PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 8, 2017 19:56:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 9, 2017 13:26:38 GMT
This isn't much of a surprise. I remember hearing a fellow philosophy student complaining that Searle was hitting on his fiance when he showed up at my university for a conference. I don't consider myself a prude, but trying to get an undergrad into bed for a one night stand when you are in a position of authority strikes me as really, really creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 21:33:36 GMT
Some of that reads like a spoof article (not that I'm saying it is).
I wonder what sort of evidence the accuser has, though. It can't just be her word against his. There would need to be some sort of evidence in my opinion.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 14, 2017 14:04:08 GMT
Some of that reads like a spoof article (not that I'm saying it is). I wonder what sort of evidence the accuser has, though. It can't just be her word against his. There would need to be some sort of evidence in my opinion. well there have been numerous complaints in the past made against him for similar things |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 15, 2017 0:57:34 GMT
Some of that reads like a spoof article (not that I'm saying it is). I wonder what sort of evidence the accuser has, though. It can't just be her word against his. There would need to be some sort of evidence in my opinion. well there have been numerous complaints in the past made against him for similar things A lot of people saying something isn't evidence that what they're saying is the case. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 15, 2017 11:30:27 GMT
well there have been numerous complaints in the past made against him for similar things A lot of people saying something isn't evidence that what they're saying is the case. yes it is. It decreases the odds that she is lying. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 15, 2017 19:47:53 GMT
A lot of people saying something isn't evidence that what they're saying is the case. yes it is. It decreases the odds that she is lying. No it doesn't. There are many possible reasons that more than one person might be claiming something. We could say just as easily that it increases the odds that she is lying. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 15, 2017 21:33:38 GMT
yes it is. It decreases the odds that she is lying. No it doesn't. There are many possible reasons that more than one person might be claiming something. We could say just as easily that it increases the odds that she is lying. such as? how could it just as easily increase the odds? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 16, 2017 11:21:17 GMT
No it doesn't. There are many possible reasons that more than one person might be claiming something. We could say just as easily that it increases the odds that she is lying. such as? how could it just as easily increase the odds? You could say that they're simply mirroring behavior they're observing in others. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 16, 2017 11:55:53 GMT
such as? how could it just as easily increase the odds? You could say that they're simply mirroring behavior they're observing in others. One has to expect that for any other crime or misbehavior, the fact that several people came forward as witnesses would be credible to you, as it is to most rational adults. But nope--the rules always seem to change when a powerful man is accused of sexual harassment. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 16, 2017 12:05:04 GMT
You could say that they're simply mirroring behavior they're observing in others. One has to expect that for any other crime or misbehavior, the fact that several people came forward as witnesses would be credible to you, as it is to most rational adults. But nope--the rules always seem to change when a powerful man is accused of sexual harassment. Well, I'm glad that you know what I think better than I do, so that you don't even have to ask me. I'm glad you know that my view on this has nothing to do with epistemology or my ideal epistemic requirements with respect to legal or institutional action, or in this thread for the last few back and forths, notions of probability. I'm glad you know that I've reached a judgment about what Searle did or didn't do. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 16, 2017 20:14:38 GMT
such as? how could it just as easily increase the odds? You could say that they're simply mirroring behavior they're observing in others. well the prior incidents were not made public until after the claims so she wouldnt have known. Either way why do you not think it is not more likely that she is telling the truth instead of "mirroring" their behaviour? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 16, 2017 21:43:34 GMT
You could say that they're simply mirroring behavior they're observing in others. well the prior incidents were not made public until after the claims so she wouldnt have known. Either way why do you not think it is not more likely that she is telling the truth instead of "mirroring" their behaviour? Re being made public, the article actually said this: "Kristensen Weisberg, who represents Ong in the lawsuit, stated that Hudin and others at UC Berkeley were aware of Searle’s lecherous behavior because there was a 'slew of evidence of sexual misconduct, including emails and complaints.'” Re likelihood, I don't believe there is any plausible way to estimate whether it's likely that she's either telling the truth or lying (and to what extent). But what really matters is that no one's word, including no mass accusations, should ever be sufficient evidence for anything. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 17, 2017 10:48:37 GMT
But what really matters is that no one's word, including no mass accusations, should ever be sufficient evidence for anything. How are women supposed to be able to prevail in such cases if they were really harassed, genius? Wear wires? You fundamentally don't understand social and psychological reality. Again, I have to think that if the nature of the crime or bad behavior were different, you wouldn't suddenly have such ridiculous standards. People like you crawl out of the woodwork every time a case like this comes up. It's as predictable as the weather. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 17, 2017 14:54:50 GMT
well the prior incidents were not made public until after the claims so she wouldnt have known. Either way why do you not think it is not more likely that she is telling the truth instead of "mirroring" their behaviour? Re being made public, the article actually said this: "Kristensen Weisberg, who represents Ong in the lawsuit, stated that Hudin and others at UC Berkeley were aware of Searle’s lecherous behavior because there was a 'slew of evidence of sexual misconduct, including emails and complaints.'” Re likelihood, I don't believe there is any plausible way to estimate whether it's likely that she's either telling the truth or lying (and to what extent). But what really matters is that no one's word, including no mass accusations, should ever be sufficient evidence for anything. I am not talking about that quoted part It seems pretty easy to me. Just look at rulings in previous cases. Now you might disagree with the standard of evidence in certain cases but those can just be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 18, 2017 0:07:34 GMT
But what really matters is that no one's word, including no mass accusations, should ever be sufficient evidence for anything. How are women supposed to be able to prevail in such cases if they were really harassed, genius? Wear wires? You fundamentally don't understand social and psychological reality. Again, I have to think that if the nature of the crime or bad behavior were different, you wouldn't suddenly have such ridiculous standards. People like you crawl out of the woodwork every time a case like this comes up. It's as predictable as the weather. If it's something where there's no physical evidence available, there's no need to prosecute it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 18, 2017 16:45:49 GMT
If it's something where there's no physical evidence available, there's no need to prosecute it in the first place. Fortunately, we live in a society where such a monstrous stance towards the harassment of women is not tolerated and has no place in the legal system. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 18, 2017 17:02:49 GMT
If it's something where there's no physical evidence available, there's no need to prosecute it in the first place. Fortunately, we live in a society where such a monstrous stance towards the harassment of women is not tolerated and has no place in the legal system. Yeah, let's let people be prosecuted (and persecuted) simply based on accusations. That's a definite cultural improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 20, 2017 16:56:00 GMT
Fortunately, we live in a society where such a monstrous stance towards the harassment of women is not tolerated and has no place in the legal system. Yeah, let's let people be prosecuted (and persecuted) simply based on accusations. That's a definite cultural improvement. Been that way for centuries, kiddo. In a world run by rational adults, multiple testimonies about a person's behavior get to count. Sexual advances don't tend to leave traces of physical evidence. Sorry this all grieves you so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 17:06:29 GMT
Yeah, let's let people be prosecuted (and persecuted) simply based on accusations. That's a definite cultural improvement. Been that way for centuries, kiddo. In a world run by rational adults, multiple testimonies about a person's behavior get to count. Sexual advances don't tend to leave traces of physical evidence. Sorry this all grieves you so much. How old are you, in your 70s or so? |
|
