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

[Lorentz]

Was it that long ago? I don't follow these things closely, but the infamous talk where he repeatedly propositioned a female audience member was in 2010, I believe, and it seems so far removed from his current rhetoric (although he still refuses to admit that it was in any way problematic) that his change of heart taking place immediately afterwards would seem a little incongruous to me.

You're right, it's probably not that long. Elevatorgate was in 2011 and I think that's roughly when PZ switched to the new war.

 

[ponderingturtle]

[devilsadvocate]
Why should this diversity, whether real or merely a convenient pretence, matter once those people turn out all to be siding with rapists?
[/devilsadvocate]

Well if the best they can put together is an Ad Hominem to support themselves I guess that really is all they can do.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anyone planning on going to Skepticon this year?

No. Big reason is the location sucks. And by "location", I don't mean Springfield MO, which is a smallish city (about 100,000K, IIRC), but is a college town, so they have a few decent bars and restaurants downtown. In past years, the conference was downtown, right in the middle of the action (or at least as much "action" you can have in Springfield). Whenever Greta or JT or any other SJW hero spoke, you could walk a block or two down the street and have a beer. Unfortunately, this year they decided to move it to a Holiday Inn out by the interstate. #1, I don't do hotels "by the interstate", and #2, the choices within walking distance for bars is none, and for restaurants, it's pretty much every chain you can name. So, no. Probably head north to Madison that weekend.

However, their various policies provided for hours of entertainment at TAM, after someone printed off a copy and passed it around the Del Mar lounge.

http://skepticon.org/policy/

Speaking of AA, remember....no touching, not even handshakes because we don't want another incident like this one.

Ah yes, a SJW classic!!!

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, I was involved in that discussion. I was against the hyperbolic escalation from creepily "putting something in a pocket" to "violent assault"* then, as I am now.

The tort of assault does not require violence or violent intent.

It does require an intent to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact (e.g. unwanted reverse pickpocketing) and an act which indeed causes apprehension in the victim that a harmful or offensive contact would occur. Since Paul made it clear that he was not interested in having his person contacted by Victor, there is no doubt whatsoever that this would have been assault, had Paul caught Victor in the act.

Thankfully, Victor did not make good on his online threats.

 

[d4m10n]

Was it that long ago? I don't follow these things closely, but the infamous talk where he repeatedly propositioned a female audience member was in 2010, I believe, and it seems so far removed from his current rhetoric (although he still refuses to admit that it was in any way problematic) that his change of heart taking place immediately afterwards would seem a little incongruous to me.

I was in the audience, no one found it problematic.

Kate herself saw no problem with it.

This is a ridiculous line of attack.

 

[d4m10n]

Creationists and their apologists|Misogynists, rapists and rape enablers
Oppose theory of evolution|Oppose women's rights
Get cover from religion|Get cover from patriarchy
Do not understand theory of evolution|Do not understand feminism
Are not qualified biologists|Are not qualified feminists
Those who disagree are part of the problem|Those who disagree are part of the problem

Nailed. It.

 

[wareyin]

The tort of assault does not require violence or violent intent.

It does require an intent to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact (e.g. unwanted reverse pickpocketing) and an act which indeed causes apprehension in the victim that a harmful or offensive contact would occur. Since Paul made it clear that he was not interested in having his person contacted by Victor, there is no doubt whatsoever that this would have been assault, had Paul caught Victor in the act.

Thankfully, Victor did not make good on his online threats.

The tort of assault does, however, require more than words alone. Had Hoggle actually followed through, and been caught in the act, and had Myers filed suit, there is a possibility that there would have been a finding in civil court of assault. However, that is a long chain of possibilities, none of which happened, so claims of "no doubt whatsoever" are unfounded at best, and look rather silly to those not in possession of fainting couches.

 

[d4m10n]

The tort of assault does, however, require more than words alone. Had Hoggle actually followed through, and been caught in the act, and had Myers filed suit, there is a possibility that there would have been a finding in civil court of assault. However, that is a long chain of possibilities, none of which happened, so claims of "no doubt whatsoever" are unfounded at best, and look rather silly to those not in possession of fainting couches.

Are you defending Victor's online threats or not? If so, step up.

 

[wareyin]

Are you defending Victor's online threats or not? If so, step up.

I believe I have been quite specific as to my objection. Hoggle's singular threat was creepy, however not illegal, nor assault. What are you confused about?

Further, I have not interacted with Hoggle for years, but at the time he claimed the "Victor" persona was a false doxx. Do you have information to the contrary?

 

[d4m10n]

I believe I have been quite specific as to my objection. Hoggle's singular threat was creepy, however not illegal, nor assault. What are you confused about?

If he had made good on the threat, would you still be defending him?

Further, I have not interacted with Hoggle for years, but at the time he claimed the "Victor" persona was a false doxx.

I don't believe he ever did, actually. As I recall, it was a non-denial denial.

 

[wareyin]

If he had made good on the threat, would you still be defending him?




I don't believe he ever did, actually. As I recall, it was a non-denial denial.

Am I defending him now? I thought I was objecting to your hyperbolic characterization of "putting something (undefined) in a pocket (also undefined)" as "no doubt whatsoever (tort of) assault". If you feel his threat is wrong, calling it wrong on it's own merits, as I did, is far more convincing than claiming it is something it clearly is not.

 

[d4m10n]

Am I defending him now? I thought I was objecting to your hyperbolic characterization of "putting something (undefined) in a pocket (also undefined)" as "no doubt whatsoever (tort of) assault". If you feel his threat is wrong, calling it wrong on it's own merits, as I did, is far more convincing than claiming it is something it clearly is not.

Victor threatened to commit assault against Paul.

T/F?

 

[wareyin]

Victor threatened to commit assault against Paul.

T/F?

Possibly true, functionally false. Putting something in a pocket is assault as much as driving 1 mph over the speed limit is speeding. What was to be placed in the pocket? Which pocket? Was the garment containing said pocket to be worn by Myers during the placing of the object?

 

[d4m10n]

Possibly true, functionally false. Putting something in a pocket is assault as much as driving 1 mph over the speed limit is speeding. What was to be placed in the pocket? Which pocket? Was the garment containing said pocket to be worn by Myers during the placing of the object?

Let's review the elements of assault.

Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Victor intended to cause Paul apprehension by placing a foreign object on his person. I've no idea why you consider that sort of behaviour defensible, but it is clearly not. Even the proto-Pitters saw that, for the most part. It's a basic rule of civility that you don't lay hands on people without permission.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I was in the audience, no one found it problematic.

Kate herself saw no problem with it.

This is a ridiculous line of attack.

Perhaps, but when I imagine, say, Shermer saying something like this nowadays, I seriously doubt it would go over without comment from the Freethought Bloggers.

 

[Lorentz]

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Victor intended to cause Paul apprehension by placing a foreign object on his person. I've no idea why you consider that sort of behaviour defensible, but it is clearly not. Even the proto-Pitters saw that, for the most part. It's a basic rule of civility that you don't lay hands on people without permission.

Yes, it would have been a transgression against the rules of civility. In other words, it would not have been polite of him.

I do not think it would have been a crime comparable to assault in any reasonable person's mind and I'd be shocked if anyone has ever been tried, let alone convicted for a similar act.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was in the audience, no one found it problematic.

Kate herself saw no problem with it.

I don't see how either of those things are relevant. And the first one is invalid in any case, as the talk was videoed and is now freely available on the internet. So, firstly, for you to be sure of the statement you'd have to have polled every single person attending the talk (otherwise what you mean is that you're unaware of anybody there vocalising that they found it problematic), and secondly even if you had done so you cannot speak for everybody who has seen the incident as, due to the nature of its distribution, you cannot know who has or has not watched it.

But we've done this dance on this point before and I found your replies to get less logical and more disingenuous as time went on. And, since you're mischaracterising my post as an "attack", it's obviously already started to go in that direction. Let's not go there again, eh?

 

[wareyin]

Let's review the elements of assault.



I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Victor intended to cause Paul apprehension by placing a foreign object on his person. I've no idea why you consider that sort of behaviour defensible, but it is clearly not. Even the proto-Pitters saw that, for the most part. It's a basic rule of civility that you don't lay hands on people without permission.

Saying you are exaggerating your characterization of Hoggle's threat is not defending Hoggle's threat. Further, there was no threat to lay hands on anyone. The threat was placing something in a pocket. If someone places something in your coat pocket while you are not wearing it, have they "laid hands on you"?

 

[devnull]

what was the object? I havent heard this one

 

[wareyin]

what was the object? I havent heard this one

The object was never specified. Here is the original threat:

PZ should keep checking his pockets too. I will deposit a strange, yet entirely innocuous and harmless, token of my affection for him in there.

Creepy, yes. However, "entirely innocuous and harmless" makes assault a stretch to claim.