Another Skepchick War! Dr. Marty Klein crossed the line!

[Svartalf]

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

a) I'll say like Hermit and admit that I disregard most of what seth says... heck, it usually takes him getting quoted for me to read his prose at all.

b) a person who's that morbidly oversensitive and throws unfounded accusations all over the internet like that opens herself up to nasty comments and bad opinions. I regard her as an unpleasant silly person, not as a "fellow" in any group or category I might belong to.

c) sticks and stones and all that. if Seth proceeds to follow up on what he advocates, I'll be the first to treat him with the garden shears before calling the sheriff to take him away and let him spend 20 to thirty as Bubba's girlfriend... so long as no action follows, he still has freedom of speech until the mods decide to out the banhammer on him.

[colubridae]

Haders I congratulate you!!!


Using ces’s posts you have invented a whole new fallacy.

To wit
“you’ve rebutted every point I’ve made, piecemeal. I can’t find anything wrong in your refutation. So, I’ll claim the big picture. Even though I can’t spell it out (despite it being the big picture) I’ll still claim that you are wrong because you’ve missed the big picture”


Would you like the honour of naming this fallacy.
I suggest the ‘big picture’ fallacy, the haderspussercat fallacy doesn’t really do it.

It may actually be a subset of the courtier’s fallacy, AFA I’m concerned it deserves its own title.


If I may make a suggestion if you want to go up against CES get your shit together.

I know you want me to bug off, but I hate seeing intelligent people being sloppy.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah, it's rhetoric. An attempt at provocation that through overuse has become merely expected noise.

Also, I wasn't saying that the woman handed the card had a legitimate case for harassment, but I do think that there is a difference in perception about it from those involved where one side sees it as a social event and the others a professional event.

[Hermit]

I do think that there is a difference in perception about it from those involved where one side sees it as a social event and the others a professional event.

The latter being under the misapprehension that sexual suggestions become immoral in nature when they are made in course of a professional event.

I don't know if Watson or any of her hangers-on went as far as that.

[Brian Peacock]

I would find it incredibly offensive in anybody had any sexual thoughts about me say, pouring oil onto my taught, muscular body and letting it run across my broad chest, over my mons pubis, and down my thighs. Those thoughts are just not acceptable. Don't even think about it. You are not allowed to think anything, because your thoughts are not free. You must abide by the rules of Peacock.

[Pappa]

I would find it incredibly offensive in anybody had any sexual thoughts about me say, pouring oil onto my taught, muscular body and letting it run across my broad chest, over my mons pubis, and down my thighs. Those thoughts are just not acceptable. Don't even think about it. You are not allowed to think anything, because your thoughts are not free. You must abide by the rules of Peacock.

Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...

hehehehe hehe hehehehehehehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehe....

You said "cock"... hehe hehe hehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehehe hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe....

[Coito ergo sum]

CES: Seth suggested she ought to be bound naked and bent over a table and that her asshole should be in a different state than it was before.

I thought Hades was referring to comments on the Skepchick page itself.

I never read Seth's post that suggested what you're saying there. I will check around. Seth's post is just a stupid internetz post. Lots of people make hyperbolic and "offensive" (to some) comments all the time - Sarah Palin used to get all sorts of violent posts about her on Rationalia and RDnet. I don't know the context.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, that's kinda creepy... More than kinda actually. I'm going to assume you were illustrating a point unless you say differently.

I usually think very little of her and other women's complaints until I read the bizarre amount of hostile sexism in the reactions. I mean, what is it about women bringing up sexism that turns an astonishing number of my fellow males into stark raving /b/tards?

I think the reason I am slow to see some things is that I ask myself "how would I come to make such a gaffe?". Now it occurs to me that maybe there's a lot more sexually fucked up men than me out there than I might think...

On the Skepchick thread? There were "hostile sexist reactions?" I didn't read any. I did see where any expression of dissent to the assertion that handing the card was a serious incident was squelched and silenced.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

I did. Can you direct me to the "hostile sexist" reactions? The Skepchicks don't even brook dissent, much less "hostile sexist."

Seth's reaction, right there.

As for the rest of your recent responses to my posts, I don't know why none of them indicate that I in fact agree that the card-giving was not harassment.

This is another example of how, when you break down posts to digest them piece by piece, you miss important chunks of content and/or meaning.

Oh, I misunderstood then. I referred to comments "on the Skepchick thread," which I intended to mean the thread on the Skepchick website.

I didn't miss that. In my last post in response to yours, I addressed the barmaid example, where you said that barmaids were not suing on claims that they could be. I merely wanted to explain where the law basically draws the line on that kind of "harassment."

Also, by addressing multiple points in a post at the end, instead of addressing points seriatim, you miss important content and meaning because points are glossed over, skipped, ignored, not addressed, not rebutted, etc.

I see Seth's comment now -- not sure how I missed it before -- it's rude and crude, yes.

[Robert_S]

Cheers CES and everyone. I was alarmed that people had passed over Seth's comment due to being oblivious to the nature of the content. Now I'm relieved that people are learning mouse-wheel skillz.

[Brian Peacock]

I would find it incredibly offensive if anybody had any sexual thoughts about me say, pouring oil onto my taught, muscular body and letting it run across my broad chest, over my mons pubis, and down my thighs. Those thoughts are just not acceptable. Don't even think about it. You are not allowed to think anything, because your thoughts are not free. You must abide by the rules of Peacock.

Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...

hehehehe hehe hehehehehehehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehe....

You said "cock"... hehe hehe hehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehehe hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe....

I'll cock you in a moment!

[Bella Fortuna]

I would find it incredibly offensive if anybody had any sexual thoughts about me say, pouring oil onto my taught, muscular body and letting it run across my broad chest, over my mons pubis, and down my thighs. Those thoughts are just not acceptable. Don't even think about it. You are not allowed to think anything, because your thoughts are not free. You must abide by the rules of Peacock.

Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...

hehehehe hehe hehehehehehehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehe....

You said "cock"... hehe hehe hehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehehe hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe....

I'll cock you in a moment!

Will there be oil involved?

[Coito ergo sum]

Wrong. How many damn times does it have to be repeated: Just because someone has and ought to have the legal right to do something, it does not follow that it is the right thing to do!

Very true, and that is the neverending human debate.

Take our atheist community - in many areas, atheists are pro ridicule, mockery and personal attacks against others, including groups of people -- the religious, for example. They don't deserve to be respected. They don't deserve courtesy. They should be responded to with ridicule and derision. Is it the "right thing to do?" It's certainly legal.

If you can't tolerate getting propositioned or the thought of it, then by all means "never leave your house or wear a big black bag". If you don't like it under certain circumstances and done in certain styles and think there are good reasons for it to stop, then you have every right to use your free speech to say so and try to change the prevailing attitudes. If anyone cannot tolerate a critique, valid or not so much, of how they behave sexually even if it's within the law then maybe they should stay home and wank.

Very true. But, Skepchicks are not just looking to change attitudes. They are looking to silence dissent. They are free to even to use their free speech to try to do that. But, anyone who doesn't wish to be silenced can certainly tell them to fuck off.

The attitude, for example, that I'd like to see changed is the overly paternalistic treatment of women, where we are protecting "women" from being hit on (even politely). In a situation like the business card for swingers, if it was handed to a man the complaints from the guy would be met with "so what? What do you want us to do about it?" But, we're conditioned culturally to view this as a particular affront TO WOMEN -- not to people. This is a holdover from the "you can't say that in mixed company" days, and the days when impuning the chastity of a woman was a major offense and ruined her "reputation."

See - that's what the Skepchicks are bringing back -- the 1950s "women on a pedestal" culture where certain things you can't say TO WOMEN, and there are certain ways to "treat a lady." They are only repackaging the old culture in feminist terms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, it's rhetoric. An attempt at provocation that through overuse has become merely expected noise.

Also, I wasn't saying that the woman handed the card had a legitimate case for harassment, but I do think that there is a difference in perception about it from those involved where one side sees it as a social event and the others a professional event.

I think the Skepchicks might want to check with Dawkins, Harris, and folks who knew Hitchens, Michael Shermer and other prominent skeptics, if women ever made unsolicited come-ons and offers of sex to them. I can guarantee you that they have all had many...while they were "working" at conferences.

[Coito ergo sum]

I met him for the first in Las Vegas at The Amazing Meeting 4 in 2005. I had never heard of him before but was so blown away by his speech that I offered to bear his love babies. Hitchens was apparently amused enough to invite me to hang out at the bar with him, but I declined in order to go to lunch with friends, in part because of how incredibly intimidated I was.

http://skepchick.org/2011/12/on-hitchen ... snotgreat/

Under the Skepchick theory of harassment, since she had no reason to know that Hitchens was open to inseminating her with "love babies," isn't that suggestion to Hitchens just as inappropriate as the handing of a card to Elyse?

Now, maybe The Hitch wasn't upset by it, but how was Watson to know BEFORE she asked for sex from Christopher Hitchens whether he would be open to it, offended, or otherwise?

Are the Skepchicks awarding themselves the privilige to make whatever overtures they want, while telling others that they cannot make similar overtures to them?

[Audley Strange]

@ CES.

Oh the double standards are just fucking shocking, but just because I find their tactics repugnant doesn't mean I can't try and cut through the whining to see if there is a genuine point to it. The best I could do was consider that it was a difference in perception.

You make a good point btw, one I agree with, there is a difference between seeking legal recognition as an equal entity and demanding that all of society desist behaviours that you personally find offensive or make you uncomfortable on behalf of not you but your entire gender.

I find no reason to disbelieve that there have been a slew of complaints about "sexual harassment" at conventions. However I do have difficulty in believing that women reading this slew of complaints, especially young paranoid women who think the Patriarchy is real in the way some think the illuminati is real, would not be turned off from going to conventions when reading these complaints.

Reporting the problem (if we accept there is a problem) is not the issue. What is the issue, since it was brought up, is denying that such reporting has ANY influence is to claim your words pointless. Since Femchick and her pals clearly think they have a platform to influence they cannot claim it is blaming the victim (which is a fantastic use of propaganda btw, to compare negative reporting with the claims that rape victims were asking for it is totally audacious, but since they compare comments on lifts to Ted Bundy I'm not sure if it is deliberate or if they really are that stupid and vicious) when it is pointed out their negative words might have influenced others considerations not to go.

Now if things are as bad as they say this may well be the main cause for lack of women pre-ordering tix, however even given that the main problem is the howling pack of lustful sexual predators, how did anything they say or do, how does their reaction help?

It doesn't. It's divisive. It's not about equality or comfort, it is about completely agreeing with the ideology that ALL men are ALL potential threats and that they should be controlled at ALL times in order that some women who've convinced themselves of this reality feel safe. If you disagree you are saying that these women don't deserve to feel safe ergo you are a rape enabler or hate women.
The use of the emotive is not challenged by reason, it does not hear.