PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Sean Hayden]

Okay, you got me - I am allowed to get pissed off.

Me too.

As you noticed.

Indeed - and I know you've actually gone to some of these things and met some of these people. I just have to at least shake my fist at the insanity of some of the behavior that continues even after having been confronted multiple times already.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, you got me - I am allowed to get pissed off.

Me too.

As you noticed.

Indeed - and I know you've actually gone to some of these things and met some of these people. I have to at least shake my fist at the insanity of some of the behavior that continues even after having been confronted multiple times already.

Been to three Skepticons, dined and drank with "the names". Made a hat for PZ. They're just people, one leg at a time folks. And that means a percentage of them are going to do stupid shit, same as in the real world.

[Scott1328]

The whole point of PZ's grenade is to polarize the skeptical movement and enlarge the deep rifts. It is just one more move in the game to oust the undesirables and ideological opponents. The next step of course is for the various Skepchicks/FtB personalities to announce boycotts of conferences and organizations that invite Shermer to participate or that fail to denounce him.

And of course any who dare to defend Shermer are labeled rape apologists and part of the problem.

Interesting to note. Joe Zameki, the founder of the Atheist Community of Austin, and Jen Peeples, its current president, had a falling out over this on the ACA facebook page yesterday. Joe thinking The police should be involved, and Jen apparently thinking mere allegations prove a crime occurred.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh the times, oh the mores.

[lordpasternack]

Michael Shermer himself expresses some pretty cogent opinions on the topic of rape, and asking explicitly for consent:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/morality/

Doesn't prove anything at all - but I just thought I'd share that one.

[Strontium Dog]

The whole point of PZ's grenade is to polarize the skeptical movement and enlarge the deep rifts. It is just one more move in the game to oust the undesirables and ideological opponents. The next step of course is for the various Skepchicks/FtB personalities to announce boycotts of conferences and organizations that invite Shermer to participate or that fail to denounce him.

And of course any who dare to defend Shermer are labeled rape apologists and part of the problem.

Interesting to note. Joe Zameki, the founder of the Atheist Community of Austin, and Jen Peeples, its current president, had a falling out over this on the ACA facebook page yesterday. Joe thinking The police should be involved, and Jen apparently thinking mere allegations prove a crime occurred.

Oh yeah, this shit is catnip for the A-plus fucktards, and a quick peek at their forum shows the predictable apoplexy and misandry before the thread was prematurely locked.

[Jason]

What does "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" mean?

"Got me drunk", maybe?

The girl later decided she hadn't been able to give consent because she'd had three banana daiquiris. Classic post-coital rape realization. The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

[Cormac]

The whole point of PZ's grenade is to polarize the skeptical movement and enlarge the deep rifts. It is just one more move in the game to oust the undesirables and ideological opponents. The next step of course is for the various Skepchicks/FtB personalities to announce boycotts of conferences and organizations that invite Shermer to participate or that fail to denounce him.

And of course any who dare to defend Shermer are labeled rape apologists and part of the problem.

Interesting to note. Joe Zameki, the founder of the Atheist Community of Austin, and Jen Peeples, its current president, had a falling out over this on the ACA facebook page yesterday. Joe thinking The police should be involved, and Jen apparently thinking mere allegations prove a crime occurred.

[lordpasternack]

The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

What the fuck are you meaning to imply? Consent to drinks is not consent to sex. Should women take it on the chin if they are raped by someone with whom they'd hitherto been enjoying drinks?

Are men entitled to have sex with any woman who has drinks with them?

[Audley Strange]

PZombie and his gang of cunts are like religion, making lots of noise because they are insipid and increasingly marginal. At least after this there is no way they will be considered skeptics.

His sort of "Atheism" has more sanctimony per square inch than the Vatican. I hope he ends up penniless and taking it up the shitter from tramps for spare change.

[Jason]

The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

What the fuck are you meaning to imply?

I implied nothing. I posed a question.

Consent to drinks is not consent to sex.

On the surface, obviously not. Context, however, has much to do with it. For example: Plying a woman with alcohol until she passes out and then having sex with her is obviously rape. Counter example: Having drinks with a woman, making advances which she is open to and accepts, and then later on decides alcohol influenced her judgment and cries rape is not obviously rape.

Should women take it on the chin if they are raped by someone with whom they'd hitherto been enjoying drinks?

You're begging the question. Was she raped or did she implicitly consent to his advances after, and probably while, they had been enjoying drinks together? Are you claiming they're the same thing?

Are men entitled to have sex with any woman who has drinks with them?

This is a non sequitur and severely gender biased, but to answer it neutrally: No. There is never an 'entitlement' to sex by any party on any occasion.

What are you trying to imply? That imbibing alcohol absolves a person of the decisions he or she (but especially she) makes while under the influence of that substance they partook of of their own free will? Is she not responsible for her decision to have sex after having a few drinks?

[Audley Strange]

An offer of coffee is a rape threat, let's remember that too.

[Robert_S]

What does "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" mean?

"Got me drunk", maybe?

The girl later decided she hadn't been able to give consent because she'd had three banana daiquiris. Classic post-coital rape realization. The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

Girl was drinking some place and some guy socially maneuvers her, slowly and insidiously, to be alone with her as the night goes on and she gets drunker, eventually he alone with her and...

I've seen that sort of thing happen. The story seems plausible.

More to the point of this thread: I have in the past received incendiary accusations against respected figures in the Skeptic community. I may find them credible at face-value, but blabbering it all publicly when there isn't a shred of substantive evidence available, regarding what actually happened, is madness.

Perhaps PZ is betting that some more evidence will be forthcoming? That perhaps someone with a better legal case will gain the courage to come forward?

It is still to my great shame that I swallowed the criminal accusations made against Josh Timonen back in 2010, without due scrupulousness and care. That was some seriously intentionally malicious shit - though to RE Cornwell's credit, she did manage to give the case a superficial feel of substantiveness and authority. It was several months into the lawsuit before it transpired that there was zero evidence on her side, and substantive evidence on Josh's side.

Stuff like this matters. Sometimes situations are more weird and complex than you'd initially guessed. Sometimes the evidence reveals a picture that's simple, stark and unmistakably clear. But ultimately, there needs to be at least a couple of shreds of substantive evidence on which to base your hypothesis, before you say anything publicly.

Yes. Very much this.

When I was 16, I met a 25 year old woman who gave me coke, bought me beer, and initiated oral sex with me. We had lots of that. When she wanted me to go along with some bizarre criminal get rich quick scheme that she wouldn't give me the full details to, I cut off contact. She later accused me of raping her.

These things happen. To dismiss that wholesale would be criminal. To convict on an accusation is to convict 16 year old me. Women can be just as shitty as men. To deny that is ultimately disrespectful.

[Audley Strange]

Women can be just as shitty as men

Now that's someone who understands equality.

[colubridae]

An offer of coffee is a rape threat, let's remember that too.