Lawrence Krauss

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:32 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:26 pm
Vegetariantaxidermy:
Btw, not a single one of the salemwitchhysteria allegations remotely resembles genuine rape, assault or abuse.
There's nothing about rape there.
I’ll ask you again, how much further would it have had to go before it “remotely resembles genuine rape”?

The allegation is that he pushed her onto the bed, forcibly kissing her and trying to pull down the crotch of her tights, and pulled out a condom, at which point she escaped.

Krauss does not deny that this happened but claims it was consensual. Whatever the truth of the matter is, it should not be dismissed by claiming that "the 'allegations' are beyond pathetic, even if it is true". Or do you think such behavior, if true, is acceptable?
I'm pretty sure he didn't 'grab a woman's sacred breast' but does it really warrant destroying someone's life over?
I assume you mean that if you are wrong and he did grab her. If he did it then I see no reason why she should not have complained. Now it may be you would not have said anything. It may even be that you enjoy being groped by strangers or perhaps by “some of the greatest scientific minds and educators in the world”, but that does not mean that someone who does not wish to be groped should just shut up and put up with such behavior.

One thing seems certain, as long as such behavior is ignored or winked at or shrugged at it will continue. Universities have standards of behavior. Krauss is not exempt from those standards. Both public and private institutions have codes of ethics. Do you take issue with there being a code of ethics? Do you take issue with particular policies? Krauss was or at least should have been aware of the university’s policies. He violated them. Violation can be cause for dismissal. Rather than defend himself against the charges he resigned.
I can't tolerate you any longer. You don't even have the good manners to properly use the quote function.
Go away yank, until you have learnt to think for yourself.

ps. I do hope all those philosophers you like to quote had impeccable characters and no sexual urges.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:01 pm

And there you have it. Resorting to personal insults and non sequiturs when the ability to defend a reasoned argument fail.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:07 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:01 pm
And there you have it. Resorting to personal insults and non sequiturs when the ability to defend a reasoned argument fail.
:lol: :lol: :lol: You haven't produced a reasoned argument. What's wrong? Don't have any philosophers to fall back on?
Insults don't negate an argument. They are 'argument neutral'.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:43 pm

Vegetariantaxidermy:
You haven't produced a reasoned argument.
But I have. It is Socratic. I have demonstrated exactly what I claimed. All that you have provided is sloganeering about “PC” and lazy thinking. In response to my questioning your claims you have been unable to defend them.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:07 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:43 pm
Vegetariantaxidermy:
You haven't produced a reasoned argument.
But I have. It is Socratic. I have demonstrated exactly what I claimed. All that you have provided is sloganeering about “PC” and lazy thinking. In response to my questioning your claims you have been unable to defend them.
Defend what? You have conveniently ignored nearly all of my points. How can you argue with facts? Asking me to define rape is not an 'argument'. Go and look it up in a reputable dictionary, not an American McDikshinry.
''It is Socratic''. Can't you construct an argument all by yourself?
Now kindly get lost. You are too boring and sociopathic to deal with.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:18 pm

It is evident that what it really at issue for you is not something that can be addressed through rational discussion. I could make a snide remark but it is very possible the the problem is not something to be joked about.

I can’t say I had not been warned.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:15 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:18 pm
It is evident that what it really at issue for you is not something that can be addressed through rational discussion. I could make a snide remark but it is very possible the the problem is not something to be joked about.

I can’t say I had not been warned.
Come back when you've learnt how to construct your own argument based on logic and reason (and how to use the quote function).
ps. Even your insults aren't coherent.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:01 am

The argument is actually quite simple:

a)If someone is accused of something the truth of the accusation in independent of whatever your views on PC or feminism or anything else happen to be.

b)The truth of the allegations does not change if it is against “intellectuals, scientists and creative”.

c)Both public and private institutions and organizations have a code of ethics or a code of conduct. The purpose of such codes are not simply to prevent abusive behavior but to protect the institution against lawsuits. If someone violates that code there are consequences.

d)It is not just the PC who find grabbing a woman’s breast inappropriate behavior. It is not just the PC who consider pushing a woman onto a bed, pulling down the crotch of her tights, and pulling out a condom attempted rape.

You may think that a hyperbolic rant about asexual monks, satanic rituals, Jim Morrison’s crotch, genocide, and whatever else can think to complain about is persuasive or even relevant, but it is not. The corker is that you follow this unhinged verbal tantrum by saying I should try using logic and reason.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:58 am

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:01 am
The argument is actually quite simple:

a)If someone is accused of something the truth of the accusation in independent of whatever your views on PC or feminism or anything else happen to be.

b)The truth of the allegations does not change if it is against “intellectuals, scientists and creative”.

c)Both public and private institutions and organizations have a code of ethics or a code of conduct. The purpose of such codes are not simply to prevent abusive behavior but to protect the institution against lawsuits. If someone violates that code there are consequences.

d)It is not just the PC who find grabbing a woman’s breast inappropriate behavior. It is not just the PC who consider pushing a woman onto a bed, pulling down the crotch of her tights, and pulling out a condom attempted rape.

You may think that a hyperbolic rant about asexual monks, satanic rituals, Jim Morrison’s crotch, genocide, and whatever else can think to complain about is persuasive or even relevant, but it is not. The corker is that you follow this unhinged verbal tantrum by saying I should try using logic and reason.
Are you really as stupid as you come across? It's not just his Uni job that's been affected. There are PChypocritical wankers like you in 'academia' all over the world cancelling his engagements. 'Inappropriate behavior'. Learn to spell, and kindly shove your corporate bullshit-speak up your arse. You make me sick.
If those women were so 'traumatised' then it's a matter for police, NOT some disreputable online rag that has set itself up as judge, jury and executioner.
Last I heard rape is a criminal offence that is dealt with by the police, and so is assault. (Next you will claim they were too 'shy and scared' to go to the police (but not too shy to go to the media) :roll: )

So these are matters that are far too serious for the police; this is why the 'investigating' is being done by 'Buzzfeed'. BWHWAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:12 pm

Once again you have provided support for my initial claims. You have difficulty separating the truth of the allegations against him from the response to those allegations. You have difficulty accepting institutional and organizational ethical norms. If how you act here is indicative of how you act in person this is really no surprise. You have difficulty separating cause from effect. Buzzfeed reported on an investigation that the university had already completed, and after the fact that Krauss had already resigned. You have difficulty separating what may have happened from the response of those who complained. You say nothing of his behavior but criticize those who complained for not responding in what you think is the appropriate manner. Sloganeering and lazy thinking, plus a good deal of righteous indignation.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:05 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:12 pm
Once again you have provided support for my initial claims. You have difficulty separating the truth of the allegations against him from the response to those allegations. You have difficulty accepting institutional and organizational ethical norms. If how you act here is indicative of how you act in person this is really no surprise. You have difficulty separating cause from effect. Buzzfeed reported on an investigation that the university had already completed, and after the fact that Krauss had already resigned. You have difficulty separating what may have happened from the response of those who complained. You say nothing of his behavior but criticize those who complained for not responding in what you think is the appropriate manner. Sloganeering and lazy thinking, plus a good deal of righteous indignation.
That's the trouble with your shit-hole of a country. You destroy the good Americans and get left with worthless nothings like you who hide behind their 'academic studies' to 'justify' the unjustifiable.
There is no reasoning with you.
Do you really think I take any notice when some wanker uses the term 'inappropriate behaviOR'? What the fuck does it even mean? What 'investigating' is there to do? What 'evidence' is there to gather?
If you know so much about it then post a timeline.
Now you say ''Buzzfeed'' merely 'reported'. Everything I've read mentions this investigation by ''Buzzfeed''. Who are these brilliant investigative journalists who work for ''Buzzfeed''?
It's simply a case of his word against some whiny, precious females. 'Ogling' women is hardly justification for destroying someone. Some men are oglers. Is it against the law? Richard Feynman would have been done for in this oppressive climate we are lumbered with now. We suck off their brains and generosity, worship the ground they walk on, then expect them to be asexual saints as well, and take salacious pleasure in their downfall. Brilliant people tend to be rather odd. Mozart would have been confined to the wastebin of Political Correctness in no time. Einstein was an awful husband.
When a great tree falls, the mob can't wait to bring out the hatchets.
If all it takes to destroy someone is gossip about 'ogling' and 'inappropriate behaviOR' then what a field day for their enemies. Gee. I wonder who would want to 'take down' outspoken atheists and secularists--especially scientific ones? I simply can't think of anyone who would have a vested interest in their removal. :?
The difference between us is that I care and you don't. You don't care, but you argue anyway because you are a ''philosophy student''. You don't have the intelligence to see that for all your 'Socratising', your 'argument' is still as convincing as Bruce Jenner in a dress (OMG! Is saying that an 'inappropriate transphobic behaviOR'?)
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:22 pm

Still. I have to commend you for responding. The silence is deafening on here. The religious nuts don't want to defend an outspoken atheist (even though they claim to hate Political Correctness; and the ''PCProgressives'' are motivated only by politics and really don't give a flying fuck about anyone). All that is wrong with the world in a nutshell.

Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by Walker » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:23 pm

VT wrote:Some men are oglers. Is it against the law?
As The Seinfeld tells us, the law exists but it’s unwritten.

“You’re supposed to just take a peek after a poke.”

“Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don’t stare at it. It’s too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away!”


Entrapment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evOm0ZBMeGk

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:48 pm

What has become apparent is that we have become hypersensitive and have cultivated a moral fragility. What has not yet become apparent to many is that this cuts both ways. The extremism of PC is being matched by a counter PC extremism. Both sides react emotionally without thinking clearly.


vegetariantaxidermy:
That's the trouble with your shit-hole of a country. You destroy the good Americans and get left with worthless …
That’s the trouble with your over-the-top scatter-shot generalizations, there worthless.
… low-achieving nothings like you who hide behind their 'academic studies' to 'justify' the unjustifiable.
You have no idea what I have achieved and your measure of achievement is as likely to be as perverse as your rants. I am not hiding behind anything. I have stated my position in clear, plain terms.

In your outrage you fail to see that you treat his alleged actions to be in no need of further justification because of his own academic achievements.
There is no reasoning with you.
People who are actually reasonable have no difficulty reasoning with me. Perhaps if you were not blinded by your anti-PC piety you would see that I have said nothing unreasonable. What you are reacting to is not what I have said but to the picture you have painted.
Do you really think I take any notice when some wankjob uses the term 'inappropriate behaviOUR'? What the fuck does it even mean?
You are finally getting around to what I asked in my first post about appropriate behavior and what should or should not be tolerated. Unless you think that whatever anyone does at any time to anyone else is appropriate behavior you too have some standard, however vague, by which you measure 'inappropriate behaviOUR'.
If you know so much about it then post a timeline.
I didn’t know anything at all about it until you started the thread. The first thing I attempted to do was to increase the signal to noise. PC, witch hunts, feminism are all noise. Increasing the signal meant learning more about what he was alleged to have done, whether there was evidence in support of the allegations, what his response was, and what actions were taken. I still do not know exactly what went on, but that question seemed irrelevant to you. You had already concluded that he did not do anything wrong, that it is all mass hysteria. From what I can gather some of the complaints are trivial, but others are more problematic. I still do not know the extent of it or if I did I would have recommended firing him. I do not think I would prevent him from attending a conference.
The difference between us is that I care and you don't.
It is not so simple. We care about different things. You care about doing battle with PC. I see PC as excessive but I am not ready to use it as a blanket to cover other issues. We both care about the PC backlash, but I do not think the answer is to just shrug it all off.
Richard Feynman would have been done for in this oppressive climate we are lumbered with now.
Well, you are right in so far as the climate is different, what I don’t know is whether Feynman would have acclimated as others have done. But honestly I don’t know what Feynman did or was accused of doing and I don’t care. That was then and now is now. As I said in my first post, we have to figure out the boundaries now for both acceptable actions and acceptable reactions.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Lawrence Krauss

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:55 pm

'Noise'? Everything you don't agree with is 'noise'?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests