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

Last edited:
Jontg said:
That is crossing the line. Don't you dare talk **** about OgVorbis. Don't you dare try to use him as a weapon. What the hell is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

It's out of order to say that someone who has admitted raping children of his own volition is a rapist?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's out of order to say that someone who has admitted raping children of his own volition is a rapist?
Click to expand...

Considering the fact that he was a sexually abused child at the time, it does seem out of order to harp on about it the way some people do, and to "use him as a weapon".
 
cornsail said:
Considering the fact that he was a sexually abused child at the time, it does seem out of order to harp on about it the way some people do, and to "use him as a weapon".
Click to expand...

As I understand it, he raped one person as a sexually abused child. He then raped 3 others years after the abuse had stopped, when he was a teenager - something that he admits that he knew was wrong at the time but did anyway.

I don't think it's wrong to point out that when Myers calls the comment section of one website a haven for rapists because some of the commenters also post on another website which has no connection to rape or rapists, that his comments section is an actual, literal haven for one rapist. It's certainly the height of hypocrisy for the conversation to go:

"This comments section is a haven for rapists"
"What evidence are you basing that on?"
"Some of the people who comment there also comment somewhere else"
"What has that got to do with rapists?"
"...."
"You are aware that the only confirmed rapist commenter in this sphere is a regular commenter on your site and that he gets a lot of support, aren't you?"
"You unfeeling bastard! That's over the line! How dare you mention that a self-confessed rapist is a rapist! How dare you use accusations of rape against someone? How dare you use the presence of a rapist in a comments section as a weapon against the website that hosts the comments section?"

Which is, basically, what's just happened. Are there different circumstances around what's being discussed? Sure. I'm in no way implying that the two are equivalent. But, come on, anybody with half a brain should be able to see that it's a bad idea to accuse someone else of hosting a haven for rapists, when you literally host a haven for a rapist.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As I understand it, he raped one person as a sexually abused child. He then raped 3 others years after the abuse had stopped, when he was a teenager - something that he admits that he knew was wrong at the time but did anyway.
Click to expand...

Not a teenager. 12 years old.

I don't think it's wrong to point out that when Myers calls the comment section of one website a haven for rapists because some of the commenters also post on another website which has no connection to rape or rapists, that his comments section is an actual, literal haven for one rapist.
Click to expand...

"Haven for rapists" implies, to me at least, a place that is accepting/tolerant/supportive of active rapists. Literal interpretations are not always the most accurate.

It's certainly the height of hypocrisy for the conversation to go:

"This comments section is a haven for rapists"
"What evidence are you basing that on?"
"Some of the people who comment there also comment somewhere else"
"What has that got to do with rapists?"
"...."
"You are aware that the only confirmed rapist commenter in this sphere is a regular commenter on your site and that he gets a lot of support, aren't you?"
"You unfeeling bastard! That's over the line! How dare you mention that a self-confessed rapist is a rapist! How dare you use accusations of rape against someone? How dare you use the presence of a rapist in a comments section as a weapon against the website that hosts the comments section?"
Click to expand...

The third line is so ridiculous that the argument really doesn't need to go any further.

Which is, basically, what's just happened. Are there different circumstances around what's being discussed? Sure. I'm in no way implying that the two are equivalent. But, come on, anybody with half a brain should be able to see that it's a bad idea to accuse someone else of hosting a haven for rapists, when you literally host a haven for a rapist.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that that's what happened. First off, Jontg is not PZ Myers. So unless I missed some previous posts in which he/she attacked a website for having rapists in its comment section, I don't see how 'hypocrisy' is applicable. Second, I think if a place was actually a haven for rapists (e.g. a place full of admitted, unapologetic rapists, in which they were able to find support and acceptance) then it would not be hypocritical to call it that just because one's own website is supportive of someone who is remorseful about committing rape as a child.
 
cornsail said:
Not a teenager. 12 years old.
Click to expand...

1 year off being a teenager.

The third line is so ridiculous that the argument really doesn't need to go any further.
Click to expand...

And yet it did.

First off, Jontg is not PZ Myers.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point.

Second, I think if a place was actually a haven for rapists (e.g. a place full of admitted, unapologetic rapists, in which they were able to find support and acceptance)[...]
Click to expand...

But it's not, so that's irrelevant.
 
cornsail said:
"Haven for rapists" implies, to me at least, a place that is accepting/tolerant/supportive of active rapists. Literal interpretations are not always the most accurate.
Click to expand...

Npboy knows the criminal histories of the people posting at Nugent's blog. Myers just made that up because he was pissed off. Even if we get in the Christmas spirit and cut Myers a little slack he still fails at social justice because using rape as a metaphor is bad.

I don't do Christmas
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
But it's not, so that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant. The problem with PZ's attack was that it was completely false, not that it was hypocritical. If PZ's attack were true in a meaningful sense then I don't think that it would be hypocritical.


Stout said:
Npboy knows the criminal histories of the people posting at Nugent's blog. Myers just made that up because he was pissed off.
Click to expand...

No argument here.

Even if we get in the Christmas spirit and cut Myers a little slack he still fails at social justice because using rape as a metaphor is bad.

I don't do Christmas
Click to expand...

I don't agree that rape as a metaphor is always bad. But I don't think PZ was using it as a metaphor.
 
cornsail said:
Not irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. "If things were other than they are then things would be different" may be true, but it's not a great deal of use when talking about how things actually are.

I could equally say "if Nugent's blog had one self-confessed rapist who raped 3 children when he was almost a teenager who is given sympathy and support because he himself was a victim of abuse, then PZ's accusation would unquestionably be hypocritical". But that also doesn't reflect reality, so so what?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes it was. "If things were other than they are then things would be different" may be true, but it's not a great deal of use when talking about how things actually are.

I could equally say "if Nugent's blog had one self-confessed rapist who raped 3 children when he was almost a teenager who is given sympathy and support because he himself was a victim of abuse, then PZ's accusation would unquestionably be hypocritical". But that also doesn't reflect reality, so so what?
Click to expand...

The point is that PZ's charge wasn't necessarily hypocritical, it was merely untrue. What you are calling irrelevant was simply me trying to demonstrate this point.

To make an analogy:

Jack: You shouldn't hang out with Tom. He's a drug addict.
Jane: That's totally false. Plus you're being a hypocrite, because you yourself are addicted to caffeine, which makes you a drug addict.

Jane's first sentence may be valid. But her second one is a weak argument based on something being technically correct and yet not very meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom