Mass hysteria

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is the sudden roller coaster of accusations that represents mass hysteria. Not so much the sexual molestation. Male behaviour can easily be described as sexual molestation, even if physical contact happens entirely by accident. But I am very skeptical of all the rape complaints. Those guys so accused have never needed to resort to rape. They get sex any time they want it. Why risk rape ?

Lance, mostly rape is not about sex; it's about control and abuse of women. If it were about sexual attraction, then young rapists would not choose elderly victims, yet they do. They choose victims regardless of age and perceived attractiveness. And it's more commonplace than you realize.
The 1998 "Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey," by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one out of every six American women have been victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. A total of 17.7 million women have been victimized by these crimes.
And that was 20 years ago. Reporting is up from 10-20% to about 40%...except on college campuses, where reporting stands at 5%. The rest remain unreported to authorities. I didn't report mine, since I had no way to identify my assailants. (It was dark, they didn't talk much, and when they did, they didn't use each other's names.) What would have been the point in reporting it? Justice was not possible.

But your position reminds me that there were no gay people when I was in high school. Of course, there were, but it wasn't socially acceptable at that time, so they remained closeted until they graduated and went elsewhere. Does that mean that millions of gay people are lying about their sexuality? Nope. The increase in the numbers of women reporting sexual assault doesn't mean they're lying either. It only means that the social climate has changed: Instead of blaming the victim, as was nearly always done in the past, the victim is much more likely to be believed today. Every victim that steps forward makes it easier for all who follow her to do the same. It's not hysteria; it's "now is the time."
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:53 pm

Nikki

You are quite correct in saying how common sexual harassment is. I am sure every woman experiences it at some time or other.

I do have some doubts as to definitions, though. I recently watched the original Robin Hood movie, with Errol Flynn. At one point, he sweeps Olivia de Havilland (Maid Marion) into his arms for a passionate embrace and kiss. She struggles for a moment, then surrenders herself to the pleasures of the moment. Was that action romantic or sexual harassment, since she began by resisting?

Rape is another problem. If a woman is raped, and immediately reports the crime, we can be pretty sure that the rape occurred. But if she reports rape a decade or more after the event, how sure can we be of her facts? It is very, very common for a woman to engage in consensual sex and later regret it. If she broods over her regret over a long period, how can we be sure that her memory has not altered, to convert the consensual sex into rape?

Let me point out a flaw in your last post.
Raping old women is actually rare, though it gets a lot of publicity. Police statistics show that the vast bulk of rapes are of women in their teens or twenties. I seriously doubt that power and control are the major motives. Much more likely that it is, in fact, sexual desire, being abused by extremely nasty guys.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:01 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Bobbo

Re Weinstein and rape.

Certainly it is possible. There is a case on record where one man volunteered to be killed and eaten by a second man (and was), which shows that anything, no matter how strange, is possible. But possible is not the same as likely.

Weinstein had all the sexual opportunities he could handle, and he could get more sex any time he wanted it. Why take the risk of raping someone when it was not needed ? And that business of power and control is bull-shit.

I have no doubt he was guilty of sexual molestation. Almost every man who has tried to seduce women is guilty of that at some stage or another. If, in my youth, I tried to slip my hand under a woman's blouse, and she was not ready for that, the action can be called sexual molestation. This sort of thing is utterly common. A very confident guy is more likely to be guilty than someone who, like me in my youth, was nervous. Weinstein was doubtless extremely confident, and tried it on a lot.
You're starting to remind me of anti-abortion activists who ignore all reputable scientific, legal, and medical evidence to conclude that a fertilized egg (which has no "rights") is "life," because the fraudster leading their religion told them so, while the pregnant woman (who technically has "rights") is expendable.

Your youthful attempts do not constitute sexual assault...unless you continued your actions after she said "no." If she didn't say "no," or if she encouraged you, how can it be called "sexual molestation?"

The fact that you allege to be incapable of understanding why a man who has sex available on demand would rape is not evidence against widespread accusations of rape being truthful. Break your confirmation bias, Lance.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:22 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
gorgeous wrote:the ones who are mistaken are the men who are perverts ...not the women...is it so difficult to keep your pants on?


Very difficult to do when the panties are off... ;)
Are you saying that men can't help themselves? That their ethics go out the window the instant they have an erection? I'm not buying it.


Nope - not saying that at all. Rather that when a woman asks for sex, and have gone as far as to remove their clothes, they usually get it.

EDIT: Added the underlined....
Last edited by TJrandom on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11153
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:29 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Which is more believable? That most or all of the accusers are lying? Or that money and power corrupt people? Especially people who are habitually fawned over by an adoring public.


These are the tip of the iceberg that make the news. Ordinary schmucks who grope women on buses don't make the news.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:39 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The fact that you allege to be incapable of understanding why a man who has sex available on demand would rape is not evidence against widespread accusations of rape being truthful. Break your confirmation bias, Lance.


Perhaps.
But it is also true that male celebrities tend to get a hell of a lot of sex without needing to resort to rape. Sir Ian McKellan, the famous actor, pointed out that directors get a lot of very beautiful women offering themselves for sex in order to get acting roles. McKellan, being gay, is not likely to have resorted to either sexual molestation or rape of women, and thus is probably unbiased in this.

I can appreciate that Weinstein would possibly develop a contempt for women that would lead him into actions we can identify as sexual molestation. But rape is a crime, and can lead to time in prison. It takes more than contempt for women to tempt a guy into rape. Do you think Weinstein is so stupid as to commit rape when he does not have to, and risk prison, not to mention his entire career?

I am not defending Weinstein, who is almost certainly a grade A arsehole. Just suggesting that he is unlikely to resort to rape.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11153
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:54 pm

Women offering is one thing. Men demanding or taking is another.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:59 pm

don't need to rape...said about Bill Cosby too....it is why it is not about sex but power and control over women....powerful men are protected and catered to....why they have done it for decades...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:05 am

...and hysteria is a word only used against women...hysterectomies were done to control women....if a woman is upset there is a reason for it...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:06 am

Gorgeous

If you say it, we have cause to doubt it.

I do not believe it is about power and control, except for a small number of cases. The fact that most rape victims are in the same age group as olympic athletes implies that they are the women least easy to control. They are also at the age where they are most sexually attractive.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:11 am

wrong...get over your obsession with looks...it is power...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby TJrandom » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:26 am

gorgeous wrote:...and hysteria is a word only used against women....


Maybe not only - just mostly. I googled `mass hysteria events`, and most were about females, with just a few men thrown in. I do wonder, why is that?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:34 am

women's emotions...when I am at times angry a guy will say "why are you mad?"...I say "what did you say to me? that's why"....they don't get the connection often....I have met hysterically angry males who get in a rage over nothing serious though...one yelled because a kitten knocked over a water bowl trying to reach the water in a deep dish...stupid reaction..was his fault for putting it in a big bowl....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23347
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:06 am

Why Mass hysteria? Because it's that time of year!
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:20 am

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, hysteria was a common psychiatric diagnosis made primarily in women. The existence and nature of a purported male hysteria (hysteria masculina[1]) was a debated topic around the turn of the century. It was originally believed that men could not suffer from hysteria because of their lack of uterus.[2] This belief was discarded in the 17th century when discourse identified the brain or mind, and not reproductive organs, as the root cause of hysteria.[
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:23 am

gorgeous wrote:wrong...get over your obsession with looks...it is power...


It is evidence. If rape was about power and control, then most rapes would be of people who were weaker, so they would be easier to control. But in fact, most rapes are of women who are at their physical peak. ie. teens or twenties.

But that is consistent with rape being about sexual desire. Because women in their teens and twenties are at their most desirable sexually.

I would regard the idea that rape is about power and control as being a feminist myth. I would speculate that the reason for this is that even feminists like sex. Thus they find the idea that sex is the cause of rape to be repugnant. So they came up with an alternate explanation which is more emotionally palatable.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:29 am

wrong...men are stronger than women in case you didn't know...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nikki

You are quite correct in saying how common sexual harassment is. I am sure every woman experiences it at some time or other.
Yes, I know. I'm female. But thank you for validating my personal life experience and that of every woman I know. I feel so much better now.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do have some doubts as to definitions, though. I recently watched the original Robin Hood movie, with Errol Flynn. At one point, he sweeps Olivia de Havilland (Maid Marion) into his arms for a passionate embrace and kiss. She struggles for a moment, then surrenders herself to the pleasures of the moment. Was that action romantic or sexual harassment, since she began by resisting?
I've seen porn movies in which the lone woman in the room took on several men at the same time, apparently with enthusiasm. Do you conclude from this that all women's deepest desire is to do the same? It was a movie, Lance. Made by men, I might add. 80 years ago, I might also add...not a generation that even considered women's rights. Women barely considered their own rights in that era, ffs. Your example is hardly relevant to the issue at hand.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Rape is another problem. If a woman is raped, and immediately reports the crime, we can be pretty sure that the rape occurred. But if she reports rape a decade or more after the event, how sure can we be of her facts?
But you haven't bothered to present any factual evidence, just your unfounded belief that the increase in the numbers of reported rapes somehow means that most of them are false. I could just as easily say, about the same case, "How can we be sure that the accused's denial is the truth?" A woman reporting a rape a decade or more after the event has nothing to gain except closure, since the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has passed.

Further, while there is no exact consensus, experts agree that false reports amount to no more than 10% of all reports, and probably is as low as 2%, given jurisdictional reporting methods which group actual false reports together with cases that were unsuccessfully prosecuted for any reason. That means at least 90% of reports of rape are factual, and possibly as high as 98%.
In 2008, "unfounded" reports of rape to the Uniform Crime Report Program (UCR) were at 5.8% (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, 2008).
It should be noted that the category "unfounded," as it's used in this report, includes both cases that were unsuccessfully prosecuted for any reason and false reports...and that it does not distinguish between the two.

Additionally, in regards to female rape victims, 51.1% of perpetrators were intimate partners, 12.5% were family members, and 40.8% were acquaintances. Only 13.8% were strangers. This supports the "power and control" motivation over your "sexual desire" theory. If "sexual desire" were the motive, a much larger percentage of women would be raped by strangers.

Lastly, rape is horribly under-reported. NOT over-reported.
It is more likely that an actual assault goes unreported. Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes, with 60% still being left unreported (U.S. Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Study, 2005). Furthermore, less than 5% of completed and attempted rapes of college students are brought to the attention of campus authorities and/or law enforcement (Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T., 2005. Sexual assault on Campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it).


Lance Kennedy wrote:It is very, very common for a woman to engage in consensual sex and later regret it.
Is that your experience? :mrgreen: I've only regretted sexual experiences that were unsatisfying, personally, but my partner's lack of skill never impelled me to claim I was raped. I just chalked it up and moved on. Or taught him, if it was worth my time. You've failed to provide any evidence for your contention.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If she broods over her regret over a long period, how can we be sure that her memory has not altered, to convert the consensual sex into rape?
Do you understand that rape is forcible sex against your will? I'm not sure you do. Trust me, if you've experienced both consensual sex and rape, you {!#%@} well know the difference. Nor do you forget which was which. To answer your question, how can we be sure that the accused's memory has not altered to convert rape into consensual sex? That scenario is far more likely, since the accused has everything to gain by denying the allegation.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Let me point out a flaw in your last post.
Raping old women is actually rare, though it gets a lot of publicity. Police statistics show that the vast bulk of rapes are of women in their teens or twenties. I seriously doubt that power and control are the major motives. Much more likely that it is, in fact, sexual desire, being abused by extremely nasty guys.

Sorry, "women in their teens or twenties?" Teenagers are not "women," Lance; they're children. Nor was there a "flaw" in my post. The fact that elderly women are raped at all speaks against your claim that "sexual desire" is the perpetrator's motivation.

Actually, 42.2% of female rape victims were assaulted before the age of 18, which makes minors a larger group than the 18-24 group by 5%. Among that underaged group, 29.9% were between 11 and 17, and 12.3% were under 10 years of age. Who could be more vulnerable to being controlled by an adult than a child? Or do you believe that nearly half of rapists are sexually attracted to children?

Further, whether the rapist is sexually attracted to his victim is irrelevant. The gist of the act is that he has overridden her freedom to say "no" by forcing himself onto her. Which means it is, in fact, about power and control. Or do you believe that a desire to abuse women is a natural part of sexual desire? I feel certain you realize that rape constitutes forcible penetration and is, therefore, exceedingly painful for women. Please explain how "sexual desire" includes the concept of inflicting extreme pain on the object of your desire.

(Note: Statistics courtesy of the CDC, the NRC, and the DOJ.)
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:39 am

TJrandom wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
gorgeous wrote:the ones who are mistaken are the men who are perverts ...not the women...is it so difficult to keep your pants on?


Very difficult to do when the panties are off... ;)
Are you saying that men can't help themselves? That their ethics go out the window the instant they have an erection? I'm not buying it.


Nope - not saying that at all. Rather that when a woman asks for sex, and have gone as far as to remove their clothes, they usually get it.

EDIT: Added the underlined....
TJ, you're destroying my faith in men...lol. I've been turned down before, as have all the women I know, none of whom have puritanical objections to sex or view it as a commodity. In one case, it was nearly a done deal when he suddenly said, "I can't. I'm sorry. I have a girlfriend I didn't tell you about." I still have a sense of admiration for that man, even though I haven't seen him in nearly 30 years. I wasn't happy about it at the time! But he did the right thing, and I told him that the next day. (We were in the same band.) He carried around a sack of guilt about the incident, both on his girlfriend's behalf and on mine. No idea what became of him.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The fact that you allege to be incapable of understanding why a man who has sex available on demand would rape is not evidence against widespread accusations of rape being truthful. Break your confirmation bias, Lance.


Perhaps.
But it is also true that male celebrities tend to get a hell of a lot of sex without needing to resort to rape. Sir Ian McKellan, the famous actor, pointed out that directors get a lot of very beautiful women offering themselves for sex in order to get acting roles. McKellan, being gay, is not likely to have resorted to either sexual molestation or rape of women, and thus is probably unbiased in this.

I can appreciate that Weinstein would possibly develop a contempt for women that would lead him into actions we can identify as sexual molestation. But rape is a crime, and can lead to time in prison. It takes more than contempt for women to tempt a guy into rape. Do you think Weinstein is so stupid as to commit rape when he does not have to, and risk prison, not to mention his entire career?

I am not defending Weinstein, who is almost certainly a grade A arsehole. Just suggesting that he is unlikely to resort to rape.
I understand what you're saying. However, "a grade A arsehole" is far likelier to resort to rape than a regular guy. Being famous gives you a false sense of entitlement. Also, we know all too well that stupidity and financial success are not mutually exclusive. *cough...Trump...cough* :mrgreen: And, lastly, I believe you've managed to answer your own question. Since a famous man can get all the sex he wants, if he chooses to rape, it's not about sex, is it?
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:14 am

TJrandom wrote:
gorgeous wrote:...and hysteria is a word only used against women....


Maybe not only - just mostly. I googled `mass hysteria events`, and most were about females, with just a few men thrown in. I do wonder, why is that?
Funny, I didn't find the same result. Most of the cases I read about were children or teenagers of both genders, the hysteria generally occurring at school and spreading.

It appears to occur in stressed populations. A case comprising US schoolchildren in 2001 was related to stress caused by fear subsequent to the events of 9/11. 600 US Navy men were evacuated from their San Diego base in 1988, and 119 of them were hospitalized; there was no cause found. Students in 1962 Louisiana who were under intense scrutiny over their sex lives began reporting seizures by the dozens. Trump was elected last November by millions during one of the most widespread cases of mass hysteria in history.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:17 am

Nikki

On reporting a rape a decade or more after the event.
I did not make my point clear. Sorry.
I was thinking in terms of celebrity sex. Male celebrities appear to have a hell of a lot of sex with many different women. Charlie Sheen, for example, in an interview said he had sex with (his estimate) 5,000 different women. He is not alone in that. Lots of male celebrities have made similar claims.

Obviously most of those activities were one night stands. Some time ago, while browsing the internet, I came across a survey report that said that, of all women who had one night stands, a very large number regretted them. I think it might have been 58% but my memory is shaky.

Prof. Elizabeth Loftus is a research psychologist who has done a lot of research on human memory. She found that human memory is very malleable, and tends over time to change in the direction of what is wanted, rather than what is real. The classic example is the fisherman who catches a 30 cm trout, and remembers it as being 50 cms five years later. This belief is quite sincere.

The same thing happens with negative feelings, when someone broods. This is why I see the real possibility of a woman who had a one night stand with a celebrity, regretted it, and broods on the error, changing her memory. A long time later, she hears another woman accusing the celebrity of rape and thinks to herself that she also was raped. This is not a lie, since she is quite sincere in her belief, based on altered memory.

This is not a false accusation, in the malicious sense. Just a mistake based on the fallibility of human memory.

On your comments about raping minors.
The American law making under 18 year olds sexually minors is a legal fiction, not a biological fact. In most cultures throughout history, an 18 year old woman would be married with children. Biologically, she became a woman some years before that. The point is that the legal barrier does not change the male sex drive, and guys will be strongly sexually attracted to teenage girls.

Whether the guy feels a desire to abuse women is irrelevant. Men feel a strong desire for sex with attractive young women. That is completely normal. It is not normal to force that young woman. That is horrible and reprehensible. But I see no reason why, with a man who is seriously nasty, his act of rape has to be seen as anything but a response to sexual desire. I do understand why that thought is unpalatable to a woman, but truth has nothing to do with what is emotionally acceptable.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: But I see no reason why, with a man who is seriously nasty, his act of rape has to be seen as anything but a response to sexual desire.

Good thing everything here is a first draft. You are close to the right idea......................now, just add a brain.........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby TJrandom » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:51 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
gorgeous wrote:the ones who are mistaken are the men who are perverts ...not the women...is it so difficult to keep your pants on?


Very difficult to do when the panties are off... ;)
Are you saying that men can't help themselves? That their ethics go out the window the instant they have an erection? I'm not buying it.


Nope - not saying that at all. Rather that when a woman asks for sex, and have gone as far as to remove their clothes, they usually get it.

EDIT: Added the underlined....
TJ, you're destroying my faith in men...lol. I've been turned down before, as have all the women I know, none of whom have puritanical objections to sex or view it as a commodity. In one case, it was nearly a done deal when he suddenly said, "I can't. I'm sorry. I have a girlfriend I didn't tell you about." I still have a sense of admiration for that man, even though I haven't seen him in nearly 30 years. I wasn't happy about it at the time! But he did the right thing, and I told him that the next day. (We were in the same band.) He carried around a sack of guilt about the incident, both on his girlfriend's behalf and on mine. No idea what became of him.


I said usually... and elsewhere I have explained that I have indeed turned down more women than I have had sex with. Please don`t give up on me quite yet... :?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You are close to the right idea......................now, just add a brain.........


Rather, Bobbo, why do you not actually think about it. If something is politically correct, that does not make it factually correct. The feminist mythology is not based on good science.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:12 am

Edit: Add LANCE: What good science do you have a link to that supports at all that males rape females purely as a response to their sexual desire? In the best of such hypotheticals....what is the ego and superego of the male busying itself with?

Thinking. "Actually thinking." Something you evidently suppose dissappears when rapes occur. So....what is it that prevents the 99% of other males who don't rape in the same circumstances? Or is it your position that only males rape and the rest of us are ...........what? ((Don't say "skeptics." That would be too close to the bone." (sic).

I don't buy the feminist position that all rape is about power. Of course, "desire"/lust, plays into it as well. Gee.......what do you know? A multi-factorial causation is slowly building its comedy pyramid.

Silly Hoomans.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby TJrandom » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:09 am

I found this article to be very interesting, as a non-rapist and one who has never coerced a woman into sex. Please do read the article before claiming a misunderstanding of these terms on my part.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Aztexan » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:43 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Aztexan wrote:By the way, you know who has never been accused of unwanted groping or sexual assault or harassment?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Just sayin

Really? You don't consider public condemnation of her husband's victims to be sexual harassment? I do.


I had forgotten about how she handled her husband's own accusers.

I really don't see her condemnation as sexual harassment but I do see it as part of the problem. I don't know if she chose to believe Bill over his accusers as a spouse or as a budding politician. I can't pretend to know her reasons. Her husband's habit of straying outside his marriage was well known so for her to choose to believe him over those women reflects a bigger problem: refusing to believe a person is capable of committing atrocities simply because we know them. If she chose to defend her philandering husband because she doubled down on keeping her marriage intact even though she knew Bill could care less or because it was a political calculation doesn't show the best of judgement oh my god this is why people hate her so much, isn't it?
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:22 am

Women can be accused/convicted of rape, statutory rape, procurement, kidnapping across state lines etc when all they did was "drive the car." Should be true of sexual harassment as well, aka: conspiracy to commit same while hubby or bf is the more active/violent player.

Hillary KNOWS Slick Willie is a hound dog. She IS exactly that craven.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:04 pm

To TJ

Your reference was interesting. Yes, there are probably many reasons why an act of rape is perpetrated. But underlying all those reason is the basic fact that a guy is sexually turned on by a woman.

When I first came across the idea that it was all about control and power, I was puzzled. That was many decades ago, and I was a young guy with a strong sex drive. The power and control theory made no sense to me, since I knew how much self control I had to exercise to prevent myself molesting a good looking young woman. I knew damn well that my urges were 100% sexual. (I would never have molested any woman, since I respected women. But my self control did not obviate the basic fact that those urges existed.)

When I thought further about it, I realised also that male on male rape was rare, and if it was all about exercising power over another human, it should not be. Also if it was all about power and control, it would not need to be sexual. We would then see, instead of sex, individual men dealing other forms of horror to women to exercise that power and control, and that is also rare.

So it was very apparent that rape was basically driven by the sex drive gone wrong.

How to check that scientifically?
Carl Sagan said that the core of science is prediction. By that, he meant that a scientist would test an idea by making a testable prediction. To test the hypothesis that rape is about sex, I predicted that most rape victims would be young. I then did an internet search, found the data, and confirmed that in fact, most rape victims are young.

There are other tests that could be done, but I do not have the resources or authority to do them. I can make the extra prediction as follows. Rape victims, compared to members of their peer group selected randomly, will be on average, more attractive in the sexual and physical sense. A research psychologist or sociologist with a suitable research grant could easily test that prediction.

Anyway, Bobbo, that is science at work.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:50 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nikki

On reporting a rape a decade or more after the event.
I did not make my point clear. Sorry.
I was thinking in terms of celebrity sex. Male celebrities appear to have a hell of a lot of sex with many different women. Charlie Sheen, for example, in an interview said he had sex with (his estimate) 5,000 different women. He is not alone in that. Lots of male celebrities have made similar claims.
And those claims are probably relatively accurate. Many people react to celebrities as if they're deities, which I find weird.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Obviously most of those activities were one night stands. Some time ago, while browsing the internet, I came across a survey report that said that, of all women who had one night stands, a very large number regretted them. I think it might have been 58% but my memory is shaky.
Lots of women would automatically say that, since society frowns upon women who "give in to" their libidos. Many women are brought up to think their genitals are precious and sacred, and that sex purely for enjoyment is not something that "ladies" do. It's certainly not something "ladies" brag about, or even discuss. All of which is silly. If our entire society weren't set up to echo prostitution, we wouldn't be in this mess. There's no difference between folded cash on the bedside table and drinks, expensive dinners, movies, dancing, etc. In both cases, money is being exchanged for sex.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Prof. Elizabeth Loftus is a research psychologist who has done a lot of research on human memory. She found that human memory is very malleable, and tends over time to change in the direction of what is wanted, rather than what is real. The classic example is the fisherman who catches a 30 cm trout, and remembers it as being 50 cms five years later. This belief is quite sincere.
I'm familiar with memory studies. I've read uncounted numbers of them, because I suffer from severely deficient autobiographical memory. My memory is excellent when it comes to information, but I lack experiential memory to a large degree. For example, I have a huge database of song lyrics in my memory...but I can't remember and re-experience Christmas when I was 8, or my 5th birthday party, or high school graduation. One woman, with whom I've been friends since high school, habitually discusses events we attended back then, and her remembrances fail to spark the memory in me, to the extent that I'll say, "Are you sure I was there?" I don't remember it. At all.

Nor does it matter whether the event was a positive or negative experience. Either it never transferred to long-term memory or I can't access it. What I do remember is sensory stimuli. The Queen concert I went to was extremely loud, but I couldn't tell you who I was with, the date, the venue, or what songs they played. On the sexual assault I experienced, I have "strobe light" flashes of sensations: darkness, the cold tile floor, sharp pain, voices, restraints, etc. While I couldn't convey the incident in a narrative fashion, it's impossible to forget the sensory stimuli related to it. Or the fear. I can't speak to how people with normal memories might recall such an event, especially if they can identify their assailant(s).

Lance Kennedy wrote:The same thing happens with negative feelings, when someone broods. This is why I see the real possibility of a woman who had a one night stand with a celebrity, regretted it, and broods on the error, changing her memory. A long time later, she hears another woman accusing the celebrity of rape and thinks to herself that she also was raped. This is not a lie, since she is quite sincere in her belief, based on altered memory.
I agree that this is a possibility. I'm just saying we should not automatically assume, solely based on the increasing numbers of reports, that most cases fall into this category. You'll need to trust me when I say that sexual assault is not something you forget...even if you lack experiential memory. Then again, I tend to be brutally honest with myself, and I lack the shame many women attach to one-night stands so, again, I can't speak to how others consider their experiences.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On your comments about raping minors.
The American law making under 18 year olds sexually minors is a legal fiction, not a biological fact. In most cultures throughout history, an 18 year old woman would be married with children. Biologically, she became a woman some years before that. The point is that the legal barrier does not change the male sex drive, and guys will be strongly sexually attracted to teenage girls.
Yes, that's true. However, most men will not act on that attraction and face the social stigma, prison time, and consequences related to being labeled a pedophile, which include abandonment by friends and family and abuse within the prison system. It was different when I was growing up; no one thought twice if a 19yo man was with a 17yo "girl." Nowadays, it's considered child molestation. (It's strange how we expect teenagers to refrain from following their normal biological urges, because "they're children," while simultaneously expecting them to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives.)

Lance Kennedy wrote:Whether the guy feels a desire to abuse women is irrelevant.
No, it's not. How can you rationally explain discarding one variable in the equation? Either the rapist likes to control and hurt women...or he's a sociopath who doesn't care that what he's doing is hurting women. It's utterly relevant. If it were simply an urge for self-satisfaction, he'd put the images in his spank bank and take a personal day. The fact that he, instead, forces himself on women against their will is absolutely relevant.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Men feel a strong desire for sex with attractive young women. That is completely normal. It is not normal to force that young woman. That is horrible and reprehensible. But I see no reason why, with a man who is seriously nasty, his act of rape has to be seen as anything but a response to sexual desire. I do understand why that thought is unpalatable to a woman, but truth has nothing to do with what is emotionally acceptable.
I have no issue coming to terms with concepts that are emotionally disturbing. Do you find it unpalatable to consider that a subgroup of your gender gleans sexual satisfaction from control and abuse of women? You've still not offered sufficient evidence to support your opinion. At its heart, rape robs the victim of autonomy. Period. There's no way to view forcible sex that does not include control and abuse.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:52 pm

TJrandom wrote:I said usually... and elsewhere I have explained that I have indeed turned down more women than I have had sex with. Please don`t give up on me quite yet... :?
No worries, TJ. I try not to give up on anyone whom I respect. :) But I think this discussion is worthwhile. If nothing else, we're at least having the conversation.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:08 pm

TJrandom wrote:I found this article to be very interesting, as a non-rapist and one who has never coerced a woman into sex. Please do read the article before claiming a misunderstanding of these terms on my part.
Excellent article! Thank you for posting it.

I found the cognitive dissonance exhibited by rapists to be disturbing. They admit they had non-consensual sex, but deny that they raped. It's the same thing!

I also found this comment disturbing:
One repeat offender put it this way: “I felt I was repaying her for sexually arousing me.”
Even the word he chose—repaying—bolsters his self-perceived innocence. What he meant was that he meted out punishment he believed was deserved because her presence "caused him" to lose control over himself. I can't think of a parallel where the perpetrator is so successful in convincing himself that his crime was the fault of his victim.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:17 pm

Aztexan wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Aztexan wrote:By the way, you know who has never been accused of unwanted groping or sexual assault or harassment?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Just sayin

Really? You don't consider public condemnation of her husband's victims to be sexual harassment? I do.


I had forgotten about how she handled her husband's own accusers.

I really don't see her condemnation as sexual harassment but I do see it as part of the problem. I don't know if she chose to believe Bill over his accusers as a spouse or as a budding politician. I can't pretend to know her reasons. Her husband's habit of straying outside his marriage was well known so for her to choose to believe him over those women reflects a bigger problem: refusing to believe a person is capable of committing atrocities simply because we know them. If she chose to defend her philandering husband because she doubled down on keeping her marriage intact even though she knew Bill could care less or because it was a political calculation doesn't show the best of judgement oh my god this is why people hate her so much, isn't it?
I don't know what her motivations were either. But I do know that every time I discover I've been cheated on, I never blamed "the other woman." I blamed him for cheating.

Also, I don't hate Hillary; I dislike her intensely. My dislike is based on the record of her actions as a politician, from enthusiastically supporting the invasion of Iraq, to supporting the military coup in Honduras, to the destruction of Libya, to lobbying for the fossil fuel industry in Europe and Asia, to her embrace of Netanyahu and Kissinger, to her wealthy white woman brand of feminism, to her pandering to people of color, to her not only agreeing to but also conspiring in rigging the Democratic primary. She lacks ethics and empathy. But I don't hate her.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby gorgeous » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:22 pm

when has any male ever said 'yes, I'm a rapist' ? ...doesn't happen....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:22 pm

To Nikki

Re control and abuse off women.
Obviously this happens. But my thesis is that is not the dominant drive for most rapists. Obviously also, I do not condone such abuse. Any decent man will control himself rather than trying to control a woman.

My point is simply that rape is mostly about the male sex drive. The evidence I offered is that the vast bulk of rape victims are teens or twenties. This means that they are in the age group where they are most physically capable of resisting control, but are also in the age group where they are at their most attractive physically. They look sexy.

The feminist myth is that most rapes are about control rather than sex. If that was the case, most rape victims would be in a category of easily controlled people such as the elderly or those physically handicapped. But this is not correct. Most are in the category of the age that looks most sexy.

My own point of view is based simply on my disdain for bull-shit of all kinds. Feminism, like all "isms" has its own myths and items of bull-shit. I oppose any and every kind of intellectual crap.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11525
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:23 pm

gorgeous wrote:when has any male ever said 'yes, I'm a rapist' ? ...doesn't happen....


It does actually. But not until they are convicted and locked up.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Also if it was all about power and control, it would not need to be sexual. We would then see, instead of sex, individual men dealing other forms of horror to women to exercise that power and control, and that is also rare.
No, it's not rare for men to deal other forms of horror upon women. I've experienced more non-sexual assaults by men than sexual ones. I've experienced serious sexual assault only once, but experienced multiple violent assaults by men that were not remotely sexual, mostly SOs who had never before shown a tendency toward violence. Frankly, it's bloody amazing I'm still alive, and it's only because I have a level head during emergencies.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11153
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:31 pm

Control always seems to be present, but it is not always a motivator. Sometimes control is a motivator, sometimes it is a tool. When the motivation is sex, but the other person is not forthcoming, control (power) becomes necessary; but desire for power/control are not the reason power is exerted.

Poor social skills are a often factor when power and control are not the motivators. The abuser does not know well enough how to woo their potential partner, so resort to force. Contempt for the desired partner is often present, with the desired partner's wishes considered of no importance. Some such people manage to convince themselves that the other person actually 'wanted it". They would not be lying (although dreadfully mistaken) when claiming the sex was consensual.

Power and control are sometimes the primary motivator. It seems to me that most serial rapists are motivated at least as much by the power aspects as by the sexual. Some people can only get sexual gratification through sadistic acts (this is not limited to males), though the sadism may be inflicted on a pet or other animal rather than the other person.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Mass hysteria

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:34 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Nikki

Re control and abuse off women.
Obviously this happens. But my thesis is that is not the dominant drive for most rapists. Obviously also, I do not condone such abuse. Any decent man will control himself rather than trying to control a woman.

My point is simply that rape is mostly about the male sex drive. The evidence I offered is that the vast bulk of rape victims are teens or twenties. This means that they are in the age group where they are most physically capable of resisting control, but are also in the age group where they are at their most attractive physically. They look sexy.

The feminist myth is that most rapes are about control rather than sex. If that was the case, most rape victims would be in a category of easily controlled people such as the elderly or those physically handicapped. But this is not correct. Most are in the category of the age that looks most sexy.

My own point of view is based simply on my disdain for bull-shit of all kinds. Feminism, like all "isms" has its own myths and items of bull-shit. I oppose any and every kind of intellectual crap.
And yet, you're indulging in intellectual crap:
• You've drawn a conclusion based on one datum.
• You've ignored any and all other data that disagree with your conclusion.
• You've failed to recognize nuance.
• You've accept as factual statistics without context.

That comment from the article TJ posted revealed rape motivation:
“I felt I was repaying her for sexually arousing me.”
Translation: "Her presence was the catalyst for my unavoidable physiological reaction, which I could not control. It's her fault. She deserves to be punished for taking away my autonomy, so I'll show her how it feels by taking away hers, using the most symbolic weapon available...the one she created."

Here's the nuance you missed: It's obvious that younger women are more likely to cause sexual arousal and subsequently be the group that requires "punishment" for "causing" the rapist to become aroused. And more: Rapists are substantially more likely than any other category of criminals to report sexual and/or physical abuse experienced as children. It seems likely that the control that was forcibly exerted over them is the pattern they learned to extend to others...that you're either the one in control by force or you're the victim of whoever is.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest