PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[DaveDodo007]

Garters are always on topic, particularly when they're on Hades.

Although I'm unclear how a discussion of rape and legal procedures is a derail...

My bad, I'm just getting trigger happy, I guess.

[DaveDodo007]

What.....the...fuck

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-682206

Sounds like he is a fantasist though even if he isn't. then he was 12 years old at the time. this is beyond my scope of expertise and I hope a professional gets to deal with it. I'm all for the lulz and insulting people but this is out of my league.

[Boyle]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

Which effectively means that you abandon several key elements of a judicial system, including:

1. Presumption of innocence, and
2. Rules of evidence, and
3. Burden of proof.

The reason that we have these at all is that over the centuries, it was found that these principles help to lessen the chance of FALSE convictions.

Well, and collectively felt that a false positive conviction is worse than a false negative conviction.

Anyway, I was not extending acceptance of the accusers word as truth to the context of a criminal trial. I was stating that when I am discussing a sexual experience with someone, I take them at their word when it comes to their consent or non-consent. I do this because, as had been noted, I have no real solid way to determine the truth in that case. I also have no reason to doubt them, usually. Basically, informally, I tend to credit the victim.

It has been found that in all areas of criminal and civil litigation that accusers and accused will each lie, have faulty memories, or have different interpretations.

Taking consent as an issue away from te emotive area of rape for a moment, to the area of car theft. An accuser who says that the accused took their car without consent has not thereby established their case, they've simply told the court the basis of their accusation. Then they have to make a good argument to support that claim sufficient to overcome the burden of proof.

Back to rape. If an accuser says there was no consent, and the accused says there was, there is no way to distinguish between these claims without an exposition of the facts, as best as they can be articulated, and knowing that this articulation will be due to the human tendency to unconsciously "adjust" our memories.

I agree with all of this, and this is precisely why rape allegations are notoriously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way to do it would be to have some way to get inside their head and read thoughts.

Of course, this brings up the problem of the accused actually thinking it had been consensual and the accuser not consenting. Intent in these cases is important as well, especially because I know people can ignore protestations without intending to. It's easy to damage people when you don't notice that you are being an ass.

@Thinking Aloud: In a criminal trial? Presumption of innocence helps with that tremendously. In personal life? I don't know. As I said above, I have no way of knowing the truth, and tend to accept them at their word because I largely have no reason to doubt them. I mean, I'd certainly believe them if they said their wallet was stolen or if they said their house was robbed.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Looking back through those comments, that person and many others are making these confessions based on 'recovered memories.' Hmmm.

"On mature recollection" is a famous phrase from Irish politics.

An euphemism for "When I finally sobered up"?

[Cormac]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

Which effectively means that you abandon several key elements of a judicial system, including:

1. Presumption of innocence, and
2. Rules of evidence, and
3. Burden of proof.

The reason that we have these at all is that over the centuries, it was found that these principles help to lessen the chance of FALSE convictions.

Well, and collectively felt that a false positive conviction is worse than a false negative conviction.

Anyway, I was not extending acceptance of the accusers word as truth to the context of a criminal trial. I was stating that when I am discussing a sexual experience with someone, I take them at their word when it comes to their consent or non-consent. I do this because, as had been noted, I have no real solid way to determine the truth in that case. I also have no reason to doubt them, usually. Basically, informally, I tend to credit the victim.

It has been found that in all areas of criminal and civil litigation that accusers and accused will each lie, have faulty memories, or have different interpretations.

Taking consent as an issue away from te emotive area of rape for a moment, to the area of car theft. An accuser who says that the accused took their car without consent has not thereby established their case, they've simply told the court the basis of their accusation. Then they have to make a good argument to support that claim sufficient to overcome the burden of proof.

Back to rape. If an accuser says there was no consent, and the accused says there was, there is no way to distinguish between these claims without an exposition of the facts, as best as they can be articulated, and knowing that this articulation will be due to the human tendency to unconsciously "adjust" our memories.

I agree with all of this, and this is precisely why rape allegations are notoriously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way to do it would be to have some way to get inside their head and read thoughts.

Of course, this brings up the problem of the accused actually thinking it had been consensual and the accuser not consenting. Intent in these cases is important as well, especially because I know people can ignore protestations without intending to. It's easy to damage people when you don't notice that you are being an ass.

@Thinking Aloud: In a criminal trial? Presumption of innocence helps with that tremendously. In personal life? I don't know. As I said above, I have no way of knowing the truth, and tend to accept them at their word because I largely have no reason to doubt them. I mean, I'd certainly believe them if they said their wallet was stolen or if they said their house was robbed.

Ah! We have reached harmonious agreement! (More or less. I'm sure we could find a way to nitpick our way into disagreement again. This is a forum after all!).

[Cormac]

Looking back through those comments, that person and many others are making these confessions based on 'recovered memories.' Hmmm.

"On mature recollection" is a famous phrase from Irish politics.

An euphemism for "When I finally sobered up"?

Nah. It is usually along the lines of: "We most certainly did not bug those journalists. It is ridiculous to even suggest it. It would have been a breach of their constitutional rights, and a massive over-reaching by government".

Conclusive proof to the contrary is put into the public domain:

"On mature recollection, yes...Yes we did bug those journalists. Did I mention it was on MATURE recollection?

[Boyle]

Ah! We have reached harmonious agreement! (More or less. I'm sure we could find a way to nitpick our way into disagreement again. This is a forum after all!).

I'd say our agreement is more cordial than harmonious.

[Cormac]

Ah! We have reached harmonious agreement! (More or less. I'm sure we could find a way to nitpick our way into disagreement again. This is a forum after all!).

I'd say our agreement is more cordial than harmonious.

I'd say more friendly than cordial.

[Boyle]

Ah! We have reached harmonious agreement! (More or less. I'm sure we could find a way to nitpick our way into disagreement again. This is a forum after all!).

I'd say our agreement is more cordial than harmonious.

I'd say more friendly than cordial.

More good-natured than friendly.

[charlou]

Keep going .. you'll get to the evolutionary imperative eventually

[Cormac]

Ah! We have reached harmonious agreement! (More or less. I'm sure we could find a way to nitpick our way into disagreement again. This is a forum after all!).

I'd say our agreement is more cordial than harmonious.

I'd say more friendly than cordial.

More good-natured than friendly.

Well, some kind of "natured" anyway, but "good" might be overstated...


Edit: Oh, sorry. Forgot for a sec:

[Azathoth]

Brayton is next witch of the week at this rate. Straying dangerously far away from FTB dogma with this. Waiting for the baboons to notice and pile on about believing the victim and suchlike

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... um=twitter

[rachelbean]

Moved LP's post and responses to the Pics, Vids and Tales of your kids thread, where it was meant for

[tattuchu]

So what's going on with this thing? Was there ever any resolution to this PZ/Shermer affair?

[Thinking Aloud]

So what's going on with this thing? Was there ever any resolution to this PZ/Shermer affair?

They were having an affair as well?