Concerns are creeping in

#MeToo has lumped trivial in with legitimate sexual assault By Andrea Peyser – “It’s gone far enough. What started as a necessary mass-rejection of sexual harassment and assault is sliding into absurdity and irrelevance.”

“A backlash is looming against the very people the spontaneous battle against sexual villainy was meant to help: powerless women and men.

How long before we stop taking victims seriously?

I don’t think confusing childish, even lewd, behavior with clear, intimate violations helps anyone. Rather, it threatens to make accusers, many of them women, appear unserious. Or “hysterical,’’ to use a term commonly wielded against humans bearing XX chromosomes.

How Anita Hill Betrayed Feminism By Paul Mirengoff – “Feminists (except those who knew Thomas personally) believed Hill’s claims.”

“And they argued (just as they do today) that, ordinarily, female accusers should be believed.

But when Bill Clinton became the subject of serious sexual harassment allegations, feminists refused to credit the claims or, when forced to do so, discounted them as irrelevant. They also attacked the accusers. Consequently, the heightened consciousness of the problem of sexual harassment that existed following the Thomas-Hill hearings subsided after Clinton’s presidency.

In this post, I want to focus on one of the feminists who defended President Clinton. That feminist is Anita Hill.

Sexual harassment allegations, then, are a means to an ends — the end being political power.

Why the Roy Moore Accusations Terrify Me as a Wife and Mother By Megan Fox – “Watching Roy Moore go through the current media circus has made me fear for the future of these men whom I love.”

“The idea that someone can lose a career, his reputation, and the public trust over accusations of events that happened decades ago — that no one was witness to, saw, heard, reported, or acknowledged in any significant way— is terrifying. Let me remind you of something that Americans hold sacred: the presumption of innocence.

It should disquiet you that this tenet of our belief system is being overwhelmed by Gloria Allred and her gaggle of female accusers that she drags out every election cycle.

Finding desperate women to pay off to sling mud at political candidates is the oldest trick in the Democrat playbook.

The message is clear. Your husbands and sons are not safe from Gloria Allred and her attack squads should they rise too high. … No one cares about the men involved or what the accusations will do to their families and lives as long as Gloria Allred and the Democrats come out on top. Is this really the future we want for the men in our lives? If not, it’s time to insist that we revert to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. If Moore accusers want justice, then they should press charges and go to court. I would support them 100 percent in that effort. But accusing people on camera with no legal recourse for the accused ought to be illegal.

Mall Never Banned Moore and Other Lies By Daniel John Sobieski – “The rush to judgment by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and others was premature, but the facts about Judge Roy Moore may be unraveling the fiction as we speak

The legacy media ran with the unverified story by a mall worker that Moore had been banned and Sen. Graham even repeated it on Fox News. … But, as President Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is Roy Moore was not banned from the Gadsden Mall for predatory activities

Then there’s the issue of the yearbook which Nelson and Allred claim Moore signed, which Allred has thus far refused to have examined by independent experts who can verify the age of the ink and whether in fact the handwriting is Moore’s, that is, until she can milk it for more camera time as the election clock runs down

There’s a principle in law which says that if a witness is caught lying about the littlest thing then all of that witness’ testimony can be discarded. There is another principle that guilt should be determined in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt here – decades-old accusations unmentioned during Roy Moore’s political career until now, only to be resurrected by celebrity lawyer and serial accuser Gloria Allred.

Here Are Some Revelations From New Book About The Steele Dossier by Chuck Ross – “A new book out by Guardian journalist Luke Harding provides previously unknown details about the Trump dossier and its author, former British spy Christopher Steele.”

Harding offers a sympathetic and largely uncritical look at Steele and the dossier, which was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Steele’s 35-page report remains largely uncorroborated, and Trump and members of his campaign have denied the most salacious allegations laid out in the report.

It’s another case of unsupported allegations with the Left attempting to put the onus on proving innocence when there is no credible evidence of guilt. That is a demand for a logical fallacy – see wikipedia on argument from ignorance.

Note that the fallacies in the original Wapo story on Moore did take hold. The number of accusers comes up repeatedly to establish credibility via an M.O. despite the fact that most did not allege wrongdoing. The pretense of authority is also used to explain credibility when it was a constructed artifact of writing and filling in irrelevant data to add heft. This is like a story about buying a HiFi in the seventies where manufacturers were often more concerned about the heft and weight of equipment than its ability to accurately reproduce sound. Most customers couldn’t discriminate by sound quality so ‘feel good’ equipment was a major purchase decision.

Another example of trying to prove a negative is glyphosate. Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller By Kate Kelland – “A large long-term study on the use of the big-selling weedkiller glyphosate by agricultural workers in the United States has found no firm link between exposure to the pesticide and cancer” — an allegation (it causes cancer) with no evidence means a lot of looking for what isn’t there.

But people get stuck on their fantasies. Rational Wiki illustrates this in its post on Argument from ignorance where it asserts: “Common examples of this are such claims as “you can’t prove global warming is caused by humans” as an example. The problem here is a common one in the global warming argument that plays games with word definitions, issue conflation, and innuendo. The fact is that proving that A has an influence on B is not in the realm of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” If you want to assert that A (humans) cause B (catastrophic climate change), honesty requires that evidence for this be established else it is you who is engaged in argument from ignorance. The Wiki knows this, too:

“If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God’s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

But they are fixated on their idea about “Almost all the claims from the anti-science movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.” and it blinds them on the AGW argument where skepticism about poor evidence and other problems are indeed a response to “an attempt to shift the burden of proof.” So they provide an example of self contradiction that cast doubts on the quality of their post.

The same wiki page also messes up the central idea behind proving a negative. A major effort in science is to take a rather general assertion that is too broad to be proved true and show that it isn’t true by finding an exception. The Wiki falls into the commutative fallacy presuming that A means B is the same as B means A.

Comments are closed.