I’m not even saying “believe”. I’m just pointing out that the statements about seeing ghosts and being raped don’t have the same prima facie likelihood at all.
And I'm saying prima facie likelihood is a bad way to approach a rape accusation. It is, in fact, callous towards the accused.
Dafuq?
Do you agree with this claim:
I do not agree with that claim. I don't agree with the relative likelihood/relative plausibility framing at all.
To be clear: If Alice says she was raped, without naming names or establishing a time frame, that's plausible enough. More plausible than ghosts.
On the other hand, if Alice says Bob from accounting raped her last night as they were closing up the office, I would absolutely not consider it a priori more likely or more plausible than if Alice said she saw a ghost. That would be horrifically unfair to Bob.
For me, it's not a question of plausibility, but a question of actionability. Typical claims of ghosts or aliens are entirely un-actionable. There's nothing you can really do with them. Most of the time, you can't even investigate.
Accusing Bob of rape is very actionable. To the extent that imperfectly informed action could do Bob great harm, I'd say that an actionable claim of rape should be treated with *more* skepticism than an un-actionable claim of ghosts.
All of which to say, I think it's likely that Gaiman has raped more than once, and that Palmer has knowingly procured victims for him. Not because I think these things are more likely in the abstract than alien ghosts or ghost aliens. Rather, because of the totality of the information avaliable so far.
I'm surprised this is such a sticking point for you. I'm sure you're just as horrified as I am, at the idea that we should assume an unsupported rape claim is true, because rapes are more likely than ghosts.
!”