Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

pH

smiles302 wrote: »

Hmm apparently Elevator-guy has come forward

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/

Chances are nobody cares but I stumbled on it and thought I would share. I can't quite tell if it is real or a joke...

A joke then, though not a funny one.

Justicar

pH wrote: »

A joke then, though not a funny one.

I suppose this means I won't be winning any internets then, huh? My dreams have been radished. Radished I tell you!

Yahew

In defence of justicar - here's a link to a great post on the issue.

EDIT: even the URLs are filtered here. Replace the link **** in the link with the f word which rhymes with duck.

liamw

'Elevator guy' probably doesn't even remember this insignificant little incident.

Justicar

liamw wrote: »

'Elevator guy' probably doesn't even remember this insignificant little incident.

Well, perhaps. But it doesn't even matter anymore. There's a video that's just been released that Dawkins, Watson and Abbie (grad student who runs the blog ERV on scienceblogs) explaining the whole ordeal, solving it and putting it behind them.

I guess the drama has died, or has it? mwahahaha

Rebecca Watson delenda est!

- Justicar

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

They can be nervous. That isn't the issue. The issue is when you spray the person with mace and start screaming 'thief! thief!'

My issue is not that this creeped Watson out. It is that she and others have turned this into the notion that she some how avoided a potential raping. That is nonsense. Now he might have been thinking about raping her, who knows. Watson, to her credit, didn't stick around long enough to find out. But in all likelihood he probably wasn't. He was probably a social awkward idiot.

You cannot simply go from a creepy situation to the idea that a rape was about to take place.

Just to get away from the blog-whoring for a sec...

I appreciate what you are saying Wicknight...though I would have to concede that the notion of creepiness, inappropriate advances and feeling uncomfortable are undeniably linked to the fear of assault and inappropriate conveyance of sexual objectification - and the fear of both is directly linked to the reality that both happen. It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable - that's as much as I agree with RW on.

When I saw a guy running down the street towards me on a dark and lonely night, my first thought wasn't "Geez, he must want to know the time" - it was "Feck, where's my mobile and the nearest house". Now, I have plenty male friends, a husband, a father, a son, etc - I clearly don't think men are monsters but I'm also very aware of my personal safety - and there is a very good, rational and justifiable reason for that...sadly.

Justicar

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Just to get away from the blog-whoring for a sec...

I appreciate what you are saying Wicknight...though I would have to concede that the notion of creepiness, inappropriate advances and feeling uncomfortable are undeniably linked to the fear of assault and inappropriate conveyance of sexual objectification - and the fear of both is directly linked to the reality that both happen. It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable - that's as much as I agree with RW on.

When I saw a guy running down the street towards me on a dark and lonely night, my first thought wasn't "Geez, he must want to know the time" - it was "Feck, where's my mobile and the nearest house". Now, I have plenty male friends, a husband, a father, a son, etc - I clearly don't think men are monsters but I'm also very aware of my personal safety - and there is a very good, rational and justifiable reason for that...sadly.

I completely agree with everything you've said because the logic and reasoning are so spot on. I have now changed my mind.

I just wish black people would start avoiding situations that make white people uncomfortable. You know, the back of the bus is perfectly fine; they still get to where they're going and I don't have to be uncomfortable. See, it's win-win. What possible objection could these black people have against going out of their way just a little bit for my comfort? It's only a few feet extra they'd have to walk to sit. What about me? Me me me me? It's not fair to me that I can't make black people not be near me because I'm so nervous one of them is going to mug me for his next fix.

Stop trying to oppress me by not letting me have my way and making all those black people sit in the back of the bus! Or drink from another fountain! These things would greatly ease my anxiety - the kind I suffer daily because I'm emotionally crippled and governed only by base animal instinct without the benefit of reason to temper my internal irrationality.

Why's it always gotta be about those other people and what they want? What about my wants? My needs? My desires? I DESERVE to be able to make black people sit wherever I'd like because it makes me feel safer!

Hey, this could be a handy social convention to adopt. I can't imagine anything possibly turning out bad if we adopt this line of non-reasoning.

Sorry, one's anxiety only gets to burden him/her. The rest of the world is not subject to one's irrational fears.

Ickle Magoo

Straw-man.

sink

Justicar wrote: »

I completely agree with everything you've said because the logic and reasoning are so spot on. I have now changed my mind.

I just wish black people would start avoiding situations that make white people uncomfortable. You know, the back of the bus is perfectly fine; they still get to where they're going and I don't have to be uncomfortable. See, it's win-win. What possible objection could these black people have against going out of their way just a little bit for my comfort? It's only a few feet extra they'd have to walk to sit. What about me? Me me me me? It's not fair to me that I can't make black people not be near me because I'm so nervous one of them is going to mug me for his next fix.

Stop trying to oppress me by not letting me have my way and making all those black people sit in the back of the bus! Or drink from another fountain! These things would greatly ease my anxiety - the kind I suffer daily because I'm emotionally crippled and governed only by base animal instinct without the benefit of reason to temper my internal irrationality.

Why's it always gotta be about those other people and what they want? What about my wants? My needs? My desires? I DESERVE to be able to make black people sit wherever I'd like because it makes me feel safer!

Hey, this could be a handy social convention to adopt. I can't imagine anything possibly turning out bad if we adopt this line of non-reasoning.

Sorry, one's anxiety only gets to burden him/her. The rest of the world is not subject to one's irrational fears.

I'm sorry but what sort of ridiculous argument is that, absolutely pitiful.

Your comparing someone approaching a person for sex in the middle of the night, to a black person sitting on a bus! Think about what's different between these two scenarios.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying Wicknight...though I would have to concede that the notion of creepiness, inappropriate advances and feeling uncomfortable are undeniably linked to the fear of assault and inappropriate conveyance of sexual objectification - and the fear of both is directly linked to the reality that both happen. It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable - that's as much as I agree with RW on.

When I saw a guy running down the street towards me on a dark and lonely night, my first thought wasn't "Geez, he must want to know the time" - it was "Feck, where's my mobile and the nearest house". Now, I have plenty male friends, a husband, a father, a son, etc - I clearly don't think men are monsters but I'm also very aware of my personal safety - and there is a very good, rational and justifiable reason for that...sadly.

I'm not saying don't be unaware of your personal safety. If you are in a situation that you feel, for what ever reason, is a bit wrong (for want of a better word) leave it.

I do exactly the same thing when I'm out (I'm a guy btw). If I don't like the look of that guy on the corner I cross the road. If I'm not sure why this guy is asking me a question I walk on, while keeping myself ready if he comes at me from behind.

I wouldn't though go around saying that all of those situations were me narrowly avoiding a potential mugging or assault. They might have been, I've no idea. But when we start counting people who haven't actually done anything criminal as criminals we get into a very weird situation of hyper-panic in terms of who is or isn't about to commit a crime against you.

I've no issue with Rebecca Watson being a bit creeped out by this guy and leaving. That doesn't mean Watson should do what the guy said, it doesn't mean that at all. But we have no idea that it was a potential sexual assault, and in all likelihood it wasn't. As someone else pointed out if he was going to rape her in the elevator he probably would have just raped her. He could have been trying to get her back to his room to rape her but we have no idea, and all she had to do was not go to his room. Jumping from creepy to sexual assault seems to be acceptable only through a some what disturbing generalization of men, because after all don't all men want to rape women? And shouldn't men support this self destructive position or lest we are supporting men who want to rape women, which is apparently most of us?

It seems to have become more and more socially acceptable to hold the notion that most men will, given the chance, rape you. As a man I find this trend rather disturbing. Atheists like to say that atheism is the last acceptable prejudice. I think it is truer to say that misandry is, under the pretext of feminism.

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry but what sort of ridiculous argument is that, absolutely pitiful.

Don't feed the trolls

Justicar

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Straw-man.

And I've argued against a position not fairly entailed by, "It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable" in what fashion do you suppose?

How precisely, and do be quite specific here since you're claiming I have a.) misrepresented the argument and b.) argued against that misrepresentation, is the logic in one situation distinguishable from the other?

Monty Burnz

sink wrote: »

Think about what's different between these two scenarios.

Only one of them is likely to go all the way...

sink

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying don't be unaware of your personal safety. If you are in a situation that you feel, for what ever reason, is a bit wrong (for want of a better word) leave it.

I do exactly the same thing when I'm out (I'm a guy btw). If I don't like the look of that guy on the corner I cross the road. If I'm not sure why this guy is asking me a question I walk on, while keeping myself ready if he comes at me from behind.

I've no issue with Rebecca Watson being a bit creeped out by this guy and leaving. But that really is the end of it. That doesn't mean Watson should do what the guy said, it doesn't mean that at all. But we have no idea that it was a potential sexual assault, and in all likelihood it wasn't. Jumping from creepy to sexual assault seems to be acceptable because after all don't all men want to rape women? And shouldn't men support this self destructive position or lest we are supporting men who want to rape women, which is apparently most of us?

It seems to have become more and more socially acceptable to hold the notion that most men will, given the chance, rape you. As a man I find this trend rather disturbing. Atheists like to say that atheism is the last acceptable prejudice. I think it is truer to say that misandry is, under the pretext of feminism.

I'm also a man and I don't believe that expecting a certain social etiquette when it come to negotiating sexual congruence in order to put all concerned parties at ease, is somehow misandry. For one thing you are assuming that women can't make men uncomfortable if boundaries are overstepped.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry but what sort of ridiculous argument is that, absolutely pitiful.

Your comparing someone approaching a person for sex in the middle of the night, to a black person sitting on a bus! Think about what's different between these two scenarios.

Well, in the first case, you're arguing a motive which isn't fairly entailed by the premise. But let's say I concede that hypothetical motive in this hypothetical universe.

You have the following situation.
1.) man approaches woman
2.) she doesn't know what his intent is
3.) she's uncomfortable, creeped out or intimidated.

I have the following situation:
1.) black guy boards bus (at the front of course, where I'm seated)
2.) I don't know what his intent is
3.) I'm uncomfortable, creeped out or intimidated

She gave two further propositions, one of which is a subject of the other's predicate. Namely, " It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable"

This is a conjuctive proposition. Both conditions must be met for the claim to remain structurally intact. But not making passes at people is a subset of not making them "needlessly" uncomfortable, intimidated or creeped out. Therefore, there's really only one proposition: not making people needlessly creeped out, intimidated or uncomfortable.

And you claim my argument is pitiful and ridiculous. Ok, then, please delineate the parts that make it either pitiful or ridiculous. Please, thrill me with your acumen in logic.

Justicar

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Only one of them is likely to go all the way...

And this invalidates my argument in what way? Or is even on point with my argument in what way?

sink

Justicar wrote: »

Well, in the first case, you're arguing a motive which isn't fairly entailed by the premise. But let's say I concede that hypothetical motive in this hypothetical universe.

You have the following situation.
1.) man approaches woman
2.) she doesn't know what his intent is
3.) she's uncomfortable, creeped out or intimidated.

I have the following situation:
1.) black guy boards bus (at the front of course, where I'm seated)
2.) I don't know what his intent is
3.) I'm uncomfortable, creeped out or intimidated

She gave two further propositions, one of which is a subject of the other's predicate. Namely, " It would be nice if men took that into account when making late night advances on lone women and they avoided situations where they needlessly make women feel intimidated, creeped out or uncomfortable"

This is a conjuctive proposition. Both conditions must be met for the claim to remain structurally intact. But not making passes at people is a subset of not making them "needlessly" uncomfortable, intimidated or creeped out. Therefore, there's really only one proposition: not making people needlessly creeped out, intimidated or uncomfortable.

And you claim my argument is pitiful and ridiculous. Ok, then, please delineate the parts that make it either pitiful or ridiculous. Please, thrill me with your acumen in logic.

One thing makes your argument ridiculous is in one scenario the person is going about their daily business without interacting in anyway with person in question, in the other the person makes a very strong indication that they're interested in having intimate relations with the person in question.

Monty Burnz

Justicar wrote: »

And this invalidates my argument in what way? Or is even on point with my argument in what way?

I'll level with you: it was a joke.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

One thing makes your argument ridiculous is in one scenario the person is going about their daily business without interacting in anyway with person in question, in the other the person makes a very strong indication that they're interested in having intimate relations.

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't remotely disturb my argument.

The argument which I countered, if you'll be so kind as to recall, was with respect to "needlessly" making people uncomfortable, intimidated or creeped out.

You've argued that something might be inconvenient to pull off. While that might be true, it's an irrelevant concern since the proposition put forward deals with necessity; and it's that argument to which I responded.

You've committed a category error, and an error of equivocation. Convenience and necessity aren't interchangeable.

Again, my argument is ridiculous in precisely what way, and pitiful in precisely what way?

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying don't be unaware of your personal safety. If you are in a situation that you feel, for what ever reason, is a bit wrong (for want of a better word) leave it.

I do exactly the same thing when I'm out (I'm a guy btw). If I don't like the look of that guy on the corner I cross the road. If I'm not sure why this guy is asking me a question I walk on, while keeping myself ready if he comes at me from behind.

I've no issue with Rebecca Watson being a bit creeped out by this guy and leaving. But that really is the end of it. That doesn't mean Watson should do what the guy said, it doesn't mean that at all. But we have no idea that it was a potential sexual assault, and in all likelihood it wasn't. Jumping from creepy to sexual assault seems to be acceptable because after all don't all men want to rape women? And shouldn't men support this self destructive position or lest we are supporting men who want to rape women, which is apparently most of us?

It seems to have become more and more socially acceptable to hold the notion that most men will, given the chance, rape you. As a man I find this trend rather disturbing. Atheists like to say that atheism is the last acceptable prejudice. I think it is truer to say that misandry is, under the pretext of feminism.

I don't think that most men will, given the chance rape women at all - and I don't think it has become more socially acceptable to think that. I think the cries that "all men aren't rapists" are missing the point by a country mile, quite deliberately in some cases. I also don't think it's as simple as saying "just leave it" - when you are cornered or in a confined space it isn't as simple as just getting away - and even getting away doesn't detract from the thumping heart and annoyance of someone choosing to put you in such a position out of sheer thoughtlessness.

Unfortunately, some men do rape and some men are sexually inappropriate and do sexually assault women - it is the fear of those men that results in some women feeling uncomfortable or associating certain behaviours with creepiness when a man chooses to approach a lone women he doesn't know, with the intention of propositioning. Of course he usually has no heinous motivation but that doesn't mean it isn't scary. I just think it would be very much to men's credit if they were more aware of the effect their choices can have.

It is a choice to approach a loan woman in the middle of the night with the intention of propositioning. I don't think it has anything to do with misandry - it seems to be more to do with wilful ignorance of how intimidating, threatening or just uncomfortable women can feel being approached in circumstances that are easily avoided - with nothing more than a bit of maturity, self-awareness and self-control.

AudreyHepburn

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

If it were me I would feel uncomfortable too. I am not precious or a drama before anyone says it. I am simply aware of the dangerous women alone at night can face and while not the worst thing the man could have done to her I do think it is completely inappropriate for a man/woman to ask a total stranger for sex in that manner.

As for Dawkins, he may have been making a good point but as usual he was dismissive and condscending about it which wouldn't encourage anyone to listen to him.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

Holy crapola. Once again this canard is trotted out.

Can you please post links to the people who are arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable, or exhilarated, or sad, or happy when a guy 'invited her for coffee'?

I'm not saying they definitely don't exist, but I certainly don't remember seeing them - and based on what you are saying above, you seem to have seen a lot of them. Can you please share?

Nodin

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73199134&postcount=316

Justicar

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't feed the trolls

When a professional mathematician/logician tears asunder a fallacious chain of reasoning, it doesn't, alas, make him a troll. Not agreeing with someone because their claim is logically untenable isn't trolling. Calling someone a troll because you don't understand logical structures isn't really an indictment against or refutation of what has been presented. It's a form of intellectual pusillanimity. I do appreciate the thought though.

You're a peach.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is a choice to approach a loan woman in the middle of the night with the intention of propositioning.

I had a little chuckle at this.

To boil down your argument, as best I can understand it: men should always go to great lengths to avoid making women think that they are about to be raped. It's where these lengths start and stop is really where I see the conflict.

Justicar

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'll level with you: it was a joke.

So was the first argument I was vivisecting. I'm new here; it's hard to tell when people's arguments are just jokes for poor reasoning, or when they're just joking. =^_^=

el dude

Brilliant. Always get a kick out of smart people being made to look extremely stupid.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unfortunately, some men do rape and some men are sexually inappropriate and do sexually assault women - it is the fear of those men that results in some women feeling uncomfortable or associating certain behaviours with creepiness when a man chooses to approach a lone women he doesn't know, with the intention of propositioning. Of course he usually has no heinous motivation but that doesn't mean it isn't scary. I just think it would be very much to men's credit if they were more aware of the effect their choices can have.

That is some what missing the point though.

If Watson was going to be raped in that elevator she was going to be raped in that elevator. The way to avoid that is to not go into an elevator on your own at 4am. It isn't for the rapist to not say something a bit creepy while in the elevator with her. That has got nothing to do with whether he will or won't rape her.

What we are really talking about here is the illusion of safety, not safety itself. What people, including Watson, were really saying is Guys don't say things that remind women that they can be raped, it is uncomfortable and upsetting

That is a world away from actually raping someone or putting someone in a position where they have a genuine threat of being raped.

The idea that if this guy was going to rape her but then just didn't say what he said it would have been all ok is some what ridiculous. This is Hollywood bad guy syndrome. The rapist isn't going to shout 'I'm going to rape you now'.

Justicar

el dude wrote: »

Brilliant. Always get a kick out of smart people being made to look extremely stupid.

Who might that be one wonders?

sink

Justicar wrote: »

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't remotely disturb my argument.

The argument which I countered, if you'll be so kind as to recall, was with respect to "needlessly" making people uncomfortable, intimidated or creeped out.

You've argued that something might be inconvenient to pull off. While that might be true, it's an irrelevant concern since the proposition put forward deals with necessity; and it's that argument to which I responded.

You've committed a category error, and an error of equivocation. Convenience and necessity aren't interchangeable.

Again, my argument is ridiculous in precisely what way, and pitiful in precisely what way?

The difference lies in the level of social relation on which both scenarios take place. The black man on bus scenario is merely an action, it does not involve an interaction with a third party. The man in the elevator scenario is on the level of social contact, it not only involves a third party but also necessitates a response from the third party and is a rare interaction.