Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

1…4647495152…65

Comments

  • #1442
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Improbable wrote: »
    It was 4 AM and they were leaving the hotel bar.

    I'm probably being a bit slow here but I don't quite follow you?


  • #1443
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    not just rape, consensual sex.. rape's younger and just as creepy brother
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    im not going over to ftb to find the link, it's somewhere in this thread but michael shermer was named as one of them men on the secret sexists blacklist because he had sex with a female attendee of some conference

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80178240&postcount=1076
    I have just read the link you provided, and the links from that link. Your characterization of the information in those links is misleading.

    Your original comment was that consensual sex was ‘rape’s younger and just as creepy brother’, presumably from the context in the eyes of people complaining about sexual harassment.

    When asked to justify this, you cited somebody who believed that Michael Shermer should not have sex with attendees at conferences at which he was speaking. Whether you agree or disagree with this belief, it does not suggest that the person concerned believes that consensual sex is ‘just as creepy’ as rape.

    Also, nobody has linked Michael Shermer in any way with rape accusations, and you should not name him to justify your linking of consensual sex with rape. For clarity, I am not referring to Michael Shermer, or anybody else specific, in the rest of this comment.

    In the links that you cite, some women have complained about some male speakers often making unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

    Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities about these complaints. Either some male speakers are actually behaving like this, or else the women who are complaining about this are lying. Which do you think is more likely?

    The so-called ‘secret blacklist’ is a private back channel of communication among some women about which men they should look out for. My late wife used to work at Leinster House, and some female staff there had a similar procedure to warn each other about the behaviour of certain men there.

    It is very misleading to conflate these protective mechanisms against sexual harassment with opposition to people having consensual sex.


  • #1444
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    I'm probably being a bit slow here but I don't quite follow you?

    I mean just that. The incident known as elevatorgate happened in a hotel elevator at 4 in the morning after the 2 of them left the hotel bar. He was quite probably drunk.


  • #1445
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Improbable wrote: »
    I mean just that. The incident known as elevatorgate happened in a hotel elevator at 4 in the morning after the 2 of them left the hotel bar. He was quite probably drunk.

    What was in sober came out drunk?


  • #1446
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    What was in sober came out drunk?

    Huh?


  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,213 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Improbable wrote: »
    Huh?

    Presumably he was an evil wannabe elevator rapist who would control his urges sober but when drunk we then know for certain that he really is an elevator rapist because as we all know the real person comes out when you have a few pints on you.
    Michael Nugent wrote:
    I have just read the link you provided, and the links from that link. Your characterization of the information in those links is misleading.

    I thought Sir Digby characterised how ridiculous this whole thing has become very well and reflected a jaded cynicism similar to my own at this point.


  • #1448
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    mewso wrote: »
    I thought Sir Digby characterised how ridiculous this whole thing has become very well and reflected a jaded cynicism similar to my own at this point.
    I agree that his comment characterised how ridiculous the conversation has become, and I agree that his comment reflected a jaded cynicism.

    Now what are your thoughts on the (not ridiculous) question that I asked about the (not ridiculous) specific complaints from the links that he cited?

    Some women have complained that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

    Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities about these complaints. Either some male speakers are behaving like this, or else the women who are complaining about this are lying. Which do you think is more likely?


  • #1449
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Michael

    What is your view (or atheist Ireland's view for that matter) on Richard carrier's stance that he will refuse to engage with conferences/organisations that he does believe endorse (privately at least) the principles of atheism+?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412/


  • #1450
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities about these complaints. Either some male speakers are behaving like this, or else the women who are complaining about this are lying. Which do you think is more likely?
    Or they are misconstruing innocuous behaviour. Or they have a different definition of "aggressive" or "advances" to other people. Or they are exaggerating. Or others are exaggerating for them.

    If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action call the authorities and make a complaint.
    Adding them to a list that no one is allowed to see and does not require anyone to provide evidence to make an accusation, then making vague nameless insinuations about who is on that list is not appropriate and not helpful.


  • #1451
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    King Mob,

    I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.

    I’m going to repeat the specific complaints I am talking about again, just to keep the focus on them, as there is a tendency for this discussion to wander.

    What I am talking about is this: some women have complained that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

    I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

    You added in some other options
    King Mob wrote: »
    Or they are misconstruing innocuous behaviour. Or they have a different definition of "aggressive" or "advances" to other people. Or they are exaggerating. Or others are exaggerating for them.
    Do you notice that these options are similar to concerns that some people used to raise about the early complaints that priests had abused children?

    But let’s let’s add them in anyway, because they are of course possible.

    So either some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms, or else the women have a different definition of aggressive or advances to other people, or else they are exaggerating, or others are exaggerating for them, or else they are lying.

    So, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

    Do you think that the women are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or are they making a complaint that sounds credible in the context of people gathering in a hotel for a conference?

    I have no reasonable doubt that these complaints are valid. I have seen sexual harassment happen in this type of environment.

    At one of our conferences, I and another Atheist Ireland committee member had to intervene in one incident to resolve it (this incident did not involve a speaker).

    It is not an extraordinary claim to suggest that sexual harassment happens in these environments. Reacting to complaints as if they were extraordinary claims is actually part of the problem.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action call the authorities and make a complaint.
    This is actually the core of my problem with the reaction of many people to this issue.

    Your first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is to call the authorities and make a complaint.

    My first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is that the people behaving like this should stop behaving like this.

    You have no control over the behaviour of either the harassers or the victims, yet you choose to prioritise telling the victims what to do instead of telling the harassers what to do.

    Instead of lending your moral authority to the call for the harrassment to stop, you encourage people to doubt that it happens at all, and give cover that encourages the men doing the harassment to continue.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Adding them to a list that no one is allowed to see and does not require anyone to provide evidence to make an accusation, then making vague nameless insinuations about who is on that list is not appropriate and not helpful.
    There is typically a power imbalance between the men who sexually harass women, and the women who are being sexually harassed.

    Naming names publicly, or even making formal private complaints, can have further adverse consequences for the victims, particularly in environments where many men react as if the women are making extraordinary claims.

    One of the minimal defence mechanisms that women have in these circumstances is to warn each other about who to be careful of. As I said earlier, my late wife used to work in Leinster House and some of the women there had a similar system.

    Why do you publicly judge the behaviour of women who are trying to protect each other as being ‘not appropriate and not helpful’, while not making any public judgment about the men who are harassing them other than to doubt that it even happens?

    And to repeat what I said at the start, I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #1452
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

    You added in some other options
    I added other options because you are making a false dilemma and are using to make other people's points seem less reasonable.

    Just because we do not automatically believe someone claims, we do not automatically accuse them of lying.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    So, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?
    Given some of the behaviour of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, and some of the comments were in a t-shirt is counted as harassment, I think that all of those possibilities are possible.

    I am not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true, just that some could be false, or exaggerated, or misconstrued etc.

    Do you think those are possibilities? And if so, why did you offer only two possibilities?
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Do you think that the women are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or are they making a complaint that sounds credible in the context of people gathering in a hotel for a conference?

    I have no reasonable doubt that these complaints are valid. I have seen sexual harassment happen in this type of environment.
    But I'm not asking women for extraordinary evidence. Just evidence that could back up claims made against a person, just as I would if sex wasn't involved.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    At one of our conferences, I and another Atheist Ireland committee member had to intervene in one incident to resolve it (this incident did not involve a speaker).
    And how was that resolved? Were the authorities called?
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Your first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is to call the authorities and make a complaint.

    My first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is that the people behaving like this should stop behaving like this.

    You have no control over the behaviour of either the harassers or the victims, yet you choose to prioritise telling the victims what to do instead of telling the harassers what to do.
    Lol, another false dilemma. It's very disappointing to see you using such tactics.
    Of course I think that harassers should stop. It's silly to think that I hold any position other than that.
    But telling harassers to stop will not work (as you argee). What will get them to stop is to take their behaviour seriously and have it dealt with. The only way to do this is to report it to the proper authorities. And the victims of harassment might listen to that advice.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Naming names publicly, or even making formal private complaints, can have further adverse consequences for the victims, particularly in environments where many men react as if the women are making extraordinary claims.
    And having a secret list of accused harassers which is open to abuse is also going to have negative consequences. Especially when such a list is being wielded as a weapon against those who aren't immediately declaring loyalty to a particular camp.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    One of the minimal defence mechanisms that women have in these circumstances is to warn each other about who to be careful of. As I said earlier, my late wife used to work in Leinster House and some of the women there had a similar system.
    And did that system prevent or stop harassment? Did it address the cause of the problem?
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Why do you publicly judge the behaviour of women who are trying to protect each other as being ‘not appropriate and not helpful’, while not making any public judgment about the men who are harassing them other than to doubt that it even happens?
    Because it is not appropriate, it is being abused and it is not helping.
    I thought it was a given that I though sexual harassment was bad.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    And to repeat what I said at the start, I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.
    Lets do a tally of what you are accusing many people (and me of) just because we expressed a little skepticism.

    So far I am as bad as the people who excused paedophile priests.
    I think that all accusations of rape or harassment are lies.
    I support and encourage sexual harassment.
    I blame the victim.

    And what did I do to deserve these charges.
    Pointed out a false dilemma you had used.
    Suggested that sexual harassment should be reported to the authorities.

    Do you really think that such tactics and sensationalist language are helping Michael?


  • #1453
    tdawg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭tdawg


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    There is typically a power imbalance between the men who sexually harass women, and the women who are being sexually harassed.

    Naming names publicly, or even making formal private complaints, can have further adverse consequences for the victims, particularly in environments where many men react as if the women are making extraordinary claims.

    One of the minimal defence mechanisms that women have in these circumstances is to warn each other about who to be careful of. As I said earlier, my late wife used to work in Leinster House and some of the women there had a similar system.

    Why do you publicly judge the behaviour of women who are trying to protect each other as being ‘not appropriate and not helpful’, while not making any public judgment about the men who are harassing them other than to doubt that it even happens?

    Sexual harassment is serious and should be reported.

    But it is extremely inappropriate to add names to a list and send it around, as things can and will be done out of malice. Very much a school-ground solution to an adult problem.


  • #1454
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    tdawg wrote: »
    Sexual harassment is serious and should be reported.

    But it is extremely inappropriate to add names to a list and send it around, as things can and will be done out of malice. Very much a school-ground solution to an adult problem.

    If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it


  • #1455
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

    There is a third alternative that is so frowned upon discussing that I'm hesitant to even mention here on Boards.ie (a relatively "safe space" to this sort of discussion)

    That some women (and men) can view harmless sexual advances as unwanted and aggressive sexual advances due not to the reality of the situation but their own pre-developed feelings on male female sexual relations.

    Now one of the two major taboo issues in this whole discussion is that this is such a taboo suggestion, instantly dismissed as victim blaming, that it is not in anyway possible to discuss this rational. (the other taboo is the suggestion that women can use the position of potential victim of sexual harassment as leverage against men or as an excuse to vent anger at men in general).

    This topic is clearly a mind field, as many many opponents to feminism and women's rights have used the excuse that they are being hysterical as an excuse to dismiss genuine reports of sexual harassment.

    But equally all women are not automatically rational and level headed in everything they say or do. That is, some what ironically, a quite sexist notion.

    This is why some have attempted to explore what is actually happening. But again this is met with charges of victim blaming, or misogyny.

    The black communities in America have been dealing with this issue longer, the idea that a black man cannot be racist against a white person was originally accepted and any suggestion otherwise was met with the charges of racism. That is slowly changing, largely due to moves within black communities themselves.

    I appreciate it is very difficult to discern motive from behaviors of those on internet forums. Is that person genuinely asking is sexual harassment taking place or are they just trying to say it doesn't by asking questions and being "too sceptical"

    This is why the data must be king. That unfortunately is being ignored by a lot of people on both sides, who prefer to use anecdotal evidence to support their pre-conceived notions of what must be happening.


  • #1456
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    equivariant wrote: »
    If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it

    It is not kept private, it is shared. The reputation of the person on the list is therefore sullied based on ancedotal evidence.

    Imagine if the list was Women who may try and steal your husband. I think people would be outraged at the mere existence of such a list, not least any woman who found themselves on that list.


  • #1457
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    King Mob,

    I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.

    I’m going to repeat the specific complaints I am talking about again, just to keep the focus on them, as there is a tendency for this discussion to wander.

    What I am talking about is this: some women have complained that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

    I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

    You added in some other options
    .........


    ....because it's a loaded question which ignores the reality of the situation. Your adding in alleged similarities to the clerical abuse scandal doesn't exactly raise the tone either. If certain people have made "aggressive" advances that are in fact illegal let them be named in a charge made to the relevant police force. Fucking around vague **** on internet fora does nothing positive.


  • #1458
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    equivariant wrote: »
    If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it
    Because it is effectively slander unless people have proof that the claims made against these people are true. It is much too open for someone (or a group of people) to add an innocent name to the list.


  • #1459
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    King Mob, I'll reply to your other points later. I accept that some of what I wrote is unfair to you, and I apologize for that. And I'll address that later. But in the meantime, can you please answer the most recent version of the question that I asked, which was:
    Michael Nugent wrote:
    Either some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms, or else the women have a different definition of aggressive or advances to other people, or else they are exaggerating, or others are exaggerating for them, or else they are lying. So, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

    And you have replied:
    King Mob wrote: »
    Given some of the behaviour of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, and some of the comments were in a t-shirt is counted as harassment, I think that all of those possibilities are possible.

    I am not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true, just that some could be false, or exaggerated, or misconstrued etc.
    I am not asking you about your opinions on the behavior of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, or your opinions on comments on a t-shirt being counted as harassment.

    I am asking you about your opinions on the general veracity of the complaint (that is, the complaint generally, not specific examples of it) that male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

    I agree with you that, in principle, all of the possibilities on the scale that I listed are possible.

    And I accept that you are not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true (although that double negative seems a very grudging way of saying that you accept that at least some cases of reported sexual harassment are true).

    But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

    As I said, I will reply to your other points later.


  • #1460
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is not kept private, it is shared. The reputation of the person on the list is therefore sullied based on ancedotal evidence.

    Imagine if the list was Women who may try and steal your husband. I think people would be outraged at the mere existence of such a list, not least any woman who found themselves on that list.

    sharing the list does not mean that it is not private. In this context I take private to mean that people with access know all (or at least most) of the other people with access. If that is the level of privacy then I see no legal issue.

    I am not sure if that (level of privacy) is true in that case but it may be the case.


  • #1461
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    equivariant wrote: »
    sharing the list does not mean that it is not private. In this context I take private to mean that people with access know all (or at least most) of the other people with access. If that is the level of privacy then I see no legal issue.

    Well I don't know about the legality of it, but the original suggestion was that it was inappropriate.

    The issue is not that the group is self contained and "private". It is that the person sharing the information is slandering the original person to anyone they share it to. The fact that they know this person does not diminish this.

    For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

    Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?


  • Advertisement
  • #1462
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Zombrex wrote: »
    For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

    Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?
    Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.


  • #1463
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.


    ...sweet suffering christ......these are adults, who seem to be able to be "upfront" enough to say allege that certain matters took place, and keep covert lists of the supposed perpetrators.


  • #1464
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

    As I said, I will reply to your other points later.

    I haven't answered the question because it's not a fair one. It's a false dilemma.

    But if you are the rephrase it so that it is between the claims being true and the claims being false (removing any intent of the person making the claims), then my answer is simply: I don't know.
    I don't know because I have not seen any good objective data on the matter.

    The closest I can find is a survey that only documents "unwelcoming" behaviour, but it does not separate between men and women nor does it separate what is unwelcoming behaviour from what is actual sexual harassment.

    So far yourself and others are asking us to accept anecdotal evidence as fact and as evidence of an endemic problem.
    And worse people who dare to voice the opinion that such objective evidence might be useful are jumped on like Zombrex was in your post on Skepchick. (Which you have stay very silent about.)
    You are even engaging in such tactics by accusing me (or people who don't tow the party line) of all manner of silly stuff.


  • #1465
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

    Your statement would be more accurate if it read:
    a better version of that analogy would be a child who says they have abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

    Without proof we can not automatically assume their guilt.


  • #1466
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    King Mob wrote: »
    I haven't answered the question because it's not a fair one. It's a false dilemma.

    But if you are the rephrase it so that it is between the claims being true and the claims being false (removing any intent of the person making the claims), then my answer is simply: I don't know.
    I don't know because I have not seen any good objective data on the matter.
    Please stop grouping me together with others, or suggesting that I am promoting a party line. Please just address the points that I am making on their merits.

    To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

    I am asking you to accept that it is more likely that this specific assertion is true than it is that it is false, to the extent that it is safe to say in normal discourse (as opposed to hyper-skeptical philosophical discourse) that this type of behaviour happens.

    I am asking you to accept that this specific assertion is true, to the extent that I have described above, regardless of your opinions about elevators or coffee requests or t-shirts or surveys about unwelcome behaviour or how endemic the problem of sexual harassment may or may not be.

    Can you accept this?


  • #1467
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Please stop grouping me together with others, or suggesting that I am promoting a party line. Please just address the points that I am making on their merits.
    I'm not grouping together with any one, I am commenting on what you have posted.
    I made a point that you were making a false dilemma, this earned me a long list of accusations of very silly stuff.

    This is also the behaviour displayed by those who posted on your article on skepchick.
    Basic skepticism is responded to with abuse and/or accusations that people are supporting sexual harassment etc.

    Do you think that the comments that Zombrex earned on Skepchick were appropriate? Do you think they are in line with your message about being more welcoming and inclusive?
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

    I am asking you to accept that it is more likely that this specific assertion is true than it is that it is false, to the extent that it is safe to say in normal discourse (as opposed to hyper-skeptical philosophical discourse) that this type of behaviour happens.

    I am asking you to accept that this specific assertion is true, to the extent that I have described above, regardless of your opinions about elevators or coffee requests or t-shirts or surveys about unwelcome behaviour or how endemic the problem of sexual harassment may or may not be.

    Can you accept this?
    I can't accept that because you are asking me to accept something as true without any evidence.

    I could perhaps concede that the accusations being true is more likely, but I will not concede that they are more likely to be true to the extent of accepting it happens without evidence.
    Asking people to do otherwise is asking them to stop being skeptical.
    So again, until you provide better evidence than anecdotes, my answer is: I don't know.

    Further simply relying on anecdotes will never give us any accurate sense of the extent of the problem (if it even exists), not will it allow us to understand where the problems are or what the best course of action is.


  • #1468
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

    Ok ... not particularly relevant to the point being made though.


  • #1469
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    I think that there are some double standards going on here with regards to the 'list'. On the one hand, Watson is condemned about overreacting to a sleazeball. On the other hand everyone is getting all proper and snotty about some rumour mongering. You can't have it both ways people. Fact is, people spread rumours about other people - its an unfortunate part of life, just the same as drunk gob****es propositioning women in hotels. Spreading runours among a self contained group is about as close to slander as asking a women in an elevator at 4am for coffee is to harassment.


  • #1470
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Ok ... not particularly relevant to the point being made though.
    Sorry if I misread your point. I thought it was about the appropriateness of sharing such information with other people.

    My point was, if you know that the information is true, it is ethically appropriate (arguably approaching an ethical obligation) to share the information with others who might be at risk.


  • Advertisement
  • #1471
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    equivariant wrote: »
    I think that there are some double standards going on here with regards to the 'list'. On the one hand, Watson is condemned about overreacting to a sleazeball. On the other hand everyone is getting all proper and snotty about some rumour mongering. You can't have it both ways people. Fact is, people spread rumours about other people - its an unfortunate part of life, just the same as drunk gob****es propositioning women in hotels. Spreading runours among a self contained group is about as close to slander as asking a women in an elevator at 4am for coffee is to harassment.

    You appreciate that these rumors were that person X had sexually harassed someone, right?


Advertisement