|
Welcome to the International Skeptics 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. |
9th August 2013, 06:55 AM | #241 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:06 AM | #242 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
|
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
9th August 2013, 07:15 AM | #243 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
it seems to me that a person has been accused of a serious crime publicly with zero details at all. at least Radford knows who is accusing him.
who? where? how? etc.. how could this person, or anyone, defend themselves from someone telling everybody you're a rapist but not going to the police? think i will amend thread title to include this, if no-one objects? |
9th August 2013, 07:20 AM | #244 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:21 AM | #245 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 07:22 AM | #246 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:24 AM | #247 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:30 AM | #248 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
This has actually been a pretty even and informative discussion. Thank you to all involved. Especially to blutoski and chillzero who have already said basically everything I've thought to say.
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
9th August 2013, 07:32 AM | #249 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 07:37 AM | #250 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:38 AM | #251 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
To me the best account that would fit that quote would be that she was pressured into drinking more than she would have liked and had sex with her while unconscious. To speculate consent was given flies in direct contradiction to "a position where I could not consent."
|
9th August 2013, 07:41 AM | #252 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 07:42 AM | #253 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:46 AM | #254 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
|
|
9th August 2013, 07:58 AM | #255 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 08:14 AM | #256 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,104
|
I meant 'red herring'. The fact that her individual case is not prosecutable is, to me, irrelevant to whether she should notify the police because of the claim of pattern in her email to PZ.
She claimed that she is a victim of a crime perpetrated by Michael Shermer. She believes that she is not the only such victim. You don't second guess the police, you go in and make your statement and let them do their job. The red flag here is that while she is not willing to go to the police, she is willing to send an email to PZ to publicly accuse somebody of committing a crime against her on her behalf, while she remains anonymous. If she is willing to publicly accuse somebody of a crime, she should be willing to make that accusation to the people whose job it is to investigate crimes. |
__________________
Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. |
|
9th August 2013, 08:27 AM | #257 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
9th August 2013, 09:25 AM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
Hard to say without a survey. But JREF aside, it's simply a fact that prominent skeptics are AGW deniers and I don't think they're posing in order to mollify membership: I think they are sincere and it is attrating that demographic.
Michael Shermer is director/chair of the Skeptic Society, which makes it more or less that organization's official stance. Penn Jillette, obviously. I believe the Australian Skeptics also have the official position that AGW is a hoax. I have given up sparring with Barry Williams about that topic in particular - it seems his mind is pretty set. This was a bigger deal a few years ago when there was a foofaraw triggered by NCSE expanding their scope by adding AGW denial legislation to their science watch list. Their funding was impacted (I think about a third of donors threatened to cancel their memberships, but I haven't followed up to see how many really did) and also created a rift with organized skepticism, in that some of the leadership discussed weakening ties with NCSE. This was around the time I resigned from BCSkeptics - the leadership referred to NCSE as 'drinking the kool-aid' and I felt this was indicative of an unalterable policy failure. Daniel Loxton pointed out that this was proof that skepticism does not really do what it claims to do: we had a perfect opportunity to take a leadership role on a public misunderstanding of a vitally important scientific topic, and we couldn't get it right. The expression he used is that skepticism "fell down" when it was really tested. A good point: I do mean the basic belief that women should be treated as equals, with knowledge that there will be some minor differences that need accomodation, and that affirmitive action may be required in some situations as well. I think this is the majority view. A minority of people would disagree with some or all of those premises, and they seem to find solace within skepticism because outsider views are encouraged and certainly not disqualification for membership. Just as a concrete example: I have had to take people aside in my worksplace and nonprofits when they deliberately insult a person's religious beliefs, and some of the worst examples included drawing pictures. It's a sign of sociopathy in my opinion (I'm not a psychiatrist, but my wife is and we've discussed individual examples). A few years ago I practically stopped attending Vancouver Skeptics in the Pub because Blasphemy Day was essentially a CFI sponsored 'draw pictures of mohammed getting buggered' day. Aside from the sophmoric humour, I felt that if these organizations are doing any type of unintentional membership screening, they are screening stable people out. I'm actually a Canadian, but rules of conduct are different than laws (although laws can be actioned with them - such as the obligation to report allegations of crimes). I think they were very aware of the risk associated with his views but weighed it against other factors. My feeling is that possibly the most important factor in their decision was that his uncle Lorne is a prominent networked Canadian philanthropist and was willing to bankroll CFI Canada to the tune of six figures. The board has been a basket case from day one because the structure set up for a normal non-profit's democratic governance does not reflect the actual autocratic governance. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
9th August 2013, 11:01 AM | #259 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
|
Apparently Shermer was once indeed an AGW denier, but that's more than a few years ago. From a post on his blog in 2008:
Quote:
A quick google didn't yield me anything on Barry Williams; the name is also unfamiliar to me. This leads me to conclude that the first two examples you mention are either untrue or, more likely, out of date. Do you have more? Thanks for your clarification of the other points. |
9th August 2013, 11:10 AM | #260 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
9th August 2013, 11:21 AM | #261 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,177
|
I'll try again.
You said "An accusation of rape is a very serious accusation and must be investigated by the police." I'm saying that's sometimes easier said than done as it can be an emotionally anguishing process that some people feel they can't handle, deal with the blowback, face the person who violated them, etc. |
9th August 2013, 11:29 AM | #262 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,594
|
|
__________________
"Your ride's over, mutie. Time to die." |
|
9th August 2013, 11:29 AM | #263 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
|
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
9th August 2013, 11:40 AM | #264 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
He did make that announcement in 2008 but has since backpedalled on select points. I would say that at this stage he's concentrating on questioning the forecasts of human impact and therefore the need for government sponsored countermeasures. I thought it was just me, but Jim Lippard confirmed the other day that he was hearing the same message from Shermer even as recently as a few months ago.
That sounds right. More below. Barry's the founder of Australian Skeptics and was editor of their journal until 2008, and was succeeded by Karen Stollznow, but there was a fallout and she has been replaced by Tim Mendham. I think it would be fair to describe Barry as a staunch libertarian. IMO, the disappointing element about this with the directors of BCSkeptics, Penn Jillette, Michael Shermer and Barry Williams is that their best explanation for views that oppose their own is that scientists are incompetent and politically motivated toward liberalism. This is essentially politically motivated conspirational thinking, and disappointing in skeptical organizations that make such a big deal of criticizing that behavior in others. Even if they're older examples, they did coincide with a a period of rapid membership growth, and would have a long lasting impact on membership - and a few years' later - leadership demographics. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
9th August 2013, 11:54 AM | #265 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Consider: if the rape occurs in a city that neither the victim nor the perpetrator nor any of the likely independent witnesses live in (as will often be the case with conferences), then really, what's going to happen? The witness might be able to give a statement; maybe she knows enough information about the perpetrator for the police to be able to track down a phone number or something and get a statement from the perpetrator. Then what? All the physical evidence is gone (not that groping would leave much anyway). All the witnesses are gone. The victim and perpetrator usually aren't able to travel back to that city for the purposes of facilitating the investigation (and the police usually can't take trips across the country to take statements or gather evidence either). Bonus negative-points if another country is involved somewhere in there.
So what actually is accomplished? Nothing meaningful. Actually it can even be counterproductive; if any of the individuals we're discussing actually had gone to the police first and the investigation was never able to move forward due purely to the circumstances, they would just be criticizing for not "allowing the police to do their jobs"; we'd be lectured not to form any opinion until the (limbo'd) investigation reaches a "conclusion", or the fact that the police never made any arrests would simply be spun as suggestive that the allegations were false. |
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 11:59 AM | #266 |
Straussian
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
|
|
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo. Diablo: What's that supposed to mean? Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value. |
|
9th August 2013, 12:11 PM | #267 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
|
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
9th August 2013, 12:17 PM | #268 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
|
I agree completely. Thinking that there is anywhere, on any subject, a scientist conspiracy, is to betray either complete ignorance of how the scientific jungle works, or deliberately misleading.
p.s. My genuine thanks for your calm and clear explanations, without ever assuming malicious intent on my part when I questioned your claims. It may be you're that rarest of creatures in the skeptic community: a skeptic? |
9th August 2013, 12:23 PM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
So are there any "big name" celebrity skeptics out there who are not misogynistic horndogs?
|
9th August 2013, 12:29 PM | #270 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
9th August 2013, 12:32 PM | #271 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
9th August 2013, 12:45 PM | #272 |
Not a doctor.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,863
|
In the other thread related to this someone posted this link to Blake Smith's Facebook post. Up thread it was mentioned that Blake has supported Karen and that was enough for some people. If you scroll down there is a non-response by Ben, but more telling are the responses by Matthew Baxter, who I gather is Karen's husband.
Matthew's posts are the most convincing evidence for me. Something about them just rings true. They sound like a man who has tried to be polite, tried to be direct and has tried to handle this as well as possible, but just hasn't gotten through. The frustration comes through so clearly. Anyway, just thought that should be in this thread. |
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. |
|
9th August 2013, 12:48 PM | #273 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
To a point, yes I suppose; but if the silence doesn't come to an end at some point with, say, a C&D letter or some other legal notice to the accuser, then I think there becomes something we can infer from it.
On the other hand, if even a short statement is made - like Radford's in the comment section of that one blog post - then of course we can infer things from that. |
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 |
|
9th August 2013, 12:50 PM | #274 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
First, if "he coerced me into a position" means he got me drunk, I have issues with that right there. No one makes you drink. Now if he dropped a roofie in the glass, that would be a different accusation.
However, getting drunk is no reason to put any guilt on the victim, but the claim he coerced the drinking, that's a different matter and it would seem to me that unless Shermer knew the victim had a drinking problem and plotted his fiendish scheme, I can't agree the victim was victimized as the statement claims. But we still have the sex with an intoxicated woman. Here is a different dilemma, sometimes this is rape, clear and simple, but sometimes it isn't. And how are we to know from the claim? A lot of people get drunk and have sex. This came up before with the extremist feminists claiming any man having sex with any intoxicated woman was raping her. One person's objection I recall was something like, "That's ridiculous. My husband and I have had drunk sex and it wasn't rape." I cannot say if this was rape or simply morning regret from the description we've been given. PZ notes the accusation is consistent with Shermer's behavior in other situations. I've seen him in the company of very attractive women and it doesn't surprise me he has sex with them. It doesn't surprise me he has multiple partners. Shermer is mildly attractive, he appears to have money, he is intelligent and educated, and he is a minor TV personality. Women are bound to be attracted to him, and he's bound to know that many of them are. While the availability of willing women doesn't rule out date rape or stranger rape, it does leave one to question if a disappointed sex partner is a possible explanation for the accusation, especially the way it was worded. I don't profess to know the truth, nor do I want to blame any victim because they were drunk. But one does have to consider the evidence in an unbiased way and the accusation in this case, corroborated by others who find Shermer's behavior around women obnoxious, is not enough to convince me what is claimed is not heavily slanted by the beholder, not necessarily in a dishonest way, but perhaps in a self preserving way. |
9th August 2013, 12:53 PM | #275 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
I thought it was more a joke than a troll, just saying.
I think people live in a fantasy world if they believe the criminal justice system works at all to sort these claims out. Cops are often biased believing accusations are lies and prosecutors don't respond very empathetically if there isn't enough evidence to take a case to court. Everyone who is raped, especially date rape, cannot expect justice in the courts so I don't fault any person who chooses not to file charges or report an assault. |
9th August 2013, 12:53 PM | #276 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
I'm 100% certain the majority are not, but let's face it: this has been a very bad year for the rank-and-file's confidence in the leadership of organized skepticism (I would include Brian Dunning's cookie stuffing allegations as brand-impacting too).
I expect CFI, JREF, and Skeptics Society are going into siege mode right now, and I don't think it would be overreacting. From a management perspective, it's a fact that the greatest difficulty that an organization faces is not actually external competition, but rather in managing the internal changes that are required to accomodate rapid growth. If the changes to org structure are delayed or a poor fit, the effects on staff are not limited to morale... adherence to values can also suffer. It's speculation on my part, but I suspect the original governance and operations structures have not been modified sufficiently, and did not scale up safely. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
9th August 2013, 12:59 PM | #277 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
9th August 2013, 12:59 PM | #278 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,177
|
|
9th August 2013, 01:07 PM | #279 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
9th August 2013, 01:09 PM | #280 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 926
|
I agree with this, and - if this is indeed some form of morning regret - Shermer should sue the pants off PZ. I consider PZ's willingness to name name's before there is any real clarity on the situation reprehensible.
ETA: unless it comes out that PZ had knowledge of evidence that we have so far not heard. |
__________________
Best concise summary of Intelligent Design's never-changing key argument: “ the improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” (Nick Matske, Panda's Thumb). |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|