Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 10, 2018, 08:47:54 AM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/lawrence-krauss-arizona-state.html
-
OK, so some professor's been accused of misconduct and suspended while an investigation tales place - he's denied the accusations and has produced a lengthy rebuttal.
Why is his antitheism (if he is - I'd never heard of him) relevant?
Why is this in the Theism and Atheism section?
-
OK, so some professor's been accused of misconduct and suspended while an investigation tales place - he's denied the accusations and has produced a lengthy rebuttal.
Why is his antitheism (if he is - I'd never heard of him) relevant?
Why is this in the Theism and Atheism section?
It is not relevent; it is just a Christian trying to negate the various accusations made against the clergy - which have often been proven to be true!
-
Prominent Christian banned from the FSA!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300603
As Krauss's atheism is no more relevant to his story than this joker's Christianity is relevant to his, even by Vlad''s standards this is pretty contemptible.
-
Prominent Christian banned from the FSA!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300603
As Krauss's atheism is no more relevant to his story than this joker's Christianity is relevant to his,
Is that very relevant or not relevant at all?
Krauss's atheism hasn't been mentioned. Only his antitheism.
-
Is he a prominent antitheist? Never heard of him.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/lawrence-krauss-arizona-state.html
I don't understand why his non belief is mentioned, it is what he is accused of doing, which is news.
-
I don't understand why his non belief is mentioned, it is what he is accused of doing, which is news.
His non belief is not mentioned by me, Only his antitheism.
Apparently he eschews the title atheist but publicly identifies as an antitheist.
-
His non belief is not mentioned by me, Only his antitheism.
Apparently he eschews the title atheist but publicly identifies as an antitheist.
Whatever, but it hasn't anything to do with the sexual misconduct accusations.
-
Yes LR
Leave it out, has no impact.
-
Here’s what the article actually says:
“Arizona State University has suspended Lawrence M. Krauss, a prominent theoretical physicist, while the university investigates accusations of sexual misconduct over a decade.
“In an effort to avoid further disruption to the normal course of business as the university continues to gather facts about the allegations, Krauss has been placed on paid leave and is prohibited from being on campus for the duration of the review,” the university said in a statement released on Tuesday.
Last month, BuzzFeed reported that several women have accused Dr. Krauss of inappropriate behavior including groping women and making sexist jokes.
The university said it would not release any additional details until its investigation is complete.
Dr. Krauss, a professor in the university’s School of Earth and Space Exploration, is director of Arizona State’s Origins Project, a multidisciplinary research effort to tackle questions about life, the universe and complex social problems. He gained prominence for his book, “The Physics of Star Trek” in 1995. He later became one of the leaders of the so-called “skeptics” movement that espouses science over religion. He has also written essays and Op-Ed articles that were published in The Times.”
And he’s how Vladdo twised it:
“Prominent antitheist suspended”
Not “prominent theoretical physicist suspended” (as the article says), not ”prominent academic suspended”, nor even “prominent science writer suspended”. Nope, he attempts the slur by first eliding “skeptic” into “antitheist”, and then by associating it with the suspension as if there was a relationship between the two.
It’s disgraceful stuff, but I for one expect no better.
-
Hillside my only statement on this is that he is a prominent antitheist and he has been suspended. Suspension is a neutral act. He has then as far as we know done nothing.
-
Hillside my only statement on this is that he is a prominent antitheist and he has been suspended. Suspension is a neutral act. He has then as far as we know done nothing.
Bullshit
-
Anyone is able to read exactly what I have said on this thread.
-
Anyone is able to read exactly what I have said on this thread.
Quite. Coming soon from the Vlad the ad hominist the next time Theresa May or Tony Blair or David Cameron is accused of something he doesn’t like:
“Prominent Christian….etc”
Or perhaps not.
-
The difference between prominent Christians committing sexual assault and prominent atheists is zero in terms of the seriousness of the offence. However, it’s only Christians that try To force medieval morality on the rest of us.
-
Quite. Coming soon from the Vlad the ad hominist the next time Theresa May or Tony Blair or David Cameron is accused of something he doesn’t like:
“Prominent Christian….etc”
Or perhaps not.
Bad analogy since the person in question is prominent as and for being an antitheist whereas the current and former Prime ministers are not particularly prominent for their religion.
Religionethics is precisely the place one would find reference to prominent antitheists. Why then the consternation?
-
Bad analogy since the person in question is prominent as and for being an antitheist
I thought he was 'prominent' for being academic theoretical physicist.
-
Prof,
I thought he was 'prominent' for being academic theoretical physicist.
He is, and for being an academic, a Star Trek commentator, a biographer, a cosmologist, the Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project. He's also a prominent advocate of the public understanding of science.
What Vlad did was to pick the one characteristic he wanted to slur (his atheism), re-describe is as "antitheism" (something he does a lot, being a dysphemist) and then attempt the nasty little slur by implied association (""Prominent antitheist suspended").
Actually it's only a story about an academic being suspended because of an accusation - presumably a not uncommon experience in academia - and reporting it here even without the slur would at best be just gossip.
-
Prof,
He is, and for being an academic, a Star Trek commentator, a biographer, a cosmologist, the Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project. He's also a prominent advocate of the public understanding of science.
And he's a prominent antitheist.
-
What Vlad did was to pick the one characteristic he wanted to slur (his atheism), re-describe is as "antitheism"
Did he not described himself as an antitheist at the World Economic Forum?
-
Wow, one of the sleaziest OPs I've seen.
-
Did he not described himself as an antitheist at the World Economic Forum?
No idea: since you mention it perhaps you should check and let us know.
-
No idea: since you mention it perhaps you should check and let us know.
Here he is. Check at three minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow
-
Wow, one of the sleaziest OPs I've seen.
Pretty much.
-
I don't get how the man's beliefs have anything to do with his alleged misconduct. It would be the same regardless.
-
Wiggs,
Wow, one of the sleaziest OPs I've seen.
Yup - doesn't get much more contemptible really. Let's dig down through any manner of awards, accolades, achievements until I find something about him I don't like (that also happens to be one of the least significant and interesting things about him) then let's associate that with his suspension in an OP in the hope some of the mud sticks to it.
I have no words really.
-
Robbie,
I don't get how the man's beliefs have anything to do with his alleged misconduct. It would be the same regardless.
They haven't. Vlad's attempting an associative slur.
-
Wiggs,
Yup - doesn't get much more contemptible really. Let's dig down through any manner of awards, accolades, achievements until I find something about him I don't like (that also happens to be one of the least significant and interesting things about him) then let's associate that with his suspension in an OP in the hope some of the mud sticks to it.
I have no words really.
So, Hillside. How would you describe yourself here? A defender of Krauss, A defender of antitheism, or an attacker of Vlad?
-
So, Hillside. How would you describe yourself here? A defender of Krauss, A defender of antitheism, or an attacker of Vlad?
He doesn't really need to do that
-
Wow, one of the sleaziest OPs I've seen.
What else do you expect from this poster on this subject? Objectivity?
-
I don't get how the man's beliefs have anything to do with his alleged misconduct. It would be the same regardless.
Closer research of the case would answer your questions on this.
-
Presumably the link was posted to make a point. If that point was expressed it might be easier to discuss it.
-
Presumably the link was posted to make a point. If that point was expressed it might be easier to discuss it.
Many threads start with a link and discussion ensues because people have read it. I can understand why there is unease at discussing this topic.
-
Many threads start with a link and discussion ensues because people have read it
I read it and my reaction was in reply #1:
OK, so some professor's been accused of misconduct and suspended while an investigation tales place - he's denied the accusations and has produced a lengthy rebuttal.
Why is his antitheism (if he is - I'd never heard of him) relevant?
Why is this in the Theism and Atheism section?
My questions still stand.
-
I read it and my reaction was in reply #1:
My questions still stand.
This should indicate why this case is of interest to this forum.
https://americanhumanist.org/press-releases/aha-cuts-ties-with-lawrence-krauss/
-
This should indicate why this case is of interest to this forum.
https://americanhumanist.org/press-releases/aha-cuts-ties-with-lawrence-krauss/
And....?
-
And....?
I make no further comment. There are as Jerry Coyne puts it in his blog concerning the affair ''Finders of fact'' working on the impact on the scientific community and presumably also the atheist and skeptic community and I feel we need to wait for there findings.
Only in that light can the implications for New atheism unfold and presumably atheists and skeptics judged on their response to this.
-
The only "story" here concerns an attempt by a poster at a nasty little slur by association. As for Krauss, an academic has been suspended pending investigation of some accusations of misconduct made against him. Whether innocent, guilty or somewhere in between has bugger all to do with the quality of his work in the various fields in which he operates.
-
The only "story" here concerns an attempt by a poster at a nasty little slur by association.
Whether a ''move on nothing to see here'' or a ''shoot the messenger'' approach in the light of the implications of this and the response by several organisations and key personalities in non religious organisations and movements is ultimately appropriate depends on the final implications including the result of findings.
-
Whether innocent, guilty or somewhere in between has bugger all to do with the quality of his work in the various fields in which he operates.
I haven't suggested it is. Red herring argument.
-
Many threads start with a link and discussion ensues because people have read it. I can understand why there is unease at discussing this topic.
You must have had a reason for posting the link. There isn't unease at discussing the topic. The unease is about any point you were trying to make.
-
I make no further comment. There are as Jerry Coyne puts it in his blog concerning the affair ''Finders of fact'' working on the impact on the scientific community and presumably also the atheist and skeptic community and I feel we need to wait for there findings.
Only in that light can the implications for New atheism unfold and presumably atheists and skeptics judged on their response to this.
You say you make no further comment- then do.
Why would an individual who is a scientist, atheist and a self declared antitheist being accused of this have anything to do with the scientific community, New Atheism, atheists etc? Please explain why you think it should.
-
You must have had a reason for posting the link. There isn't unease at discussing the topic. The unease is about any point you were trying to make.
If there is no unease about discussing the topic one wonders why it isn't being discussed. I can see reasons why atheists and antitheists would rather focus on me ( according to Hillside I am the ''only'' story) than the topic and the implications of it.
-
If there is no unease about discussing the topic one wonders why it isn't being discussed. I can see reasons why atheists and antitheists would rather focus on me ( according to Hillside I am the ''only'' story) than the topic and the implications of it.
What topic and what implications?
Some guy who's a scientist and an atheist has been accused of misconduct - whether he turns out to be guilty or not, I don't see what there is to discuss or what implications there might be for theism or atheism (this section of the forum).
-
If there is no unease about discussing the topic one wonders why it isn't being discussed. I can see reasons why atheists and antitheists would rather focus on me ( according to Hillside I am the ''only'' story) than the topic and the implications of it.
What do you want discussed?
It is because you posted trying to make some point that people are talking about that rather than what you hoped people would be talking about. Come clean on what point you were trying to make.
-
I don't get it either. PrivateF please explain what you mean, plainly.
-
What do you want discussed?
It is because you posted trying to make some point that people are talking about that rather than what you hoped people would be talking about. Come clean on what point you were trying to make.
What I would hope would be discussed is the issue but I do understand people reserving comment until they have further data. But then they would say this and /or find more data/information.
What I cannot understand is given the issue some have concluded that the only issue here is what I personally am up to. Unless they are using it as a diversion from the main issue.
-
What I would hope would be discussed is the issue but I do understand people reserving comment until they have further data. But then they would say this and /or find more data/information.
What I cannot understand is given the issue some have concluded that the only issue here is what I personally am up to. Unless they are using it as a diversion from the main issue.
You keep being asked what issue/what implication and your answer to that here is no answer. So for about the 30th time in this thread. WHAT ISSUE/ WHAT IMPLICATIONS?
-
What I would hope would be discussed is the issue but I do understand people reserving comment until they have further data. But then they would say this and /or find more data/information.
What I cannot understand is given the issue some have concluded that the only issue here is what I personally am up to. Unless they are using it as a diversion from the main issue.
What issue do you mean?
-
What topic and what implications?
Some guy who's a scientist and an atheist has been accused of misconduct - whether he turns out to be guilty or not, I don't see what there is to discuss or what implications there might be for theism or atheism (this section of the forum).
Reference to the AHA link demonstrates the implications for atheist and humanist communities .
-
Reference to the AHA link demonstrates the implications for atheist and humanist communities .
In what way? Again asked for yet another time.
-
In what way? Again asked for yet another time.
Are you asking what I think the implications are? I don't want to publicly comment on that at the moment.
The AHA have given a statement on the significance for them and they have been linked. I don't therefore understand why you'd rather interrogate me.
-
What I cannot understand is given the issue some have concluded that the only issue here is what I personally am up to. Unless they are using it as a diversion from the main issue.
The only issue is what Vlad is up to - ie, putting "antitheist" and "suspended" together in the hope of slurring one by implied association with the the other.
There is no other "main issue".
-
The only issue is what Vlad is up to - ie, putting "antitheist" and "suspended" together in the hope of slurring one by implied association with the the other.
There is no other "main issue".
Hillside, was a prominent antitheist suspended or not?
Why was this prominent antitheist suspended? Is the reason ''not an issue?''
-
Are you asking what I think the implications are? I don't want to publicly comment on that at the moment.
The AHA have given a statement on the significance for them and they have been linked. I don't therefore understand why you'd rather interrogate me.
Because you think and have said there are implications and issues and have been asked what you think they are. Why are you evading answering continually?
-
Here's what the World Economic Forum tells us Krauss is actually "prominent" for:
Theoretical Physicist. Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University. Chair of the Board, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Member of the Board, Federation of American Scientists. Director, Origins Project, exploring issues from the origin of universe to consciousness. Columnist. Author of several international bestselling books. Subject of a feature film documentary. Recipient of awards: Lilienfeld Prize, APS; Oersted Medal, AAPT; Gemant Award, AIP & NSF Public Welfare Medal, the only physicist to have been awarded all three prizes by major US physics organizations. Research interests: interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology.
https://www.weforum.org/people/lawrence-m-krauss
None of which would have anything to do with the accusations he faces in any case.
Here's what Vlad posted to make his slur by association:
"Prominent antitheist suspended".
Disgraceful, and not made any better by the floundering for a justification that's followed.
-
Because you think and have said there are implications and issues and have been asked what you think they are. Why are you evading answering continually?
I'm not have given links to where the implications and links are outlined and also I have said that I will outline what I think they are in future.
-
Here's what the World Economic Forum tells us Krauss is actually "prominent" for:
Theoretical Physicist. Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University. Chair of the Board, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Member of the Board, Federation of American Scientists. Director, Origins Project, exploring issues from the origin of universe to consciousness. Columnist. Author of several international bestselling books. Subject of a feature film documentary. Recipient of awards: Lilienfeld Prize, APS; Oersted Medal, AAPT; Gemant Award, AIP & NSF Public Welfare Medal, the only physicist to have been awarded all three prizes by major US physics organizations. Research interests: interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology.
https://www.weforum.org/people/lawrence-m-krauss
Not a full account of his activities I'm afraid. You can't go far wrong with Wikipedia though.
-
Not a full account of his activities I'm afraid. You can't go far wrong with Wikipedia though.
In which Vlad goes wrong twice:
1. He regularly does "go far wrong" when his references to Wiki blow up in his face; and
2. "A full account of" and "being prominent for" are not the same thing at all.
-
In which Vlad goes wrong twice:
1. He regularly does "go far wrong" when his references to Wiki blow up in his face; and
I think people can read wikipedia for themselves, don't you Hillside.
-
I'm not have given links to where the implications and links are outlined and also I have said that I will outline what I think they are in future.
You have said you think there are issues and implications, just refused to answer when asked what they are and then chided others for not knowing what they are. It's a deeply dishonest approach.
-
You have said you think there are issues and implications, just refused to answer when asked what they are and then chided others for not knowing what they are. It's a deeply dishonest approach.
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
There is ample information through links given by me to get the idea. If you haven't read the press release from the American Humanist association I suggest you do so in full.
-
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
There is ample information through links given by me to get the idea. If you haven't read the press release from the American Humanist association I suggest you do so in full.
No, we will have to agree as you just have here that despite being asked multiple times you haven't answered what you see as the issues and implications. Stop lying
-
PrivateF, I got this from your link"-
“It’s deeply disappointing when someone we’ve honored, and who regularly speaks to the world representing humanists everywhere, fails to meet our expectations. When a prominent humanist’s commitment to reason, compassion, and egalitarianism appears to be fundamentally compromised by his or her behavior, we must act on our disappointment to ensure that the world understands humanists at large don’t condone such misconduct,”
However if you're trying to compare this case to cases where religious people have committed sexual misdemeanours, there's a vast difference.
A religious person may well use religiosity as a cover for acts of abuse, almost a protection, which is horrendous & is how so many got away with it in the past.
An 'antitheist' as you describe him is not going to be able to hide behind his antitheism any more than an eminent geographer would be shielded by geography.
-
NS,
It's a deeply dishonest approach.
Standard Vlad playbook bait and switch: claim something to be the case, refuse to tell us what it is, demand that other tell him what it is, criticise them for not knowing.
Presumably if Krauss had happened to be a collector of matchboxes Vlad wouldn't have posted, "Prominent matchbox collector suspended" though.
Funny that.
-
NS,
Presumably if Krauss had happened to be a collector of matchboxes Vlad wouldn't have posted, "Prominent matchbox collector suspended" though.
Funny that.
Pure conjecture and another example of Hillside's mind reading act. I'm sure it would be appropriately mentioned on a matchbox collectors site.
-
I'm not have given links to where the implications and links are outlined and also I have said that I will outline what I think they are in future.
But the links do not contain any general implications. This guy has been accused and those organisations that he is associated with have taken the actions they think appropriate with regard to him.
What do you think are the implications?
-
But the links do not contain any general implications. This guy has been accused and those organisations that he is associated with have taken the actions they think appropriate with regard to him.
What do you think are the implications?
I think it's too soon to say and I wouldn't want to prejudice anything. That's me...... though implications are already occuring in the New Atheist community.
-
I think it's too soon to say and I wouldn't want to prejudice anything. That's me...... though implications are already occuring in the New Atheist community.
Apart from being further evasion/lying here, it's also nonsensical. You have already said you have given links covering the issues/implications and chided people for not reading them fully, and now you say it is too soon to say but that are already implications. Fatuous lying drivel
-
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/16511467-the-lawrence-krauss-affair
https://forum.samharris.org/?URL=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3vuBhKPy1As
-
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/16511467-the-lawrence-krauss-affair
https://forum.samharris.org/?URL=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3vuBhKPy1As
And? What implicatiins /issues do you think there are?
-
I think it's too soon to say and I wouldn't want to prejudice anything.
You started the discussion!
That's me...... though implications are already occuring in the New Atheist community.
Like what? What the fuck has this guy's alleged actions got to do with atheism or theism (this forum section) in general? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that somebody with similar views in a similar situation, was actually found to be guilty of this sort of thing - then what?
And who hell is the "New Atheist community" anyway?
-
Pure conjecture and another example of Hillside's mind reading act. I'm sure it would be appropriately mentioned on a matchbox collectors site.
Where the members who are brighter and less scummy than Vlad would say:
1. Why have you posted this at all as it’s just a story about an academic facing charges so there’s nothing relevant to discuss?
2. If you must post it why do it here rather than in journals dedicated to the fields of endeavour for which he’s better known, like physics and cosmology?
3. What the hell does this have to do with the merits or demerits of phillumenism in any case, despite your sleazy attempt to link it with allegations of misconduct?
-
Apart from being further evasion/lying here, it's also nonsensical. You have already said you have given links covering the issues/implications and chided people for not reading them fully, and now you say it is too soon to say but that are already implications. Fatuous lying drivel
Do people contributing to this post look as though they are acknowledging the issue here and it's implications for Theism and atheism? I would say they look as if they aren't and that isn't a good look.
I acknowledge Robbies statement that the religious find themselves in the same position. But it remains that a) Communities have to take accusations seriously b) that the suspension of links between prominent atheists and atheist organisations is a significant development in the history of contemporary atheism c) that Dr Krauss is the subject of enquiry and not as yet judgment and thus the question is are the suspension of links justified?
And in view of that what are we to make of using this thread, rather than in consideration of all this, to jump on Vlad. That looks the Fred and Ginger of displacement behaviour.
-
I think it's too soon to say and I wouldn't want to prejudice anything. That's me...... though implications are already occuring in the New Atheist community.
What implications?
-
Do people contributing to this post look as though they are acknowledging the issue here and it's implications for Theism and atheism? I would say they look as if they aren't and that isn't a good look.
Presumably because there's fuck all reason to think there is an "issue" for "antitheism" as Vlad puts it, despite his being asked to suggest one several times now.
-
I acknowledge Robbies statement that the religious find themselves in the same position.
That wasn't Robbie's statement. Robbie's statement was that religious people have a particular problem when their religious beliefs are actually relevant to the charges against them.
You know, exactly unlike the Krauss case...
-
Do people contributing to this post look as though they are acknowledging the issue here and it's implications for Theism and atheism? I would say they look as if they aren't and that isn't a good look.
I acknowledge Robbies statement that the religious find themselves in the same position. But it remains that a) Communities have to take accusations seriously b) that the suspension of links between prominent atheists and atheist organisations is a significant development in the history of contemporary atheism c) that Dr Krauss is the subject of enquiry and not as yet judgment and thus the question is are the suspension of links justified?
And in view of that what are we to make of using this thread, rather than in consideration of all this, to jump on Vlad. That looks the Fred and Ginger of displacement behaviour.
What implications? Why are you just ignoring posts that ask you that? And then misrepresenting them? Why are you continually lying? Why the need to be so dishonest? Robbie asked the question and you have ignored that and tgen used her as if she didn't. Why do you lie so much?
-
Do people contributing to this post look as though they are acknowledging the issue here and it's implications for Theism and atheism?
What implications? Why won't you say?
-
NS,
Robbie asked the question and you have ignored that and tgen used her as if she didn't.
Actually what he did was lie about Robbie's statement by claiming it to say one thing (that religious people are in the same position as non-religious ones) when in fact it expressly said the opposite of that - ie, that there's a big difference with religious people when their religiosity is relevant to the story:
"However if you're trying to compare this case to cases where religious people have committed sexual misdemeanours, there's a vast difference.
A religious person may well use religiosity as a cover for acts of abuse, almost a protection, which is horrendous & is how so many got away with it in the past.
An 'antitheist' as you describe him is not going to be able to hide behind his antitheism any more than an eminent geographer would be shielded by geography."
-
What implications? Why are you just ignoring posts that ask you that? And then misrepresenting them? Why are you continually lying? Why the need to be so dishonest? Robbie asked the question and you have ignored that and tgen used her as if she didn't. Why do you lie so much?
I don't think I have to spell out what questions will be asked whichever way this case pans out..... whichever sand the wee corner of the atheist community known as religionethics have their heads buried or not.
-
I don't think I have to spell out what questions will be asked whichever way this case pans out.
Er yes , I rather suggest you do. Can you please stop lying by evasion? Or is it something you cannot stop?
-
I don't think I have to spell out what questions will be asked whichever way this case pans out.
In which Vlad just pretends that that isn't exactly what he has to do if the charge of slurring "antitheism" (or atheism, or humanism) by implying a link with misconduct charges isn't to stick.
-
You do PvteFrazier! Will people say, "For shame, what else are these antitheist academics hiding? They're all the same, can't trust any of them". No!
If I was HR manager of a big city firm and an executive in that firm was accused of sexual misconduct, I would issue a statement along the lines of, "We take the allegations seriously....have strict company policies... suspended pending further investigations".
Whilst I & others might feel worried, upset, disappointed, embarrassed, in no way would the accused person be able to hide behind their executive role, nor would anyone think their role had anything to do with the accusations.
-
You do PvteFrazier! Will people say, "For shame, what else are these antitheist academics hiding? They're all the same, can't trust any of them". No!
If I was HR manager of a big city firm and an executive in that firm was accused of sexual misconduct, I would issue a statement along the lines of, "We take the allegations seriously....have strict company policies... suspended pending further investigations".
Whilst I & others might feel worried, upset, disappointed, embarrassed, in no way would the accused person be able to hide behind their executive role, nor would anyone think their role had anything to do with the accusations.
Yes and multiple organisations have taken this route in the case in question.
-
Yes and multiple organisations have taken this route in the case in question.
So they have: so why aren't you satisfied that steps to review his conduct are in progress, since you concede that they are in progress?
-
So they have: so why aren't you satisfied that steps to review his conduct are in progress, since you concede that they are in progress?
Are you talking to me?
-
Are you talking to me?
And tonight Matthew, I will be being Travis Bickle
-
Are you talking to me?
Seems that way, since I quoted your post. Do pay attention!
-
Yes and multiple organisations have taken this route in the case in question.
As one would expect - so what? What are the these implications for theism and/or atheism that you keep going on about...?
-
So they have: so why aren't you satisfied that steps to review his conduct are in progress, since you concede that they are in progress?
I haven't expressed dissatisfaction! Keep up Gordon!
What I am saying is that there is great movement in the wider atheist community. Unfortunately the only movement of that part of the atheist and skeptic community on this thread seems to be moving swiftly on nothing to see here and the shooting of the messenger and of course the rotation of the house turdpolisher.
-
What I am saying is that there is great movement in the wider atheist community.
Is there? Where? What's moving?
-
I don't think I have to spell out what questions will be asked whichever way this case pans out..... whichever sand the wee corner of the atheist community known as religionethics have their heads buried or not.
You've suggested there are implications. You shouild be able to say what they are in your view.
-
Is there? Where? What's moving?
Sphincters........I would imagine.
-
I haven't expressed dissatisfaction! Keep up Gordon!
What I am saying is that there is great movement in the wider atheist community. Unfortunately the only movement of that part of the atheist and skeptic community on this thread seems to be moving swiftly on nothing to see here and the shooting of the messenger and of course the rotation of the house turdpolisher.
So if your are happy the accusations are being investigated why are you indulging in both unrelated character assassination (his scientific work is a separate matter) or implying that his alleged behaviour has wider 'implications' involving atheism, where you have yet to set out what you think these implications are?
-
Hey Vlad, what about this prominent theist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell)?
-
Hey Vlad, what about this prominent theist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell)?
He is being tried isn't he. If found guilty he will have ruined the lives of his victims and IMV countless others as well.
-
So if your are happy the accusations are being investigated why are you indulging in both unrelated character assassination
I'm not.
-
I'm not.
yep, your aren't. Lying on the other hand and evasion about the implications/issues, you are doing lots
-
I'm not.
So, when in response to it being pointed out that organisations tend to suspend and investigate you said 'multiple organisations have taken this route in the case in question', which read to me like an acknowledgement that these accusations against Krauss are being investigated, what exactly are you unhappy about?
-
So, when in response to it being pointed out that organisations tend to suspend and investigate you said 'multiple organisations have taken this route in the case in question', which read to me like an acknowledgement that these accusations against Krauss are being investigated, what exactly are you unhappy about?
I think you are probably talking about my observation that rather commenting on it or not posters are acting as if the issue is me raising the issue rather than the issue itself.
-
I think you are probably talking about my observation that rather commenting on it or not posters are acting as if the issue is me raising the issue rather than the issue itself.
you mean the 'issue' that lots of posters have asked what it is, and you haven't answered and are lying about? Why are you lying?
-
I think you are probably talking about my observation that rather commenting on it or not posters are acting as if the issue is me raising the issue rather than the issue itself.
I suspect some of us are wondering why you are making such a meal of this: nobody seems to be disagreeing that his suspension is a necessary part of the investigation process.
Why would antitheists or atheists want to divert attention away from a report of a prominent antitheist accused of misconduct and other prominent atheists and atheist and humanist organisations suspending links?
Nobody is: we all agree that these accusations require investigation and that while this is ongoing his professional positions are untenable.
We've seen similar scenarios with the likes of sports people, entertainers and politicians but you alone here seem to think the case of Krauss is fundamentally different because he is a known atheist, and I've no idea why your cage is so rattled on this aspect: perhaps you'd enlighten us as to your specific concerns (which remain a mystery).
-
I think you are probably talking about my observation that rather commenting on it or not posters are acting as if the issue is me raising the issue rather than the issue itself.
Private Fraser,
The allegations are serious and if proven to be true then appropriate action should be taken. Such behaviour is not acceptable. He has denied the allegations and they are being investigated.
Why is his antitheism relevant?
-
you mean the 'issue' that lots of posters have asked what it is, and you haven't answered and are lying about? Why are you lying?
Lots of people asked what the issue is. Answer prominent antitheist suspended. When did I not supply that?
When the record is cast will they say ''The Krauss affair.....They did some serious burying of that on religionethics''?
-
Private Fraser,
The allegations are serious and if proven to be true then appropriate action should be taken. Such behaviour is not acceptable. He has denied the allegations and they are being investigated.
Why is his antitheism relevant?
If you have read the documents and links I don't understand why you are asking that.
-
Lots of people asked what the issue is. Answer prominent antitheist suspended. When did I not supply that?
When the record is cast will they say ''The Krauss affair.....They did some serious burying of that on religionethics''?
No one has buried it. From the first reply it was addressed.
-
If you have read the documents and links I don't understand why you are asking that.
I have, but do not see what you are getting at. Why not just state it?
-
I suspect some of us are wondering why you are making such a meal of this: nobody seems to be disagreeing that his suspension is a necessary part of the investigation process.
Nobody is: we all agree that these accusations require investigation and that while this is ongoing his professional positions are untenable.
We've seen similar scenarios with the likes of sports people, entertainers and politicians but you alone here seem to think the case of Krauss is fundamentally different because he is a known atheist, and I've no idea why your cage is so rattled on this aspect: perhaps you'd enlighten us as to your specific concerns (which remain a mystery).
Sorry Gordon once again I don't recognise myself as the subject of your post.
-
Lots of people asked what the issue is. Answer prominent antitheist suspended. When did I not supply that?
When the record is cast will they say ''The Krauss affair.....They did some serious burying of that on religionethics''?
More lying! No one has said you haven't said that but asked what the significance is? And you ignore again. Do you like lying? Does it excite you in some way?
-
If you have read the documents and links I don't understand why you are asking that.
And yet people are, and you continue to evade in your dishonest approach. Why lie?
-
More lying! No one has said you haven't said that but asked what the significance is? And you ignore again. Do you like lying? Does it excite you in some way?
For heaven's sake. Do you not know the associations here? Are you not aware of the potential shitstorm?
I cannot help you people.
-
Lots of people asked what the issue is. Answer prominent antitheist suspended. When did I not supply that?
When the record is cast will they say ''The Krauss affair.....They did some serious burying of that on religionethics''?
why are you lying when no one has buried anything except you refusing to answer the questions and misrepresenting Robbie? Why be so deeply dishonest?
-
For heaven's sake. Do you not know the associations here? Are you not aware of the potential shitstorm?
I cannot help you people.
You can't help people if you evade and lie as you choose to lie. Again what associations/implications/issues (add whatever other word you want to add to evade)? Stop lying and evading.
-
For heaven's sake. Do you not know the associations here? Are you not aware of the potential shitstorm?
I cannot help you people.
Why not just say what you are getting at? Aren't you really sure?
-
For heaven's sake. Do you not know the associations here? Are you not aware of the potential shitstorm?
I cannot help you people.
Do we need your help, Private?
I'm not aware of any potential shitstorm except for the accused and his accusers. It isn't going to taint the organisation for which he works or his colleagues any more than a groper in a garment factory taints the reputation of the garments. It isn't a care home for goodness sake or a cult, a young offenders' institution, a hospital or a prison, all of which attract abusers. He's a scientist, if he's guilty it won't impact the scientific community, only him.
The matter is being dealt with in an open and correct way which is what one would expect of a professional organisation.
You think we don't 'get' what you're implying, which you refuse to explain coherently; I believe we do understand but am pretty sure you don't have an inkling about what any of us are meaning.
-
Do we need your help, Private?
I'm not aware of any potential shitstorm except for the accused and his accusers. It isn't going to taint the organisation for which he works or his colleagues any more than a groper in a garment factory taints the reputation of the garments. It isn't a care home for goodness sake or a cult, a young offenders' institution, a hospital or a prison, all of which attract abusers. He's a scientist, if he's guilty it won't impact the scientific community, only him.
The matter is being dealt with in an open and correct way which is what one would expect of a professional organisation.
You think we don't 'get' what you're implying, which you refuse to explain coherently; I believe we do understand but am pretty sure you don't have an inkling about what any of us are meaning.
Good post, but I actually have no inkling about Vlad means. Thar's why I asked him so many times.
-
Did Vladdo ever manage to tell us what this supposed "issue" might be, or are we writing this off now as a failed slur by association?
Ta.
-
Did Vladdo ever manage to tell us what this supposed "issue" might be, or are we writing this off now as a failed slur by association?
Ta.
That will depend on which side religionethics atheists wish to be found at the resolution of the Krauss affair.
-
That will depend on which side religionethics atheists wish to be found at the resolution of the Krauss affair.
What?
-
That will depend on which side religionethics atheists wish to be found at the resolution of the Krauss affair.
So that's a "no" to the first question and a "yes" to the second then.
Thought so.
-
Do we need your help, Private?
I'm not aware of any potential shitstorm except for the accused and his accusers. It isn't going to taint the organisation for which he works or his colleagues any more than a groper in a garment factory taints the reputation of the garments. It isn't a care home for goodness sake or a cult, a young offenders' institution, a hospital or a prison, all of which attract abusers. He's a scientist, if he's guilty it won't impact the scientific community, only him.
The matter is being dealt with in an open and correct way which is what one would expect of a professional organisation.
You think we don't 'get' what you're implying, which you refuse to explain coherently; I believe we do understand but am pretty sure you don't have an inkling about what any of us are meaning.
I can guess that by linking someone who is a self identified antitheist with such behaviour Private Fraser thinks this casts doubt on the ethical arguments out forward by antitheists. This is a guess but like to know then that can be discussed.
-
So that's a "no" to the first question and a "yes" to the second then.
Thought so.
So that's a nothing to see here let's move swiftly on then?
Good luck with that.
-
I can guess that by linking someone who is a self iddntified antitheistcwith such behaviour Private Fraser thinks this casts doubt on the ethical arguments out forward by antitheists. This is a guess but like to know then that can be discussed.
If he is linked to that behaviour what has that to do with me?
In any case the allegations are under investigation although other prominent atheists and secularist organisations have stated changes in their relationship with him.
-
Maeght,
I can guess that by linking someone who is a self iddntified antitheistcwith such behaviour Private Fraser thinks this casts doubt on the ethical arguments out forward by antitheists. This is a guess but like to know then that can be discussed.
He's such a tease isn't he. Not only is there apparently an "issue" (only he won't tell us what it is) but there's more to come it seems when some of us decide which "side" of this mysterious issue we're on. As the charges against Krauss appear to have bugger all to do with his physics, cosmology, published works, antitheism, atheism, humanism or anything else connected with his professional output I guess poor Vladdo's either going to have to man up and admit the slur or keep floundering.
I'm pretty sure I know which one he'll pick though.
-
If he is linked to that behaviour what has that to do with me?
You linked his behaviour with being an antitheist. He is many other things but you chose to make that link.
In any case the allegations are under investigation although other prominent atheists and secularist organisations have stated changes in their relationship with him.
So?
-
Maeght,
He's such a tease isn't he. Not only is there apparently an "issue" (only he won't tell us what it is) but there's more to come it seems when some of us decide which "side" of this mysterious issue we're on. As the charges against Krauss appear to have bugger all to do with his physics, cosmology, published works, antitheism, atheism, humanism or anything else connected with his professional output I guess poor Vladdo's either going to have to man up and admit the slur or keep floundering.
I'm pretty sure I know which one he'll pick though.
I think part of ther problem is that in someway there is an equivalence between theism and atheism in regard to being 'sides'. I am an atheist but bbeyindcthat have no association with this individual. Talk of atheist communities and the like baffle me, as does the idea of people like Dawkins being seen as leaders of an atheist movement.
-
I think part of ther problem is that in someway there is an equivalence between theism and atheism in regard to being 'sides'. I am an atheist but bbeyindcthat have no association with this individual. Talk of atheist communities and the like baffle me, as does the idea of people like Dawkins being seen as leaders of an atheist movement.
The term atheist community describes the atheist posse on religious ethics the leader of which is pretty obvious.
I wonder if what you are expressing is the dissolution of collective atheism.
-
You linked his behaviour with being an antitheist.
I have said the allegations are under investigation so what behaviour are you talking about?
-
The term atheist community describes the atheist posse on religious ethics the leader of which is pretty obvious.
I haven't a clue who you mean or, for that matter, what you're blabbering on about.
I wonder if what you are expressing is the dissolution of collective atheism.
I wasn't aware that "collective atheism" was ever a thing...
-
I wasn't aware that "collective atheism" was ever a thing...
Quick lads, scarper......? Ha ha ha.
-
I have said the allegations are under investigation so what behaviour are you talking about?
It is not the behaviour I am talking about, its that you chose to describe him as an antitheist thereby linking the alleged behaviour with his antitheism.
-
The term atheist community describes the atheist posse on religious ethics the leader of which is pretty obvious.
I wonder if what you are expressing is the dissolution of collective atheism.
No such thing.
-
What a disappointing thread, reminds me of the Python sketch where a chap pays for an argument then has to argue about whether he is having an argument or not, then whether it is good argument ...
The original Buzzfeed article (https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations?utm_term=.nnVMqvkLlJ#.rr54k9RJXP) has more information than the Times article linked in the OP. To my mind, it lays out the issues:
The behaviour of Krauss and/or other atheist/sceptic campaigners undermines their arguments that the scientific method can provide a basis for morality and that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.
These types of behaviour and attitudes he is accused of bring science itself into disrepute and fosters distrust and ridicule of it.
On the other hand: Maybe it is all fine, and we can continue with the long tradition of "science" conferences arranged to allow prominent figures to hook up with younger hopefuls?
-
What a disappointing thread, reminds me of the Python sketch where a chap pays for an argument then has to argue about whether he is having an argument or not, then whether it is good argument ...
The original Buzzfeed article (https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations?utm_term=.nnVMqvkLlJ#.rr54k9RJXP) has more information than the Times article linked in the OP. To my mind, it lays out the issues:
The behaviour of Krauss and/or other atheist/sceptic campaigners undermines their arguments that the scientific method can provide a basis for morality and that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.
These types of behaviour and attitudes he is accused of bring science itself into disrepute and fosters distrust and ridicule of it.
On the other hand: Maybe it is all fine, and we can continue with the long tradition of "science" conferences arranged to allow prominent figures to hook up with younger hopefuls?
Has he made the case that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.? Even if he has his behaviour then would simply be an ad hominem fallacy. It neither validates or invalidates the argument. And if it creates disrepute for science then Thar's just irrational. He isn't science. It doesn't affect whether what he has published is right or wrong.
And all the science aspect wouldn't explain what it has to do with being antitheist.
-
Yes, I'm curious about the quote that science overcomes misogyny. Any link to that quote?
-
Yes, I'm curious about the quote that science overcomes misogyny. Any link to that quote?
Actually, I just copied the quote from the Buzzfeed article.
-
Yes, I'm curious about the quote that science overcomes misogyny. Any link to that quote?
Even if it's a direct quote from Krauss, so what? It would be a stupid thing to say, but wouldn't affect whether his science was good. Personally I've always been iffy about him since the Epstein business but so what? My personal feelings about people don't mean I think everything they are associated with is then judged with those feelings.
-
Has he made the case that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.? Even if he has his behaviour then would simply be an ad hominem fallacy. It neither validates or invalidates the argument. And if it creates disrepute for science then Thar's just irrational. He isn't science. It doesn't affect whether what he has published is right or wrong.
And all the science aspect wouldn't explain what it has to do with being antitheist.
Rightly or wrongly these are often conflated.
-
Rightly or wrongly these are often conflated.
That would be 'wrongly'
-
Even if it's a direct quote from Krauss, so what? It would be a stupid thing to say, but wouldn't affect whether his science was good. Personally I've always been iffy about him since the Epstein business but so what? My personal feelings about people don't mean I think everything they are associated with is then judged with those feelings.
Right, but isn't that the point: The output and actions of those proclaiming their own dispassionate objectivity and rationality, such as scientists pushing a methodology or philosophy, must be subject to the the same level of sceptical analysis as those of any religious or political campaigners.
-
Udayana,
What a disappointing thread, reminds me of the Python sketch where a chap pays for an argument then has to argue about whether he is having an argument or not, then whether it is good argument ...
How could it be other than disappointing given what it is – a slur by association?
The original Buzzfeed article has more information than the Times article linked in the OP. To my mind, it lays out the issues:
The behaviour of Krauss and/or other atheist/sceptic campaigners undermines their arguments that the scientific method can provide a basis for morality and that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.
First, how does the behaviour of someone making an argument undermine the merits of the argument? Would a murderer who argues, “murder is wrong” invalidate his argument because he’s a murderer?
Second, who argues that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias” in any case, and how?
These types of behaviour and attitudes he is accused of bring science itself into disrepute and fosters distrust and ridicule of it.
Only if people are stupid or unpleasant enough to conflate the science with the people doing it (see the OP for an example of the eror). Does great music for example somehow become less great if you find out the composer was a proto nazi?
On the other hand: Maybe it is all fine, and we can continue with the long tradition of "science" conferences arranged to allow prominent figures to hook up with younger hopefuls?
That’s as grotesque a distortion as Vlad’s OP. First, they’re just science conferences, not “science” conferences as you slyly imply; second, “hooking up with younger hopefuls” as you put it is an entirely stand alone matter from the science, and indeed from conferences in general.
Shame on you.
-
Right, but isn't that the point: The output and actions of those proclaiming their own dispassionate objectivity and rationality, such as scientists pushing a methodology or philosophy, must be subject to the the same level of sceptical analysis as those of any religious or political campaigners.
Has anyone suggested they shouldn't?
-
Science won't overcome mysogony.
This thread has been more about PF trying to make a point but not saying what that was clearly so it could be discussed.
-
Udayana,
How could it be other than disappointing given what it is – a slur by association?
First, how does the behaviour of someone making an argument undermine the merits of the argument? Would a murderer who argues, “murder is wrong” invalidate his argument because he’s a murderer?
Second, who argues that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias” in any case, and how?
Only if people are stupid or unpleasant enough to conflate the science with the people doing it (see the OP for an example of the eror). Does great music for example somehow become less great if you find out the composer was a proto nazi?
That’s as grotesque a distortion as Vlad’s OP. First, they’re just science conferences, not “science” conferences as you slyly imply; second, “hooking up with younger hopefuls” as you put it is an entirely stand alone matter from the science, and indeed from conferences in general.
Shame on you.
As long as people understand that attending science conferences, atheist meetings or whatever, is no different to attending any other large gathering of people, that is fine. My impression is that many do not, hence the accusations and issues reported.
-
There was never any attack on science on this thread. That is a red herring.
-
Right, but isn't that the point: The output and actions of those proclaiming their own dispassionate objectivity and rationality, such as scientists pushing a methodology or philosophy, must be subject to the the same level of sceptical analysis as those of any religious or political campaigners.
Of course they should. Anyone who seems to show that their own lack of objectivity and rationality is undermining their arguments should be subject to rigorous sceptical analysis. However the methodology/philosophy/religion/politics that they are advocating should always be subject to rigorous analysis too, as it stands or falls, not on the person proclaiming it, but on the arguments and evidence inherent/associated with that which they are proclaiming.
-
Has anyone suggested they shouldn't?
The responses on this thread will not go down in the annals of skepticism since it looks like an attempt to shoot the messenger and move swiftly on .There was even a post suggesting that We write this off.
-
As long as people understand that attending science conferences, atheist meetings or whatever, is no different to attending any other large gathering of people, that is fine. My impression is that many do not, hence the accusations and issues reported.
sorry, not sure what you are saying here. What do you think 'many' think about science conferences that lead to the accusations and issues reported?
-
The responses on this thread will not go down in the annals of skepticism since it looks like an attempt to shoot the messenger and move swiftly on .There was even a post suggesting that We write this off.
which post are you referring to?
-
Udayana,
As long as people understand that attending science conferences, atheist meetings or whatever, is no different to attending any other large gathering of people, that is fine. My impression is that many do not, hence the accusations and issues reported.
First, what does that have to do with your previous statements (or with my rebuttals of them)?
Second, why would you think that anyone doesn't understand that?
Third, how does any of this relate in any case to the mysterious "issue" Vlad asserted but refuses to elucidate?
-
The responses on this thread will not go down in the annals of skepticism since it looks like an attempt to shoot the messenger and move swiftly on .There was even a post suggesting that We write this off.
In which Vladdo fails or refuses to grasp that, far from "shooting the messenger", what's actually happened is that he's been asked what this supposed message might be.
So far at least he's been entirely unwilling or unable to tell us. Until he does, there is no message and therefore no "messenger" at all. There is however someone who thinks slurring by association is legitimate – a different matter entirely.
-
Did Vladdo ever manage to tell us what this supposed "issue" might be, or are we writing this off now as a failed slur by association?
Ta.
-
I'm not even sure what the intended slur is meant to be, since Vlad is being so coy about it. Presumably, it would be that atheism or anti-theism lead to immoral actions, and 'prominent antitheist' has just been found out? Is that right? Who can say since Vlad is being so secretive.
-
Did Vladdo ever manage to tell us what this supposed "issue" might be, or are we writing this off now as a failed slur by association?
Ta.
So that didn't say the actions of Krauss should be written off. You owe bhs an apology for that
-
In which Vladdo fails or refuses to grasp that, far from "shooting the messenger", what's actually happened is that he's been asked what this supposed message might be.
So far at least he's been entirely unwilling or unable to tell us. Until he does, there is no message and therefore no "messenger" at all. There is however someone who thinks slurring by association is legitimate – a different matter entirely.
The issue is that a prominent antitheist was suspended with a link as to why.
There are a range of responses to this
1 So what
2 Shoot the messenger
3: detract from it by introducing red herring diversions
4 Play dumb
5 Move on nothing to see here
2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive
What do you think domes up your position?
-
Wiggs,
I'm not even sure what the intended slur is meant to be, since Vlad is being so coy about it. Presumably, it would be that atheism or anti-theism lead to immoral actions, and 'prominent antitheist' has just been found out? Is that right? Who can say since Vlad is being so secretive.
Presumably, yes - what else could one infer from the OP "Prominent antitheist suspended" other than guilt by association? As he's refusing point blank to tell us what he might have meant by it instead, that seems to be the attempted slur
-
So that didn't say the actions of Krauss should be written off. You owe bhs an apology for that
I said he suggested it. Was the suggestion not made?
-
6. What are you trying to convey via this OP?
-
I said he suggested it. Was the suggestion not made?
No, the post quoted does not suggest writing off accusations about Krauss. You owe bhs an apology for saying it does.
-
6. What are you trying to convey via this OP?
I've already stated that.
-
NS,
So that didn't say the actions of Krauss should be written off. You owe bhs an apology for that
I didn't even know that that's what he'd pretended I'd said. Mind you, if I ever received all the apologies he owes me I'd need an awful big place to store them in.
What's odd I find is that when he's caught out lying (as he was about Robbbie's statement a few posts back) he just ignores it and carries on as if nothing had happened. What kind of person does that I wonder?
-
I've already stated that.
Where?
-
I said he suggested it. Was the suggestion not made?
And the lies keep on coming eh? Of course I never said, suggested, implied, indicated, hinted at or anything else any such thing.
So about that apology you owe me Vlad for saying I did suggest it?
-
No, the post quoted does not suggest writing off accusations about Krauss. You owe bhs an apology for saying it does.
I have to disagree since that would result from writing this off as Vlad action.
-
I have to disagree since that would result from writing this off as Vlad action.
The thread, not anything about Krauss. You owe bhs an apology and you should stop digging.
-
I've already stated that.
The lying is strong today I see.
-
The lying is strong today I see.
Oh no Hillside thinks he's EmperorPalpatine.
-
Oh no Hillside thinks he's EmperorPalpatine.
That is not an apology for misrepresenting him.
-
So Vladdo, about that apology then.
Look, I'll even draft it for you:
Dear blue, I'm very sorry that I lied when I said you'd suggested something that you didn't suggest at all and I promise not to do it again.
Yours,
Vlad
You're welcome - over to you then...
-
I have to disagree since that would result from writing this off as Vlad action.
It doesn't suggest writing it off at all.
-
That is not an apology for misrepresenting him.
I don't understand why you are still expecting this.
The words write this off are his.
The context that I am wrong to bring this up is his idea
The support you are giving him on his points where he appears to know what my motives are which are his idea and cannot be directly attributed to me is yours.
I don't have to expose myself to the posse so I'm afraid it's ciao for now.
-
bhs, Re. rebuttals:
Udayana,
How could it be other than disappointing given what it is – a slur by association?
First, how does the behaviour of someone making an argument undermine the merits of the argument? Would a murderer who argues, “murder is wrong” invalidate his argument because he’s a murderer?
Hypocrisy usually undermines trust in the proponent, in my experience.
Second, who argues that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias” in any case, and how?
Apparently Krauss.
Only if people are stupid or unpleasant enough to conflate the science with the people doing it (see the OP for an example of the eror). Does great music for example somehow become less great if you find out the composer was a proto nazi?
No-one is conflating science with the scientist as far as I see (or at least not explicitly stating such). The music may be just as great, but one has a choice as to whether to listen to it or not.
That’s as grotesque a distortion as Vlad’s OP. First, they’re just science conferences, not “science” conferences as you slyly imply; second, “hooking up with younger hopefuls” as you put it is an entirely stand alone matter from the science, and indeed from conferences in general.
Shame on you.
That was an "on the other hand" ie. an alternative proposition. Don't think it is that outrageous - has been common in many areas - once women were allowed to attend at all.
-
I don't understand why you are still expecting this.
The words write this off are his.
The context that I am wrong to bring this up is his idea
The support you are giving him on his points where he appears to know what my motives are which are his idea and cannot be directly attributed to me is yours.
I don't have to expose myself to the posse so I'm afraid it's ciao for now.
No you suggested that it was that the allegations against Krauss were to be dismissed. That isn't what his post suggested. Further you are the misrepresenting me here. Stop playing the victim and stop lying. And you owe bhs an apology for saying he thinks the allegations against Krauss should be written off
-
I don't understand why you are still expecting this.
It’s because you said I’d suggested something that I hadn’t suggested at all. You lied.
The words write this off are his.
No, the “writing off” refers to the slur you attempted in your OP by linking “antitheist” with ”suspended”, not in any way, shape or form to the disciplinary procedures at an American University.
The context that I am wrong to bring this up is his idea
The context that you’re wrong about is the slur you attempted, and only that.
The support you are giving him on his points where he appears to know what my motives are which are his idea and cannot be directly attributed to me is yours.
There is no such support. What there is though is the recognition that you lied (again) about me by claiming I’d suggested something I hadn’t suggested at all.
I don't have to expose myself to the posse so I'm afraid it's ciao for now.
Of course it is Vlad, of course it is. So much easier than owning up to the lie and apologising for it eh?
What does that say about you do you think?
-
No you suggested that it was that the allegations against Krauss were to be dismissed. That isn't what his post suggested. Further you are the misrepresenting me here. Stop playing the victim and stop lying. And you owe bhs an apology for saying he thinks the allegations against Krauss should be written off
Anyone can read where Hillside suggests writing this off as something I have supposed to have got wrong.
writing off is an unfortunate thing to suggest I'm afraid.
-
Anyone can read where Hillside suggests writing this off as something I have supposed to have got wrong.
writing off is an unfortunate thing to suggest I'm afraid.
Have read it and it doesn't suggest writing off the allegations.
-
Anyone can read where Hillside suggests writing this off as something I have supposed to have got wrong.
writing off is an unfortunate thing to suggest I'm afraid.
It doesn't suggest writing off the allegations. Stop lying
-
To Vlad: I don't believe you're lying but you've seriously got the wrong end of the stick. The alleged misdemeanours will have no effect on the scientific community or on antitheists, atheists or agnostics. You seem to believe the opposite & appear to be gleefully rubbing your hands together in anticipation which I do not understand.
Why don't we just wait and see what happens.
-
To Vlad: I don't believe you're lying but you've seriously got the wrong end of the stick. The alleged misdemeanours will have no effect on the scientific community or on antitheists, atheists or agnostics. You seem to believe the opposite & appear to be gleefully rubbing your hands together in anticipation which I do not understand.
Why don't we just wait and see what happens.
Thank you.
What I have constantly said is suspension is a neutral act and therefore Dr Krauss is innocent of anything. I have nothing to gloat about.
I think this is the equivalent in the new atheist community of one of say the apostles being suspended or say the Bishop of London being suspended. I would not expect that to go uncommented on nor would I wish it.
Contrast that with this thread where we have been invited to write this of as just one of Vlads slurs.
-
Thank you.
What I have constantly said is suspension is a neutral act and therefore Dr Krauss is innocent of anything.
I think this is the equivalent in the new atheist community of one of say the apostles being suspended or say the Bishop of London being suspended. I would not expect that to go uncommented on nor would I expect it to.
Contrast that with this thread where we have been invited to write this of as just one of Vlads slurs.
No, again bhs did not say that any allegations against Krauss should be written off - stop lying
-
I think it is your strange and sometimes obscure inferences, Vlad (everyone else is calling you "Vlad" so I'm joining), that have been suggested could be written off, not the alleged offences.
-
I think it is your strange and sometimes obscure inferences, Vlad (everyone else is calling you "Vlad" so I'm joining), that have been suggested could be written off, not the alleged offences.
Reply 11 I state what I am saying
Reply12 Hillsides response to my point
I then repeat what the issue is.
Thales three words are my central inferences. If there are others that are strange and obscure I would move they are not mine.
-
Reply 11 I state what I am saying
Reply12 Hillsides response to my point
I then repeat what the issue is.
Thales three words are my central inferences. If there are others that are strange and obscure I would move they are not mine.
So this is Reply 11
'Hillside my only statement on this is that he is a prominent antitheist and he has been suspended. Suspension is a neutral act. He has then as far as we know done nothing.'
Which explains noting about the signifivance of Krauss being an antitheist in relation to the allegations.
And what does 'Thales three words are my central inferences' mean? Which 3 words? What are you inferring?
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
Anyone can read where Hillside suggests writing this off as something I have supposed to have got wrong.
writing off is an unfortunate thing to suggest I'm afraid.
No anyone can’t because I haven’t said any such thing. Not have I suggested it. Or implied it. Or hinted at it. Or anything that remotely resembles the lie you’re repeating.
Thank you.
What I have constantly said is suspension is a neutral act and therefore Dr Krauss is innocent of anything. I have nothing to gloat about.
I think this is the equivalent in the new atheist community of one of say the apostles being suspended or say the Bishop of London being suspended. I would not expect that to go uncommented on nor would I wish it.
Contrast that with this thread where we have been invited to write this of as just one of Vlads slurs.
No, what you said (in the OP in fact and with no additional comment and posted on the Theism and Atheism board) was, “Prominent antitheist suspended”, clearly implying that his “antitheism” was in some way connected with his suspension. That’s the slur, and that’s the only thing I’ve said can be “written off” as it’s just scummy behaviour.
If you genuinely thought the story was of any interest in its own right, you could just have posted “Laurence Krauss suspended” on the General Discussion board and left it at that.
That’s not what you did though was it?
Reply 11 I state what I am saying
Reply12 Hillsides response to my point
I then repeat what the issue is.
Thales three words are my central inferences. If there are others that are strange and obscure I would move they are not mine.
So here’s what Reply 11 actually says:
“Hillside my only statement on this is that he is a prominent antitheist and he has been suspended. Suspension is a neutral act. He has then as far as we know done nothing.”
And here’s what Reply 12 actually says:
“Bullshit”
The “Bullsihit” clearly refers to your lie, “…my only statement on this…etc”. There is no possible way it could be read as suggesting, “I bluehillside think the charges against Krauss should be dropped”.
The more you keep lying about this, the more and bigger the apologies you owe me. You do realise that right?
So why not finally grow a pair, admit the lie, apologise for it and stop lying in future?
Seriously – why not for once do the decent thing here?
-
I have a feeling it might not be a bad idea to....write off...this thread.
-
I have a feeling it might not be a bad idea to....write off...this thread.
I believe there may be people who would indeed welcome that we move swiftly on.
It is no surprise that flagging up trouble at new atheist mill. Is met with almost superhuman and deeply unpleasant resistance
-
I believe there may be people who would indeed welcome that we move swiftly on.
It would help to do that if you apologised to bhs for lying about what he said.
-
Robbie,
I have a feeling it might not be a bad idea to....write off...this thread.
As Vlad's been so comprehensively trounced now I'd agree. If he genuinely thinks that Krauss's suspension is of interest to this mb he's entirely welcome to start a thread "Laurence Krauss suspended" or similar on the General Discussion board where it would belong. If anyone's interested, presumably the replies would be along the lines of, "sounds awful but as no-one knows anything more about it than the press reports there's nothing to talk about here".
-
I believe there may be people who would indeed welcome that we move swiftly on.
It is no surprise that flagging up trouble at new atheist mill. Is met with almost superhuman and deeply unpleasant resistance
You just don't get it!
I'm not an atheist but can see it's a stupid thread with you trying to make this into something it obviously isn't.
Robbie,
As Vlad's been so comprehensively trounced now I'd agree. If he genuinely thinks that Krauss's suspension is of interest to this mb he's entirely welcome to start a thread "Laurence Krauss suspended" or similar on the General Discussion board where it would belong. If anyone's interested, presumably the replies would be along the lines of, "sounds awful but as no-one knows anything more about it than the press reports there's nothing to talk about here"./b]
Yes!
-
Vlad,
I believe there may be people who would indeed welcome that we move swiftly on.
Then apologise and move on, rather than...
It is no surprise that flagging up trouble at new atheist mill. Is met with almost superhuman and deeply unpleasant resistance
...repeat the slur as you have here by (again) associating Krauss's suspension with "new atheism".
Why are you so deeply dishonest do you think? Is being caught out lying a price really worth paying for the attention you clearly crave?
Seems like a very high price to me - the utter loss of any credibility you may have had left. It's your call though I guess.
-
Robbie,
As Vlad's been so comprehensively trounced now I'd agree. If he genuinely thinks that Krauss's suspension is of interest to this mb he's entirely welcome to start a thread "Laurence Krauss suspended" or similar on the General Discussion board where it would belong. If anyone's interested, presumably the replies would be along the lines of, "sounds awful but as no-one knows anything more about it than the press reports there's nothing to talk about here".
Tbh I have to say I don't understand why Vlad doesn't go with the Epstein story. Yes, it's old but it is Krauss talking pish science in defence of a convicted sex offender. Now, I don't think that scientists everywhere should be embarrassed by someone doing this, despite what the link below says, but his misunderstanding of science and the useless and offensive argument is at least related to him being a scientist, though it doesn't mean any other arguments he makes on science are wrong.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/
-
Robbie,
As Vlad's been so comprehensively trounced now I'd agree. If he genuinely thinks that Krauss's suspension is of interest to this mb he's entirely welcome to start a thread "Laurence Krauss suspended" or similar on the General Discussion board where it would belong. If anyone's interested, presumably the replies would be along the lines of, "sounds awful but as no-one knows anything more about it than the press reports there's nothing to talk about here".
What has been trounced? The thread is in place with its title.
The thread cannot be removed since it would look like antitheists trying to bury trouble at antitheist mill.
Good luck to you all and as far as prominent antitheist Dr Krauss is concerned he is innocent since no judgment has been made.
Finally aloha oi.Im afraid I'm going to have to put myself on long term suspension from this forum
-
NS,
Tbh I have to say I don't understand why Vlad doesn't go with the Epstein story. Yes, it's old but it is Krauss talking pish science in defence of a convicted sex offender. Now, I don't think that scientists everywhere should be embarrassed by someone doing this, despite what the link below says, but his misunderstanding of science and the useless and offensive argument is at least related to him being a scientist, though it doesn't mean any other arguments he makes on science are wrong.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/
Well yes, if he really wanted to attack Krauss he'd be on safer ground that way but it'd still have bugger all to do with his atheism, "new atheism", "antitheism" etc which Vlad is so desperate to tar by association.
-
Moderator:
Since it would appear Vlad has left the building without clarifying his stance I'm drawing a line under this: for now at least.
Vlad: if you wish to discuss further, or propose a reply that might be a basis for unlocking this thread, feel free to contact me by PM.