• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Lawrence Krauss responds to Buzzfeed allegations

 
 
 
Underseer said:
untermensche said:
Suppose the professor did have a huge sexual desire for the woman. Is it inappropriate to attempt to spend time with her?

Are men allowed to attempt to have sex with women?

And then after the sex decide if they want more?
Click to expand...

It's not OK for someone in a position of authority to have relations with someone in a subordinate position. That's true whether we're talking about professors and students or doctors and patients or managers and employees. If she wasn't a student, then how he goes about making his desires known can very much be the problem. Just look at many of the allegations floating around the #metoo movement. A lot of it is about people in positions of authority expressing sexual desire in really inappropriate or frankly disgusting ways.

Anyway, it very much is possible that some group of theists concocted this just to discredit atheists in general by going after a very prominent atheist, but it is also in bad taste for Krauss to bring that up. It sounds like he's trying to pull our emotional strings.

Personally, I'll wait to see what ASU decides, but I appreciate everything everyone else has to say about this.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it entirely depends on the so-called authority one has over another.

If the person in the subordinate position cannot say no without consequence it is a problem.

Is that always the case?

Many times men in authority are pursued by women who desire the man. If he is unmarried why is that forbidden?
 
braces_for_impact said:
ronburgundy said:
Except it is an objective fact that some Christians are blaming atheism in general for his actions, using the argument that morality cannot exist without God. The Buzzfeed article centered upon his strong influence and fanbase in the skeptic community. Most skeptic organizations have severed ties to him, prior to any vetting of the allegations, simply to avoid the guilt by association.
IOW, he isn't in any way saying we are guilty by association, but noting the objective fact that enemies of skepticism and atheism are using the accusations against him to defame all skeptics and atheists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some Christians did that, some will do that now, and some will do it into the future, no matter what the outcome here. Their own hypocritical leaders failing at their own moral code doesn't phase them, and this certainly won't. I wonder what Sir Occam would say. A Christian plot to discredit atheism, in combination with BuzzFeed and many years of backstory, or Krauss is a creep. I know where my money would go.
Click to expand...

They aren't mutually exclusive. Krauss could be "a creep" and the Buzzfeed article could be a gross misrepresentation of reality.
In fact, despite prior rumors about Krauss, we have far more a priori evidence that Buzzfeed would engage in gross misrepresentation and distort whatever information they do have.

Occum's razor is about not constructing explanations out of unknown entities and/or making assumptions that have no a priori basis.
We are not starting from baseless assumptions but the established facts, such as that most people in the culture seek to defame atheists as immoral, that Krauss is an ideal high profile atheist target for such a goal, that stories of sexual misconduct are easy clickbait money, and that Buzzfeed like nearly every "news" outlet cares mostly about profiting off of creating any story that will get clicks. These a priori facts tell us that if Krauss ever did anything that could have been misrepresented as sexual misconduct, then it likely would have been. IOW, if he had asked out a person over whom he had zero authority but who was younger than him and technically "a student" somewhere (though not his or at his school) that this would likely be dishonestly misrepresented as "Atheist teacher sexually harasses student!". In fact, given Buzzfeed's history, it is implausible that they would have simply told the story factually and accurately without trying to inflate it for profit.

This doesn't mean that Krauss didn't do anything wrong. It just means that we do not have a valid basis to infer that he did and thereby reject the highly plausible alternative that he made some sorts of sexual advances that were distorted into the kinds of immoral and criminal actions the Buzzfeed story implies. The rational bet is on some kind of combination of the two.
 
Last edited:
ronburgundy said:
They aren't mutually exclusive. Krauss could be "a creep" and the Buzzfeed article could be a gross misrepresentation of reality.
In fact, despite prior rumors about Krauss, we have far more a priori evidence that Buzzfeed would engage in gross misrepresentation and distort whatever information they do have.
Click to expand...

What evidence is that? This is from their news division, it's not a listicle or opinion piece. The three reporters don't appear to be hacks, their cvs show they worked in various other legit news venues. The article reads very fair, can't see anything wrong on the surface.

Also, this isn't a Christian conspiracy. lol. Nearly all, if not all, of the accusers are fellow atheists. The article quotes 3 named individuals as witnesses to the boob grab. It's fairly certain Krauss groped that woman. To deny it, you'd have to say the reporters are making up quotes from these people (and I have seen at least one of them confirm their quote elsewhere).

I have also seen from Matt Dillahunty and Jerry Coyne that they know of other allegations not included in the article that they find believable. One accuser was contacted by Buzzfeed but didn't want to be quoted even anonymously. Many of Krauss's peers within both the physics and skeptic communities were not surprised by the report because it's long been an open secret that Krauss has a behavior problem. His denials are weak. He should be owning up to it instead.
 
blastula said:
ronburgundy said:
They aren't mutually exclusive. Krauss could be "a creep" and the Buzzfeed article could be a gross misrepresentation of reality.
In fact, despite prior rumors about Krauss, we have far more a priori evidence that Buzzfeed would engage in gross misrepresentation and distort whatever information they do have.
Click to expand...

What evidence is that? This is from their news division, it's not a listicle or opinion piece. The three reporters don't appear to be hacks, their cvs show they worked in various other legit news venues. The article reads very fair, can't see anything wrong on the surface.

Also, this isn't a Christian conspiracy. lol. Nearly all, if not all, of the accusers are fellow atheists. The article quotes 3 named individuals as witnesses to the boob grab. It's fairly certain Krauss groped that woman. To deny it, you'd have to say the reporters are making up quotes from these people (and I have seen at least one of them confirm their quote elsewhere).

I have also seen from Matt Dillahunty and Jerry Coyne that they know of other allegations not included in the article that they find believable. One accuser was contacted by Buzzfeed but didn't want to be quoted even anonymously. Many of Krauss's peers within both the physics and skeptic communities were not surprised by the report because it's long been an open secret that Krauss has a behavior problem. His denials are weak. He should be owning up to it instead.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I forgot where I heard it, but it was put rather nicely. If you were an employer calling on past jobs and checking references and so on, you'd hesitate to hire Krauss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom