Well actually they are. This idea comes from a post that was made on FTB where someone asked, “Should men have the burden of proof?” Asking the question should men have to prove that they are not rapists and a huge majority over there thought that was perfect acceptable that men should have to prove they are not rapists. Our current law system doesn’t even work that way. It is essentially saying you are guilty until you prove your innocents. It makes all males criminals until they prove they are not criminals. Essentially this line of reasoning is how the majority of FTB feminists want society to shift towards where males are obligated to prove they are not rapists.

This thread is over six months old; and no one here actually said all men are rapists. So you’ve already said that more times than you had to. If it pisses you off to think you have to repeat something, maybe you should ask yourself whether you really have to repeat it, before repeating it.

Anyway, you are right, I don’t approve of that comment.

ps. not sure how many times we have to say this but not all men are rapists. get that into your fucking skulls, if i have to say it one more time i’m going to rape somebody.

Yeah, and when I call a man “gay,” there’s no evidence to support the accusation that I’m talking about anything other than his sunny disposition, right? We’ve discussed that issue here already, and you’re late to the discussion and apparently have to have us repeat everything that’s already been said for your benefit.

There is no evidence to support the accusation that EG was a misogynist.

There is no accusation that EG was a misogynist.

And if RW had named the guy and accused him of being a misogynist then you might have a point. All she did was describe a situation and point out that it made her uncomfortable. Put aside all the aggro since, and just focus on what she said. Why’s it such a big deal?

“It appears the hypocrisy has reared its ugly head in the skeptic community, here.”

Flies/vinegar.

“It’s been said that when one becomes obsessed with a fear or hatred, eventually we become that which we fear or hate the most.”

I’m a funnelweb spider?

The thing that tends to create argument (and thus comment-inches) is a difference of opinion. Without disagreement, discussion tends to subside fairly rapidly after everyone’s agreed with one another. I tend to think that most reasonable people will have had almost exactly the same reaction to the van gogh murder (at least, those who heard about it, understood its significance, and maybe cared … not everyone gets het up about the same things, you know). It’s really not something that needed to be debated all that much. If there had been some faction that stridently declared that van gogh or hirsi ali had it coming then I think there might have been a fair bit more vitriol on the blogz.

Also, without actually knowing the people involved, it’s fairly hard to say very much at all in a situation like that, apart from the very obvious – it’s a bad thing, it shouldn’t have happened, and so on. But we all agree on that, so … how much discussion do you really expect?

By comparison, the reason that there has been so much discussion on this topic is because there is very genuine disagreement (mistaken disagreement, in most cases, IMHO). This is also the sort of topic that affects most people directly, sooner or later. So why not discuss it?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

(again)

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT

Everything you were saying up to this point was pretty much bullshit, but vague bullshit, bullshit like maybe you were just confused. But this pegs you as a poser. Are you seriously claiming to be a skeptic and to be speaking to and about skeptics and you come out with THIS???? Holy crap.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anytime there is a situation where more than one person is involved, such as the elevator incident, then yes…there is more than one side of the story. That’s why in a court of law there is both a prosecution and a defense. Because when there is a conflict, there is more than one side of the story. You should know this.

Speaking of skeptism, being a skeptic, or at least that’s the idea that’s being driven home, is insisting that one’s conclusions be formed on the foundation of evidence. Evidence. Let that word sink in. There is no evidence to support the accusations that EG wanted anything other than what he asked for. There are only beliefs. There is no evidence to support the accusation that EG was a misogynist. There are only beliefs. There is no evidence to support the accusation that EG even heard RW say she was tired and wanted to go to bed. There are only beliefs. Beliefs…you know…those things that skeptics like to shoot creationists down with due to there being no evidence to support them. It appears the hypocrisy has reared its ugly head in the skeptic community, here. It’s been said that when one becomes obsessed with a fear or hatred, eventually we become that which we fear or hate the most. This has been a perfect example of that.

Regarding RD: Going to quote an entry that someone else made on another blog that puts RD’s point in perspective.

“Was anywhere near this amount of discussion or shows of support when Mohammed Bouyeri killed Theo Van Gogh and stabbed a letter into his chest threatening the life of Ayan Ali Hirsi, the feminist atheist who had previously received widespread death threats after making a movie with Van Gogh criticizing Islam’s view towards women? Did the skeptical community rally around her when she was under siege and had to go into hiding after Van Gogh’s murder, and raise a firestorm of publicity about the issue, and about the work Hirsi had done throughout her life that put her at such risk?”……response: ”
Not enough of a big deal was made about it, and not nearly enough people got outraged by it, even in the skepchick site. Ironically Richard Dawkins and the RDF have been the biggest proponents of her speaking out against female oppression in Islam. You know what, that kind of puts what he said into perspective. I think RW hit a nerve with RD because his organization actually does something to help women who are actually being harmed, and Rebecca came out and said the skeptic movement was sexist because she gets hit on too much and gets hate mail.

Richard Dawkins actually does something and gives ayaan ali hirsi a spot on the RDF website to speak freely about sexism in Islam, uses the RDF to provide childcare at skeptic conventions.

Rebecca Watson throws parties and whines about being uncomfortable in an elevator.

Hmm I think Dawkins wins as a skeptic fighting for oppressed women, not Rebecca.”