Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

Old subthreads
Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4201

Post by Jan Steen »

[I hit submit instead of preview. Here is it after preview.]

If we are to believe Peezus (always a big if), an atheist blogger named Michael Hawkins has been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl.
PZ Myers wrote:422

PZ Myers
15 April 2014 at 3:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gah. Michael Hawkins, in the news. I can’t even feel schadenfreude, because there’s a victim there, and because there’s a chiropractor who will be chortling over it.
From the linked site:
February 28

Kennebec Journal police log
Augusta area police reports for Feb. 28, 2014


Augusta man pleads not guilty to assault

AUGUSTA — An Augusta man was arraigned Friday on an indictment charging him with three counts of gross sexual assault on a girl who was under age 14.
Michael Hawkins, 28, was arrested just before midnight Wednesday and appeared via video link in Augusta District Court on Friday. The Feb. 13 indictment had been sealed until his arrest.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges, and Judge Beth Dobson set bail at $5,000 cash with a condition banning him from contact with the girl named as the victim in the indictment. Hawkins was represented by attorney Jed Davis.
Hawkins is accused of sexually assaulting the girl on three occasions between July 1 and July 24, 2012, in Augusta.
An indictment is not a determination of guilt, but it indicates that there is enough evidence to proceed with formal charges and a trial.
Peezus explains who Michael Hawkins is, but doesn't mention that he has a blog:
PZ Myers wrote:424
PZ Myers
15 April 2014 at 4:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Hawkins is an atheist/skeptic/libertarian sort of guy who was sued by a chiropractor for criticizing his business; Hawkins won. But Hawkins also really hates me, accusing me of not promoting his cause enough (really — I put up a couple of posts about him, but he wanted MORE ATTENTION), and then he got banned from here for being a privileged asshole who wanted to dictate what poor people should be allowed to eat.

Regulars will remember him, not at all fondly.
Assuming that the indicted person is the same as the blogger and not just a namesake, it is in any case clear that he has not yet been convicted for his alleged crime. But in SJ world to be accused means to be guilty. And not only that, the accusation fits a pattern, according to hordeling Giliell.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- wrote:449

Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
16 April 2014 at 12:18 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

So, Michael Hawkins, total Doucheback in one area turns out to be a total douchebag rapey criminal douchebag in another area.
My heart goes out to the girl.
I definitely see a pattern in “people in the atheo-skeptic community who behave shittily and their likeliness to be sex offenders”
With commenters like this, who needs a legal system?

I didn't know who Michael Hawkins was. From his blog it would seem that he is no fan of PZ Myers and the SJL. He has not commented about these accusations on his blog, as yet.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4202

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
DeepInsideYourMind wrote: Weight of evidence is undue interference? According to who? You? Ron? Melody? CFI's lawyers? CFI's PR team? CFI's donators and sponsors?

I am advocating send whatever you like to who you like, and be judged on the weight of your case. Same for the baboons or for pitters or for veterans. I am pointing out that your whole premise is that there is some form of collective that holds a side in these kind of matters, and that once a member or representative of that "side" has spoken, they have spoken for all

Democracy may suck, free speech may suck - but both are better than the alternative (where some individuals feel they have the right to say who is and isn't allowed to send an email and to whom)
How does the sheer repetition of a message add to the weight of evidence available to Linsay, pray tell?
For the same reason that a petition with a thousand signatures carries more weight than one with only ten signatures.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4203

Post by rayshul »

Well that Hawkins shit is well fucked up.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4204

Post by decius »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
decius wrote:
DeepInsideYourMind wrote: Weight of evidence is undue interference? According to who? You? Ron? Melody? CFI's lawyers? CFI's PR team? CFI's donators and sponsors?

I am advocating send whatever you like to who you like, and be judged on the weight of your case. Same for the baboons or for pitters or for veterans. I am pointing out that your whole premise is that there is some form of collective that holds a side in these kind of matters, and that once a member or representative of that "side" has spoken, they have spoken for all

Democracy may suck, free speech may suck - but both are better than the alternative (where some individuals feel they have the right to say who is and isn't allowed to send an email and to whom)
How does the sheer repetition of a message add to the weight of evidence available to Linsay, pray tell?
For the same reason that a petition with a thousand signatures carries more weight than one with only ten signatures.

Carries more weight as opinion, not as evidence. In other words, it's just a more popular view.

As if that truly mattered.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4205

Post by rayshul »

I just checked the 'pit to see if Hawkins had been mentioned before - I don't think he has.

Definitely not an FTB fan though ^_^

http://forthesakeofscience.com/2013/10/ ... 18-months/

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4206

Post by Sunder »

I only knew about Hawkins from [ of Concordance's videos[/url].

Can't say I know anything about the guy, but PZ's full of shit with his claim of no schadenfreude. He and the Horde want nothing less than for all of their enemies, detractors, and even casual critics to secretly be evil. Everytime somebody they don't like is even accused of doing something wrong, they can't wait to gloat.

I wish they'd just go join the creationists already.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4207

Post by decius »

See, people banned by PZ are eventually exposed as despicable characters. No wonder he forced to ban them due to his infallible prescience.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4208

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Guest wrote:I think the rule should be: don't use contemptible tactics no matter how much hate your opponents, unless the specific opponent is using said contemptible tactics. This will not only combat your enemy, but serve as deterrent against the use of the undesired tactic. On the other hand you might risk a cluster-fuck situation where people forget who pulled the first sucker punch and things really turn ugly...So be sure make it clear why are allowing yourself to use the otherwise off-limits tactic.
This is just my personal opinion obviously, but I don't think there is anything inherently contemptible or wrong about complaining to one's employer. I think it's entirely context-specific. Imagine if you were out at a store or restaurant and witnessed an employee doing something like verbally berating another customer, or pocketing money from the register. Surely you wouldn't try to make the argument that one shouldn't report those things because doing so would be contemptible?

What Melody Hensley was doing is trying to get people in trouble on the basis that she disagreed with or was offended by something they wrote on twitter. That's horseshit, she could just as easily not read their tweets, and no reasonable person would argue that is a just reason to get someone fired.

I think the fact that this person is messing with people's livelihoods is a legitimate reason and fully justifies use of this tactic. The intent is not to silence her or punish her for an unpopular opinion, the intent is to put and end to her despicable behavior and minimize the damage she might to do others.
I wouldn't intervene if I saw an employee verbally berating another customer. What is it to me how they run their own fucking business.

As for pocketing money, crime does not constitute a valid analogy.
My only point was to show that there are indeed circumstances whereby even you would deem it appropriate to contact one's employer. The issue, then, is simply where we each draw the line.

You just conceded that in the case of a crime, then it would be acceptable. I just happen to feel that messing with other people's livelihood is as serious (if not or more so) than someone pocketing some cash from the register.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4209

Post by decius »

I nowhere conceded any such thing. That would warrant a separate debate.

Jeez.

Kenteken
.
.
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4210

Post by Kenteken »

Munchausen by Internet occurs when medically well individuals fake recognized illnesses in virtual environments, such as online support groups. This paper focuses on the aspect of Munchausen by Internet in which individuals actively seek to disrupt groups for their own satisfaction, which has not yet been associated with the wider phenomena of Internet trolls (users who post with the intention of annoying someone or disrupting an online environment).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510683/

Now, if only it would remind me of someone on Twitter.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4211

Post by Za-zen »

Pz lyers is a fraudulent cunt. The overwhelming majority of atheists (involved in promoting secularism) outside of the tinterwebz have never heard of him. Those who engage in online fora overwhelmingly regard him as a disingenuous, untrustworthy, tabloid drama hack.

The best part, is whilst it took them long enough to realise, the vast majority of "big names" now know him for what he is. He's toast.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4212

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote: How does the sheer repetition of a message add to the weight of evidence available to Linsay, pray tell?
For the same reason that a petition with a thousand signatures carries more weight than one with only ten signatures.
Carries more weight as opinion, not as evidence. In other words, it's just a more popular view.

As if that truly mattered.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

The point of sending emails to CFI would not be to provide them with evidence, the point would be to to express our opinions on Hensley's reprehensible behavior and how that reflects on CFI as an organization. Of course numbers matter - as someone else pointed out, the more people they hear from, the harder it becomes to ignore the message.

didymos
.
.
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4213

Post by didymos »

In other "crazy lady on twitter" news:

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4214

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:I nowhere conceded any such thing. That would warrant a separate debate.

Jeez.
Sorry, my mistake, then. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4215

Post by Jan Steen »

This is the thread in which Michael Hawkins was banned on the Pharyngulag. The porcupines were alive and well in those days (January 2012).
Feminace, formerly Qurikythrope wrote:is it too early to summon a porcupine?
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought wrote:I move that Michael is given a lobster as a goodbye gift instead of a porcupine. I’m honestly sick of hearing about it and if he is so attached to those damned lobsters, he is welcome to attach one (or three) to himself permanently. He might to have to pull his head out before inserting them, though.
When Caine was still Caine:
People like Michael Hawkins make me think Soylent Green isn’t such a bad idea. Except he would taste awful.
PZ Myers wrote:BAM! Nanny Hawkins gets the banhammer right between the eyes!
Good old days.

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4216

Post by Suet Cardigan »

PZ Myers wrote:
BAM! Nanny Hawkins gets the banhammer right between the eyes!
I bet Myers imagines himself as Thor when he wields the "banhammer" i.e. clicks on his mouse and bans someone from his blog. What a sad cunt.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4217

Post by heddle »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
heddle wrote: Anyone who contacts an employer is an idiot and a jackass.
Anyone who thinks there is something inherently wrong with contacting an employer hasn't thought it through carefully enough, IMO.

If you were out at a store and saw an employee pocketing money from the register, would you say the person who reports that theft is a jackass? I would hope not. Clearly context matters.
Right. That makes sense. I was clearly stating an absolute. It had nothing to do with some on here being just as nasty twits as the people they criticize. No I was making an inviolate rule that no circumstances, ever, should someone contact an employer. You got me.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4218

Post by JackSkeptic »

Suet Cardigan wrote:
PZ Myers wrote:
BAM! Nanny Hawkins gets the banhammer right between the eyes!
I bet Myers imagines himself as Thor when he wields the "banhammer" i.e. clicks on his mouse and bans someone from his blog. What a sad cunt.
Yeh, he clearly gets off on it. Very sad, especially for someone of his age.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4219

Post by CuntajusRationality »

heddle wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
heddle wrote: Anyone who contacts an employer is an idiot and a jackass.
Anyone who thinks there is something inherently wrong with contacting an employer hasn't thought it through carefully enough, IMO.

If you were out at a store and saw an employee pocketing money from the register, would you say the person who reports that theft is a jackass? I would hope not. Clearly context matters.
Right. That makes sense. I was clearly stating an absolute. It had nothing to do with some on here being just as nasty twits as the people they criticize. No I was making an inviolate rule that no circumstances, ever, should someone contact an employer. You got me.
I was merely responding to what you wrote. My sincere apologies for not divining what you really meant...

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4220

Post by Southern »

AndrewV69 wrote:In other news: Dutch cleaning firm whites-only hiring policy prompts angry response
“I don’t discriminate,” he insisted. “I just don’t invite them for interview. Poles, Moroccans, any non-whites, are not going to be hired to work for this company. Achmed and Ali are probably very good people, but I don’t want them working for me.”

I can admire this kind of chutzpah. "I'm no racist, I just don't want to hire people that aren't from my own race". It's beautiful.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4221

Post by heddle »

CuntajusRationality wrote: I was merely responding to what you wrote. My sincere apologies for not divining what you really meant...
Divination is not required when common sense would suffice.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4222

Post by CuntajusRationality »

heddle wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote: I was merely responding to what you wrote. My sincere apologies for not divining what you really meant...
Divination is not required when common sense would suffice.
FFS, look what you wrote (emphasis added).
Anyone who contacts an employer is an idiot and a jackass.
You worded it as an absolute statement. It's not unreasonable nor uncharitable to interpret the words as meaning precisely what they say, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and a jackass.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4223

Post by decius »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

The point of sending emails to CFI would not be to provide them with evidence, the point would be to to express our opinions on Hensley's reprehensible behavior and how that reflects on CFI as an organization. Of course numbers matter - as someone else pointed out, the more people they hear from, the harder it becomes to ignore the message.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're justifying baboon action (contacting employers over internet squabbles) by analogy with witnessing a crime.

Then I called you out on your category error and you wrongly stated that I conceded anything about crime, hence sneaking in once again said category error.

All I'm asking for is some clarity of thought, which I'm equally committed to provide. False analogy, category errors and red herrings should have no part in any of this.

To your point, since Smellody holds no public office, nor was she elected in her capacity, it is not for internet lynch mobs to interfere in her working relationship with her direct superiors.

I could see the case for a donor or a card-carrying CFI member to express their concern, not for random internet "skeptics".

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4224

Post by heddle »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
heddle wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote: I was merely responding to what you wrote. My sincere apologies for not divining what you really meant...
Divination is not required when common sense would suffice.
FFS, look what you wrote (emphasis added).
Anyone who contacts an employer is an idiot and a jackass.
You worded it as an absolute statement. It's not unreasonable nor uncharitable to interpret the words as meaning precisely what they say, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and a jackass.
Yes it is unreasonable. There was a complete thread of context and a quote, referencing the context, above my statement (which you quote here, by itself, as if it was a bolt from the blue when I made it, apropos nothing). No reasonable person routinely extrapolates statements to absurd conclusions. If every sentence had to be written with no possible loopholes, language would be quite cumbersome. You could have taken exception to the statement as it was clearly intended--instead you focus on pedantic irrelevancy.

Statements are worded for emphasis as absolute statements all the time--I'm guessing you are selective about those whose feet you hold to the fire. If not, you must be a pretty annoying conversationalist.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4225

Post by heddle »

Oh, and when I wrote
Statements are worded for emphasis as absolute statements all the time
I should have stated:

"It is not infrequent that, as a form of hyperbole, statements are sometimes made as absolutes, when the point is merely to add emphasis. Exactly how often this happens I cannot say, but surely I erred when I suggested it was 'all the time'". Sorry, I'm always making that mistake. By which I mean that it is not infrequent..."

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4226

Post by deLurch »

Jan Steen wrote:[I hit submit instead of preview. Here is it after preview.]

If we are to believe Peezus (always a big if), an atheist blogger named Michael Hawkins has been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl.
One correction of pz's read on the article. The victim was UNDER 14 years of age. So anywhere from 0 to 13.99 years old

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/s ... ec253.html
§253. Gross sexual assault
1. A person is guilty of gross sexual assault if that person engages in a sexual act with another person and:
<snip>
B. The other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained the age of 14 years. Violation of this paragraph is a Class A crime; or [2003, c. 711, Pt. B, §2 (AMD).]
A. When the sentencing class for a prior conviction under this section is Class A, the court shall enhance the basic period of incarceration by a minimum of 4 years of imprisonment. [1993, c. 432, §1 (NEW).]
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/s ... ec251.html
C. "Sexual act" means:
(1) Any act between 2 persons involving direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other;
(2) Any act between a person and an animal being used by another person which act involves direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other; or
(3) Any act involving direct physical contact between the genitals or anus of one and an instrument or device manipulated by another person when that act is done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing bodily injury or offensive physical contact.
So direct genital or anus contact with either genitals, anus, mouth, animal or objects (e.g. dildo). No clothing involved.

I hope this isn't true, but it is a huge world and there are all sorts of people. In any case, this is in the arena of the criminal courts, which is the appropriate place to deal with these sorts of allegations.

OK. On to more information. There are 1,981 people named Michael Hawkins in the US according to this. http://names.whitepages.com/Michael/Hawkins With 3 in Maine.
And 219 people named "Mike" Hawkins with 1 in Maine.

ALSO, a quick search for Michael Hawkins in Maine brings me up with this:
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-207-415-9968
Read both pages. Drug addict who had moved from California, about the same age and sounds creepy as all hell... and that is an understatement.

So unless Skeptic Michael Hawkins has a toddler son and is a major drug addict who just move to Maine from California, I'd put down a $20 wager that pz is wrongfully accusing Skeptic Michael Hawkins due to the same name.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4227

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Liesmith wrote:
acathode wrote:I think the fact that Melody is a CFI director makes her case quite unique though. I don't think (hope?) anyone here would ever be considering contacting her employer if she was say, a car salesman. CFI is a skeptic organization (IIRC some pitters are even CFI members/donators) and to some degree, Melody's beliefs and opinions are actually relevant to her job. She's a professional representative for both CFI and skepticism, and with that, she do have some responsibility to not say completely, utterly ridiculous shit...

To make a painfully obvious example, if she came out tomorrow as a UFO and Bigfoot conspiracy nut, there should be no doubt that she'd no longer be able to be a CFI director, and I'd fault no one who tried to have her fired due to those "opinions". Is the twitter-PTSD as bad as that? Not really, I personally think trying to have her fired is wrong, but fuck, she's certainly seem to be working hard to make me change that opinion.
I do however think that it wouldn't be strange at all for the higher-ups at CFI told her to tone her twitter-crazyness down a couple of notches.
If she publicly says a bunch of outright crazy shit (for instance, if she were to claim to have gotten PTSD from twitter, then continued to use twitter, and threatened to call the commanding officer of any vets who took umbrage with her statements), then it stands to reason that her bosses (and subordinates) will be aware of it. There's not really any need to respond to her through any medium that she's not already using to express those views (ie, twit for twat).

I can understand a lot of your reasoning, but I tend to have an allergic reaction to the sudden swells of internet fury that lead to threatened careers. I wouldn't even try to get a member of Westboro Baptist fired (unless they were working in Suicide Prevention or child care...same thing, I suppose). I'm just a big, floppy softy, I guess.

In this instance, I don't think she actually did anything wrong...because I'm almost positive that she's lying about calling someone's CO. Until the soldier/sailor/marine/airman in question comes forward, I'm going to keep assuming that she was lying in an attempt to scare away her "harassers". She's claiming that the soldier dun goofed, and she backtraced the signal, called the Internet Police...and consequences will never be the same.
You have to remember too that Melody Hensley is not currently working for the CFI.
She is on extended sick leave due to psychiatric problems.

Can they actually fire her due to anything she says online in such circumstances?

It's not a simple case of her saying stupid stuff during her normal working day and then suffering the consequences (for example as Adria Richards did - or the guy sitting behind her.)

They would end up being seen as having fired her, not for anything she said online, but because she has a mental health problem.
I think they are stuck with her.
I don't know about the US, but in many places an employee has some responsibility to ensure they are fit for the job they are being paid to do, so if you persistently turn up drunk as a lord the employer has some leeway in dismissing you - though how much leeway varies.

If you have a medical claim saying that Twitter use caused your medical condition, and you persist in Twitter use, I'd expect the employer would have a good case to bin you. But, of course, that's not enough here. Clearly a large and noisy campaign would be started, funds raised for a legal case and so on. If Lindsay can't even cane someone for the attacks on him, he obviously doesn't have the strength, or the backing (same thing in the end) to stand up for the organisation in this matter, or maybe ever. The question them becomes, why doesn't he have that backing? If it's his personal failings, he should go too. If I was in Lindsay's position and I couldn't get the backing of at least four of the seven on the Board, I'd likely quit - the organisation is dysfunctional.

It's right to say that Melody isn't to blame. She's just being herself. But those who are supposed to care about the organisation, and who are charged with administering its funds in the service of it's stated aims are failing it badly here. Yes, sacking her is risky, financially, but so is not sacking her and there are many more creative ways to deal with liabilities like Melody.

So no, I wouldn't try to get her sacked. But if I was a CFI member, I'd want to know what the administration are doing about this situation, and if they don't know about it, why don't they know?

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4228

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

The point of sending emails to CFI would not be to provide them with evidence, the point would be to to express our opinions on Hensley's reprehensible behavior and how that reflects on CFI as an organization. Of course numbers matter - as someone else pointed out, the more people they hear from, the harder it becomes to ignore the message.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're justifying baboon action (contacting employers over internet squabbles) by analogy with witnessing a crime.
Nah, I call bullshit right here. My call to contact CFI had nothing to do with "internet squabbles" and everything to do with Melody taking an internet squabble into real life with calls to commanding officers. If you cannot see the distinction, or if you don't think the distinction matters, then you and I probably do not share enough common ground on this issue to make further discussion on this topic fruitful.

As to the witnessing a crime example, my point was not to suggest that Melody's actions were exactly analogous to someone stealing money from a cash register. The sole purpose of that example was to demonstrate the point that contacting one's employer (as a tactic) is not inherently or universally wrong or bad, rather it is context-dependent. If you were to agree that it's OK to report theft to to an employer, then you will have conceded the point that there are indeed some circumstances under which it is appropriate to contact someone's employer - and all that would be left is to argue over where to draw the line.
decius wrote: Then I called you out on your category error and you wrongly stated that I conceded anything about crime, hence sneaking in once again said category error.

All I'm asking for is some clarity of thought, which I'm equally committed to provide. False analogy, category errors and red herrings should have no part in any of this.

To your point, since Smellody holds no public office, nor was she elected in her capacity, it is not for internet lynch mobs to interfere in her working relationship with her direct superiors.

I could see the case for a donor or a card-carrying CFI member to express their concern, not for random internet "skeptics".
Thanks, your points are well taken, even if we do disagree on the final conclusion.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4229

Post by decius »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
decius wrote:I nowhere conceded any such thing. That would warrant a separate debate.

Jeez.
Sorry, my mistake, then. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Sorry, I hadn't reached down here when I posted my previous comment.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4230

Post by CuntajusRationality »

heddle wrote:
heddle wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
Divination is not required when common sense would suffice.
FFS, look what you wrote (emphasis added).
Anyone who contacts an employer is an idiot and a jackass.
You worded it as an absolute statement. It's not unreasonable nor uncharitable to interpret the words as meaning precisely what they say, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and a jackass.
Yes it is unreasonable. There was a complete thread of context and a quote, referencing the context, above my statement (which you quote here, by itself, as if it was a bolt from the blue when I made it, apropos nothing). No reasonable person routinely extrapolates statements to absurd conclusions. If every sentence had to be written with no possible loopholes, language would be quite cumbersome. You could have taken exception to the statement as it was clearly intended--instead you focus on pedantic irrelevancy.

Statements are worded for emphasis as absolute statements all the time--I'm guessing you are selective about those whose feet you hold to the fire. If not, you must be a pretty annoying conversationalist.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sure, sure, whatever you say.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4231

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
decius wrote:I nowhere conceded any such thing. That would warrant a separate debate.

Jeez.
Sorry, my mistake, then. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
Sorry, I hadn't reached down here when I posted my previous comment.
No problem, I'm enjoying the discussion and I do appreciate the points you are making.

Selenite
.
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:45 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4232

Post by Selenite »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

The point of sending emails to CFI would not be to provide them with evidence, the point would be to to express our opinions on Hensley's reprehensible behavior and how that reflects on CFI as an organization. Of course numbers matter - as someone else pointed out, the more people they hear from, the harder it becomes to ignore the message.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're justifying baboon action (contacting employers over internet squabbles) by analogy with witnessing a crime.

Then I called you out on your category error and you wrongly stated that I conceded anything about crime, hence sneaking in once again said category error.

All I'm asking for is some clarity of thought, which I'm equally committed to provide. False analogy, category errors and red herrings should have no part in any of this.

To your point, since Smellody holds no public office, nor was she elected in her capacity, it is not for internet lynch mobs to interfere in her working relationship with her direct superiors.

I could see the case for a donor or a card-carrying CFI member to express their concern, not for random internet "skeptics".
Why are crimes a category error? The question seems to be, "What sorts of stuff justify a call to employers?" Crimes are a potential justification. They're in the right category.

I think we agree that there should be a line somewhere. Crimes are probably on one side. Internet-disagreement is on the other. But it's still not clear where the line should be.

The problem with something totally subjective like 'only serious things are worth a call' is that everyone thinks their own issues are important. So everyone'll lean towards "It's ok when we do it."

One thing I'm trying to tease out is if there's a difference between informing CFI about their PR problem and threating to create/embiggen a PR problem if they don't do something.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4233

Post by decius »

[quote="CuntajusRationality"
Nah, I call bullshit right here. My call to contact CFI had nothing to do with "internet squabbles" and everything to do with Melody taking an internet squabble into real life with calls to commanding officers. If you cannot see the distinction, or if you don't think the distinction matters, then you and I probably do not share enough common ground on this issue to make further discussion on this topic fruitful.

.[/quote]

I see a huge problem with engaging in the same behaviour one is supposedly taking issue with.

Secondly, I don't recall if you were around back then, but here the condemnation of contacting employers has always been unanimous (when it was the other side doing it).

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4234

Post by decius »

Selenite, stealing money from the till falls in the crime category. What Melody did doesn't. Apples, oranges and all that.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4235

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

deLurch wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:[I hit submit instead of preview. Here is it after preview.]

If we are to believe Peezus (always a big if), an atheist blogger named Michael Hawkins has been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl.
One correction of pz's read on the article. The victim was UNDER 14 years of age. So anywhere from 0 to 13.99 years old

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/s ... ec253.html
§253. Gross sexual assault
1. A person is guilty of gross sexual assault if that person engages in a sexual act with another person and:
<snip>
B. The other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained the age of 14 years. Violation of this paragraph is a Class A crime; or [2003, c. 711, Pt. B, §2 (AMD).]
A. When the sentencing class for a prior conviction under this section is Class A, the court shall enhance the basic period of incarceration by a minimum of 4 years of imprisonment. [1993, c. 432, §1 (NEW).]
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/s ... ec251.html
C. "Sexual act" means:
(1) Any act between 2 persons involving direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other;
(2) Any act between a person and an animal being used by another person which act involves direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other; or
(3) Any act involving direct physical contact between the genitals or anus of one and an instrument or device manipulated by another person when that act is done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing bodily injury or offensive physical contact.
So direct genital or anus contact with either genitals, anus, mouth, animal or objects (e.g. dildo). No clothing involved.

I hope this isn't true, but it is a huge world and there are all sorts of people. In any case, this is in the arena of the criminal courts, which is the appropriate place to deal with these sorts of allegations.

OK. On to more information. There are 1,981 people named Michael Hawkins in the US according to this. http://names.whitepages.com/Michael/Hawkins With 3 in Maine.
And 219 people named "Mike" Hawkins with 1 in Maine.

ALSO, a quick search for Michael Hawkins in Maine brings me up with this:
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-207-415-9968
Read both pages. Drug addict who had moved from California, about the same age and sounds creepy as all hell... and that is an understatement.

So unless Skeptic Michael Hawkins has a toddler son and is a major drug addict who just move to Maine from California, I'd put down a $20 wager that pz is wrongfully accusing Skeptic Michael Hawkins due to the same name.
Not an "alleged" in sight. And PZ himself is at pains to ensure that his readers are well aware that the person who posted on the blog is the same as the person who has been arrested. If PZ is wrong, and the Hawkins who doesn't like him finds out about PZ's potentially defamatory statements about him, he may enjoy another law suit after winning the one against the chiro.

feralandproud
.
.
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:49 pm
Location: sunny motherfuckin' florida

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4236

Post by feralandproud »

One of my first posts on here was about Melody Hensley. She's reprehensible, but the fact that she's been pulling this shit for years with absolutely(as far as we know)zero consequences seems to indicate that CFI doesn't plan on doing anything about it. I don't know that any amount of e-mails or phone calls will change that. Maybe enough backlash from service members will force them to take notice.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4237

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote: Nah, I call bullshit right here. My call to contact CFI had nothing to do with "internet squabbles" and everything to do with Melody taking an internet squabble into real life with calls to commanding officers. If you cannot see the distinction, or if you don't think the distinction matters, then you and I probably do not share enough common ground on this issue to make further discussion on this topic fruitful.
I see a huge problem with engaging in the same behaviour one is supposedly taking issue with.

Secondly, I don't recall if you were around back then, but here the condemnation of contacting employers has always been unanimous (when it was the other side doing it).
But I'm not engaging in the same behavior that I am taking issue with.

Behavior I am taking issue with = calling an employer over an internet squabble
Behavior I am engaging in = calling an employer over real life interference with someone's career

Again, I understand and accept that some people do not see any real distinction here, or they see the distinction but don't think it matters. I happen to disagree with them, but I do recognize and understand the counter-argument.

FWIW, I was not here during the previous unanimous condemnation of these tactics.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4238

Post by Sunder »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:If PZ is wrong, and the Hawkins who doesn't like him finds out about PZ's potentially defamatory statements about him, he may enjoy another law suit after winning the one against the chiro.
If PZ made a boneheaded accusation against entirely the wrong person it would be glorious, and a slam dunk case to boot.

Not to mention we that would bring PZ's legal enemies list up to four parties.

Selenite
.
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:45 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4239

Post by Selenite »

decius wrote:Selenite, stealing money from the till falls in the crime category. What Melody did doesn't. Apples, oranges and all that.
And they both fall into the 'potential justifications' category. That's all you need to avoid a category error when asking how we partition potential justifications.

I don't think you can draw your line based just on 'is a crime'. For instance, "This person disagreed with me AND ALSO they jaywalked one time," would be an obviously bad reason to call an employer. "They disagreed AND did so from a military computer in voilation of TOS" seems like another bad reason. Even though both are technically crimes.

So, the only obvious distinction that I think remains is that stealing money is serious while internet-disagreement, tos-voilations and jaywalking aren't.

But this is pretty unsatisfying. I think we knew that seriousness was important from the outset. And we haven't helped define 'serious' in any useful way beyond that we'll know it when we see it.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4240

Post by deLurch »

Jan Steen wrote:[I hit submit instead of preview. Here is it after preview.]

If we are to believe Peezus (always a big if), an atheist blogger named Michael Hawkins has been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl.
PZ Myers wrote:422

PZ Myers
15 April 2014 at 3:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gah. Michael Hawkins, in the news. I can’t even feel schadenfreude, because there’s a victim there, and because there’s a chiropractor who will be chortling over it.
From the linked site:
February 28

Kennebec Journal police log
Augusta area police reports for Feb. 28, 2014


Augusta man pleads not guilty to assault

AUGUSTA — An Augusta man was arraigned Friday on an indictment charging him with three counts of gross sexual assault on a girl who was under age 14.
Michael Hawkins, 28, was arrested just before midnight Wednesday and appeared via video link in Augusta District Court on Friday. The Feb. 13 indictment had been sealed until his arrest.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges, and Judge Beth Dobson set bail at $5,000 cash with a condition banning him from contact with the girl named as the victim in the indictment. Hawkins was represented by attorney Jed Davis.
Hawkins is accused of sexually assaulting the girl on three occasions between July 1 and July 24, 2012, in Augusta.
An indictment is not a determination of guilt, but it indicates that there is enough evidence to proceed with formal charges and a trial.
Peezus explains who Michael Hawkins is, but doesn't mention that he has a blog:
PZ Myers wrote:424
PZ Myers
15 April 2014 at 4:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Hawkins is an atheist/skeptic/libertarian sort of guy who was sued by a chiropractor for criticizing his business; Hawkins won. But Hawkins also really hates me, accusing me of not promoting his cause enough (really — I put up a couple of posts about him, but he wanted MORE ATTENTION), and then he got banned from here for being a privileged asshole who wanted to dictate what poor people should be allowed to eat.

Regulars will remember him, not at all fondly.
Assuming that the indicted person is the same as the blogger and not just a namesake, it is in any case clear that he has not yet been convicted for his alleged crime. But in SJ world to be accused means to be guilty. And not only that, the accusation fits a pattern, according to hordeling Giliell.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- wrote:449

Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
16 April 2014 at 12:18 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

So, Michael Hawkins, total Doucheback in one area turns out to be a total douchebag rapey criminal douchebag in another area.
My heart goes out to the girl.
I definitely see a pattern in “people in the atheo-skeptic community who behave shittily and their likeliness to be sex offenders”
I'd freeze copies of pz myers comments now before they get memory holed. There is a fairly decent chance that pz myers just stuck his dick in the wrong whole again.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4241

Post by Lsuoma »

JackSkeptic wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Liesmith wrote:
My guess is that he's just playing it safe with the whole Radford situation: if he supports Radford, and it turns out that he actually did do something wrong--not everything of which he's accused, just any one thing will do--then he's thrown his weight in behind a guilty man and it can undercut his future arguments against feminism. So, he'll just continue to attack their weak points for massive damage instead. Just a wild-ass assumption on my part.
That's part of my worry over the current Slymepit heading "Support Ben Radford".
From the beginning there was a saying here that, "no-one speaks for the slymepit", and yet this new heading appears to do exactly that.
The evidence suggests that Radford is telling the truth much more than Stollznow, but there may be parts of this sad tale we haven't heard yet.
I support the truth coming out in court rather than any one 'side' in this matter.
If supporting Radford's legal fund allows this to happen then so be it; giving money to the fund in that circumstance is appropriate (especially if the court case could not go ahead without that fund.)
But that is not really supporting Radford - it is supporting the legal process that exposes the truth of this matter.

An analogy might be that of whether you should take sides between creationism and evolution.
I support the scientific method rather than evolution per se (it just so happens that the evidence revealed by the scientific method comes down firmly on the side of evolution.)
I wasn't too keen on the wording either for the same reason. I do support people getting funds to legally protect themselves (which I also did for Stoltzow(sic)) and as this place is damned if we do, damned if we don't it makes little practical difference. Anyway, I do not run this site so that's that.
OK, that's the first I've heard that people don't like it. Unfortunately, like twatter, it's not possible to put long nuanced stuff in the tag. If anyone comes up with something witty I like, I'll change it.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4242

Post by deLurch »

Does anyone here have access to Pacer?

Kenteken
.
.
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4243

Post by Kenteken »

Hi PZ, enjoying the pit?
Ignore those comments above, they're yanking your chain.

Just go ahead with the accusations, no chance of mistaken identities at all.

Carry on.

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4244

Post by CuntajusRationality »

deLurch wrote:Does anyone here have access to Pacer?
I have access from home, but not at the moment. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I can try to find what you are looking for later today.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4245

Post by JackSkeptic »

Lsuoma wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote: That's part of my worry over the current Slymepit heading "Support Ben Radford".
From the beginning there was a saying here that, "no-one speaks for the slymepit", and yet this new heading appears to do exactly that.
The evidence suggests that Radford is telling the truth much more than Stollznow, but there may be parts of this sad tale we haven't heard yet.
I support the truth coming out in court rather than any one 'side' in this matter.
If supporting Radford's legal fund allows this to happen then so be it; giving money to the fund in that circumstance is appropriate (especially if the court case could not go ahead without that fund.)
But that is not really supporting Radford - it is supporting the legal process that exposes the truth of this matter.

An analogy might be that of whether you should take sides between creationism and evolution.
I support the scientific method rather than evolution per se (it just so happens that the evidence revealed by the scientific method comes down firmly on the side of evolution.)
I wasn't too keen on the wording either for the same reason. I do support people getting funds to legally protect themselves (which I also did for Stoltzow(sic)) and as this place is damned if we do, damned if we don't it makes little practical difference. Anyway, I do not run this site so that's that.
OK, that's the first I've heard that people don't like it. Unfortunately, like twatter, it's not possible to put long nuanced stuff in the tag. If anyone comes up with something witty I like, I'll change it.
I think it's the first time is has been brought up so I assume it is not that big a deal. The SJL will spin it to extremes no matter what is said and it may well be the majority here are happy with it. Something like 'Support Ben Radford's right to justice' is hardly witty or short.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4246

Post by JackSkeptic »

Kenteken wrote:Hi PZ, enjoying the pit?
Ignore those comments above, they're yanking your chain.

Just go ahead with the accusations, no chance of mistaken identities at all.

Carry on.
I suspect he was tipped off with reliable information. I hope so for his sake.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4247

Post by deLurch »

CuntajusRationality wrote:
deLurch wrote:Does anyone here have access to Pacer?
I have access from home, but not at the moment. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I can try to find what you are looking for later today.
I just want to find out if the Michael Hawkins science blogger that pz myers has accused of being arrested is that person, or if the arrested Michael Hawkins happens to be someone else like this guy
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-207-415-9968/2

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4248

Post by decius »

CuntajusRationality wrote: But I'm not engaging in the same behavior that I am taking issue with.

Behavior I am taking issue with = calling an employer over an internet squabble
Behavior I am engaging in = calling an employer over real life interference with someone's career

Again, I understand and accept that some people do not see any real distinction here, or they see the distinction but don't think it matters. I happen to disagree with them, but I do recognize and understand the counter-argument.

FWIW, I was not here during the previous unanimous condemnation of these tactics.
It's a distinction without a difference, in my opinion.
Your life hasn't been affected by Melody's actions. You read about what she's allegedly done (perhaps she didn't and was embellishing) from Melody herself - on internet.

You're taking issue by proxy, over something you read on the internet, that may or may not be true.

I could see a case for vets and CFI members taking issue. But we are bystanders and rubberneckers at best.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4249

Post by Mykeru »

Just wanted to pop in and ask if any of the True Skepticsâ„¢ kicking around the term "category error" actually know what a category error is and/or have heard of Gilbert Ryle?

A category error isn't "mistaking one thing for another". It's mistaking the sum of parts as a reifiable entity in itself. The usual explanation involves someone given a tour of a university. They are shown the classrooms, the libraries, the dorms, the sporting facilities and cafeteria and, at the end of it all ask "But where is the university?"

That's a "category error". I would suggest the people using it in an attempt to act like the smartest guy in the room stick to throwing the term "apples and oranges" around without the attempt to sex it up.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled apathetic smugness.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4250

Post by Apples »

deLurch wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote:
deLurch wrote:Does anyone here have access to Pacer?
I have access from home, but not at the moment. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I can try to find what you are looking for later today.
I just want to find out if the Michael Hawkins science blogger that pz myers has accused of being arrested is that person, or if the arrested Michael Hawkins happens to be someone else like this guy
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-207-415-9968/2
Well, having reviewed the 800notes pages, I'd say it's quite likely that's the Mike Hawkins who got arrested. The age looks correct (27 on the 800notes page, 28 in the newspaper article). His fb page has this has his profile pic:

http://tinyurl.com/p6ay8es

Whereas the blog of the Mike Hawkins whom PZ hates has this picture:

http://tinyurl.com/pwvmtd4

I'd say the chances are excellent that PZ may have, yet again, falsely accused someone of being a sex criminal.

acathode
.
.
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:46 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4251

Post by acathode »

deLurch wrote:So unless Skeptic Michael Hawkins has a toddler son and is a major drug addict who just move to Maine from California, I'd put down a $20 wager that pz is wrongfully accusing Skeptic Michael Hawkins due to the same name.
Dunno, the police log mentions that their Michael Hawkins is 28 years old, and that would fit the age of skeptic Michael Hawkins (who in this post say that he was 21 when his grandfather died in 2006). Could there be two guys in the same city with the same age that are also the same age? Well it's possible... but not that likely?

Still, pointing fingers at certain people with this little information available is stupid as hell. It still could be a different Michael Hawkins, and while a police report is miles better than the anonymous, hearsay "hand-grenades" that usually comes from FTB, it's still not proof of actual guilt. For example, it's hardly unheard of one party fabricating accusations of sexual child abuse primarily to get an advantage in a bitter child custody battle. On the other hand, it very well could be that this M Hawkins is a despicable sick human being that should be locked away and never let out...

With the almost non-existent information available so far, it's simply impossible to say. The fact that some people still are willing to assume guilt speak volumes of how far up they have their heads into their asses ideology-land. He's automatically considered guilty, because it fits their narrative where people who disagree with them are evil, and thus are bound to also do other evil things...

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4252

Post by decius »

Mykeru, you describe a particular type of category error, perhaps the epitome of category error, but the definition is quite broader than that.

It includes ascribing properties to anything that does not possess that property by definition.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4253

Post by Skep tickle »

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/au ... -speech-2/

(h/t Christina Sommers via twitter)

From the end of the essay by Mark Steyn:
...where we’re headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights — like freedom of expression — come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Oh, don’t worry. There’ll still be plenty of ‘offending, insulting or humiliating’ in such a world, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Mozilla CEO and Zionists and climate deniers and feminist ‘cis-women’ not quite au courant with transphobia can all tell you. And then comes the final, eerie silence. Young (name of student quoted in the essay) at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what’s to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.

As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.

As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die.

Casual Nemesis
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4254

Post by Casual Nemesis »

Tony Parsehole wrote:Our melody is making an absolute doyle of herself on Twitter, yet again.
I wish the soldiers would shut the fuck up about their friends being blown apart by rocket propelled grenades. Melody once received an unsolicited animated gif. on Twitter! Don't they know what horror is!!??

Ha. I imagine that over 90% of the responses from commanders would be, "Who the fuck is this retarded cow?"

CuntajusRationality
.
.
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4255

Post by CuntajusRationality »

decius wrote:
CuntajusRationality wrote: But I'm not engaging in the same behavior that I am taking issue with.

Behavior I am taking issue with = calling an employer over an internet squabble
Behavior I am engaging in = calling an employer over real life interference with someone's career

Again, I understand and accept that some people do not see any real distinction here, or they see the distinction but don't think it matters. I happen to disagree with them, but I do recognize and understand the counter-argument.

FWIW, I was not here during the previous unanimous condemnation of these tactics.
It's a distinction without a difference, in my opinion.
Your life hasn't been affected by Melody's actions. You read about what she's allegedly done (perhaps she didn't and was embellishing) from Melody herself - on internet.

You're taking issue by proxy, over something you read on the internet, that may or may not be true.

I could see a case for vets and CFI members taking issue. But we are bystanders and rubberneckers at best.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke)

I definitely hear what you are saying and I don't disagree entirely. The point that what Melody wrote may or may not be true is an important one, and the folly in being offended on behalf of another person is not lost on me.

However I do feel very strongly that we have a responsibility to help create the world in which we want to live, and part of that means stepping up when we see someone else getting shit on unfairly.

Take the Radford-Stollznow case as an example. It doesn't impact me personally, I have never met and don't expect to ever meet or know either party personally. I don't participate in these skeptic conferences and I don't interact with any of these people in real life. But I still felt an obligation to donate to Radford's fund nonetheless. My feelings on the Melody twitter affair are very similar in that regard.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4256

Post by Jan Steen »

deLurch wrote:One correction of pz's read on the article. The victim was UNDER 14 years of age. So anywhere from 0 to 13.99 years old
No, that was my faulty reading (I read 'underage' for 'under age'); Peezus didn't mention the age of the victim.

As to the identity of the indicted Michael Hawkins, so far the only link that I can find with the blogger is that the latter used the same lawyer, Jed Davis, in his SLAPP suit against a chiropractor. They also appear to be about the same age.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4257

Post by Apples »

Jan Steen wrote:
deLurch wrote:One correction of pz's read on the article. The victim was UNDER 14 years of age. So anywhere from 0 to 13.99 years old
No, that was my faulty reading (I read 'underage' for 'under age'); Peezus didn't mention the age of the victim.

As to the identity of the indicted Michael Hawkins, so far the only link that I can find with the blogger is that the latter used the same lawyer, Jed Davis, in his SLAPP suit against a chiropractor. They also appear to be about the same age.
Wow - same lawyer. Good catch! Maybe it is the same guy.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4258

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

decius wrote:[quote="CuntajusRationality"
Nah, I call bullshit right here. My call to contact CFI had nothing to do with "internet squabbles" and everything to do with Melody taking an internet squabble into real life with calls to commanding officers. If you cannot see the distinction, or if you don't think the distinction matters, then you and I probably do not share enough common ground on this issue to make further discussion on this topic fruitful.

.
I see a huge problem with engaging in the same behaviour one is supposedly taking issue with.

Secondly, I don't recall if you were around back then, but here the condemnation of contacting employers has always been unanimous (when it was the other side doing it).[/quote]

I'll call bullshit too ...

If I was a serving Marine, and one of my platoon was harassing somebody on Twitter, I would be the first to make a beeline for my commanding officer to have him kick the guy into touch ... at the minimum he would be making my platoon look bad, would be making the marines look bad, and would be disrespecting the flag I fought under

If I was a member of the skeptic community, and one of us was abusing people over Twitter, I would .... oh you get the idea

I don't give a shit who is doing it - if your public persona affects your employer, then you should shut the fuck up in public if you don't want your employer to find out.

Frankly, what kind of a pathetic person says things in public that they wouldn't be willing to have their employer find out about?


If you have the balls (to mansplain it) to say something, then have the balls to tell it to your boss too.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4259

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Lsuoma wrote: OK, that's the first I've heard that people don't like it. Unfortunately, like twatter, it's not possible to put long nuanced stuff in the tag. If anyone comes up with something witty I like, I'll change it.
Personally I am in agreement with those above ... I find the site's promotion of "the cause" to be taking a side in something I don't want a side in

I'm all for individuals supporting whoever they like, and KS is certainly a shitty human being - but I don't think the pit is united enough to flag wave for one side or another ... nor should it be

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

#4260

Post by decius »

Cuntajus, I will donate to Radford's fund as well (I already tried and was bugged out, actually).
There's no doubt about the wrong he's being subjected to. We're in full agreement also about the ethical obligation of responding to injustice when we see it.

I guess our difference boils down to the fact that I probably wouldn't go as far as to demand Stollznow be fired, or removed as speaker from TAM. Although I'm painfully aware that her credentials are now shaky at best, and that she may end up poisoning the atmosphere.
For one thing, I'm no member of the JREF, never attended TAM and so on. But I also feel like it should be up to her employer and to take appropriate measures.
But more generally, I'm against social shunning, permanent stigma. We have courts to dish out punishments and award damages.

More generally still, I don't think the general public should have a say, given that the majority are provably neither too smart nor qualified.

I think we can leave it at that, happy to agree to disagree.

Having said that, I've deeply appreciated your input, good predisposition and rational approach to issues.

Locked