Lawrence Krauss is in big trouble at ASU.
A college dean has recommended prominent theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was accused of sexual harassment, be fired from Arizona State University.
Whoa. That’s a major threat to his academic career. It’s too bad he is totally helpless before the accusations of women, and has no defense against this witch hunt.
Oh, wait…
According to policies set by the Arizona Board of Regents, Krauss is entitled to several layers of review before he can be fired.
First, the dean of a professor’s school can recommend a faculty member be dismissed, which is what Kenney did. Then, the faculty member can challenge the recommendation in what is called a conciliation or mediation, and a conciliation committee comprised of faculty members is set up.
Krauss is in the conciliation process right now, a university spokesman said. Kenney, Krauss and the president of the University Senate all appointed one member to serve on the committee.
The conciliation committee’s goal is to find a “mutually agreed upon solution,” according to Board of Regents’ policy.
If the conciliation process fails, Crow can issue a written notice of dismissal. Krauss could then appeal this notice to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and receive a hearing.
The committee makes a recommendation to Crow, who then makes a decision on dismissal. Krauss has another opportunity to ask for reconsideration before a final decision from Crow.
The entire process can take many months.
Not to mention he is on a fully paid leave. I’m also on leave from my university, but if you take a sabbatical for career development, they reward you with half pay. If only I’d been fondling women, I could be getting full pay! The mistakes we make…
Also not mentioned is that, as a popular physics superstar, he’s got his book revenues to fall back on.
I’m also going to give him 6 months if he loses tenure (not a sure thing at all) to be back on the comeback trail, getting more speaking gigs, another book deal, maybe a position at another university, because after all, hasn’t he suffered enough?
(I’ve just learned that this much sarcasm hurts my heart. Need to stop doing that.)
Well, it’s hard to find a better path in this case. He’s certainly entitled to defend himself and get a hearing. It’s good news that these guys aren’t just getting away with it any more. As for the paid leave, it’s hard to see what else to do about that as well. They removed him from contact with students and post-docs, but they can’t fire him without going through the process. I expect he would rather be working so it isn’t really a reward. He’s certainly paying a price, even if you might want it to be higher.
So rather than complain about this I’m going to call it good news. BTW while there are many allegations against him from his past, as far as I know he has not been accused of harassing subordinates at ASU. The basis of the dean’s recommendation is that he grabbed a woman’s breast at a conference in Australia. This is much closer to Al Franken than it is to Harvey Weinstein. No, the university can’t tolerate faculty who do stuff like that, but there are far worse out there.
What??? A tenured professor at a major U.S. academic institution is entitled to several layers of review before he can be fired!?
What an outrage. I suggest all academics get organized and conduct marches and demonstrations over this disgraceful policy. I’m sure all professors will surely join in the cause.
Also I know America weeps with you over the fact that you get paid half your salary while not working. Everyone else gets full pay when they take off a year to do other stuff.
Hey, Cynical Skeptic, that whooshing sound you hear is the point flying directly over your head.
No, that was the sound of the banhammer sending him hurtling off the blog, finally.
…and there was much rejoicing!
At least you won’t go hungry in the frozen lands of Morris!
The banhammer sound is more pleasing.
OK, as this seems to be a tricky concept, so here’s a more blatant take on it:
PZ is not saying Krauss should be sacked without due process. He’s pointing out that due process in most universities is extensive and slow, and even if the final outcome of the process is dismissal for an unambiguous case of sexual assault, the accused still ends up with several months’ leave on full pay and often a good career after moving to another institute. And no criminal record.
This is in sharp contrast to the usual cries of “witch hunt!” and wagon-circling before the wagon-circlers have any reason to think the accusation is confabulated or unreasonable. You might also notice that the wagon-circlers’ interest in due process does not seem to extend to those who have been assaulted.
THERE ARE CALLS TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY BEHAVIOR! I’M BEING MOB LYNCHED! OH THE AGGRESSIVITY!!!
goldstino is an anti-#MeToo time traveler?
I so hope Julie Whittaker deletes you in episode 2.
goldstino @8;
Oh, I’m sure you had lots and lots of sympathy. Funny how some folk lose it so easily. Nice ‘nym, by the way. It nicely encapsulates how lightweight you are.
CD @10: I fucking hate the Davies-and-Moffatt-spawned incarnations of the show, but I will not stand for the misidentification of Yorkshirepersons. It’s Jodie Whittaker.
@9:
“HALP! HALP! I’M BEIN’ REPRESSED! COME SEE THE AGGRESSIVITY INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!!!”
@11
Oh, do go fuck yourself you ignorant entitled fuckwit.
@Rob: My apologies for the misidentification
@goldstino:
I never said anything about deleting your comment. I said something about deleting you. In case you didn’t notice, Jodie Whittaker (whom I misidentified as Julie Whittaker) is the new Doctor Who. A fictional character. Deleting you “in episode 2” might have been a hint that this was a fictional threat about fictional behavior, but I assume we can agree that some people are simply too wrapped up in their ideology to recognize what other humans call “humor”, can’t we?
As for making our minds up in advance, may I remind you why that humorous comment was needed in the first place? I quote you here:
And yet, there is no way – even if your characterization were accurate – that any “aggressivity” or “mob lynching” could possibly have caused any single person to vote for Trump, since Trump has only stood for any election twice: once in the Republican primaries for their nomination as candidate for POTUS and once in the general election for POTUS.
Both of those happened in 2016. #MeToo didn’t come along until 2017, long after Trump was inaugurated.
Thus one would have to be a time traveler (like Doctor Who, whose new series debuted today) for anything related to #MeToo to affect your vote for Trump.*
Thus, the point of responding to your fantastic idiocy with what the hooMANZ call hooMOUR rather than with reasoned argument. Nothing you’ve written deserves a substantive response.
=================
*And if you must know, I’ve looked at the evidence for time travel. I even watched a spanish language documentary called “El Ministerio del Tiempo”. As convincing as you may find such evidence, and as entertaining as I found much of EMdT, I still find the state of the evidence lacking. Call me close minded, if you like.
CD @14: Think nothing of it. The important point is that goldstino appears to be another variation on the tired old trope “I used to be a liberal until someone said something rude about Reagan, and now I’m enraged about the New Deal”.
See, black folk being murdered is nothing compared to a white dude facing possible denial of elevation to the Supreme Court just because some women said he was a sexual predator. At least there’s a sort of symmetry: the amount of due process in both cases was negligible. In the first case(s), cops mostly escape justice. In the second, bloke escapes serious investigation and gets on the Supreme Court. Balance!
Well, that, and apparently goldstino ostensibly believes #metoo is about convicting upon accusation.
(Also, I’m amused by the O-so-tired claim about groupthink; apparently, #metoo is too controversial for groupthink groupies like goldstino, who adhere to the dominant narrative)
goldstino, careful with all that lolling; you might sprain your neck.
Also, your trolling is weak as piss.
Yet you faithfully follow his lead when ignorantly dissing #metoo and repeat his supporters’ talking points.
(Credible, you ain’t)
You imagine any significant proportion of those who would vote are on the sidelines now?
Heh.
(Besides, gerrymandering and voter suppresion included, Trump still lost the popular vote by 3 million. That’s with the evangelicals and rednecks being energised!)
Your “case” ain’t just resting, it’s RIP.
<snicker>
You are but an amusing chew-toy, not someone worth taking seriously.
goldstino:
You’re not very good at rhetoric, are you?
First, you haven’t actually disputed my claim; second, if everyone thinks something, then you also think that something.
(But fine, though you share Trump’s opinion, you are an independent thinker. For certain values of “thinker”, of course ;) )
You’re remarkably obtuse. No.
My point is that “driving a lot if votes into Trump’s camp” requires a lot of uncommitted voters.
(Are you asserting that there actually are “a lot” of vacillating voters? Because, if not, your claim is vapid)
—
So, back to the actual post topic:
Do you or do you not think accused men are the victims of #metoo?
(Dare you actually express your opinion? I think not)
@goldstino:
Says the person who thinks a #MeToo movement in 2017 drove voter preferences in 2016 and who can’t recognize humor when it’s right there? Says the person who thought I was talking about deleting your comment, when I quite obviously wasn’t, because … you just assumed that everyone’s thought processes must already fit the stereotypes you hold?
Yeah. As I have already articulated, your nonsense is worth a bit of mocking, but your opinions are as unsupported as Superman in flight.
Feel free to drone on about groupthink if you wish, but even if we were engaged in groupthink, since you can’t recognize what we’re thinking when you’re reading what we’re writing, how would you even know?
:yawn:
@John Morales:
speaking of goldstino you say:
This reminds me of the fantastic opening to the West Wing episode “Galileo”.
[OT]
Dammit, CD. I watched the clip, so reminiscent of “Yes, Minister”!
I’ll have to check it out now.
(Also, I’ve watched “El Ministerio del Tiempo”. With my wife, to keep her Spanish up.
Excellent documentary! :) )
You’re already making no distinction between mob rule and ASU’s faculty disciplinary process, so I suppose literally grabbing sexualized parts of another person’s body being equated to verbal expression of unpleasant sentiments is no stretch for you.
Next are you going to argue that grabbing another person’s tits is constitutionally protect free expression? Good luck with that.
goldstino, it’s kinda cute how you attempt to avoid the actual question.
The question was “Do you or do you not think accused men are the victims of #metoo?”, not what you think about the Krauss case.
That noted, I feel it incumbent upon me to encourage you, so… well done in at least attempting to engage, however feebly.
I concur, though I add that it’s suggestive of a pattern of behaviour which has certain implications.
Though you decry the response to it.
Really?
So, you’re claiming being a rude and insensitive person towards many women in the past making clumsy unwanted advances in trying to get sex or with sexist comments is like my and other commenters’ behaviour above.
OK. Arguendo, I concede that think you are in the same position as a woman to whom I and others here are clumsily making unwanted to try to get sex, or to whom we make sexist comments.
(Does it not make you want to invent a #metoo tag? ;) )
—
Next question for you to clumsily avoid: do you still think #metoo is about convicting upon accusation?
That is wrong that no charges are brought up legally if proven guilty. FFS no wonder women and men are assaulted in this country no accountability. Ugh!
goldstino:
Whence then your #8 in this very thread? Because it makes no sense unless that’s what you thought it was, at the time you wrote it.
But relax, I put a link for you with which to inform yourself, should you care to do so, in my very first comment here.
(OTOH, be careful — you are gazing into the abyss)
PS he wasn’t fired; he was suspended.
</pedant>
@John Morales:
From the Sartre Cookbook:
“Puritanical” is a weird way to dismiss “sexual assault”. I mean, for one puritans didn’t have a great track record on consent. But the idea that you link sex and sexual assault so strongly that you think objecting to one is objecting to the other says some pretty fucked up things about you.
You’re all so morally reprehensible, LOL.
And thanks for the recipe, CD. Guess what I’m having tonight? Lol.
I think I got a bingo here. Libby Anne once wonderfully explained how conservative Christians think in two boxes labelled “sin” (i.e. outside of marriage) and “not sin” and who therefore accuse progressive people of hypocrisy when they apparently promote sin one day (gay relationships, sex outside of marriage, abortion, etc.) and are then against it another day (rape, sexual assault, ..).
Folks like goldstino are just like that, only their boxes are labelled “Puritan” and “Liberated”. Neither of them has a box called “consent”.
Of course, prude shaming women into doing things they don’t like has been a tool of abusers since the sexual revolution and it’s working a treat thanks to people like goldstino who may not abuse or assault folks themselves, but who will dismiss victims as being “prudes” and “uptight”, happily conflating objection to action x without consent with objection to action x.
An opinion like the ones you’ve offered here is inherently incapable of being expressed respectfully. Even if that were not the case, your comments have not been respectful. Those who hold opinions like yours should be made and kept uncomfortable.
@CD #25
The only tits you can grab that are protected free expression are your own, though I’m sure you know that. Just clarifying in case anyone else might think there’s some way in which they can grab someone else’s tit without consent.
@goldstino:
Oh no, someone on Twitter called me a meanie. I better vote for a corrupt, incompetent, stupid, unstable, sexist, racist, and totally unhinged moron who is the idol of the fascists and nazis to lead the country! That makes sense! Totally!
What a fucking dumbass.
Idiot @#8: “And then they wonder why people vote Trump…”
They voted for Trump for a number of “reasons”, with critical reasoning not being one of them. For a good list of their actual “reasons” try racism, vindictiveness, irrationality, and just plain stupidly. The ones who claim that they voted for Trump because the could not vote for Bernie fall into #2 through #4 at the least. It is always interesting how Trump supporters or Russian trolls claim that liberals or progressives being “mean” is what drove them to Trump, while the entire Trump administration is the meanest one in at least the last century, if not the title holder. Trump has nearly 4,000 lawsuits to his name for cheating contractors and he has a very long history of bold faced lying, fraud and racism. The claim that non-mean people saying mean things (something that Trump is well known for) is what drive people to Trump reaches the pinnacle of stupidity, up there with scientific creationism.
@goldstino’s #24 “but I petty much liken”
Snicker snicker. Freudian tpyo? The pettiness of this person first responding to something they later confessed ignorance of, then complaining people reacting to their (admitted) ignorance were worse than sexual assault.
Yeah, I hope Krauss gets at least the basic slap on the wrist of firing, some actual consequences past the few speaking gigs he lost and his tearful half-assed apology. But I’m sure he’ll bounce right back, maybe he can go on that TV show about all the real victims of #metoo, write a book about his terrible ordeal and then start up the new speaking tour just before Christmas 2019 (probably in Australia). Le sigh.
zetopan@38–
QFT. Trump has publicly insulted women, the disabled, the families of soldiers killed in combat, POWs, journalists, Mexicans, refugees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the mayor of London, Angela Merkel, SNL, Puerto Rico, Chicago, the Emmies, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Mueller, people skeptical of North Korea’s intentions, North Korea’s intentions, Facebook, the FBI, Colin Kaepernick, New Jersey, Canada, Australia, Germany, England, France, Harley-Davidson, the UN, Nordstrom, NATO, and literally hundreds more.
But sure, goldstino believes that people voted Trump because they don’t like meanies.
Actually I do think that people, especially white men*, voting for Trump because they want to live in a world where they can “grab them by the pussy” (or tit) and not face any repercussions is quite a sensible hypothesis.
*I will forever not understand white women
@goldstino:
Translation: I have no rational rebuttal to various good points raised here so I’m just going to ramble on. Good job.
So liberal, much social.
There’s that quote about open-mindedness and gullibility. I sense a similarity between the gullibility half of that quote with goldstino’s liberality.
Also:
and
Again, the freudian slips are strong with this one.
Let us not forget other victims, like that Kavanaugh chap who has been crucified in the media just because a woman -whom the Republican senators themselves said sounded convincing- was attacked by a man that coincidentally looked exactly the same as Kavanaugh.
Or Susan Collins, who is currently being targeted by horrible liberals just as a consequence of her actions.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/susan-collins-already-running-scared-susan-rice-deletes-endorsement-website/
By contrast, those darkies that get shot now and then are probably guilty of something even if they are not guilty of what the cops suspected when shooting them.
(And the people who lose their cars under asset forfeiture and then has to hire a lawyer to retroactively prove they are innocent should just have tried looking more innocent in the first place)
goldstino, #42
Oh dear, you think you’re socially liberal?
Somebody who responds sexual assault allegations the same way Mitch McConnell, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and Lindsey Graham just did is absolutely not socially liberal.
It must be like how if you declare yourself to be “rational” all of your opinions are automatically rational and people arguing against you are therefore irrational.
Warning: incoherent whiny fool @48.
goldstino
That record is so old, you can get it cheap at any garage sale.
“I am very liberal, but women demanding not to be groped is one step too far”.
Let me repeat myself:
Nobody here objects to tits being touched as such. Many of us have tits and like the sensations they give quite a lot, others don’t, but like touching them very much, some people here do both or neither. This is not the issue. Sexy talk is not the issue. Sex is not the issue. Again, most people here like sex.
A lot.
Amazingly, when it comes to “who decides who gets access to my body”, my narrow, small minded and egoistical view of the matter is “me, myself and I”.
Your threat of abusing that power to punish those who do not treat you “nicely” or agree with you is duly noted.
goldstino @48
–
insert picture of an IMAX projector in full swing here –
Goldstino,
Larry Krauss, is that you?
Seriously, you sound just like a Republican senator responding to the latest turd to drop into Trump’s Twitter feed.
“Unforgivable…,” “Unsupportable…,” and yet you still support the asshole guilty of the misconduct. Please pick up the ashes of your credibility and decency on your way out the door.
goldstino@#50:
Social Warrior Justices? By Loki, if you’re gonna troll, at least get your acronyms straight!
The only over reaction I see is your lying, bullshitting, concern trolling, and tone trolling. All evidence free by the way. Typical misogynist assholism.
Kreator, #54
We need one of those in the SCOTUS.
[emphasis added]
Well that would certainly put abusers on notice, good suggestion!
As a proud, lifelong member of group X, I just want to state categorically that all members of group X should be harshly suppressed and summarily rounded up!
goldstino @#16 “I am respectfully expressing my opinion”
No you’re not you’re transparently JAQing off and sealioning.
goldstino at 42-
Sure, that’s the case. I believe this even though this is exactly what people such as Dave Rubin or Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad)* looking to make tons of cash by being the real “liberal” or “leftist” who regurgitates the same tired talking points one could find said on Fox News or read in Breitbart on any given day constantly insist.
Although Sargon has pretty much dropped this line of bullshit recently. I guess it was getting too unbelievable even for him. Not for Dave Rubin, though; not while the Koch Brother checks are still good.
goldstino at 48-
and 50-
And your use of- or attempts at using- common terms tossed about by right-wing trolls, even when play-acting at being a leftist, doesn’t really help make a case of you being as you claim above. Of course, that you started out with a ridiculous talking point pushed by the likes of Bethany Mandel to absolve conservatives and Republicans of actively courting- or, at the very least, keeping conspicuously silent about the support of- horrible people such as fascist groups such as the alt-right to their factions was tipping your hand right out of the gate.
Can we be PC and suppress this troll’s free speech and finger point witch hunt lynch ban him already?
But how can we possibly justify censoring their hard truths with such compelling arguments as the just-so assertion that a movement that didn’t exist at the time made people vote Trump much in the same way Jews make people become Nazis?
Surely we can at least wait for more right-wing talking points and buzzwords from the only true social liberal in the thread; I’m “cultural marxism” away from bingo!
Goldstino has been tested by the Sorting Hammer, and has been placed in Fuck-Yourself-You-Lying-Centrist-Phony House, which is not anywhere near this blog.
@goldstino:
I read the thread. I did a search. No one in the entire thread used the word “smart” except for you. Not a single person used the word “intelligent”.
There is, in short, not one single “self-professed ‘smart’ liberal” in this thread. Perhaps you’re simply ignorant of what phrases like “self-professed” mean? You certainly seem to be ignorant of what “liberal” means.
@Kreator, #54 &Saad #57:
Oh! oh! Pick me! Pick me!
Although I suppose I’d have to move back to the United States for that …
I’d like to share the results of a game I played. I rearranged the words of goldstino’s post #62 to make a more accurate comment. Typos were kept. The last two sentences are anagrams of the words I couldn’t place.
With the remaining letters I formed:
Assyrya
Ash
MCMLV (1955)
CD
Damn, I wanted to know on what planet this actually is what happens in cases of groping:
. I’m not even picky about the colour of the sky, because on my planet a guy not only accused of sexually assaulting women but admitting to it on a hot mic got elected president of the USA…
Now it will forever be a mystery. Sorry.
Yawn, troll won’t accept their assholery. Didn’t read, as nothing but their idioticy. Will never effect my thinking, as they don’t think….
How sad that a person who did not present a single argument thinks they have the high ground here.
They keep bringing up Strumia, for some odd reason.
I’ve always enjoyed a good game of whack-a-mole.
Goldstino’s grand plan:
Nicely done, goldstino. I’m sure everyone now knows all they need to know about your relative intellectual and moral capacities.
Definitely the behaviour of someone who respects other people’s boundaries.
Giliell
They’re so socially liberal, it’s like boundaries don’t exist anymore!
rq
Boundaries and consent are sooooo Puritan.
Giliell
LOL.
@Giliell:
Absolutely. It’s no wonder that a person who feels entitled to violate PZ’s boundaries would be defending Krauss against accusations that Krauss violated boundaries…
…and it’s even more telling that that person doesn’t claim Krauss is innocent, but rather makes the claim that it doesn’t matter if Krauss is guilty. I would be so unshocked if it turned out that goldstino is someone who has sexually harassed and/or assaulted others.
CD
I was thinking along those same lines, I just didn’t say it because those people are sue happy.
Minimizing the behaviour?
Check!
Shifting the focus from consent toward prudery?
Check!
Acting as if the legal system was actually up to task with the issue at hand?
Check!
Display of supposed power over others?
Check!
Refusal to respect boundaries?
Check, check, check!
PZ, you might want to be careful here. You are absolutely correct that he has been accused of a crime, and that they are investigating him, and that he is fighting the charges using the system. So far it’s working fine…the investigation continues and he’s on leave until the results come in. If the evidence shows guilt he’ll be fired and probably charged afterwards. If innocent he will have been exonerated. This is how things should work, yes?
Then why do you insist on assuming he’s fully guilty in your post before anyone bothers to look?
I don’t expect pure equality…this is an opinion posting after all…but you jumped right in with “if only I fondled women…” the assumption being that you believe he did it 100% with no evidence.
Also you say “I’m also going to give him 6 months if he loses tenure (not a sure thing at all) to be back on the comeback trail, getting more speaking gigs, another book deal, maybe a position at another university, because after all, hasn’t he suffered enough?” Again the tone is obvious…if he’s found innocent you would know in your heart that he just got away with it and he clearly deserves to lose his tenure…there really Is no scenario where he MIGHT actually be innocent to you, is there?
Again, IF he’s guilty, have at him…but you’re just assuming he Is guilty, and evidence be damned if he’s found innocent because he clearly would have just gamed the system. For now he’s just accused…or as you seem to see it “pre-convicted”.
Be honest…if someone accused you of groping them and you’re clearly innocent, you would be wanting the same response and process to prove yourself. When found innocent, would YOU want everyone just assuming that you’re guilty and just connected? Would YOU want to be knows as the rapist who got away with it just because some other person got everyone rolling their eyes when you protested your innocence?
Just wait until it’s actually obvious he did it before unloading the snark…only those targets deserve it, and this one simply might not yet. (MIGHT, I don’t know one way or the other…but apparently PZ does)
@mamba, you seem to have missed the info that there was a whisper network amongst women frequenting actions where LK was speaker about his creepy and intrusive behaviour. Women have warned each other about him for literally for years. If my memory serves correctly, PZ knows about this directly from some of those women.
That means, that this statement of yours:
is wrong.
Having the word of multiple women that LK is a creep and a lecher is evidence in itself. It might not be evidence enough for conviction in a judicial trial, or for losing a job, but it is enough evidence for a person who knows and trusts said women to make their personal judgement about him.
mamba
It is possible he is entirely innocent, but the reality is that for a unversity administration to have taken the action they did there must be a reasonable body of evidence that he is not, otherwise given the fear of reputaional damage they simply wouldn’t have done anything. Not even if theyknew he was guilty, but didn’t have enough evidence.
mamba
Yes. And ponies for everyone!
People actually have already looked. Journalists have already investigated his modus operandi, many people have come forward with evidence.
Thank you for showing again that you don’t think that women are people and that their testimony is not evidence. There is more than this post on Kraus on this blog. They all contain evidence. That he groped women and made inappropriate comments has been well established.
And again, you’re acting as if courts or committees are determiners of truth, when they are not, have never been nor will ever be short of being actually able to time travel.
None of the guys who ever groped me or made phone calls or moaned through the damn house intercom ever got found guilty, so I guess according to you those events never happened and they are all innocent little lambs.
Are you under the impression that this is the first we’ve ever heard about Krauss? Because if so, you might want to just sit quietly at the back of the class until you’re all caught up.
Mamba, why are you presuming a one-time accusation versus a known pattern of behavior? Behavior that should not tolerated in a civil society, or by any employer by law (I had harassment training yearly until I retired)? You come across as defending/condoning that bad behavior. You should reconsider your objections in light of reality.
What the #MeToo movement has shown is that often people like LK or Kavanaugh carry out those actions over years until there are finally some consequences.
I’d like to go back to the inappropriately-named Cynical Skeptic making that crack about sabbaticals. So somehow taking some time off from teaching to do scientific research qualifies as “not working”?
#84: As I said, I did not know about the evidence against the guy, only what i read in this posting. So yeah, if the guy has a history then like I said, have at him! THIS is just the first I heard of the evidence against him, that’s all. Now for the rest of your post…if they had evidence against him them great, I agree with you.
But watch your own post…immediately you turn around and after proving me wrong, you prove me right! You end by saying that courts don’t matter, the conclusions don’t matter, and the guys will always be guilty even when found innocent. So I ask YOU…in this case the guy is guilty because of evidence I did not know about. NO issues there, I am wrong. So what possibly WOULD convince you of the innocence of someone accused (someone else, not this guy…say PZ for example)? Courts are meaningless, testimony of a single person is literally enough that you just said they’d need a time machine to prove to you innocence. If PZ was ever accused, you’d throw him to the wolves it seems. THAT was my point.
85: Sorry i didn’t feel the need to perform an in-depth analysis of previous posts in this site before responding, so yeah, I’m caught up now and admit that the guy had a lot of evidence against him. But see what i just wrote above, because I don’t think my main point changed much even with the new information. Class may still be in session. :)
86: Becasue I did not know about the pattern, ONLY the one-time accusation. Some of us just read posts occasionally you know! I didn’t know I had to have a minimum reading performed beforehand. :) Still though, I admit I was wrong about this guy but not in general.
So as you asked, I DO reconsider my objections against THIS guy, but NOT in general to just assuming that all guys accused are guilty. It just feels like based on comments read that guilt is just assumed. But then I didn’t read the past 5 years worth to cross-reference…:)
Holy shit, what does it take to make you people understand this:
Yes, courts are completly irrelevant to whether someone is actually guilty or innocent. They either did something or they didn’t. Courts are to decide whether the level of evidence is enough to impose punishment. Depending on when and where and who the courts will be stacked in favour of the accused or against them. Courts have found the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. That doesn’t change a thing about whether something happened or not.
@mamba:
How thick are you? People haven’t said something just because you imagined them saying it. Why not try quoting the exact part of someone’s comment with which you disagree? No one said that courts don’t matter and conclusions don’t matter. Courts DO matter. They have huge effects on society. But the purpose of the courts is not to determine truth or we would allow the courts to use evidence that the government obtains unconstitutionally.
The purpose of a criminal court is to determine whether it is justifiable, under the ethics, constitution and laws of a given jurisdiction, for the government to use its powers to impose punishment on a particular person.
Oliver North’s criminal conviction was thrown out not because he didn’t lie to congress, but because of the courts’ duty to protect persons against self-incrimination. That doesn’t change the fact that North was guilty as fuck of lying to congress. It changes whether the US government can treat him as guilty for the purpose of imposing punishment.
Courts are not primarily in the business of finding truth, as should be obvious from the very fact we have statutes of limitations after which the court literally does not give a fuck whether or not an allegation is true. Criminal courts find truth (as best as they can) where and when necessary to answer the only question with which they are truly bound to find an answer: Should the government use its powers to inflict consequences in a given case?
What Giliell said is right on: whether or not someone did X and whether or not someone is punished by the courts are 2 different questions.
Stop making shit up, do the work of actually quoting your rhetorical opponents, and construct an argument against what people are actually saying … or admit you’re just too incompetent at interpreting the words written here and get thee to a nunnery where babbling about words you heard that were never actually spoken is treated as entirely reasonable.
Ooops. Sorry for stepping on your toes, Giliell. I started that comment before you finished yours…
There is an evidence based reason for this. Women lie less than 10% of the time when reporting rapes and near rapes, and a large majority of men lie about it happening, especially if the word rape is used.
That is why those at this blog take the woman’s accusations seriously, more seriously than a man’s denial.
What mamba doesn’t get, which is typical of these kinds of defenders, is a) Krauss is not facing criminal charges, b) there is photographic evidence of his misbehavior, as well as the testimony of multiple observers and victims, and c) what’s being decided is whether he is suitable for a job.
Really, groping young ladies renders you unfit to be teaching. It’s that simple.