Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The law doesn't see it that way. The law says having sex with someone who is impaired is rape. The law also says driving while impaired is illegal. Don't argue the point with me, talk to the cops.

You think the cops are doing a good job at enforcing the law? Perhaps policing drunken hookups is impossible.

I noticed you didn't leave the conversation when you said it was pointless.

Pertinently given the conversation, I changed my mind ;).

I know that we agree on way more than we disagree, but quoting the law isn't helpful when the law isn't working. I suspect any interesting conversation has to look beyond the legalese.
 
I think you've become officially self contradictory at this point.

How is following the law contradictory? You are just looking for reasons to excuse the behavior of rapists.

It's pretty disgusting the way you and malf are trying to find ways around perfectly sound laws. Can every crime be prosecuted? No. Even murderers get away sometimes. That doesn't mean it's OK to kill someone just because they got drunk at a convention full of skeptics, even if you might think that is "asking for it". Putting the responsibility on people not to kill each other seems pretty reasonable to me, even if sometimes people do get away with acts of violence.

The problem seems to be that there is some confusion as to what rape is. It's an act of violence. Like killing someone. Or breaking their arm. It is not "hooking up".
 
Last edited:
Logically there isn't really a connection between someone's personal crimes and their views regarding materialism. Arthur C Clark was a great science fiction writer, but also a pedophile. I'll bet things like this have happened at conferences related to spiritual matters.

If he did the crime - and it sounds like he did - I hope Shermer is tried and convicted an spends a suitable amount of time in jail. I would say that any woman who suspects that she has been deliberately plied with drink or drugs in this way, should go to the bar and demand protection of some sort in a loud voice.

I don't think JREF is a helpful organisation - so if it loses money because of this, that is fine by me!

David
 
About what? Do you intend to stop being skeptical because of what Shermer seems to have done - I doubt it. Neither would I change my views if the situation was the other way round!

David
That does not even come close to being an answer to Malf's question. As i understood, he asked if you are sure Arthur C Clark was a pedophile.
 
Yep. I should've deleted the first bit of David's post to be clearer (although I can't help feeling David has misunderstood me deliberately for some reason :eek:)

I'd never heard that about Clarke and a cursory google reveals the slightest of hearsay and rumour.
 
Ah - I misunderstood - well here is one reference to this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-mysterious-sri-lankan-world-of-arthur-c-clarke-1142640.html

I see from GOOGLE that there are others that are questioning the truth of the assertion - con conceivably it isn't true, and I was doing no more than to repeat what I believe to be established fact.

Even though he was ill, he must have had plenty of money to sue The Independent newspaper if this was wrong.

Reading the link you posted, "someone said that he said" he engaged in pedophilia. That is piss-poor evidence at best, especially since there is a well-known history of reporters quote mining. Additionally, suing a newspaper wouldn't have helped--opening a lawsuit makes a higher profile while the news then reports that they are being sued, so they get to continue to report him as a child predator up until the day the newspaper is found guilty of libel. If he does nothing, then the claim dies out and falls out of favor. Tactically, given that even proof that someone didn't commit sexual assault of any kind will not exonerate someone from the accusation socially, it is better to simply let it fade than make a bigger deal (see: the Streisand effect.)
 
Reading the link you posted, "someone said that he said" he engaged in pedophilia. That is piss-poor evidence at best, especially since there is a well-known history of reporters quote mining. Additionally, suing a newspaper wouldn't have helped--opening a lawsuit makes a higher profile while the news then reports that they are being sued, so they get to continue to report him as a child predator up until the day the newspaper is found guilty of libel. If he does nothing, then the claim dies out and falls out of favor. Tactically, given that even proof that someone didn't commit sexual assault of any kind will not exonerate someone from the accusation socially, it is better to simply let it fade than make a bigger deal (see: the Streisand effect.)
Sheesh - I only mentioned this as an example of the fact that a person's work doesn't stand or fall according to their moral character!

The Independent is a very upright newspaper - not a rag, and this was not my original source, which was, I think, the BBC. Here is another discussion of the matter:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/arthur-c-clarke-case-investigated-1145468.html

David
 
How is this even an issue? So what if he tried to get a chick drunk. Who gives a shit? This dumb bimbo could have just not gotten drunk and not had sex with Shermer, right?

If somebody gets you a drink at a party and you drink it and then that somebody gets you another drink, that's usually called being considerate.

Jerks.

Edit: Oh wait, they were playing a drinking game?! God, you guys disappoint me.
 
Last edited:
How is this even an issue? So what if he tried to get a chick drunk. Who gives a shit? This dumb bimbo could have just not gotten drunk and not had sex with Shermer, right?

If somebody gets you a drink at a party and you drink it and then that somebody gets you another drink, that's usually called being considerate.

Jerks.

Edit: Oh wait, they were playing a drinking game?! God, you guys disappoint me.

I think the difference is, according to the accuser, she assumed that she and Shermer were getting drunk together while in truth Shermer was purposefully pretending to drink while waiting for her judgement to be impaired.

That said, AFAIK it's not clear this is what Shermer did.

On the larger issue of responsibility and victimization, I'd just say people make mistakes - I once got mugged years ago taking what I thought was a safe shortcut back to my place after a night out. I'd agree I didn't exercise the best judgement but I don't feel this would exonerate the people who mugged me at gunpoint.

And it could be argued I was less wise than the accuser, who thought she was drinking with someone she could trust not to take advantage of her.

But I think it's possible to simultaneously say someone should engage in safe behavior while not blaming the victim - though I'll accept that it's not an easy line to walk with rape cases given the cultural artifacts (slut shaming of women, dismissal of men's claims if a woman raped them, homophobia against gay rape victims, fear of backlash when someone of prominence rapes a child.)
 
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php

"
Myth Women shouldn't go out alone, especially at night. Women are most likely to be raped outside, by strangers in dark alleyways, and this is the best way for a woman to protect herself.

Fact Women are often advised to avoid sexual violence by never walking alone at night. But in fact, only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men; someone who the survivor has previously known, trusted, often even loved. People are raped in their homes, their workplaces and other settings where they have previously felt safe. Sometimes, the myth that rape is most commonly perpetrated by strangers can make the majority of survivors, who have been raped or sexually assaulted by someone they know, even less likely to report to the police or even confide in someone close about their experiences, for fear of not being believed, out of a sense of shame or self-blame, and/or because they have mixed feelings about getting the perpetrator 'into trouble'. This myth can also control women's movements and restrict their rights and freedom."

"
Myth The woman was drunk / took drugs / was hitch hiking / wore tight clothes / worked in the sex industry / seduced him / probably got what she was asking for.

Fact If a person is unconscious or their judgement is impaired by alcohol or drugs, legally they are unable to give consent. Having non-consensual sex with a person who is intoxicated is rape.

Rapists use a variety of excuses to attempt to discredit the women they rape and to justify their crimes. But no-one asks or deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted and 100% of the responsibility for any act of sexual violence lies with its perpetrator.

Media often refer to women in the 'roles' that they have - 'young mum', 'grandmother', 'doctor's wife', 'prostitute' etc. - and describe arbitrary factors like what she was wearing or how she'd been behaving when she was sexually assaulted. The implication is that some women are more 'innocent' victims than others, that some are more worthy of sympathy, or that some women are partly to blame for their experience of sexual violence.

The rules imposed on women's behaviour allow rapists to shift the responsibility for rape onto women wherever possible, so that rapists are sometimes portrayed as victims of malicious allegations, carelessness or stupidity. There is no other crime in which so much effort is expended to make the victim appear responsible."
 
I think the difference is, according to the accuser, she assumed that she and Shermer were getting drunk together while in truth Shermer was purposefully pretending to drink while waiting for her judgement to be impaired.

That said, AFAIK it's not clear this is what Shermer did.

On the larger issue of responsibility and victimization, I'd just say people make mistakes - I once got mugged years ago taking what I thought was a safe shortcut back to my place after a night out. I'd agree I didn't exercise the best judgement but I don't feel this would exonerate the people who mugged me at gunpoint.

And it could be argued I was less wise than the accuser, who thought she was drinking with someone she could trust not to take advantage of her.

But I think it's possible to simultaneously say someone should engage in safe behavior while not blaming the victim - though I'll accept that it's not an easy line to walk with rape cases given the cultural artifacts (slut shaming of women, dismissal of men's claims if a woman raped them, homophobia against gay rape victims, fear of backlash when someone of prominence rapes a child.)

Just make sure to never judge people on supposed intentions. That's unwise. What we know happened was two people got drunk and had sex. That's it. (But we don't really even know that, do we?)

Also, to claim that a female doesn't have to be responsible for her own actions is totally anti-feminist and offensive. So is social gossip impugning someone's reputation based on mere speculation on some blog.
 
Just make sure to never judge people on supposed intentions. That's unwise. What we know happened was two people got drunk and had sex. That's it. (But we don't really even know that, do we?)

Also, to claim that a female doesn't have to be responsible for her own actions is totally anti-feminist and offensive. So is social gossip impugning someone's reputation based on mere speculation on some blog.

I think the issue is rape by known persons is seen by many people as acceptable, or at least not as egregious a crime as rape by a stranger.

Would we have this same idea of taking responsibility for drunkeness if straight men were often being raped by people they thought they knew? I don't drink more than a few sips of wine here and there, but in my college days I would just crash in rooms of guys I barely knew after pulling an all-nighter to get a project done. If I was raped by one of them I don't think it'd be fair to say my irresponsibility translated to culpability for my own victimhood?
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I think the issue is rape by known persons is seen by many people as acceptable, or at least not as egregious a crime as rape by a stranger.

Would we have this same idea of taking responsibility for drunkeness if straight men were often being raped by people they thought they knew? I don't drink more than a few sips of wine here and there, but in my college days I would just crash in rooms of guys I barely knew after pulling an all-nighter to get a project done. If I was raped by one of them I don't think it'd be fair to say my irresponsibility translated to culpability for my own victimhood?

Was someone raped?

I should have read the entire thread. I'm talking about Shermer.
 
I think the difference is, according to the accuser, she assumed that she and Shermer were getting drunk together while in truth Shermer was purposefully pretending to drink while waiting for her judgement to be impaired.

That said, AFAIK it's not clear this is what Shermer did.

This. There is that pesky "beyond a shadow of a doubt" axiom that people are all too willing to ignore nowadays.

On the larger issue of responsibility and victimization, I'd just say people make mistakes - I once got mugged years ago taking what I thought was a safe shortcut back to my place after a night out. I'd agree I didn't exercise the best judgement but I don't feel this would exonerate the people who mugged me at gunpoint.

Nobody has said anything about exonerating proven rapists, though. People have just interpreted any suggestion that victims sometimes make poor decisions that worsen their own problem as a sign that its the victim's fault.

But I think it's possible to simultaneously say someone should engage in safe behavior while not blaming the victim - though I'll accept that it's not an easy line to walk with rape cases given the cultural artifacts.)

Its effectively impossible. The moment you suggest people should take appropriate precautions is the same instant a dozen people dogpile you as a woman-hating rapist in waiting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top