New Atheism’s Most Feared Super-Villian

hqdefaultSome atheists have begun to liken PZ Myers to a super-villain in a Batman story because of the damage he has done to the New Atheist movement.  And I can see why.  If you think about it, PZ’s destructive influence has been substantial.

It all began in 2011 when Richard Dawkins turned a small dispute about women at an atheist convention into a large scale controversy that consumed the atheist movement – Elevatorgate.  And where did Dawkins set the movement on fire?  On PZ Myer’s blog.  And when Dawkins got himself in trouble on Myer’s blog, Myers simply stepped back and let Dawkins deep himself into a deeper hole.

Because of this incident, and its after effects, the A+ movement was eventually born in 2012 and began to target New Atheists leaders.  Myers was an early supporter of A+ atheism.  Furthermore, during the same year, Myers was among the first of the New Atheists to begin attacking Sam Harris for his position on racial profiling.  Myers would continue to attack Harris over the years, just recently accusing Harris of being a racist who supports racial science.

Then, in 2013, Myers turned the A+ movement into an attack dog as he posted his infamous hand grenade and used his blog to air the accusation that Michael Shermer had raped another female atheist.  This allegation got the attention of every internet atheist and, once again, they had to choose sides.

The allegation more deeply divided the atheist movement.  But most importantly, it had the effect of solidifying and expanding the atheist “whisper network.”  Myers himself was not in charge of it, but his hand grenade gave it birth as a force to be reckoned with.  The Whisper Network would become the super-villain’s greatest weapon.

In 2016, the Whisper Network launched its first attack against feminist Richard Carrier.  Myer’s played a lead role here as he kicked his former ally out of his blog network.  The Hapless Carrier responded with a lawsuit that is ongoing to this day, although it’s not clear where Carrier is getting the money to sue Myers and his allies.

Then, in 2018, the Whisper Network was fed into Buzzfeed.  Lawrence Krauss, who has long been Richard Dawkins’s faithful sidekick,  was taken down.  Then not many weeks later, David Silverman, President of American Atheists, and beloved by many a militant atheist, was taken down.  Both leaders have been erased from the Atheist Movement.

Of course, during all this time, Myers wreaked havoc on other atheist activists – from Thunderfoot to Peter Boghossian to Michael Nugent.

It’s not clear why Myer’s became New Atheism’s greatest nemesis – The Wrecking Ball.  There was a day when Myers and Dawkins had something of a bromance and his blog was once cherished by all internet atheists.  What turned him into The Wrecking Ball?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheist wars, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to New Atheism’s Most Feared Super-Villian

  1. Mark Plus says:

    Other atheists don’t have to pay attention to PZ Myers.What has he done to justify his authority in the organized atheist movement, other than write a mean-spirited blog?

  2. These people all have such unpleasant personalities, but Myers is the one to apparently have defiled the Blessed Sacrament. Such an act of evil makes one wonder about the state of his mind. He is thoroughly unlikable.

  3. Dhay says:

    If anyone’s wondering who the others are:

    Noel Plum is one of those ignorable pests who I’d normally disregard, but he suckered me in with a title illustration of his recent rant about Kevin Logan, Kristi Winters, and me. Apparently we’re a trio of supervillains.

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/04/14/flattery-will-get-you-smacked/

  4. Catherine says:

    You start off by attributing the blame for Elevatorgate to Myers, when it was a self-inflicted wound by Dawkins, who has doubled down on his gratuitous sexist and racist gaffes numerous times since. That’s the least grievous of your gross misinterpretations of the recent past.

    “A+ movement was eventually born in 2012 and began to target New Atheists leaders”
    Utter claptrap. If anything, the A+ movement was immediately targeted for harassment by trolls from other atheist web sites and forums, who employed the exact same 4chan-style tactics we would see years later employed by Gamergate and the alt-right.

    “Myers turned the A+ movement into an attack dog as he posted his infamous hand grenade”
    A+ was never used as an “attack dog” since Myers is and always has been his own man and trodden his own path. A+ in fact asked him to actively join them, and he refused.

    “it had the effect of solidifying and expanding the atheist “whisper network.” ”
    The whisper network was in place years before the accusations against Shermer, and Myers had nothing to do with instigating it. The network was primarily started and shared exclusively among atheist women who were sick of predatory big-name atheist assholes.

    Anyway, if you have got one thing inadvertently correct in this miserable post, it’s that Myers’ critics invariably fail to cope with the spelling of his surname. The possessive apostrophe correctly goes after the s – not before.

    And to itsonlyphotos – it’s just a sodding cracker.

  5. latsot says:

    This is a gross mischaracterisation of the situation. Note that my position here is not to defend Myers – he can do that himself – but to address the misunderstanding.

    In short, PZ is not the problem. The problem is a noisy (and seemingly quite large) contingent of the atheist community with deplorable views about social justice and equality.

    Some time ago, PZ introduced the phrase “dictionary atheist” to describe atheists who believe atheism is about – and only about – disbelief in gods. This is the definition of “atheist” you’ll find in the dictionary, hence the name. PZ argued – convincingly – that if atheism is to be a movement, it must aspire to more. If we – as a group – are to deplore some of the actions of organised religion, then we need to set an example. We need to work to be more inclusive, to listen more to women (we have a terrible track record in that regard, with much need for improvement) and to generally strive to improve people’s lives without appealing to those higher powers we don’t believe in. In other words, we should hold our cause to the principles of humanism and ourselves to the highest of moral standards.

    Unfortunately, the contingent of the atheist community I previously mentioned did not agree. They disagreed in the most unpleasant terms. As time would tell, at least some seemed to disagree because they just wanted to behave badly at conferences or they didn’t want to respect women. This caused a sort of schism between those atheists who felt that the movement should involve a drive to improve social justice and equality and those who did not.

    This schism widened partly because of some of the incidents you mentioned in your post, but this was not the fault of the people – including PZ (and me, for that matter) – who pointed out bad behaviour, disgusting thinking, words and acts among our movement’s members.

    I won’t go into all the points you mentioned, but for illustration I’ll talk about Elevatorgate and show how your description of the event is so misleading. You wrote::

    It all began in 2011 when Richard Dawkins turned a small dispute about women at an atheist convention into a large scale controversy that consumed the atheist movement – Elevatorgate.

    What actually happened is that a man sexually propositioned Rebecca Watson in a hotel lift at 4am after she had expressly told the crowd she was with (including that guy) that she was tired, had to be up early and was going to bed. This is by no means a terrible crime and Rebecca never said that it was. She said that it’s the sort of behaviour that tends to make women feel uncomfortable. She understood why some men might not realise that so her message was a friendly, polite “guys, don’t do that”.

    It should have ended there. But the deplorable contingent of the atheism movement went *crazy*. They denounced Rebecca. They harassed her. They threatened her with rape and death. These were not just a few isolated incidents, this happened on a daily basis for *years*. It’s happening to this day, although I understand the volume has died down significantly. They accused her (and feminism) of trying to outlaw sexual propositions of any kind in any place, public or otherwise. Genuinely, that is how hyperbolic and sickening was the reaction to “guys, don’t do that.”

    Dawkins made a characteristically tin-eared contribution with his “Dear Muslima” comment, which I assume is what you’re referring to. His point was that women should stop complaining unless they are being subject to truly barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation or the sorts of human rights crimes they face in countries like Saudi Arabia.

    The problem with this way of thinking, of course, is that we can and must address *both* issues. If we don’t listen to and learn from what women tell us about their daily experience, then we’re participating in an environment that discriminates against them. But Dawkins’ comment didn’t raise much of a furore, other than among the more social justice oriented atheists, such as Ophelia Benson, who rightly criticised Dawkins in the strongest of terms (and faced a severe backlash as a result). But Dawkins didn’t really stir things up as much as you suggested.

    I cannot say this more emphatically: *it was not about him*. It was about those atheists who revealed themselves to be misogynists and spent years abusing people like Rebecca Watson and many others for the crime of being female, feminist or both. Dawkins didn’t set the issue on fire, as you put it, he *joined in* with the ignorance and bullying. He was a participant bully.

    It certainly had nothing directly to do with PZ Myers, who was only calling for an atheism with greater aspirations. He wrote about it and continues to condemn such behaviour, but he didn’t cause the schism, the deplorables did. The ones who want to silence women. The ones who don’t want to hear bad news about people they don’t like and respond with undeserved visceral attacks.

    The rest of your article is similarly misleading.

    Myers was among the first of the New Atheists to begin attacking Sam Harris for his position on racial profiling.

    That’s a *bad* thing? Do you *support* racial profiling? I’m sorry to tell you that the evidence does not. Harris’ position is wrong in that it is not supported by evidence and that it is morally repugnant. That’s why PZ and many others – including me – have criticised Harris. You make it sound as though it’s more important to pull together as a movement than to expose people with deplorable views. That’s one of the many traits a lot of atheists dislike in organised religion, with the covering up at the highest level of prolific, sustained sexual abuse by the Catholic church the most obvious example.

    Then, in 2013, Myers turned the A+ movement into an attack dog

    That’s an absurd statement. As you seem to be aware, PZ was a supporter of the ideals of A+, but was not involved with the group. His posting of the accusations against Shermer was not done in the name of A+ and was anything but an attack. A woman made some serious allegations against Shermer. PZ found them to be convincing and so agreed to publish them. This took some courage given Shermer’s famously litigious blustering and the fallout PZ knew he’d receive from those aforementioned atheists who think women shouldn’t ask men not to accost them in lifts (he did receive such a backlash. He continues to).

    Someone helpfully put together a timeline of Shermer’s activities: https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2014/09/12/timeline-of-harassment-and-sexual-assault-allegations-against-michael-shermer/

    It is very convincing. Convincing enough that we atheists should not be welcoming this man into our community, let alone treating him as a de facto leader. Again, are you suggesting that Myers should have kept quiet for the good of the atheist community? Because that’s how it reads to me. No, where there are credible accusations, we should make them, which is what PZ did. Too bad if the movement suffers because of the toppling of some of the people many in the community (not, I should say, me) regard as leaders.

    Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “whisper network”. As far as I’m aware, the term has only been used in an abstract sense to refer to unofficial warnings to potentially vulnerable people about the known behaviour of certain creepy people at conferences or in work situations. For example, Shermer’s bad behaviour was known about by various people who had been involved with or attended conferences at which Shermer had been present. Some of these people warned others that his behaviour had been problematic and that they should be on their guard. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the whisper network’.

    But it isn’t an actual network with an identified membership and stated goals. It’s just an unhelpful term describing the fact that since people like Shermer hold – for some reason – positions of power within the movement, warnings about his predatory behaviour can often only be issued via whispers rather than through more official channels.

    This is no weapon, it’s a necessary form of self defense. Necessary exactly because criticising certain people in the movement can invoke the most disgusting of backlashes such as the one directed toward Rebecca Watson. Others have been silenced in different ways such as losing positions of influence or the prospect of a career in movement atheism.

    Of course, during all this time, Myers wreaked havoc on other atheist activists – from Thunderfoot to Peter Boghossian to Michael Nugent.

    Oh come one, “wreaked havoc”? He criticised them because of things they did. They haven’t exactly suffered as a result, have they? Neither have Shermer or Harris. The movement continues to pride their status above their behaviour. I wish it would not.

    If atheism is to be a movement rather than a position, it needs to up its game. It needs to show that the principles of humanism are sound, that we can be good without gods and – above all – that it won’t tolerate disgusting behaviour.

    If PZ has played any kind of role in demolishing movement atheism, then it’s a positive one. If we can get rid of the people with disgusting views and who behave in horrible ways, then the movement will be all the better for it, surely?

    Personally, although I’m still very much an atheist, I have distanced myself in recent years from movement atheism, precisely because it contains such terrible people as those who sustained an attack on Rebecca for all these years and precisely because so many of them support people like Shermer, even treating them as leaders of the movement.

    I can’t tell whether your post is poorly researched or disingenuous. I’m charitable enough to assume the former for now.

    @itsonlyphotos

    I’ve briefly met Myers 2 or 3 times. I found him thoroughly likeable. I certainly didn’t mind that he also defiled the blessed God Delusion.

  6. TFBW says:

    This is fascinating. The A+ faction have adopted the role of puritans.

    @Catherine: at least we can agree about apostrophe placement.

  7. latsot says:

    @TFBW:

    *sigh*, no. The more progressive atheists are worried that people are being abused, discriminated against and silenced by people with more power.

    We’re against that.

    Nothing about that is puritanical. Rather the opposite, I’d have thought. I can only speak for myself, but I encourage every kind of fun debauchery that’s enthusiastically welcomed by all parties and which doesn’t hurt anyone else.

    Condemning unwanted sexual activity is hardly puritanical. Calling for codes of conduct by delegates – and especially by speakers – at conferences is not a puritan attitude. Holding people who claim to speak for thousands to a high standard of morality is not puritanical.

    Condemning people for rape or wanting to rid a community of rape aoplogists isn’t puritanical either. Let’s not forget about what consent means before we bluster words such as “puritanical”.

  8. TFBW says:

    @latsot: Pfft. Sigh your condescending sighs and see how much I care.

    I’m no expert, so I’ll defer to Wiki on this one. “The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to ‘purify’ the Church of England from its ‘Catholic’ practices, maintaining that the Church of England was only partially reformed.”

    I see parallels. I’m not suggesting that you are opposed to debauchery (although I’ll wager you think it’s the woman and not the man who gets to decide which parts of that debauchery were “enthusiastically welcomed by all parties” after the fact, assuming one of each was involved), but rather that you see the Atheist Movement as needing purification from certain moral shortcomings of the past. So while you might not share much in the way of common moral ground with a literal Puritan (to put it mildly), you are probably every bit as strident that your morality is the correct one, that those who transgress it are evil, and that the impurity is an internal (rather than external) matter — within Atheist Activism as opposed to English Christianity, as it was with the Puritans.

    So, yeah, Puritans.

  9. latsot says:

    @TFBW: No.

    Atheism can be about us all being better people. Better, for example, than the horrible people who defend sexual abuse by churches or the states that abuse 50%of their population. This is not puritanism, it is simple morality.

    Rape is bad, right? Racism is bad, right? That’s not puritanism, it is straightforward morality.

    Adopting rapists as leaders of a group would make that group bad, wouldn’t it?

  10. nsr says:

    Morality is anything but straightforward on atheism. At most it’s some mixture of empathy, individual opinion and societal groupthink. All it takes is for a person’s animal desires (for sex, usually) to be stronger than those influences, and then absolutely anything goes.

  11. latsot says:

    @nsr:

    How do you know that?

  12. TFBW says:

    @latsot: honestly, I don’t expect you to recognise your own Puritanism. I doubt that most of the Puritans thought their position was anything more than simple common sense and decency, either.

    And yeah, rape is bad. Find me anyone who says otherwise. The argument is never about whether rape is bad, but whether rape happened. But it’s that kind of “rape is bad, and these other awful people think it isn’t” which is so characteristic of the puritanical attitude. It’s not merely holier-than-thou, but THESE PEOPLE ARE DEPLORABLE MONSTERS fainting-couch-grade moral posturing.

    And that’s without digging into the hilarity of “morality” founded on nothing more than shared opinions.

  13. nsr says:

    @latsot

    Because on atheism there is no authority to decide what is right and wrong apart from those things, which are not difficult to ignore if you really want something and believe you can get away with it.

  14. Ilíon says:

    You *cannot* reason with ‘atheists’; add “social justice” to the God-hater, and it squares his anti-reason.

  15. Kevin says:

    Adopting rapists as leaders of a group would make that group bad, wouldn’t it?

    As TFBW mentioned, the issue is never whether rape is bad, but rather two questions: What is rape, and what are the standards of evidence to believe/punish rape?

    The first question is tricky because it hinges upon consent. Actual people in the real world do not ask each other “Is this okay?” for every single act they do during a sexual encounter, especially if alcohol is involved. If a woman isn’t willing to say no, then she probably shouldn’t get naked and perform other sex acts with a man, now should she? No one is a mind reader – no means no, but naked woman in a man’s lap looks a lot more like a yes than a no.

    I think the primary difference between conservatives and progressives on this issue is, conservatives actually hold women accountable for their own actions – as in, if I take my life savings and put them in a box out by the street and the next morning it’s all gone, obviously the thief had no right to take the money and should be punished, but anyone who thought I was a complete idiot for putting myself in that situation would be absolutely correct. Yet to tell women to watch their own behavior is somehow “victim blaming”, which is complete nonsense.

    The second question is also tricky, because what is the evidence that a rape occurred if there is no injury? Should we lower the standards of justice so that a man can be convicted at an accusation?

    Men and women would both do much better to adopt Christian/conservative sexual values, and wait until marriage with someone they love. It would solve the vast majority of sex-related problems that progressive values have created.

  16. Isaac says:

    “Atheism can be about us all being better people.”

    No, it can’t. The fact that you could emphatically state something so completely devoid of logic is telling.

    Atheism can only be ABOUT not believing in any gods. Sorry. It can’t be “about” anything else, especially not moral ideals that can’t objectively exist in an atheist worldview.

    You can try to be “better people,” hanging on to some version of your’ ancestors’ Christian ethics and concepts of justice and equality…while simultaneously being atheist…but those are not overlapping things.

  17. Michael says:

    latsot,

    No, I did not research that blog posting. I relied on memory, although I did Google for a couple of dates.

    I did read through your entire, lengthy comment and could not find where exactly I was engaged in “gross mischaracterization.”

    We have a difference of opinion regarding Dawkins’ role in the schism: you think it more peripheral and I think it more central. But that hardly qualifies as “gross mischaracterization.”

    I never claimed PZ’s hand grenade was “done in the name of A+”. It’s simply a fact that the hand grenade was tossed from the A+ side of the schism (even to the point where A+ atheist Richard Carrier posted thousands of words to make sure it hit the target).

    As for it being an “attack,” again, that’s merely a difference of opinion. It sure came across as an attack on Shermer and his side of the schism. Whether it was justified is another question.

    As for the whisper network, weapons and self-defense often go hand-in-hand. It’s one thing to use the whisper network purely for defensive purposes (letting women know the risks associated with the various sexual creeps in the New Atheist movement), but it’s another to publicly shout the allegations to rally the cyber-mob against specific individuals. Again, whether it was justified is another question.

    I do plead guilty to having too much fun with hyperbole of “wreaking havoc.” The point is that PZ’s wrecking ball has targeted a lot of other atheists.
    So again, I don’t see the evidence of “gross mischaracterization.” Perhaps you can clarify with fewer words next time around.
    I did want to comment on this:

    If atheism is to be a movement rather than a position, it needs to up its game. It needs to show that the principles of humanism are sound, that we can be good without gods and – above all – that it won’t tolerate disgusting behaviour.

    The problem is that your movement was always built on the emotion of hate. Y’all lived in harmony when the bigotry was directed at Christians and God. It’s not surprising that a movement built around hate would eventually consume itself when the object of its hate lost its ability to unite y’all around the “common enemy.”

    Let’s face it. You don’t have a problem with the deplorable tactics as long as they are directed at the nasty Christian faithheads. Which means you don’t come to us standing on any moral high ground. After all, I bet you can’t admit that PZ’s wafer stunt was an example of hate speech.

  18. Michael says:

    Catherine,

    I never blamed Myers for Elevatorgate. I never claimed Myers instigated the whisper network. The rest is difference in opinion.

  19. Michael says:

    Mark,

    The mean-spirited nature of PZ’s blog is what made it so popular among the internet atheists. But those were the days when all the hate was directed at Christians.

  20. @Catherine, ” Who says, “it’s just a sodding cracker”…

    Even if one doesn’t believe in it, that’s such an infantile and obnoxious thing, to support desecration of Holy Communion. I’m also not sure what it proves? It’s idiotic – much like your comment. It’s an incendiary, spiteful thing and says just as much about PZ. Myers’ s vitriol and inflated sense of self than his disbelief in God. It’s a publicity stunt, something surely most non-believers wouldn’t do. So, in short, the troll you follow is just that, a hateful little man.

  21. latsot says:

    Well Kevin, if that’s what you desperately want the almighty creator of the universe to tell you then I’m doing a lot better than you without any such fantasy. You are the very epitome of a rape apologist and I sincerely hope you never, ever come into contact with any woman ever again.

  22. And one more thing, Catherine, because you are so esteemed and critical thinking, if Myers’s point in desecrating (allegedly ) Holy Communion and if I’m not mistaken a Koran too, what did he think h was proving? Does he think Cathilics/Orthodox believe the world would explode? Or that Muslims would think a black hole would open up? If he does, he’s an idiot. More likely, he’s cashing in on the adulation his credulous unthinking mob rewards him. He’s the scientistic version of GG Allen, throwing excrement at punk shows. He’s the two girls one cup. He’s a Tide Pod challenge kid. Nothing more. But the joke’s also on his followers

  23. latsot says:

    No, Michael. Let’s face this: I have a problem with deplorable people within my own movement. I hold atheists to a higher standard exactly because they don’t pretend some higher authority is floating around telling them what to do and, in Kevin’s case, apparently telling everyone that rape is totally OK.

    If you can’t see that I have already achieved a higher moral standard than rape apologist Kevin without any appeal to a god, then there’s no hope for you and we have nothing to talk about.

  24. latsot says:

    @isonlyphotos

    Why don’t you simply read the post where PZ explains why he threw the wafers in the bin? Why speculate about it when you can simply read what he himself said?

    This is a rhetorical question, of course. We all know that you won’t do that and we all know the reason why.

  25. Derek Ramsey says:

    TFBW: “But it’s that kind of “rape is bad, and these other awful people think it isn’t” which is so characteristic of the puritanical attitude.”

    latsot: “You are the very epitome of a rape apologist”

    Kind of speaks for itself there.

  26. latsot says:

    OK Michael, I get you. You don’t do research, you rely on the voices in your head. Those voices are what you use to justify your blithering interpretation of a complex set of situations. It’s enough for you because any challenge to those voices might cause you to actually think, something you are obviously not prepared to do or capable of.

    I’m sorry my comment was long. It’s very clear that reading several paragraphs hurt your head. Perhaps this is why I can posit with near certainty that you have never read more than a tiny fraction of the bible you seem to think informs you on every aspect of morality and ethical thought. Perhaps that’s why you tolerate rape apologists like Kevin on your site, who can say?

  27. Latdot, I get your point. It has been awhile since I focused on this. As for the shock value performance artist piece, absolutely it was. Maybe he isn’t dumb enough to believe Catholics think the world ends from his desecration, but my point stands.He’s a troll feeder. Also, if here to entirely point out bad parts of the Church’s history – and that is fair game – that would be more valid. Instead he acts like a vindictive nasty little man.

  28. Kevin says:

    You are the very epitome of a rape apologist
    Perhaps that’s why you tolerate rape apologists like Kevin on your site

    Gosh, normally it takes at least two posts to expose progressives as being less than rational.

    There isn’t a single thing in my post that is “rape apologetics”, yet you immediately leap onto that accusation, presumably because I dared to suggest that women should be careful and not do things that might lead to them getting raped – in other words, treating women like capable adults rather than helpless children, and wanting to increase their chances of avoiding rape. It’s sort of like having a smoke alarm – a precaution that people take to protect themselves from unlikely harm. Unless you think that recommending a smoke alarm makes me an “arson apologist”? Is recommending a healthy diet and exercise now considered “fat-shaming”?

    Or wait – perhaps it’s demanding more evidence than an accusation to convict a man of rape? Is that what makes me a “rape apologist”?

    That’s another problem with progressives – the means are more important than the end. People are “rape apologists” unless they subscribe to the so-called strategies progressives want to adopt to prevent rape. Doesn’t matter how horrified you are at the thought of rape, doesn’t matter how many solutions you offer – talk the progressive talk or you’re a rape apologist. Ridiculous.

    Rational people who live in the real world have a goal – let’s say that goal is the prevention of all rape – but they don’t consider the goal to be reality. As in any goal, one should strive for the ideal, but the strategies should reflect the real world instead of the desired Utopia. There are rapists who absolutely will take advantage of women foolish enough to get themselves incapacitated through alcohol. It is not “rape apologetics” to advise women to be careful since it is not mutually exclusive with expecting men to not rape in the first place.

    Someone who actually wants there to be no rape would give women strategies on protecting themselves, along with punishing rapists and educating both men and women on the rules of consent in this enlightened age of progressive sexual free-for-all’s that lead to these situations in the first place. As you are apparently opposed to this, you are the only rape apologist in the room, as your strategies lead to women getting raped since they are being led astray by your Utopian delusions.

  29. TFBW says:

    @Derek Ramsey: yeah, I almost want to thank latsot for going to such exaggerated lengths to prove my point. This one was particularly good, too.

    If you can’t see that I have already achieved a higher moral standard than rape apologist Kevin without any appeal to a god, then there’s no hope for you and we have nothing to talk about.

    If you can’t see that demonising everyone else with outlandish epithets like “rape apologist” doesn’t amount to a high moral standard on your part, then there’s no hope for you, and we have nothing to talk about. You’re the secular equivalent of a Pharisee, not a saint. Even that might be harsh on the Pharisees.

  30. Kevin says:

    Kevin’s case, apparently telling everyone that rape is totally OK

    LOL, I missed this one. See guys, you think rape is A-OK unless you tell women they shouldn’t take any precautionary measures for themselves. That really shows you care about women not getting raped!

    I’m going to immediately tell my children that they don’t need to look both ways before crossing the street, since that would make me a “distracted driving apologist”.

  31. Michael says:

    OK Michael, I get you.

    You do?

    You don’t do research, you rely on the voices in your head.

    Oh, I see. A common stereotype among the anti-christian bigots is that they think all Christians are either stupid, dishonest, or mentally ill. I can see that your hateful stereotypes are guiding your thinking here. In this instance, I’m supposed to be relying on voices in my head. But in reality, it’s called relying on something called memory. And since I did not set out to write a research article, memory did suffice.

    Those voices are what you use to justify your blithering interpretation of a complex set of situations.

    Ah, now comes the chest thumping. As I mentioned before, you failed to show any example of “gross misrepresentation” on my part. So it’s safe to say the same holds true of my “blithering interpretation.” Yes, these are a complex set of situations. Yet the fact remains that PZ Myers was involved, directly or indirectly, in the major events behind the downfall of your hateful movement.

    It’s enough for you because any challenge to those voices might cause you to actually think, something you are obviously not prepared to do or capable of.

    So you say. But you are the one relying on stereotypes here. That’s typically a good clue that you are dealing with someone who doesn’t do much thinking on their own.

    I’m sorry my comment was long. It’s very clear that reading several paragraphs hurt your head.

    And there ya go. That’s the “Christians are stupid” stereotype at work, right? It’s not a matter of hurting my head. It’s the common tactic of obscuring an unsupported proposition with a blizzard of irrelevant words. Look, in the places where you actually bothered to quote me, you failed to show any “gross misrepresentations” apart from my playful characterization of Myers’ interactions with people like Boghossian.

    Perhaps this is why I can posit with near certainty that you have never read more than a tiny fraction of the bible you seem to think informs you on every aspect of morality and ethical thought.

    So I’m supposed to be a Bible-thumper, eh?

    Perhaps that’s why you tolerate rape apologists like Kevin on your site, who can say?

    LOL. Aren’t you the one defending a guy who posted a link to pictures of women being raped by octopuses?

  32. We’re all wicked in our own ways. P.Z Myers has no monopoly on obnoxiousness and nastiness, particularly for the internet. He is the Milo Yiannopolis of social liberalism. Both have the capacity to make points at times, and even highlight injustices. That said, both are entertainers, fueled by toxic, righteous indignation and abetted and encouraged by sycophantic followers. I know Myers is mostly full of it. He needs an outlet for pent up rage and self loathing. That’s why he’ll turn on people on a dime and signal virtue. He doesn’t really care. He’s not a humane person. This is a guy who fantasized about priests being killed, who rejoiced in one dying in a charity balloon race. That’s not an empathetic man. Rather, he’s someone so consumed by animus and malice that his judgment is clouded. I think that he is easily my least favorite gnu. That’s saying something.

  33. Dhay says:

    latsot > Why don’t you simply read the post where PZ explains why he threw the wafers in the bin? Why speculate about it when you can simply read what he himself said?

    This is a rhetorical question, of course. We all know that you won’t do that and we all know the reason why.

    One reason why, presumably, is that a lot of the links found by Googling point to ‘404 Page Not Found’. The relevant links seem to be:

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/the-great-desecration/

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/29/desecration-its-a-fun-hobby/

    As someone accustomed to providing links to anything and everything I refer to, it astonishes me that you did not provide these links yourself. So I wonder whether you could not find the posts.

    Have you yourself read what Myers said? This decade, that is.

  34. grodrigues says:

    So Catherine says about the sacred bread “it’s just a sodding cracker.” and latsot that “I certainly didn’t mind that he also defiled the blessed God Delusion.” Now as everyone knows, or should know, for Catholics (and I will only speak for Catholics), the sacred bread is the real presence of Christ, so calling it a “sodding cracker” or worse, “defiling it”, is insulting and defiling the most precious, cherished and sacred of things. It is worse than insulting your mother or your own honour. Among civilized, rational people, defiling what is precious and sacred to others is rightly considered one of the pettiest, meanest acts of intolerance. But then, and to complete the show, we get to read latsot, a complete dullard, take the moral high ground about listening to women and their “experiences”, or fighting for equality, or about “disgusting people” and their vile attacks on Rebecca Watson. It seems behaviour is disgusting and an attack is vile according to the target. And this is the ignorant, void moral claptrap that we have to suffer from the “atheist movement”.

    I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

  35. nsr says:

    Well, what do you expect from a community who have no shared values or principles other than a lack of belief in God and a vague sense of superiority over others, whose thinking is largely driven by emotion, and whose goals are largely derived from personal wish fulfilment and a desire for vindictive revenge on those they feel have wronged them?

  36. Dhay, I personally have no issue with latest asking me to read the pist. That’s fine. It reinforced my view that Myers is a troll. Ostensibly Myers was pointing out that Catholic anti-Semitism often involved rumors of host desecration. He used Pope Innocent III’s backwards position on the Jews as an example of Church’s fractured relationship with the Jews from the late Middle ages. Fine. Definitely this is a sorrowful and painful history. It’s also a scandal because Catholicism, much of its theoeology and liturgy, is from the Jews and Jesus was a First Century Jew. Still, why would that justify desecrating Holy Communion? It doesn’t. It was the action of a little spiteful troll. A pervert, really. A rageaholic. PZ Myers in a nutshell.

  37. latsot says:

    @Kevin:

    “There isn’t a single thing in my post that is “rape apologetics”

    By definition there is. You are saying that the way women behave justifies raping them.

    It doesn’t. Anyone can change their mind at any time during a sexual encounter. If that happens, and at that moment, the sex should stop. If it doesn’t, it’s rape pure and simple. Pretending otherwise – as you did – is rape apology.

    Women who are capable adults still get raped. They get raped by people like you who don’t seem to understand that consent can be revoked at any time, including during a sexual encounter. No means no no matter when it’s expressed.

    Your failure to understand that means that you are very much a rape apologist and a dangerous one.

  38. latsot says:

    @Kevin:

    “Or wait – perhaps it’s demanding more evidence than an accusation to convict a man of rape? Is that what makes me a “rape apologist”?”

    Please tell us of the many, many cases you pretend exist where an accusation has been sufficient to convict someone of rape.

  39. latsot says:

    @Michael:

    “Oh, I see. A common stereotype among the anti-christian bigots is that they think all Christians are either stupid, dishonest, or mentally ill.”

    Is it? I didn’t say any of those things. You admitted that your personal memory is more important than evidence. I rather think that evidence trumps memory, don’t you? It’s easy for a
    person to refer to memory when they have an axe to grind. It’s rather better to refer to actual evidence. Your ‘defense’ that your article wasn’t supposed to be based on evidence just reveals your bias. That’s OK, be as biased as you like. But don’t pretend that your memory is the same thing as evidence.

    I don’t think that all christians are stupid, dishonest or mentally ill. I suspect you, personally of being dishonest in this post and in your replies, but I don’t tar anyone else with the same brush. My parents are christians, for example, and while I think they’re wrong about a lot of things, they are rarely dishonest, as far as I know.

    “And there ya go. That’s the “Christians are stupid” stereotype at work, right?”

    Not at all. I’m saying *you* might be stupid, not Christians. It’s hilarious how you take an insult aimed at you and pretend it’s aimed at all christians. It isn’t. It’s aimed at you. I’m saying that you aren’t very bright. There are many highly intelligent christians, dude.You’re just not one of them.

    “LOL. Aren’t you the one defending a guy who posted a link to pictures of women being raped by octopuses?”

    What women were those? Were they real women raped by real octopuses or were they paintings? If you seriously feel that ironic posting of pictures like those are terrible but failing to listen to actual real women who tell you to stop fucking them is a-ok, then you’ve definitely painted a picture of yourself we can both agree with.

    Your bizarre accusations are irrelevant. If you think rape victims ask for it, you’re a rape apologist. If you support rape apologists – as you obviously do – then you are a horrible person.

  40. latsot says:

    @itsonlyphotos

    You’re a liar. PZ ‘desecrated’ the wafer because it’s just a wafer. His point was that people care about certain wafers more than people. That is a terrible thing to think. Thankfully, wafer-loving people don’t get to decide the fate of everyone else.

    PZ was very clear about his motivation and it had nothing to do with anyone or anything Jewish. Your gobbledegook is your own, not his. Unless I’m wrong and you can quote directly from his posts to support your lies? Can you point to where he was antisemetic, as you imply?

    I won’t hold my breath.

  41. latsot says:

    “the sacred bread is the real presence of Christ, so calling it a “sodding cracker” or worse, “defiling it”, is insulting and defiling the most precious, cherished and sacred of things. It is worse than insulting your mother or your own honour.”

    And that’s our issue. You expect everyone else to care about your sodding cracker. You expect everyone else to turn a blind eye when your church systematically rapes thousands of children then covers it up.

    We care more about the children. You care more about the cracker.

    This is just another example of your morality being broken and ours – potentially – being better.

  42. latsot says:

    “Well, what do you expect from a community who have no shared values or principles other than a lack of belief in God and a vague sense of superiority over others, whose thinking is largely driven by emotion, and whose goals are largely derived from personal wish fulfilment and a desire for vindictive revenge on those they feel have wronged them?”

    I expect them to be decent people. That’s my point. Some of us are, some of us aren’t.

  43. latsot says:

    “It seems behaviour is disgusting and an attack is vile according to the target.”

    Rebecca Watson received daily threats of rape and murder for years for saying “guys, don’t do that”.

    Don’t you agree that those attacks were vile regardless of the target? Do you agree that they were justified? Do you think Rebecca should have shut up and worn a long dress so that she wouldn’t have been propositioned in a lift?

  44. Lastot, you truly fit the mold of the perpetually aggrieved, anger channelling troll follower Myers needs to get his clicks

  45. latsot says:

    If you say so. But various people here are rape apologists and unless our host explains otherwise, so is he.

    I’m bound to fit a model you yourself created to describe me. Most people would think “wait… perhaps I’m wrong and can learn from my mistakes”. You will not.

  46. latsot says:

    I’ve posted this thread on Twitter. I hope you don’t mind.

  47. TFBW says:

    @latsot: “You are saying that the way women behave justifies raping them.”

    You slanderous lying scumbag. Quote verbatim, or wear your “I Lie For Radical Feminism” badge with pride.

  48. Ilíon says:

    some fool:If you can’t see that I have already achieved a higher moral standard than rape apologist Kevin without any appeal to a god, then there’s no hope for you and we have nothing to talk about.

    TFBW:If you can’t see that demonising everyone else with outlandish epithets like “rape apologist” doesn’t amount to a high moral standard on your part, …

    Moreover, he has done no such thing.

    1) Firstly, to the extent that do does oppose *actual* rape (and frankly, it’s doubtful that he does), he does so only because he has been formed by a culture informed by 1500 years of Christianity.

    2) Secondly, his attempt to brand those who will not submit to Current Year’s leftist hysteria as “rape apologists” demonstrates that his concern is not with rape, or justice, but with leftist power.

  49. Kevin says:

    By definition there is. You are saying that the way women behave justifies raping them.

    You need some educating, so lengthy post inbound.

    There is nothing in what I wrote that even comes close to saying rape is ever justified. “A situation that is easily misread” is not synonymous with “rape is justified” to intelligent people. “Foolish enough to intentionally engage in risky behavior” is not synonymous with “Deserved to get raped” to intelligent people.

    Anyone can change their mind at any time during a sexual encounter. If that happens, and at that moment, the sex should stop. If it doesn’t, it’s rape pure and simple.

    I don’t know why you’re telling me something I agree with and never disputed. Oh wait, it’s so you can lie and say:

    Pretending otherwise – as you did – is rape apology.

    See, as anyone who utilizes reading comprehension and critical thinking can agree, at no point did I ever “pretend” that someone can’t change their mind during sex. Either quote where I did, or admit that you’re a liar. The only other option is for you to run away from the discussion like a coward so you can avoid embarrassing yourself – which you already are, but that’s beside the point.

    Women who are capable adults still get raped.

    Agreed, but the least that caring people should do is to educate all women on ways to minimize their chances of getting raped – things like avoiding getting so drunk as to become defenseless, or at the very least doing so with trusted friends. Things like avoiding casual sex with virtual or actual strangers. Things like waiting until marriage for a sexual relationship – oh wait, those darn obsolete values getting in the way again.

    Even with common-sense precautions, there are still going to be violent sexual predators out there. The precautions I listed above aren’t guarantees of protection, but telling men not to rape isn’t either. That’s like thinking a sign that says “gun free zone” will prevent shootings.

    They get raped by people like you who don’t seem to understand that consent can be revoked at any time, including during a sexual encounter.

    By your logic, owning smoke alarms makes me an arsonist and looking both ways before crossing the street makes me a distracted driver.

    No means no no matter when it’s expressed.

    As I said in my first post to you.

    Your failure to understand that means that you are very much a rape apologist and a dangerous one.

    You are obviously confused (obviously) by my addendum to when I said “no means no” – I said “Actual people in the real world do not ask each other “Is this okay?” for every single act they do during a sexual encounter, especially if alcohol is involved. If a woman isn’t willing to say no, then she probably shouldn’t get naked and perform other sex acts with a man, now should she? No one is a mind reader – no means no, but naked woman in a man’s lap looks a lot more like a yes than a no.”

    You, in your logic-suppressing ideology, are interpreting this to mean that I have said that there comes a point in which a woman can no longer say no. Nowhere did I say or imply it. That’s your ideology failing you.

    What I am getting at with the above quote is that progressives live in this cute little make-believe world in which two drunk horny people have so much self-control that each time they touch or kiss a different area, they ask “is this okay”. News flash – that’s not how the real world works, particularly with people stupid enough to be getting drunk at the same time.

    I then said two more things – if a woman isn’t willing to say no, then she probably shouldn’t get naked and perform other sex acts with a man. Would a reasonable person interpret this as a justification of rape? Nope, because reasonable people live in the real world, not in progressive la-la land. What this is, is a strategy for a woman to avoid being in a situation where she is at risk of rape. If I don’t want to get crushed by a car, I don’t walk across the street without looking. If I don’t want to die in a fire, I don’t decide there’s no need for a smoke alarm. And if a woman doesn’t want to get raped, she shouldn’t be naked with someone she doesn’t know and trust, especially if either of them is also drunk. And she REALLY shouldn’t if she isn’t willing to say no when she gets uncomfortable. People aren’t mind readers even when they’re sober.

    My reason for writing “naked woman in a man’s lap looks a lot more like a yes than a no” is also not your pathetic claim of rape justification, but rather an attempt to explain to you what the real world looks like versus your ideology. As real people aren’t asking “Is this okay” every step of the way, is it possible that a naked drunk horny guy with a naked drunk horny girl in his lap might misread the situation? Absolutely, especially if every other women he’s been promiscuous with was doing the exact same thing with the intent of sex.

    Is he justified in a poor assumption? Absolutely not! If he’s dumb enough to get drunk and put himself in that situation with an equally foolish woman, then he puts himself at risk of accidentally committing rape even if he thinks the act is consensual. But on a moral level, it is not the same act as someone who violently forces himself on a woman knowing she gave no consent. The drunk guy would almost certainly not commit rape if he knew the answer was no.

    You, on the other hand, treat the drunk guy and the violent rapist the same. Actual people in the real world are intelligent enough to discern the key differences between the two acts. Actual people would absolutely not “justify” his behavior and would agree he should be punished, but they would also rightly ask the woman what the hell she was doing putting herself in that situation.

    And it’s that discernment and that holding women responsible – not for their fate, but for their conscious actions that placed them in harm’s way in the first place – that makes you froth at the mouth and start making idiotic accusations.

    Of course, we could go back to Christian sexual values and solve all these problems.

  50. Ilíon says:

    You slanderous lying scumbag.

    God-deniers are *always* liars. Leftists are *always* liars.

    One *cannot* reason with members of either (*) group, for they give themselves permission to say quite anything and its opposite, they give themselves permission to lie, they give themselves permission to engage in anti-reason; *anything* to achieve their (present) ends.

    (*) to the limited extent that the two do not overlap

  51. Kevin says:

    I’ve posted this thread on Twitter. I hope you don’t mind.

    Good idea. I’ll do the same. Hope you don’t mind.

  52. Kevin says:

    Actually, no I won’t. I will let Michael dictate the exposure he wants, particularly to a bunch of frothing progressives. I’ll let my words speak for themselves here – anyone more rational than a progressive (everyone else) will immediately see what’s happened.

  53. Kevin says:

    Hey latsot, why don’t you post the link to the Twitter feed so we can compare what you are sharing with what we actually said?

  54. TFBW says:

    I will let Michael dictate the exposure he wants, particularly to a bunch of frothing progressives.

    A nice sentiment, but why does a Radical Feminist post links to places like this on Twitter except to whistle up a Leftist outrage mob? The Twitter account is easy enough to find, if you actually care (@latsot).

  55. grodrigues says:

    @latsot:

    “And that’s our issue.”

    No it is not. The only issue that I pointed out was that you are a grandstanding hypocrite. Whether you believe in the Real Presence in the consecrated bread or not is besides the point, as my comment makes pretty clear.

    “We care more about the children. You care more about the cracker.”

    You do not know anything about me or Catholicism. You care about the children? Do not make me laugh. You are an accomplice to the abortion genocide with a tally of tens of millions of dead in its wake, so your words are once again, the claptrap of a morally obtuse ignoramus.

  56. Kevin says:

    Incredible. latsot actually says “less self-righteous than i used to be”.

  57. TFBW says:

    “Inconceivable” was the word which sprang to my mind.

  58. Kevin says:

    What’s inconceivable to me is that there are people like latsot who are pro-rape – they attack anyone who wants women to protect themselves. It’s not “victim blaming” and “rape apologetics” to ask women to be careful any more than it is “victim blaming” and “distracted driving apologetics” to ask people to look both ways before crossing the street.

    Anyone who viciously attacks someone for advocating protective measured against something is obviously in favor of that something. As latsot has attacked and smeared me for clearly and repeatedly advocating that women make safe and intelligent choices to help avoid rape, latsot is by all appearances pro-rape.

    That is just sad.

  59. nsr says:

    @latsot

    “I expect them to be decent people. That’s my point. Some of us are, some of us aren’t.”

    Why though? Why expect them to do anything other than follow their own subjective view of what’s right and wrong? Why pass judgement on those whose view of right and wrong differs from yours? On what authority can you or any other atheist make that sort of value judgement?

  60. I welcome you putting this on twitter. I will go on record saying PZ Myers lives under a bridge in a pile of slime. He’s awful.

  61. Talon says:

    Latsot, you’re out of touch with reality. In an ideal world, no one would ever rape, people would use unassailable judgement and everyone would verbalize removal of consent in a loud and unambiguous way. We don’t live in such an ideal world and we likely never will, no matter how hard we try to educate men not to rape. For instance, some men will never care about the people they hurt, indulging in rape as an act of domination so causing pain and humiliation is part of the thrill. Against such antisocial tendencies, it’s better that women be forearmed with knowledge of how to avoid becoming a statistic, merely instructing men not to rape won’t save anyone from a sexual predator who ignores the lesson and cares little about how “wrong” society or the law feels it is.

    Pretty much any other crime or health hazard will see law enforcement, safety experts or medical professionals informing the public about the risks and how to avoid falling victim so it’s vital they be given the chance to educate the public. If learning that overindulgence in drugs and alcohol will put them at risk and that limiting intake of both will leave them less muddleheaded, better aware of their surroundings and better able to fight back, I trust women will adopt more cautious behavior. Think of this as a kind of self defense, a means to empower women, giving them some measure of control over a potentially dangerous situation. Knowledge is power, stubbornly insisting that women “shouldn’t have to” protect themselves so don’t educate them to identify risky situations and act accordingly (that’s victim blaming!) helps no one except potential criminals.

  62. Maybe latsot is PZ Myers. Has anyone checked his Twitter feed? Any old posts contextualizing bestiality ? Just a thought.

  63. Michael says:

    Is it? I didn’t say any of those things.

    You’ve been around this blog for little more than 24 hours and yet claimed “I get you.” Clearly, you did not “get me” from any research or familiarity with my writings. Thus, it stands to reason you are being guided by preconceptions and stereotypes – the negative stereotypes about Christians commonly seen among New Atheists, anti-Christians, and anti-theists. And sure enough, in this thread, those stereotypes have guided you every step along the way, “convincing” you into thinking that I am mentally ill (I hear voices in my head), I am dishonest, and I am stupid. Is it a mere coincidence that you gross mischaracterizations of me happen to perfectly match common anti-Christian stereotypes?

    You admitted that your personal memory is more important than evidence.

    Now you are lying. I admitted no such thing.

    I rather think that evidence trumps memory, don’t you?

    Indeed. But the problem for you is that you have no evidence my memories are flawed. In essence, my memory trumped you. You came here swaggering about my “gross misrepresentation.” You then shrouded your accusation in a blizzard of words. I then spent five minutes writing up a reply that defeated your long-winded comment. Since then, you have had a meltdown, hurling out accusations, trying to change the topic, etc. That’s how I can tell you have been defeated. If your accusation was solid, you would stick to it and focus on it like a laser beam, forcing me into the awkward position of not being able to defend myself, yet being unwilling to admit I am wrong. Instead, you are trying to distract everyone with melodrama and rape apologist accusations – a looong way from the topic of my blog posting.

    It’s easy for a person to refer to memory when they have an axe to grind.

    Yet my memory defeated you.

    It’s rather better to refer to actual evidence.

    I hold ya to that…..

    I don’t think that all christians are stupid, dishonest or mentally ill. I suspect you, personally of being dishonest in this post and in your replies, but I don’t tar anyone else with the same brush. My parents are christians, for example, and while I think they’re wrong about a lot of things, they are rarely dishonest, as far as I know.

    I see. So your memory and personal testimony trumps evidence, eh? You’ve just made two claims that are not supported by the tiniest shred of evidence. How do we know you are not lying about all this? Do you expect us to accept those claims on faith?

    Not at all. I’m saying *you* might be stupid, not Christians. It’s hilarious how you take an insult aimed at you and pretend it’s aimed at all christians. It isn’t. It’s aimed at you. I’m saying that you aren’t very bright. There are many highly intelligent christians, dude.You’re just not one of them.

    Yet this dumb Christian defeated you, as evidenced by your inability to support your contention of my blog post being full of “gross mischaracterizations.”

    Look, people in glass houses should not throw rocks. It would seem to me that smart people would have steered clear of the crackpots and extremists who headed the failed New Atheist movement a long time ago (wasn’t Dawkins hanging out with the Rational Response Squad a good clue for you?). But your bought into their act. Did you ever send any money to any of these atheist organizations? Did you once believe that David Silverman was one of the “good guys?” Maybe that explains your over-compensation.

  64. Kevin says:

    I read through the two linked Nugent threads. It’s quite telling that progressivism is so disconnected from reality that it’s impossible to tell if latsot is trolling.

    I suspect it’s deflection. The only reason to cry about someone not wanting women to get raped, the only reason to attack their character for defending women, is because rape is useful to latsot and his ilk as a tool for recruiting women to the progressive cause. The best way to recruit people to a political movement is through a crisis, so to someone like latsot, advocating that women not be armed with protective strategies leads to more women getting raped and potentially joining the progressive movement and shifting power in the desired direction.

    That’s assuming latsot isn’t a rapist himself, which could be a valid suspicion against someone acting irrationally, attacking people who are trying to keep women safe, and trying to keep women ignorant of preventative measures. Sounds like what a rapist might do.

  65. Michael says:

    When I noted that latsot was defending a guy who posted a link to pictures of women being raped by octopuses, latsot replied:

    What women were those? Were they real women raped by real octopuses or were they paintings? If you seriously feel that ironic posting of pictures like those are terrible

    Spoken like a rape apologist. Latsot’s hero posted a link to some rape porn and latsot defends it because it used artistic drawings and paintings of women being raped by octopuses.

    but failing to listen to actual real women who tell you to stop fucking them is a-ok, then you’ve definitely painted a picture of yourself we can both agree with.

    Your bizarre accusations are irrelevant. If you think rape victims ask for it, you’re a rape apologist. If you support rape apologists – as you obviously do – then you are a horrible person.

    You are dead wrong. I don’t think rape victims ask for it. If a woman says no, then it’s no. Period. I think rapists are both entirely and morally responsible for their horrendous actions. Look, you strike me as someone whose concern about rape is mostly “for show” and mostly because you think you can win internet arguments with it. I take it seriously enough that I think we should enact laws that actually reflect how serious it is. Let me share three proposals to see if you would agree.

    1. Treat rape porn the same as we treat child porn.

    2. Given that one half of sexual assaults involve alcohol, and given that alcohol is well known to cause people to consent to things they would not consent to when sober, implement stricter laws involving alcohol use. For example, what about making sex with an inebriated women similar to statutory rape? Of course, you’d have to write the law so only the victim could trigger it to keep Big Brother out of the picture. But it would seem to me this would greatly empower the victim by essentially removing the whole “he said/she said” dimension concerning consent. All the victim would have to show is that a)she was drunk and b) he had sex with her. What’s more, it’s actually possible to demonstrate both claims with scientific evidence.

    3. Given that rape is a horrific, life-destroying crime, what about giving prosecutors the option of invoking the death penalty? This is not to say that all rapists should be executed, but such a sentence should be available.

    Of course, the details could be ironed out, but I’m curious if you, latsot, would support the general thrust of these three laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.