is that not everbody knows the people involved, and hardly any actual evidence was presented for ages.

Oh, maybe I misread the situation.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Oh, maybe I misread the situation.

I reserve that right as well, mind you, but that's the impression I got.

 

[Scopedog]

Oh, maybe I misread the situation.

Perhaps your skeptical standards and ability to read a situation change, depending on the topic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, maybe I misread the situation.

I had heard unsavory rumors about him before this became public knowledge at least, and I had never been to TAM. And it seems that knowledge about this was more well known at TAM.

 

[devnull]

Perhaps your skeptical standards and ability to read a situation change, depending on the topic.

Same for everyone Id imagine.

 

[devnull]

I am not sure why you think that calling the person you are championing a child makes your point better, but from here it doesn't.

BTW, just to answer your question seriously - I wasnt comparing her to a child, I was again making the point that some people seem to require greater levels of evidence when the topic is violence against women. The use of child was merely coincidental.

 

[ponderingturtle]

BTW, just to answer your question seriously - I wasnt comparing her to a child, I was again making the point that some people seem to require greater levels of evidence when the topic is violence against women. The use of child was merely coincidental.

Greater than what? You also used an emotional connection to the victim to manipulate the response. So you then switch to an even more emotional crime with an emotionally connected victim and that was supposed to show that the standard for being a rapist has some unique standard of proof?

The problem is that it is more conditional on details of the event than many crimes and details that would not be able to be determined by physical evidence. In those regards it isn't like someone could argue the sex between them and an 8 year old was consensual and as consensual sex not a crime, but here there needs to be established that there was sex and it wasn't consensual.

This is why details of when sex is or is not consensual when someone is under the influence of alcohol is important. And people differ in their views of this.

So what level of evidence do you claim people demand for rape that they don't demand for say murder, or theft like how Brian Dunning stole millions from Ebay?

 

[d4m10n]

Were those two witnesses in any way or shape involved in the decision-making process for inviting Shermer to TAM? If not, then it really depends on how they elevated the issue to the leadership.

If they used smoke signals, perhaps the message didn't get through. Assuming that the responsible leaders were aware of the nature of the problem, however, they had to make a choice whether or not to act on that information. The leadership chose business as usual, for whatever reason.

(Unless you're implying that the coverup goes all the way down.)

...hardly any actual evidence was presented for ages.

And when it was publicly presented for the first time, it was done anonymously on a "listen and believe" forum, contemporaneously with the launch of a Tumblr designed to allow anyone to anonymously accuse anyone of anything, unaccountably. Hard to imagine how such a perfectly anti-skeptical approach could fail to arouse a wave of resistance.

Some people are saying "this guy is bad news, Im not sure Id hang with him".

Other people are saying that the entire skeptical community needs to seriously reconsider whether to ever invite him back to their events, and if RemieV is right about his MO, they have a good argument. The problem with taking this approach (where you act on the information given as if it is most probably true) is that you need to set a somewhat higher evidential bar than "I heard on Tumblr he's a skeevy dude who liberally refills wine."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Greater than what? You also used an emotional connection to the victim to manipulate the response. So you then switch to an even more emotional crime with an emotionally connected victim and that was supposed to show that the standard for being a rapist has some unique standard of proof?

The problem is that it is more conditional on details of the event than many crimes and details that would not be able to be determined by physical evidence. In those regards it isn't like someone could argue the sex between them and an 8 year old was consensual and as consensual sex not a crime, but here there needs to be established that there was sex and it wasn't consensual.

This is why details of when sex is or is not consensual when someone is under the influence of alcohol is important. And people differ in their views of this.

So what level of evidence do you claim people demand for rape that they don't demand for say murder, or theft like how Brian Dunning stole millions from Ebay?

This.

 

[wareyin]

If they used smoke signals, perhaps the message didn't get through. Assuming that the responsible leaders were aware of the nature of the problem, however, they had to make a choice whether or not to act on that information. The leadership chose business as usual, for whatever reason.

(Unless you're implying that the coverup goes all the way down.)



And when it was publicly presented for the first time, it was done anonymously on a "listen and believe" forum, contemporaneously with the launch of a Tumblr designed to allow anyone to anonymously accuse anyone of anything, unaccountably. Hard to imagine how such a perfectly anti-skeptical approach could fail to arouse a wave of resistance.



Other people are saying that the entire skeptical community needs to seriously reconsider whether to ever invite him back to their events, and if RemieV is right about his MO, they have a good argument. The problem with taking this approach (where you act on the information given as if it is most probably true) is that you need to set a somewhat higher evidential bar than "I heard on Tumblr he's a skeevy dude who liberally refills wine."

Well said.

 

[shuttlt]

BTW, just to answer your question seriously - I wasnt comparing her to a child, I was again making the point that some people seem to require greater levels of evidence when the topic is violence against women.

I really don't know. It's not at all obvious to me that the bar is set disproportionately high by one swathe of posters, or disproportionately low by another. It seems to be a tough crime, evidence wise, in the cases that have been discussed. There are clearly also crimes against children where evidence is deeply problematic. Presumably you have some notion of crimes against men, that are equally problematic in terms of evidence where the bar is set differently? Women presumably do willingly have sex with Shermer. For my money, the example of a crime against men would have to be something that men frequently do willingly, but would be a crime if it was unwilling.

 

[wareyin]

BTW, just to answer your question seriously - I wasnt comparing her to a child, I was again making the point that some people seem to require greater levels of evidence when the topic is violence against women. The use of child was merely coincidental.

As others have pointed out, a child is flatly unable to consent. Therefore, if both parties agree that sex has taken place, it is automatically a crime. Women, on the other hand are able to consent, so if both parties agree that sex has taken place, it is not automatically a crime. Obviously, this requires a greater level of evidence to prove a crime.