Michael Shermer accused of raping woman at conference

[AtheistExile]

@drunkenshoe,

You cited my first post . . .

--------------
"Michael Shermer is one of my favorite atheists and skeptics. My opinion of PZ is not as glowing. And now that he has irresponsibly impugned the character and reputation of Shermer, he's feces to me.

His claim that the anonymous woman had no recourse is pure crap. It begs the question: Why the hell didn't she go to the police? She should have called the cops immediately, while Shermer was still around and evidence was fresh. Her failure to do so compromises official efforts to gather evidence."
--------------

. . . then made the following response . . .

--------------
"So you made a post starting with how you respect Shermer, how he is your favourite and how highly you regard him, AFTER that you just blurted out that this whole issue is OF COURSE CRAP -which you have no idea- BUT under all these circumstances you asked (and showed the question as an highly likely the 'evidence') why the woman didn't go to police immediately, if she was raped by a powerful public figure?

And I bet you're a skeptic yourself, right? :lol:  Do you know anything about rape cases as general issues resulting from the nature of the crime?

He could be guilty or innocent, we'll see. But a person's stand in his occupation or him being a beloved atheist and a skeptic or a scientist in public HAS NOTHING to do with that person being able to commit any crime."
--------------

. . . here's my reply . . .

Here we go . . . a strawman argument from somebody without a real argument. If you want to productively engage me, address what I said . . . not your weakened version of what I said. You know what? The name "strawman argument" should be changed to "hand puppet argument"; it's more descriptive. What you've done is substituted your own words for mine, then argued against that. You're, in essence, arguing with yourself -- hence the hand puppet argument. Now, pay attention so you can avoid this dishonest tactic in the future.

MY WORDS: "His claim that the anonymous woman had no recourse is pure crap."

YOUR WORDS: ". . . you just blurted out that this whole issue is OF COURSE CRAP . . ."

See the difference? I addressed one thing, NOT the whole issue. What was pure crap was PZ's claim that the anonymous woman had no recourse.

And that's clearly, obviously, a fact. So you changed it. It wasn't just one thing but, rather the "whole issue" that is now suddenly OF COURSE CRAP.

Then you argue against your words instead of mine by saying: "which you have no idea".

If you want to argue against yourself and pretend I'm part of it, you'll get nothing but the back of my hand. Be honest when you engage me or else I'll just leave you and your hand puppet to yourselves. I won't join your circle jerk.

[the_antithesis]

Who are these guys who don't have any post count despite posting and all sounding like the same fucking guy?

[the_antithesis]

At this point I'm just waiting for Myers's sexual indiscretions to come to light. He seems to like to blow the whistle, and this means he probably did shit like buy an African boy for his use until he got tired of him and had him killed or something like that. It's like how politicians that are really anti-gay tend to get caught with male prostitutes.

[AtheistExile]

@drunkenshoe,

First of all, you HAVE to report the rape to the police if you want justice through LEGAL recourse. As I mentioned, evidence needs to be gathered so you need to call the police immediately. If you'd rather tell your boyfriend and have him go shoot the rapist, then you need not involve the police. But if you choose to be silent about it until the evidence is gone, well, that's your choice too . . . but you can't later level accusations and expect any satisfaction or closure -- BECAUSE THERE'S NO MORE EVIDENCE ANY MORE. Actually, I think it's a crime to witness a felony and not report it, so not reporting your own rape might technically be illegal (though nobody would blame her).

But even if I take your rationale seriously, then what happened to the main point that rape is a serious, violent, traumatizing crime? If the victim feels that public judgmentalism, embarrassment and scrutiny outweigh pursuing justice for the rape, then the victim is discounting her own rape. Was it serious, violent and traumatizing or not? It's awful that she has to endure even more undesirable things but she needs to help get the rapist off the streets. If she's not going to seek justice for herself, who am I to insist she does?

But here's the rub. She has to take responsibility for her decision to not report the crime and preserve the evidence. If she'd rather do that than pursue justice, that's her choice. But I think it's the wrong choice because she's unlikely to get justice, satisfaction or closure without evidence. Even if she later goes to the police, it simply becomes a "he said / she said" stalemate. You need more than an accusation to get an indictment (much less, guilty verdict).

Without evidence preserved or a police report filed, coming out later with a public accusation will result in EVEN MORE public judgmentalism, embarrassment and scrutiny than normal. If our mystery woman wanted to avoid these things, then why go public at all? And if, as PZ stated, she wanted other women safe from Shermer, why did she wait years to go public? What about the potential victims in the interim? These questions wouldn't arise if she had reported the rape to the police immediately.

A low percentage of rape claims are false claims. But they do happen. We can't automatically assume a rape claim is legitimate, though most are. And when a rape claim comes years later, without a police report or evidence preserved, then it's even more important to not rush to judgment. If this anonymous woman really was raped by Shermer, he should go to prison for a long time. But the likeliest outcome is that the public will never be certain what actually happened. This guarantees injustice no matter what actually happened. If she really was raped by Shermer, Shermer is unlikely to go to jail and even mroe people are less likely to believe her. If she's making a false accusation, Shermer's reputations is ruined unjustly no matter what happens afterwards.

EVERYBODY LOSES. THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REPORT RAPE TO THE POLICE.

[wolf39us]

I am definitely curious as to why their post counts aren't updating

[Nonsensei]

I think it's a crime to witness a felony and not report it, so not reporting your own rape might technically be illegal

Heh yeah I think I saw this particular mechanic employed on an episode of law and order.

[Kevin Solway]

Drunkenshoe wrote:

"It's not false rape accusation material at all, because there's no gain it."

There doesn't have to be any "gain" in false accusations.  People believe false things, and make false claims, because it is human nature to do so.  Most of what everyone believes is nonsense.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As far as I'm concerned, PZ Myers' credibility plummeted when he started acting like a pissy child taking his ball home, by censoring and boycotting anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him or his acolytes. So I want to see some facts, rather than summarily believe the accusations of someone I have little respect for that are leveled at someone I hold in very high esteem.

This.  PZ did a hit-piece on another freethought forum when the latter's owner made a rape joke ... some of us were summarily banned from Pharyngula for even partial disagreement with the party line.

I didn't mind so much, because I find groupthink irritating, especially when it is practiced by PC Angels.

[the_antithesis]

You do know sock puppets are against the rules, right? Also, while hacking the forum so you never gain any post count may not be against any specific rule, I'm pretty sure that hacking the forum is generally frowned upon.

[AtheistExile]

I don't know why my post counts aren't incrementing. I'd like it fixed. But it's not MY problem. Intimations to the contrary are pure speculation.

If that doesn't satisfy you, kiss my ass.

[stromboli]

I am definitely curious as to why their post counts aren't updating

What I previously referred to as a ghost on the forum.

[Brian37]

Until we have a grand jury and a trial, all this speculation is NANCY GRACE garbage.

If an atheist commits the same crimes as a theist, it means that we are not a separate species. But part of our empathy should be presumption of innocence not guilt.

[aitm]

I have never spent a moment on either of their works or opinions so as far as I am concerned, Frank Farmer from fucksville said Tim Trapper from smucksville did..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You're missing out, then.  

meh, if you say so. I don't read books by atheists about atheism, it doesn't interest me.

[Hydra009]

Until we have a grand jury and a trial, all this speculation is NANCY GRACE garbage.

Exactly.  Color me skeptical on this one.

I'll believe it when I have something more substantial than hearsay to go on.

[AtheistExile]

@drunkenshoe,

You said . . .

-----------------
"No FIRST OF ALL, you need to grasp the crucial difference between "what should be done in case of rape" and "what's done and happens in reality when someone gets raped". Get it? Now read the post I wrote to you with this information please. Otherwise you cannot be taken seriously with that 'rationale' of yours, because what I have been talking about here is based on reality, not some 'WHAT SHOULD RAPE VICTIMS DO' manual.

Anything else you wrote about the possibility of how Shermer's or the woman's life will be ruined in any case, again is the reality of every rape case. Shermer being a public figure of this sort doesn't put him somewhere different or make his situation more 'special' than others. On the contrary, it makes him more likely to get away with it if he is guilty.

I'm only thinking that, accusing this man with multiple rape has NO gain in return to anyone, but just deep fucked up, messy long standing trouble. I reiterate, accusing a respected, reputable public figure with rape is a huge thing. It's not false rape accusation material at all, because there's no gain it.

Having said that I hope it is all bullshit."
-----------------

You just won't give up on the strawman arguments, will you? I guess that's because you don't have a real argument. You keep arguing points I never made or support. They're your weakened versions. Hand puppetry.

What's done in reality when somebody gets raped? She's usually traumatized. I'd guess that the majority of them report the rape to the police and that a minority of those cases result in the rapist actually being sentenced to prison. I don't need to grasp diddly squat. I know full well the limits and pitfalls of the legal system and of the uniformed public at large.

And I already addressed your previous post. As I've already stated, a woman may choose not to report the rape. Fine. But, as I said, she's responsible for her actions and choices. If she later changes her mind, she can't reasonably expect prosecutors to take her case without evidence.

I'm not saying the mystery woman was or wasn't raped by Shermer. But if she was, I would certainly hope that Shermer spends a very long time in prison. I don't know PZ or Shermer personally. I only know their public personas. Publicly (on videos of public appearances) PZ is a confrontational and dismissive dick while Shermer, on the other hand, is a reasonable gentleman. I find it difficult to believe that Shermer would rape or otherwise violate anybody. But an accusation has been leveled and, once (if) I evaluate the evidence, I might change my mind. I don't know who the mystery woman is or if PZ has restated her testimony properly or if she even really exists. Is she trustworthy? Who knows? PZ thinks so but I don't trust him or his motives. He's definitely not trustworthy as far as I'm concerned. Making such a public accusation without any evidence is irresponsible and, hopefully, results in a hefty libel law suit. Even if I had a high opinion of him, his irresponsible accusation is plenty of reason for me to distrust him.

Unfortunately, it's not the woman we have to believe because she's not the one who made the public accusation. It's PZ. And I don't trust ANYTHING he says. I think PZ is so small-minded that I wouldn't be surprised if he's envious of Shermer's well-deserved reputation and scholarship. I wouldn't be surprised if the "gain" you say doesn't exist is PZ lifting himself up by bringing down Shermer. A man who would make such an irresponsible accusation is capable of anything as far as I'm concerned.

So, if the anonymous woman is vindicated and Shermer is somehow sent to prison, then PZ will be a hero and I will be terribly wrong. But if this goes nowhere, we'll never know the truth. And if the woman IS lying, the only way Shermer can salvage his reputation is if she steps forward to confess her lies. And we know that ain't going to happen. So Shermer is screwed no matter what. If I wanted to assassinate his charater, I couldn't have done it better than PZ.