The religion that was pulled out of a hat. I also giggled a little at the objection to racism since god has a chosen people to begin with. Discrimination is a cornerstone of all abrahamic religions.
Kit Renard N-nooo? It means we only mentioned two corner stones? Nothing more.... There might be others that we've not mentioned yet. Have a bit of a scientific mind would you?
FreeHomeBrew You've missed both my jokes. This joke was that religion does not make sense, based on your comment that a structure would need at least three to make sense. Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog, you know. People will understand how the frog works, but you definitely kill the frog in the process T^T It was nothing more than a humor-driven criticism.
"The Bible said thousands witnessed His miracles and that is good enough for me." Well, that's the problem. Because unlike you, we require consistency in our thinking. You would never accept, "The Koran (or Book of Mormon) says x, and that's good enough for me." Nor would you accept, "Explain how else Islam spread all over the world to hundreds of millions." We don't change our standards because we want and/or need something to be true. We follow the principles of reason no matter what.
Joe, this is so well-said. The lack of charity towards our fellow man/woman, the unwillingness to assume the best of others, and the quickness with which people are ready to excommunicate people in their lives who disagree with them is absolutely frightening. It's certainly not how I live my life as a Humanist/Skeptic/Atheist. I don't think ill of anyone involved in this incident, nor anyone who disagrees with me. I don't want a world where everyone thinks just like I do.
I didn't realize your soft attitude on rape, as revealed in the after show comments. Sex that is not consensual is rape, Mr Dalton. These issues should be addressed in a court of law. I was a juror in such a case where the woman was drunk out of her mind. A member of the group took advantage of it by saying he would drive her home then raped the shit out of her. (Midway through the trial he plead guilty.) If a human falls down in a stupor in a gutter it is not ok to rob them. Such a disappointment.
First of all, thanks for giving me absolutely no credit. Second, please watch the "Did I 'blame the victim?'" video made just after this video aired. Third, no one deserves to have anything done to them against their will. On that, you and I agree. You have misinterpreted my comments here and not understood the context. That will be explained in the video I recommended above.
misterdeity May I suggest one of those clickable caption things that you see on UA-cam videos when that part of the segment comes up, linking to the other video?
SweetPea Brown I have a problem with what you're saying. If a person gets drunk out of their mind and starts to drive home, but passes out and swerves into oncoming traffic, slamming into a minivan. They kill a whole family of people, but survive. Who gets blamed? The drunk driver. Are they blamed because they hit the car or passed out or even decided to get in their car in the first place? No. They're blamed because they could not moderate their drinking and had no pre-meditated plan to get home after drinking. I'm not saying it's okay to rape someone when they pass out from drinking. That's the fault of the rapist. But making a bad decision to have sex with someone while drunk is a result of not having the mind to pace yourself and moderate your own drinking (like misterdeity pointed out in his video). And on that note, if you're flirting with a girl and she agrees to have sex with you, even if she is drunk, you do NOT have the intent to rape. You have the intent to get laid. And intent is a huuuuuuge factor in a lot of cases. From murder to rape. Consider a possible life sentence for premeditated murder versus 10-20 years for accidental murder (manslaughter). Personally, I think the legal limit for BAC should be lowered. .08 is way too high, and opens up many problems.
I read what you said very carefully. It is absolutely one's responsibility to not drink and drive. We're in perfect agreement. About the legal term 'rape', men and women should understand that it's the 'non consensual' part that constitutes rape. The person pressing for sex needs a prospective partner that has the capacity to consent. A woman or man who is 'stupid' enough to be falling down drunk can't give their consent, but to have sex with them can be found to be 'criminal'. . . why risk it? (Drunk people! What are you going to do with them???)
SweetPea Brown And I think that, if this person was truly engaged in 'non consensual' sex because of being drunk, the issue here is no longer about rape. As a side note before I get to my point, we also might consider the other side. What if the man is drunk as hell too? What if, when sober, the man would never, EVER take advantage of an intoxicated woman? My point: this can easily be attributed to society's casual approach to alcohol. Alcohol screws you up much worse than, say, marijuana. Prohibition did not work in the past, and I very much doubt it will work now either, but I think a lower BAC legal limit would help immensely. (Also, I have to correct myself, .08 is the legal limit for drunk driving specifically.) Here - www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html These are generalizations of BAC in terms of body weight and gender. The chart is based off of the number of drinks. Drinks include "One drink is 1.25 oz. of 80 proof liquor, 12 oz. of beer, or 5 oz. of table wine." It only takes a 90 lb woman 6 glasses of wine to be within possible death levels. Granted, that's in the extreme side of things, but it doesn't take very many drinks for a 200lb man to be at a point where his cognitive abilities are significantly reduced. I think misterdeity is right here. And he clarifies his point in his next video quite nicely. Rape is rape. But two drunk people having regrettable sex is much... MUCH trickier.
I love your videos. Thank you for the the hard work that's put into making them. Very high quality. On another note...how is Michael? Can anyone give an update? It's been eerily silent except for Mr. Deity defending himself against rubes. What about the actual situation?
Thank you for your civility and your willingness to take all comers respectfully. We don't all have to agree. But we should all treat each other with charity, giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
You're assuming that the anonymous, third-hand account lacking all detail and evidence is true. Where else do you do that in your life? I honestly want to know.
I'm still a fan of Mr. Deity. He has made many wonderfully hilarious and telling deconstructions of religious dogma and continues to deserve full credit for that.
Thanks. I think I'm going to make one more video about this episode because I've learned so much about this from some truly decent people on the other side who have been respectful and desiring to both understand and be understood. A lot of them linked me to the CDC report on sexual violence which includes as rape, sex between two people where one or both are intoxicated, high, &... Because any level of intoxication makes a person definitionally unable to consent. That makes for a lot o' rape.
Is this letter available somewhere? PZ posted a comment about it, and maybe even the letter itself (there was a defunct link to a pdf in google archives until yesterday), but he had to take down this post again immediately.
I wasn't referring to Watson's video rather your comment which alludes to it. Was I wrong? Were you not alluding to the elevatorgate incident and sexual harassment when you responded?
stumbled apon this, not sure if its a purely religious channel, but as a extreme atheist:.. good video,it was fun to watch :) (though i didnt get all the jokes :x )
No. It was my advice on how to say no to someone refilling a person's wine glass, and why Skeptics need more detail and evidence of a serious crime than an anonymous report posted on a blog. Please watch the follow-up video titled, "Did I 'Blame The Victim'".
Fine. Turns out the link was borked anyway. You have the edited version. This is what the message originally said. "The anonymous woman who wrote to you through Carrie is known to me, and in fact I was in her presence immediately after said incident (she was extremely distraught), and when she told the management of the conference (some time later)." As you can see, any reference to Carrie was removed entirely. Because it is, in fact, referencing another person. Not Shermer.
The message I get from the video is that you can't rightly call yourself a sceptic if you're going to simply accept the word of an anonymous source. He specifically mentioned the Gospels for a reason.
I see that the begging is starting to take a back seat, behind the activism. Preaching to the choir is only redundant if you stick to the same old gospel. God bless you for pushing some boundaries, Mr D!
How do we know the accounts accurately described the circumstances of the night. What's that thing we use to verify eyewitness accounts again? I think it starts with an 'e'...
And how do you know that you've understood it correctly? Let's say you come to one interpretation and someone else comes to a completely different interpretation. How do we know who's right? And by the way, this is exactly why there are a zillion different denominations of Xtianity. And don't think these interpretations differed only slightly. Many of these different interpretations were significant enough to start long-term wars. So, how do you know your interpretation is correct?
You're missing the point. I'm not saying FTB is a court, I'm saying they are judging Shermer before they actually know any details, based on a third hand account. Hence the court of FTB.
Let me ask you a simple question.....are people (not just women), more likely to make a decision they will later regret if they are drunk? Also, point out specifically where I said that alcohol was a necessary element.....direct quote me please. I'm not falling for that feeble attempt to misrepresent what I actually said.
Serious question: if long before the OJ trial, before you heard any of the facts of the case, you heard an account that he murdered someone, would you have believed it out of hand and publicly shamed him as a murderer?
Simple question: Is it confirmed to be true? If not, then at this point it is gossip, by definition. Explain how the definition I posted earlier doesn't apply.
The point, though, is not the number of rolls but the absurdity of looking at the observed statistical results as mirroring the likeliness of the event.
2. If you voluntarily get drunk, you're still considered able to give consent, unless you're passed out or similar. It's a gray area for people who are very very drunk, but for people who are only somewhat drunk, they're still responsible.
"You misunderstand" No, I don't. The reason that the newer versions say that the river is the Nile is because biblical scholars have determined that that is what the bible was referencing. If you're going to go against the people who study the bible for a living, I'm going to need to see your credentials as an expert.
... though there is a moment that looks like 'victim blaming', but I assume you, like me, are an extreme optimist about how people generally treat one another.
Janeyanna, "rape culture" is very abstract. Can you please tell us specifically what you're talking about when you use the term, "rape culture." This is a serious question. I'm not trying to bait you, or set you up. I really want to know specifically what that means and the impact it has on society.
actually, "unnamed" and "anonymous" are synonyms. They both mean "without name", which is a very precise description of the gospels, which have no name attached. The closest thing to any identifying characteristic of the writers in the text themselves is the phrase "disciple whom the Lord loved", which could be said of every disciple as much as it could be said of none at all.
Can I suggest that, by putting the bit about the wine in there, he's moving from saying 'I don't have enough evidence to believe it happened' [no problem] to saying 'even if it DID happen, it was her responsibility for drinking too much' [problem]? I think the wine bit is going further than skepticism.
I recall reading something that, while too general to be absolute, is definitely a good rule of thumb to have in mind: "If both parties are intoxicated, but one is way more intoxicated than the other, then it is rape. If both parties are equally intoxicated, then it's just a bad decision that they'll regret in the morning." What makes it rape isn't that the victim "doesn't agree to it", Often they do, but they're so plastered they'll agree to anything, and thus aren't truly consenting.
Your woeful standards of evidence makes it abundantly clear we aren't at trial. You said before there was plenty of evidence. I asked you to provide it and you ignored me. It certainly isn't on PZ's blog, so where is it?
I don't want to step on any toes by saying more than I should. I think we'll be hearing something from Michael soon. It's just an awful situation made even more awful by how this was done. It's a shame. I think I'll make one more video about it because there is so much to be said -- and so much I've learned from dealing with people's emails on this topic for the last four weeks.
PZ Myers on Pharyngula answered that "if you have to think about the gray areas then (sic) you are thinking as a rapist" and then banned the one who made the question. PZ's reason and logic at work ladies and gentleman!
Veronica!!! You win the prize for the most buzz words per comment -- and all without making any substantive comment or telling us why we, as good Skeptics, should suddenly abandon our principled need for evidence and instead, believe an anonymous, third-hand account lacking all detail and evidence. Well done, Veronica! You should be very proud of yourself. The Hyperfeminists are gonna LOVE you!
"It's like a woman having an opinion on how bad or not-bad it is for boys and men to be culturally dicouraged from crying, being gentle, being nourishing." There is nothing wrong with a woman having or expressing an opinion on these things. You don't need to have first hand experience to have an opinion. Where did you get that?
Actually, I found a link to the thing I couldn't find before. So if you haven't seen either and/or want to read them, I'll be happy to provide links if you want.
If someone brutally murders or rapes my mother, he is guilty of murder or rape whether he was intoxicated on alcohol or high on drugs. Which actions of the murderer/rapist is my mother responsible for?
or, the wine implies either: a) implying that, like most people, it is likely she would have stopped when she reached her limit. b) her level of sobriety could have affected her recollection of the event.
Also, the allegation was apparently given to Myers by someone else, so it's actually third hand info...This was made brought to light in the letter Shermer's lawyers sent to PZ. That was also in the deleted post, but I could provide a link to an image someone took of it if you want to see (unfortunately I don't have any links to screenshots of the blog post it was uploaded in, only the letter itself).
Where in Watson's video did she describe that incident as sexual harassment? She said it made it uncomfortable, yes. I don't remember any charges of sexual harassment.
I'm not saying anyone is lying about anything. The anonymous source doesn't even use the term "rape." The charge is that he "coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me." I don't know what any of that means -- and there are absolutely no details! That is vague, wrapped in obscurity, and covered in nebulous. When you pour anonymity on top of that, what "skeptic" (who requires evidence to believe a claim) can take that at face value? That's all I'm saying.
That is the actual court ruling wording for the UK regarding this issue. It also describes fairly well how the law sees it in most western jurisdictions. Capacity to consent is the correct terminology, The use of "informed" consent muddies the waters in that it sets up a degree of understanding for a subject unfamiliar with what is going on. e.g. a virgin without any experience in the act of sex. It's interesting that you consider a court ruling vacuous.
"-Most would rather be rude than over-poisoned" I'm sure, but it's a pretty simple principle of social interaction that you can coerce people into doing things they'd rather not do through subtle means. Surely that's not a controversial point? I haven't meant to imply that you're cool with it if she's drunk. "...also most people recognize the boundary between rude and intrusive." I'm not sure what that's referring to. I wasn't talking about rudeness.
You know, it might behoove you to read the thread history for the comment you're replying to. It wasn't answering the question you seem to think it was answering.
I have explained to why the reference failed. They don't claim the as even provisionally true. They take the claim as an indication to tell the police that there's a report of something happening which falls within the remit of the police to investigate. So, these people have made claims which haven't been investigated by anyone who's remotely trained in such investigations. I begin again: cool story. What evidence do you have so we know how to proportion our beliefs?
Why can't you possibly see that the accused might be the actual victim? Are you really unable to see this from the other side? Unless and until there is evidence, the accused is innocent.
No. I honestly don't know what that means. And neither do you -- unless you've talked to woman who said it. You can guess. You can assume. But unless you have clarification from the person who said that, you don't KNOW. I have my suspicions, as I'm sure you do. But neither of us knows exactly what she meant by that.
Is it wrong to say that the writers of the gospels are unnamed? My sources says no, btw my sources prefer to remain anonymous. However unnamed can also be used about someone who we all know who is, like Waldemort, but that use of unnamed is not relevant for this case. Take care not to equiviate.
Why is it important to hastily condemn Shermer instead of waiting for further evidence? I'm not talking about "criminal trial level evidence", but there's no harm in waiting for further corroboration. That does not entail calling Jane Doe a liar or blaming her for what happened. We can extend the benefit of the doubt for both sides, be supportive of the victim's right to speak up and wait for due process. Trust, but verify.
Actually, in my 20's, @ 2 different parties, women were accusing friends of rape afterwards. Each time they were drunk, initiated the sexual encounter, told off friends who tried to stop them, didn't remember anything the next day, & went around calling the guy a rapist. They only stopped when others @ the parties told them that no it wasn't rape, they were the one to get drunk, they were the one to initiate sex, and in one case, was very vocal from the bedroom about how good a job he was doing.
The religion that was pulled out of a hat. I also giggled a little at the objection to racism since god has a chosen people to begin with. Discrimination is a cornerstone of all abrahamic religions.
FreeHomeBrew Whoa, whoa, not so! Fiction is the cornerstone! Well, actually... I guess there can be more than one cornerstone :)
Kit Renard Need at least three corners to have it even make sense. Yay math :p
FreeHomeBrew That must mean religion only has the two we talked about then 8'D *internet high five*
Kit Renard N-nooo? It means we only mentioned two corner stones? Nothing more.... There might be others that we've not mentioned yet. Have a bit of a scientific mind would you?
FreeHomeBrew You've missed both my jokes. This joke was that religion does not make sense, based on your comment that a structure would need at least three to make sense. Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog, you know. People will understand how the frog works, but you definitely kill the frog in the process T^T It was nothing more than a humor-driven criticism.
"The Bible said thousands witnessed His miracles and that is good enough for me."
Well, that's the problem. Because unlike you, we require consistency in our thinking. You would never accept, "The Koran (or Book of Mormon) says x, and that's good enough for me." Nor would you accept, "Explain how else Islam spread all over the world to hundreds of millions." We don't change our standards because we want and/or need something to be true. We follow the principles of reason no matter what.
how dare you speak the truth
"A choice made when you are drunk is actually 2 choices and you made both of them."
Exactly.
Joe, this is so well-said. The lack of charity towards our fellow man/woman, the unwillingness to assume the best of others, and the quickness with which people are ready to excommunicate people in their lives who disagree with them is absolutely frightening. It's certainly not how I live my life as a Humanist/Skeptic/Atheist. I don't think ill of anyone involved in this incident, nor anyone who disagrees with me. I don't want a world where everyone thinks just like I do.
I didn't realize your soft attitude on rape, as revealed in the after show comments. Sex that is not consensual is rape, Mr Dalton. These issues should be addressed in a court of law. I was a juror in such a case where the woman was drunk out of her mind. A member of the group took advantage of it by saying he would drive her home then raped the shit out of her. (Midway through the trial he plead guilty.) If a human falls down in a stupor in a gutter it is not ok to rob them. Such a disappointment.
First of all, thanks for giving me absolutely no credit. Second, please watch the "Did I 'blame the victim?'" video made just after this video aired. Third, no one deserves to have anything done to them against their will. On that, you and I agree. You have misinterpreted my comments here and not understood the context. That will be explained in the video I recommended above.
misterdeity May I suggest one of those clickable caption things that you see on UA-cam videos when that part of the segment comes up, linking to the other video?
SweetPea Brown
I have a problem with what you're saying. If a person gets drunk out of their mind and starts to drive home, but passes out and swerves into oncoming traffic, slamming into a minivan. They kill a whole family of people, but survive. Who gets blamed? The drunk driver. Are they blamed because they hit the car or passed out or even decided to get in their car in the first place? No. They're blamed because they could not moderate their drinking and had no pre-meditated plan to get home after drinking.
I'm not saying it's okay to rape someone when they pass out from drinking. That's the fault of the rapist. But making a bad decision to have sex with someone while drunk is a result of not having the mind to pace yourself and moderate your own drinking (like misterdeity pointed out in his video). And on that note, if you're flirting with a girl and she agrees to have sex with you, even if she is drunk, you do NOT have the intent to rape. You have the intent to get laid. And intent is a huuuuuuge factor in a lot of cases. From murder to rape. Consider a possible life sentence for premeditated murder versus 10-20 years for accidental murder (manslaughter).
Personally, I think the legal limit for BAC should be lowered. .08 is way too high, and opens up many problems.
I read what you said very carefully. It is absolutely one's responsibility to not drink and drive. We're in perfect agreement. About the legal term 'rape', men and women should understand that it's the 'non consensual' part that constitutes rape. The person pressing for sex needs a prospective partner that has the capacity to consent. A woman or man who is 'stupid' enough to be falling down drunk can't give their consent, but to have sex with them can be found to be 'criminal'. . . why risk it? (Drunk people! What are you going to do with them???)
SweetPea Brown And I think that, if this person was truly engaged in 'non consensual' sex because of being drunk, the issue here is no longer about rape.
As a side note before I get to my point, we also might consider the other side. What if the man is drunk as hell too? What if, when sober, the man would never, EVER take advantage of an intoxicated woman?
My point: this can easily be attributed to society's casual approach to alcohol. Alcohol screws you up much worse than, say, marijuana. Prohibition did not work in the past, and I very much doubt it will work now either, but I think a lower BAC legal limit would help immensely. (Also, I have to correct myself, .08 is the legal limit for drunk driving specifically.)
Here - www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html
These are generalizations of BAC in terms of body weight and gender. The chart is based off of the number of drinks. Drinks include "One drink is 1.25 oz. of 80 proof liquor, 12 oz. of beer, or 5 oz. of table wine."
It only takes a 90 lb woman 6 glasses of wine to be within possible death levels.
Granted, that's in the extreme side of things, but it doesn't take very many drinks for a 200lb man to be at a point where his cognitive abilities are significantly reduced.
I think misterdeity is right here. And he clarifies his point in his next video quite nicely. Rape is rape. But two drunk people having regrettable sex is much... MUCH trickier.
Just gotta say: Thank you for all the work you do on that score... and thank you for respecting the process.
I love your videos. Thank you for the the hard work that's put into making them. Very high quality. On another note...how is Michael? Can anyone give an update? It's been eerily silent except for Mr. Deity defending himself against rubes. What about the actual situation?
Possibly one of the best My Deity episodes ever!
I've always liked your stuff, but with this I found a new, higher respect for you. Well said. Keep up the good work.
I love the 'free refill' bit. :-P
Since when was Mr Deity the actual straight man in a sketch? You know Mormonism is crazy when THAT happens!
Thank you for your civility and your willingness to take all comers respectfully. We don't all have to agree. But we should all treat each other with charity, giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
You're assuming that the anonymous, third-hand account lacking all detail and evidence is true. Where else do you do that in your life? I honestly want to know.
I'm still a fan of Mr. Deity. He has made many wonderfully hilarious and telling deconstructions of religious dogma and continues to deserve full credit for that.
LOL this video was 2 years ahead of its time. The October 2015 Ensign has photos of the "seer stone". LOL
This question is unrelated to the video
When will there be more episodes of Words? I loved that show
Thanks. I think I'm going to make one more video about this episode because I've learned so much about this from some truly decent people on the other side who have been respectful and desiring to both understand and be understood. A lot of them linked me to the CDC report on sexual violence which includes as rape, sex between two people where one or both are intoxicated, high, &... Because any level of intoxication makes a person definitionally unable to consent. That makes for a lot o' rape.
This might be your best video yet!
Wonderful and courageous commentary on the drama. Wonder how long before they come after you. If they do, i promise to donate till it hurts.
I don't know anything about it. Can you enlighten me, please?
I have a personal question, what do you think about "project unbreakable" as compared to someone telling what abuse they suffered online?
"Horus sat in that very chair, right there for my Superbowl party"...now that's out there!
Loved this Mr D ....and the Begging Segment too!
Is this letter available somewhere? PZ posted a comment about it, and maybe even the letter itself (there was a defunct link to a pdf in google archives until yesterday), but he had to take down this post again immediately.
The logic and common sense said let there be Mr Diety!
Are you saying that Tituba wasn't in league with the devil?
Honest question, do you know what the second part of the video is a direct response to?
And it came to pass, that this was an exceedingly good video.
Adieu.
You still haven't told me how you know that Shermer was the initiating party.
I'd appreciate an answer to that one.
THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP AND SPEAKING OUT!
Do you want to debate your faith live? Do you have a mic?
I wasn't referring to Watson's video rather your comment which alludes to it. Was I wrong? Were you not alluding to the elevatorgate incident and sexual harassment when you responded?
Thanks for this begging segment. ♥
Donated, Brother. Keep shining the light.
stumbled apon this, not sure if its a purely religious channel, but as a extreme atheist:.. good video,it was fun to watch :) (though i didnt get all the jokes :x )
No. It was my advice on how to say no to someone refilling a person's wine glass, and why Skeptics need more detail and evidence of a serious crime than an anonymous report posted on a blog. Please watch the follow-up video titled, "Did I 'Blame The Victim'".
Well, we will have no freedom in heaven. That doesn't say to me, "God loves freedom." That says to me, "God loves servitude."
Fine. Turns out the link was borked anyway.
You have the edited version. This is what the message originally said.
"The anonymous woman who wrote to you through Carrie is known to me, and in fact I was in her presence immediately after said incident (she was extremely distraught), and when she told the management of the conference (some time later)."
As you can see, any reference to Carrie was removed entirely. Because it is, in fact, referencing another person. Not Shermer.
The message I get from the video is that you can't rightly call yourself a sceptic if you're going to simply accept the word of an anonymous source.
He specifically mentioned the Gospels for a reason.
I see that the begging is starting to take a back seat, behind the activism. Preaching to the choir is only redundant if you stick to the same old gospel. God bless you for pushing some boundaries, Mr D!
He was great, wasn't he? And he's fantastic to work with too.
How do we know the accounts accurately described the circumstances of the night. What's that thing we use to verify eyewitness accounts again? I think it starts with an 'e'...
The FTB bit at the end was absolutely awesome.
And how do you know that you've understood it correctly? Let's say you come to one interpretation and someone else comes to a completely different interpretation. How do we know who's right? And by the way, this is exactly why there are a zillion different denominations of Xtianity. And don't think these interpretations differed only slightly. Many of these different interpretations were significant enough to start long-term wars. So, how do you know your interpretation is correct?
You have the word of god to refer to? Awesome. where did you find it?
On behalf of all rational human beings, I thank you.
You're missing the point.
I'm not saying FTB is a court, I'm saying they are judging Shermer before they actually know any details, based on a third hand account.
Hence the court of FTB.
Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.
Let me ask you a simple question.....are people (not just women), more likely to make a decision they will later regret if they are drunk?
Also, point out specifically where I said that alcohol was a necessary element.....direct quote me please.
I'm not falling for that feeble attempt to misrepresent what I actually said.
Serious question: if long before the OJ trial, before you heard any of the facts of the case, you heard an account that he murdered someone, would you have believed it out of hand and publicly shamed him as a murderer?
Simple question: Is it confirmed to be true? If not, then at this point it is gossip, by definition.
Explain how the definition I posted earlier doesn't apply.
No kidding. I started to read that entire exchange and then decided I wanted to sleep at some point tonight. :)
The point, though, is not the number of rolls but the absurdity of looking at the observed statistical results as mirroring the likeliness of the event.
Ended with an argument from popularity fallacy, such a wonderful rational skeptic you are!
I hope you saw my clarification video titled, "Did I 'Blame The Victim.'"
2. If you voluntarily get drunk, you're still considered able to give consent, unless you're passed out or similar. It's a gray area for people who are very very drunk, but for people who are only somewhat drunk, they're still responsible.
"You misunderstand"
No, I don't. The reason that the newer versions say that the river is the Nile is because biblical scholars have determined that that is what the bible was referencing.
If you're going to go against the people who study the bible for a living, I'm going to need to see your credentials as an expert.
... though there is a moment that looks like 'victim blaming', but I assume you, like me, are an extreme optimist about how people generally treat one another.
By the way, the magic sandwich show is on now....maybe it'll give you some nice background audio while you debate.
Janeyanna, "rape culture" is very abstract. Can you please tell us specifically what you're talking about when you use the term, "rape culture." This is a serious question. I'm not trying to bait you, or set you up. I really want to know specifically what that means and the impact it has on society.
A) "Drunk" does not generally refer to "light intoxication"
B) Only if I were to assume general rules apply universally regardless of context.
Well, not being mathematically inclined, or dice-throwing inclined, myself, that sounds perfectly find to me. I hereby adopt it.
A simultaneous verbal beat down of both Christianity and Lord P-Zod. Absolutely brilliant!
dat smirk is amazing.
actually, "unnamed" and "anonymous" are synonyms. They both mean "without name", which is a very precise description of the gospels, which have no name attached. The closest thing to any identifying characteristic of the writers in the text themselves is the phrase "disciple whom the Lord loved", which could be said of every disciple as much as it could be said of none at all.
Can I suggest that, by putting the bit about the wine in there, he's moving from saying 'I don't have enough evidence to believe it happened' [no problem] to saying 'even if it DID happen, it was her responsibility for drinking too much' [problem]?
I think the wine bit is going further than skepticism.
Don't bother replying to old posts. Tell me, when did the Nile dry up?
I recall reading something that, while too general to be absolute, is definitely a good rule of thumb to have in mind:
"If both parties are intoxicated, but one is way more intoxicated than the other, then it is rape. If both parties are equally intoxicated, then it's just a bad decision that they'll regret in the morning."
What makes it rape isn't that the victim "doesn't agree to it", Often they do, but they're so plastered they'll agree to anything, and thus aren't truly consenting.
Do you have skype? Are you willing to debate live?
Your woeful standards of evidence makes it abundantly clear we aren't at trial.
You said before there was plenty of evidence. I asked you to provide it and you ignored me. It certainly isn't on PZ's blog, so where is it?
I don't want to step on any toes by saying more than I should. I think we'll be hearing something from Michael soon. It's just an awful situation made even more awful by how this was done. It's a shame. I think I'll make one more video about it because there is so much to be said -- and so much I've learned from dealing with people's emails on this topic for the last four weeks.
John of Patmos was imprisoned on that island by Rome.
What is anonymous about that?
PZ Myers on Pharyngula answered that "if you have to think about the gray areas then (sic) you are thinking as a rapist" and then banned the one who made the question. PZ's reason and logic at work ladies and gentleman!
Even if the woman's responsible for being vulnerable, she bears absolutely none of the blame for what's done to her while in a vulnerable state.
Veronica!!! You win the prize for the most buzz words per comment -- and all without making any substantive comment or telling us why we, as good Skeptics, should suddenly abandon our principled need for evidence and instead, believe an anonymous, third-hand account lacking all detail and evidence. Well done, Veronica! You should be very proud of yourself. The Hyperfeminists are gonna LOVE you!
*slow clap*
Are there any ribbons we can hand out for victim blaming? Bad idea, we might run out if you guys keep this up...
"It's like a woman having an opinion on how bad or not-bad it is for boys and men to be culturally dicouraged from crying, being gentle, being nourishing."
There is nothing wrong with a woman having or expressing an opinion on these things.
You don't need to have first hand experience to have an opinion. Where did you get that?
Actually, I found a link to the thing I couldn't find before. So if you haven't seen either and/or want to read them, I'll be happy to provide links if you want.
If someone brutally murders or rapes my mother, he is guilty of murder or rape whether he was intoxicated on alcohol or high on drugs. Which actions of the murderer/rapist is my mother responsible for?
or, the wine implies either:
a) implying that, like most people, it is likely she would have stopped when she reached her limit.
b) her level of sobriety could have affected her recollection of the event.
Also, the allegation was apparently given to Myers by someone else, so it's actually third hand info...This was made brought to light in the letter Shermer's lawyers sent to PZ. That was also in the deleted post, but I could provide a link to an image someone took of it if you want to see (unfortunately I don't have any links to screenshots of the blog post it was uploaded in, only the letter itself).
Where in Watson's video did she describe that incident as sexual harassment? She said it made it uncomfortable, yes. I don't remember any charges of sexual harassment.
When the "why I don't believe in the gospels" section started, the music made me think I was watching Half in the Bag by Red Letter Media.
And what was the point of your post?
Can we have some bibliography pf these real bible scholars? If you provide it,I'll gladly post references to my recent biblical readings.
I'm not saying anyone is lying about anything. The anonymous source doesn't even use the term "rape." The charge is that he "coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me." I don't know what any of that means -- and there are absolutely no details! That is vague, wrapped in obscurity, and covered in nebulous. When you pour anonymity on top of that, what "skeptic" (who requires evidence to believe a claim) can take that at face value? That's all I'm saying.
That is the actual court ruling wording for the UK regarding this issue. It also describes fairly well how the law sees it in most western jurisdictions. Capacity to consent is the correct terminology,
The use of "informed" consent muddies the waters in that it sets up a degree of understanding for a subject unfamiliar with what is going on.
e.g. a virgin without any experience in the act of sex.
It's interesting that you consider a court ruling vacuous.
So, you're saying your uncle heard voices in his head?
Please take a look at my follow-up video called, "Did I 'Blame The Victim'".
"-Most would rather be rude than over-poisoned"
I'm sure, but it's a pretty simple principle of social interaction that you can coerce people into doing things they'd rather not do through subtle means. Surely that's not a controversial point?
I haven't meant to imply that you're cool with it if she's drunk.
"...also most people recognize the boundary between rude and intrusive."
I'm not sure what that's referring to. I wasn't talking about rudeness.
You know, it might behoove you to read the thread history for the comment you're replying to. It wasn't answering the question you seem to think it was answering.
I have explained to why the reference failed. They don't claim the as even provisionally true. They take the claim as an indication to tell the police that there's a report of something happening which falls within the remit of the police to investigate.
So, these people have made claims which haven't been investigated by anyone who's remotely trained in such investigations.
I begin again: cool story. What evidence do you have so we know how to proportion our beliefs?
Bravo! Doing it in style!
Why can't you possibly see that the accused might be the actual victim? Are you really unable to see this from the other side? Unless and until there is evidence, the accused is innocent.
We admire your skeptical attitude. You will be missed.
No. I honestly don't know what that means. And neither do you -- unless you've talked to woman who said it. You can guess. You can assume. But unless you have clarification from the person who said that, you don't KNOW. I have my suspicions, as I'm sure you do. But neither of us knows exactly what she meant by that.
Is it wrong to say that the writers of the gospels are unnamed? My sources says no, btw my sources prefer to remain anonymous.
However unnamed can also be used about someone who we all know who is, like Waldemort, but that use of unnamed is not relevant for this case. Take care not to equiviate.
Why is it important to hastily condemn Shermer instead of waiting for further evidence? I'm not talking about "criminal trial level evidence", but there's no harm in waiting for further corroboration.
That does not entail calling Jane Doe a liar or blaming her for what happened.
We can extend the benefit of the doubt for both sides, be supportive of the victim's right to speak up and wait for due process. Trust, but verify.
Actually, in my 20's, @ 2 different parties, women were accusing friends of rape afterwards. Each time they were drunk, initiated the sexual encounter, told off friends who tried to stop them, didn't remember anything the next day, & went around calling the guy a rapist. They only stopped when others @ the parties told them that no it wasn't rape, they were the one to get drunk, they were the one to initiate sex, and in one case, was very vocal from the bedroom about how good a job he was doing.