Except that it can be both.
Legally it can be very hard to get a case, often a he says, she says, case, through the system and get a guilty verdict, even when it really happened, sometimes even when there is ample proof of what happened. We live in a culture where enough men think that a half comatose, drunk woman really means yes even though she says no, that they can get off of charges simply because the police no they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
No we don't, but thats off topic. Though you are well on your way to making the same kind of claims PZ and friends make about society that causes the inconsistency Im pointing out in the first place.
However, and this is why both can be true. The court of public opinion doesn't work or need "beyond reasonable doubt." Mud sticks, and an accusation of rape, even if unfounded and unsuccessful in court, can destroy careers of those in public light. Look at Bill Roache for instance. He was found no guilty, but the likelihood is that his long career is over, and while some will think he innocent, many will consider him guilty regardless of the trial outcome..
Im not talking about legal proof. Im talking precisely about public opinion. If the claim is we don't believe rape victims then PZ's LEVEL OF FEAR was not justified. The LEVEL OF FEAR compared to his views he now holds as to how likely it would be that he should hold that level of fear, is the issue here.
It is an irrelevancy, because nobody has cited strength of evidence as a determinative factor in whether or not a report is believed - it's a qualification you are injecting unilaterally.
You're right, they dont. The people that say these things do lump all of it together. But YOU know, don't you? The difference between a claim that has evidence, and a claim that does not, and you know they are not the same. If claims that do have evidence and we do have good reason to take seriously are systematically and routinely ignored or the person disbelieved, then claims that do not have any evidence against a person with a spotless record would be even more likely to be disbelieved.
On at least some occasions, the report is dismissed out of hand before there is even an opportunity to collect or analyze evidence. On others, a report is believed under similar circumstances.
So all you're giving me here is "some occasions". The level of risk determines how reasonable it is we have to be fearful of something. In PZ's post 4 years ago he believed she had such a strong likelyhood of being believed purely on her word, and that everyone would believe her to such an extent that regardless an investigation it would destroy his career, that he had to rush to try and gather evidence to preemptively defend himself as best he can in case she accused him. This is not the mind of a man who believes women have such a hard time being believed and taken seriously even at the best of times.
You don't see how someone pointing out that a damaged reputation and a rape claim that's not taken seriously aren't mutually exclusive is relevant to the topic?
I thought it was pretty obvious.
Except that was not the comparison Im drawing.,..... How can a society so easily destroy a man with such an spotless history on her word alone, while at the same time it also being true that society systematically does not believe and victim blame rape victims to such a great extent that an incredible number won't even bother to report it? You really cant see any problem here?
Note the emphasis above. I offered a different interpretation of what he meant by what he wrote. Only the writer can know precisely what he meant, but when I see the word "easily" in a context such as this I often interpret it as a form of hyperbole.
You haven't actually explained why your interpretation makes sense within the context of what he wrote. That is why Im asking you to rewrite the sentence and make it make sense in context, because I know you can't do it. If he wasn't actually fearful for his career, why is the stories entire point about how fearful he was about the damage it could have on him and how he needed to try and rush to preemptively gather some evidence with which could help defend himself if she did? Take the word "easily" out and it really doesn't make much a difference to my point, in that the level of fear doesn't match what he claims is likely to happen in society.
For the record, my primary intent was to show how words can be interpreted differently by different readers, in a likely vain attempt to show you why the other people in this thread aren't signing on with your interpretation
Then they need to demonstarte why they can rewrite what he wrote so it doesn't sound like that. If you're saying that they need to do this in order to attempt to disagree with my point here, then you're right, they do.
There's your problem, right there. You are assuming, after the fact, that her claim would "obviously" be frivolous.
No, I'm reading PZ's story. That based on nothing but her claim alone, despite his spotless record and testimony from people on his character, PZ believed she could still "easily destroy" his career regardless.
At the time of the incident, there is no reason for PZ to assume it will, at some time in the future, be seen as frivolous. Rather, the rational action is to assume it might be taken on face value and act accordingly.
You are confused, I know that. For him to do this is not in question. I never said he shouldnt be worried, I am saying his level of fear is not consistent with how he presents reality. If we are to take his presentation of reality, his level of fear expressed 4 years ago is clearly irrationally misplaced. He could have said that in his blog post here, but he didn't.
In fact, if a sexual harassment is made, the university (or the police, depending on where the claim is made) HAS to consider the claim as presented and investigate. To think PZ doesn't have to preemptively to protect himself no matter his reputation is to be naive in the extreme.
I wonder, where did you get the idea that I think he should not preemptively protect himself?
This is not what he should or should not have done, its about an inconsistency in his beliefs.
On the flip side, if 20% of rape claims are disbelieved and 80% are believed there is no reason that one could not hold the position that "it's a problem that so many rape victims are not believed." After all 20% is a large proportion (1 in 5), especially if we were to estimate, say, that only 2-5% of rape claims are false. So there is another way of looking at it in which there is no inconsistency.
Yes, and then the PZ Meyers crew would have to believe that 80% of rape claims are believed. Do you think that is the picture they present? Have you actually tried reading what they believe or do you just assume they don't really believe such things? And we're talking about a scenario where its her word against his, someone with (he says ) an "spotless" record, and where he could provide all kinds of witnesses to testify to his character. All those cases that are "not believed", that feminists like PZ and Atheism+ are so unhappy about, you'd have to assume they are all ones where there's good reason to assume we should believe them and investigate it seriously. So lets say it is 20%. That's still too low to say that she will easily destroy him on merely her word, she has no evidence and he has a spotless record. So its not even 20% chance, and can possibly explain his level of fear.
Some real accusations of rape are not believed. Some false accusations of rape are believed. Does anybody deny this? If not, then there's no inconsistency.
There is if you believe that the ratio of accusations that are believed vs not believed is extremely one sided against those making the claim. In
that case if you think someone is going to accuse you of rape and you believe that its so incredibly rare for allegations to be taken seriously by society and the police, then the level of fear should reflect that. If the level of fear is greater than the actual level of risk, then by definition its an irrational level of fear, isn't it?
Imagine someone who believes that there is only a few % chance of dying when flying in a commercial plane. Imagine then that same person becoming incredibly fearful if they have to fly. That is what we'd call irrational, if it is true that flying in a plane has that little risk. PZ did not say here that his level of fear 4 years ago was irrational and unjustified, instead he is like that person fearful of flying that would try and claim there's no contradiction between his level of fear and the actual level of risk.
. It is more that any investigation in academia damages reputations to a lesser or greater degree depending on the type and result of investigation.