JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » JREF Topics » The Amaz!ng Meeting! and other Skeptical Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 9th August 2013, 02:38 PM   #3961
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22,068
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
That doesn't mean that's why Randfan is using it as an analogy. In any analogous situation, some parts will be the functional part of the analogy, and some won't be. Duke is a dramatic case of how an accusation is not what it seems,
...Because the accuser lied. That fact is central to the entire case, and is the first thing people think of when it comes to mind.

The reason RandFan was oh-so-burned () by it is because the accuser lied. The reason why those boys were arrested is because she lied. Mike Nifong abused his office because she lied.

Everybody lost their **** because a woman lied about being sexually assaulted.

And now he wants to keep saying "remember the Duke Lacrosse case" every five minutes, and not sound like he's accusing Karen, Ashley, etc of lying?

No, I'm really not buying that for a minute.

Quote:
In many conflicts, it is not true that one side or the other is lying. This is pretty basic in conflict resolution theory (although it might well turn out, in any one case, that one side - maybe both! - are lying).
Sorry, I was referring to specifically named and described incidents, not abstract generalities. In the general case, you are of course correct. In the incidents I'm discussing (specifically, Karen's and Ashley's), I'm not seeing it.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:40 PM   #3962
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,311
Another FTBlogger, Blaghag, has now removed/amended an earlier post with allegations against another prominent figure, due apparently to their threat of legal action.

Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 9th August 2013 at 02:43 PM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:42 PM   #3963
kedo1981
Master Poster
 
kedo1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: ohio
Posts: 2,478
Here's a suggestion
When you are at a Skeptic meeting, and there are people with breasts, don't act like the first half of the movie PORKYS
__________________
"The dinosaurs never saw it coming; whats our excuse?" "Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, Steven soter, Neil deGrasse Tyson

I readily admit I don’t know enough to say for sure that there is no God.
But I do know enough so say that anyone who claims to know the mind and will of a being such as God is a liar.
kedo1981 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:44 PM   #3964
Estellea
Graduate Poster
 
Estellea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Fair enough; but the only accusation that's actually been made via him is the latest one about Shermer.

Stollznow's allegation was made by herself on her own blog, the name first given by persons other than Myers. Then there was Ashley's own videos about her own experiences. I think elsewhere Poppy described her own experiences while backing up what little of Stollznow's that she was personally aware of.

What I'm saying is this isn't a "PZ Myers" thing. Right now Estellea is unfairly tying all these separate parties and distinct allegations together as "Myers and his band of sexual assault/harrassment story vampires", as if these people are a cohesive group that have gotten together and planned all this. I expect that if any new allegations about prominent skeptics come to light she will likely blame Myers "and his band" for them as well, irrespective of the source.
I'm also lumping in the Tumblr debacle and in the larger picture, the anonymous naming and shaming campaigns so I apologise for the incomplete thought. The rest is a strawman.

Este
Estellea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:46 PM   #3965
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
The reason why those boys were arrested is because she lied.
So, is it possible that the accuser in this incident is lying? You seem to be arguing that we should always be on the side of the accuser unless she is lying. How do you know when the accuser is lying? Perhaps the evidence is sufficient to know that the accuser isn't lying. Perhaps there is evidence I don't know about. I'm not an expert in these types of claims. I want to be objective to both the accuser and the accused.

Skepticism holds that anyone can lie. I'm not claiming the accuser is lying. I'm saying that I lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion. I'm agnostic.

Pointing out that sometimes it does not appear that the accuser is lying doesn't mean that the accuser isn't lying.

So let me ask you again, how do we know when the accuser isn't lying? Did you start with the presumption that the accuser isn't lying and you need proof contrary to that presumption before you will consider anything else?

I could understand your enmity toward me if I had come here attacking the accuser. I've done no such thing.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:48 PM   #3966
Shaun from Scotland
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 866
I disagree with Randfan on a great many issues on this board, but I think he is being unfairly pilloried here. I haven't read anything on here that makes me think he believes she is lying. I think all he is asking for is that we all don't rush to judgement. That seems fair and reasonable to me
__________________
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"

Statements Richard G cannot back up - "You may not own a rifle, or a pistol in the U.K.. Period. One shotgun per person is allowed, under heavy regulations. Most owners have turned those in also, because the regulations, and registration are too difficult and burdensome"
Shaun from Scotland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:51 PM   #3967
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,769
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Another FTBlogger, Blaghag, has now removed/amended an earlier post with allegations against another prominent figure, due apparently to their threat of legal action.
I imagine you are referring to this blog entry charging DJ Grothe with some highly questionable remarks and this "CYA" explanation of why some of the preceding post has been removed.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:51 PM   #3968
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Shaun from Scotland View Post
I disagree with Randfan on a great many issues on this board, but I think he is being unfairly pilloried here. I haven't read anything on here that makes me think he believes she is lying. I think all he is asking for is that we all don't rush to judgement. That seems fair and reasonable to me
Thank you. Let me reiterate, if I had to choose right now one way or the other I think I would favor the accuser.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:58 PM   #3969
Paul2
Graduate Poster
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,587
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
...Because the accuser lied. That fact is central to the entire case, and is the first thing people think of when it comes to mind.

The reason RandFan was oh-so-burned () by it is because the accuser lied. The reason why those boys were arrested is because she lied. Mike Nifong abused his office because she lied.

Everybody lost their **** because a woman lied about being sexually assaulted.

And now he wants to keep saying "remember the Duke Lacrosse case" every five minutes, and not sound like he's accusing Karen, Ashley, etc of lying?

No, I'm really not buying that for a minute.
Even when he says he's just trying to be even-handed and objective? You're going to tell him he's using the Duke case as a way to insinuate that an accuser is lying despite his explicit attempt at objectivity and even-handeness? Does that mean no one can legitimately reference the Duke case in an analogy without implying that the lying carries over into the analogy?

I can see how one might, at first, take that implication. But one doesn't need to hold onto it in the face of other information.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 02:59 PM   #3970
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Third in line
Posts: 18,042
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
So, is it possible that the accuser in this incident is lying? You seem to be arguing that we should always be on the side of the accuser unless she is lying. How do you know when the accuser is lying? Perhaps the evidence is sufficient to know that the accuser isn't lying. Perhaps there is evidence I don't know about. I'm not an expert in these types of claims.
Is there any compelling reason to think the accuser is or might be lying in this case?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:00 PM   #3971
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,311
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Yes but just to be clear, the prominent skeptic figure threatening action is not Grothe. They are however mentioned in the comments on the follow up post.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:01 PM   #3972
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,392
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Another FTBlogger, Blaghag, has now removed/amended an earlier post with allegations against another prominent figure, due apparently to their threat of legal action.
That's interesting.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:02 PM   #3973
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,625
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I am pleased to see that Ken from Popehat is offering pro bono legal assistance to BlagHag.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne

Last edited by A'isha; 9th August 2013 at 03:03 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:04 PM   #3974
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22,068
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
So, is it possible that the accuser in this incident is lying?
Show me some evidence that she is. I mean, you may think me obtuse, but I haven't seen a smoking gun.

The problem is that you seem to think the null hypothesis, the default assumption, is the presumption of innocence, as in a court of law. In the specific cases of Ashley and Karen, that presumption carries with it an inherent accusation of lying on their part.

To me, the claim that they have been harassed/assaulted is not an extraordinary claim, but the claim that they are lying is.

No, that's not enough to convict Radford and JimBob in a court of law, and nobody's saying it should be. However, it should be enough to keep them the **** away from TAM and other conferences.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

Last edited by Cleon; 9th August 2013 at 03:06 PM.
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:05 PM   #3975
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Is there any compelling reason to think the accuser is or might be lying in this case?
No, but then I didn't have a compelling reason to believe that the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case was lying until the 60 minutes episode by Ed Bradley. That's what I find a bit frustrating. There seems to be a demand that everyone accept the accuser at face value without any opportunity to consider the case. I only found about it a day or so ago. I think it was months after I found out about Duke Lacrosse before I found compelling reason to think the accuser had lied.

I'd like to avoid jumping to conclusions until I've heard a bit more. That's all. And FWIW: I kinda wish others would do the same. There seems to be a mob mentality on all of this. Now Laurance Krause, Michael Shermer and others are being accused of serious allegations. Perhaps they are guilty. Perhaps they are innocent. Do you really need me to make up my mind right now?

I'll say it again, had I come here attacking the accuser I could understand your questions. But I've done nothing of the sort. Is a request for others to consider objectivity really a problem? If so then why?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

Last edited by RandFan; 9th August 2013 at 03:13 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:06 PM   #3976
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22,068
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
I am pleased to see that Ken from Popehat is offering pro bono legal assistance to BlagHag.
Indeed. I don't agree with his politics, but I respect the hell out of him for what he does.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:11 PM   #3977
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
To me, the claim that they have been harassed/assaulted is not an extraordinary claim, but the claim that they are lying is.
So, let me get this right, if my mother claims to talk to Jesus, and she does, does that mean my only options are to think she is either lying or she is telling the truth? I think the world is a bit more nuanced than that. The accuser could be lying. The accuser could be exaggerating. People do both. Do I think she is? I have no reason to think she is lying. I've no evidence that the accuser is lying. But to be fair, for the first couple of months during the Duke Lacrosse affair I had no evidence that the accuser then was lying.

You are engaging in a false dichotomy. Reality and human belief are not so simple. I think we should move on. This isn't about me.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:17 PM   #3978
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
The problem is that you seem to think the null hypothesis, the default assumption, is the presumption of innocence, as in a court of law. In the specific cases of Ashley and Karen, that presumption carries with it an inherent accusation of lying on their part.
I'm not sure what the point is of me saying things if you are going to ignore them.

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I don't mind at all if people form opinions and argue for or against the defendant. It's not irrational to form an opinion based on the evidence at hand. We are not juror's and I'm not asking anyone to be unreasonably middle of the road here. I just ask that people avoid fallacy and to bear in mind that things are not always as the seem (remember Duke Lacrosse). That includes folks on both sides.

One last thing, I've not exhaustively looked at the evidence. Some people may be thinking that I'm being obtuse but I've not seen a smoking gun. I don't know the accuser and her supporters. I will say that from what I know at this moment, if I had to pick a side, it would be with the accuser.
I've honestly tried to reach out to you to have a civil discussion. This was never about me. So good bye for now.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:21 PM   #3979
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Third in line
Posts: 18,042
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I'll it again, had I come here attacking the accuser I could understand your questions. But I've done nothing of the sort. Is a request for others to consider objectivity really a problem? If so then why?
It's more the suggestion anybody who looks at the current information and makes a judgment in favor of the accuser is not being objective.

There is an accusation by a specific person that another specific person sexually harassed and finally assaulted her. There is currently no statement by the accused person claiming that the accuser is lying. Objectively, then, there is by definition more out there to suggest the accusations are true than there is suggesting they may be false. Right now, it's not even "he said, she said"; it's simply "she said".

Is it possible she's lying? Always. Is that mere possibility enough all by itself to evenly balance out the accusation, the way a direct denial might (in the absence of anyone else)? I don't think so.

In the Duke case, there was a whole team of lawyers for the defendants, openly declaring that the events never happened at all; that many of the accused individuals weren't even at the party where it supposedly took place. No such thing here in this case. If that happens it's another matter, of course; but until then? The only information we have sits on the "there was a sexual assault" side.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:21 PM   #3980
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22,068
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
So, let me get this right, if my mother claims to talk to Jesus, and she does, does that mean my only options are to think she is either lying or she is telling the truth?
No, you clearly don't have it right.

In your mom's case, there's obviously other possibilities, and telling the truth is rather less likely than, say, hallucinations.

In the specific cases I'm referring to, I don't see any other possibilities other than A) telling the truth or B) lying. There's certainly no wiggle room for "misunderstandings," "poorly worded jokes," or other familiar excuses. If Karen was talking to Jesus, I might suspect hallucinations, but that seems unlikely here (especially since her husband is involved).

If there's a third possibility, kindly inform me as to what it might be. If you don't know what it might be, you're just spewing empty rhetoric and not actually addressing the specific situations I'm referring to. Or as some have been known to call it, "looking at the evidence."
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:27 PM   #3981
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's more the suggestion anybody who looks at the current information and makes a judgment in favor of the accuser is not being objective.
I don't believe that. It's not my position. I can only speak for myself. I only said I wished that others would wait. I don't claim to be able to read anyone's mind. You may very well have sufficient data to come to a conclusion. I wish people would discuss the case though and not me. It's not about me or other people. I simply offered an opinion. It wasn't meant to be a slight on anyone.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:27 PM   #3982
RemieV
Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover
 
RemieV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,235
The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/
__________________
Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved.

Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.
RemieV is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:29 PM   #3983
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Third in line
Posts: 18,042
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
In the specific cases I'm referring to, I don't see any other possibilities other than A) telling the truth or B) lying. There's certainly no wiggle room for "misunderstandings," "poorly worded jokes," or other familiar excuses. If Karen was talking to Jesus, I might suspect hallucinations, but that seems unlikely here (especially since her husband is involved).
I've been trying to say this as well, although I don't think I've done a very good job.

I cannot conceive of what completely innocuous turn of events Stollznow could be mistaking for the sustained-over-several-years campaign of multi-vectored harassment, threats, and series of sexual assaults she has described, especially considering a third-party investigated and concluded there was something "inappropriate" happening worth at least making a show at suspending the accused person over.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:30 PM   #3984
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
My apologize for this ot post. I feel that my contributions have moved the discussion in the wrong direction. I'm going to excuse myself from the thread.

So, my apologies to everyone but I don't think I can be helpful here. Good luck and all the best to everyone. I mean that sincerely.

__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 04:06 PM   #3985
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,013
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/
Either a) I've met this woman or b) two women had similar experiences.

Please take this seriously. If victims come forward, please support them.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 04:29 PM   #3986
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,392
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Either a) I've met this woman or b) two women had similar experiences.

Please take this seriously. If victims come forward, please support them.
So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:31 PM   #3987
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,820
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/
Yup.

Ka-boom!

Well, this is all going to make Dragon*Con really interesting this year.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 9th August 2013 at 05:32 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:37 PM   #3988
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 11,403
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.
I too am curious about this.
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:41 PM   #3989
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: a little toolshed
Posts: 19,057
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.
Any chance it's a typo and she meant "dissent"?

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:43 PM   #3990
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,317
The plot s^Hthickens.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:46 PM   #3991
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,820
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.
I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.

Either that, or the words "date rape drug" spring to mind.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:52 PM   #3992
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: a little toolshed
Posts: 19,057
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.
But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:58 PM   #3993
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,625
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.
Yes.

"The automatic default is that I consent to sex unless I specifically say otherwise, so if I'm too drunk to say yes you can go ahead and assume I consent anyway" is not the way this works.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne

Last edited by A'isha; 9th August 2013 at 06:06 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:06 PM   #3994
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,820
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.

~~ Paul
Bingo
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:16 PM   #3995
Badger3k
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/
I'm just curious - how is it corroboration? PZ Myers says that two women have come forward and said these things. Two anonymous women. We have absolutely zero from these women themselves. For all we know, Myers is making this whole thing up to get back at Shermer, it's no secret he doesn't like him. If these women would come forward and make their cases, then we would have evidence. Until then, all this is hearsay.
Badger3k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:30 PM   #3996
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 11,403
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
Yes.

"The automatic default is that I consent to sex unless I specifically say otherwise, so if I'm too drunk to say yes you can go ahead and assume I consent anyway" is not the way this works.
It's just an odd phrasing. If one did not consent, one could just say "I did not consent", and it's unambiguously a case of rape if the accusation is true. Saying that one could not consent is vaguer, and it's habit with me to suspect that when a speaker is being vague that something important is being concealed by the vagueness. It seems like a construction one might use if one did actually consent, but believes that consent should not count. Or, as I said, it could just be odd phrasing.
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:58 PM   #3997
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,392
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Any chance it's a typo and she meant "dissent"?

~~ Paul
Neither dissent not consent resolves the issue that I have a question with. What does it mean "coerced me into a position"? I was trying to picture some physical position one could not scream or cry out from. Others seem to think the meaning was "got me drunk" which makes sense but brings up other questions. Unless someone is exploiting your known drinking problem or slipping you a roofie, how does one coerce you into becoming drunk?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 07:06 PM   #3998
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,392
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.

Either that, or the words "date rape drug" spring to mind.
Sure, but how is Shermer coercing at that point?

I am of the unquestionable opinion taking advantage of an intoxicated woman is rape. Don't put me in the victim blaming category because I don't belong there. If a woman is drunk, a gentleman protects her, he doesn't take advantage of her and later blame her for his assault.

On the other hand, I can't blame every guy who has sex with an intoxicated woman if they were drinking together. Every single case is not clearly victimizing. People drink. They have sex. It happens in lots of non-abusive situations.


Where the question comes in here in particular in this case is how is Shermer to blame for a choice to drink? Maybe he was. But I'm having trouble with the claim as it is stated.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 07:06 PM   #3999
Badger3k
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Neither dissent not consent resolves the issue that I have a question with. What does it mean "coerced me into a position"? I was trying to picture some physical position one could not scream or cry out from. Others seem to think the meaning was "got me drunk" which makes sense but brings up other questions. Unless someone is exploiting your known drinking problem or slipping you a roofie, how does one coerce you into becoming drunk?
Maybe someone just keeps buying drinks even after you want to be done, but drink out of some misguided sense of politeness, or you just want a few drinks but they buy strong ones without telling you, and as you get drunker they keep putting drinks in front of you. Drinks and smooth talking can get someone to do something they might not want to (or might regret later).
Badger3k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 08:18 PM   #4000
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 33,577
I keep getting 503 errors (service unavailable) from the last two FTB links.
__________________
Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Australasian Skeptics Forum.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » JREF Topics » The Amaz!ng Meeting! and other Skeptical Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.