rigorousintuition.ca

I mean what isn't disputed? And really every time two people get together they are a fucking courtroom and a jury.

brekin,

Really? Unless, by really, you mean not really.

brekin wrote:
I mean what isn't disputed? And really every time two people get together they are a fucking courtroom and a jury.

minime wrote:
brekin,
Really? Unless, by really, you mean not really.

You do know I mean figuratively and not literally right? I mean I don't mean two people get together on the street and they suddenly have the power to issue subpoenas.
But people are always getting together and making judgements, issuing their verdict on what is going on based on their experience and what they know about issues. Sometimes leaving it to the courts is just a cop out when we don't want to have to think about an issue and make a tough call. I'm not arguing for citizen panels, but I'm not going to be shut down on exploring a controversy because "its a court thing" which can just mean stop thinking and leave it to the system.

Have you ever sat on a jury? I have, and if people think suddenly everyone magically grows a legal lobe that is free of bias and operates logically with supreme intelligence when they enter a courtroom then I really hope you never end up on the other side of a jury. I won't get into specifics, but the case I was on the perpetrator raised his fist and verbally told the person trying to alert others he was stealing that they were going to do them physically harm. That wasn't disputed. What was disputed was whether or not he was actually physically threatening him by raising his fist and saying he was going to hurt him,or, or, if it was just a "cultural difference in communicating". As if raising his fist and saying he was going to kick his ass was just a different way of saying, have a good day sir. A significant number of people on the jury thought this. So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

Disputation itself.

brekin wrote:
So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

minime wrote:
Disputation itself.

ha, ha. You should look through this thread and the forum in general. How many people were arguing that we shouldn't even be disputing this? We don't have all the facts, we won't ever know, it is family matter, only Woody and Dylan really know, leave it to the courts, everybody else should just shut up, etc In fact I'd say most of the comments boil down to whether another commenter believes someone is an authority enough to weigh in on the dispute or their bias has precluded them from being able to look at the matter in a clear way. The core dispute really is whether or not we should be disputing this.

brekin » 22 minutes ago wrote:

brekin wrote:
So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

minime wrote:
Disputation itself.

ha, ha. You should look through this thread and the forum in general. How many people were arguing that we shouldn't even be disputing this? We don't have all the facts, we won't ever know, it is family matter, only Woody and Dylan really know, leave it to the courts, everybody else should just shut up, etc In fact I'd say most of the comments boil down to whether another commenter believes someone is an authority enough to weigh in on the dispute or their bias has precluded them from being able to look at the matter in a clear way. The core dispute really is whether or not we should be disputing this.

Actually, it's been either that, or something along the lines of "If you give him the benefit of the doubt, then you are calling Dylan a liar and violating her all over again!!!111"

I have post a few times with an alternative perspective, but the comments aren't sexy enough to garner responses.

brekin » 17 Feb 2014 12:31 wrote:Fouthbase, your distinction between the old suffering and the new suffering is bizarre to say the least. And again, who are you to determine how much of either should she have felt or be experiencing? I mean even if Allen is 100% innocent (which I sincerely doubt in all honesty) her life has been severely disturbed by these events which have played out in the media. It is one thing to say (not quoting you here, just throwing out some opposing framework) "Hold on, we don't have all the facts." but it is a whole other ball game to say "Well she probably only suffered this much back then and now it should be much less." I can say from personal experience that I've been consumed with rage and long simmering blackness related to things 1000% less severe and 1,000,000% less publicized, even if she lives some pampered lifestyle I don't think you can minimize her experience just because some people have rallied around her blindly.

This is a matter for the courts in part, but since it got fumbled there and probably isn't going to go back, then it is playing out in the public. The reason the public is concerned is because Allen is a public figure that we patronize him. And even if it was in the courts its not like they don't make mistakes or are susceptible to corruption and incompetence, no? Every thread on RI I could go through and say this is a complicated ______

issue as far as others can ascertain, because we still don't actually know what happened. It's disputed, and there is conflicting evidence and testimony, and this is not a fucking courtroom and we are not a jury.

I mean what isn't disputed? And really every time two people get together they are a fucking courtroom and a jury.

Fourthbase wrote:

Are you fucking serious? You want people to stage an official public boycott, based on zero certainty of what happened, nothing but hunches and confirmation bias? Even if Allen molested Dylan, there's no way for strangers to know with any reasonable amount of confidence. Sorry. But that's what you're setting up as the minimum for validation? Get real. She's been validated more than 99.999% of childhood sexual abuse victims. She has little to no good reason to feel any new suffering. Not unless you re-define suffering to include not-being-universally-and-automatically-believed-to-the-point-where-everyone-in-the-world-hates-Woody-Allen-as-much-as-she-does.

Serious as internet proposal. And we don't have "zero certainty" of what happened. We have testimony from baby sitters, nannies, an eyewitness account from the victim, Psych doctor reports, the alleged perpetrator's bizarre testimony, related behaviors and incidents expressed by the perp going back years and currently, etc, etc, etc We are much, much higher than zero. If we had zero certainty then you yourself would probably not have a gut instinct at all regarding Woody. Zero certainty is saved for deep quasi-mythic historical events with no records and no physical evidence. And I'm getting tired of my own amazement at how you are an authority on how you can determine how someone else "has little to no good reason to feel any new suffering". I mean how do you know? You are such a stickler for uncertainty regarding the alleged incident when after reviewing the available evidence it is pretty easy, and not really hasty at all, to form a opinion, one way or the other. But when it comes to what the supposed victim should have felt then and now, you suddenly operate with absolute certainty. Do you see the discrepancy?

Zero, more or less. Fine. A little more than zero. Enough to convict in any courtroom? No. And if you think so, please excuse yourself from jury duty in advance for the rest of your life. Enough to even win a civil suit? Nope. Not even that. What's left? What's left might as well be zero certainty. About what happened 20-odd years ago. Am I being inconsistent about confidently measuring the amount of new suffering Dylan probably should or should not be feeling? No, because what I'm talking about there is not really in dispute, i.e., Dylan has the full support of her family except one brother who doesn't really blame her, and Dylan is certainly being inundated with a shower of adulation and support, more in total than almost every other victim who's ever existed. Is it unanimous? No. Non-unanimity of support and belief is not grounds for suffering in any reasonable worldview. If she doesn't have a reasonable worldview, then frankly I have no sympathy for whatever new suffering she may be feeling. For christ's sake, she should be REJOICING over how much she has been listened to. Will she only stop suffering once everyone completely agrees with her? What hasn't gone right for her since the VF article? What palpable reason does she possibly have to be suffering more now than before coming forward again?

brekin » 17 Feb 2014 14:14 wrote:

brekin wrote:
So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

minime wrote:
Disputation itself.

ha, ha. You should look through this thread and the forum in general. How many people were arguing that we shouldn't even be disputing this? We don't have all the facts, we won't ever know, it is family matter, only Woody and Dylan really know, leave it to the courts, everybody else should just shut up, etc In fact I'd say most of the comments boil down to whether another commenter believes someone is an authority enough to weigh in on the dispute or their bias has precluded them from being able to look at the matter in a clear way. The core dispute really is whether or not we should be disputing this.

ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?

You have it EXACTLY WRONG.

The people saying there is nothing to dispute are the ones saying that victims must be unanimously believed always or we're sexist enablers of pedophilia, that we should shut up about asking questions, that never knowing isn't a problem because the only information ever really needed is a self-professed victim's word, everything else being a bonus on top of the unimpeachable authority of someone -- anyone -- claiming victimhood status. The people saying we don't have all the facts are 1) Right and 2) Saying the case should be disputed MORE, not less. How the FUCK you managed to portray the agnostics here as the close-minded ones is mind-boggling. I have done nothing in this thread EXCEPT FOR DISPUTE AND QUESTION, as objectively as I can. I have implored people not to be so sure, yet. I have not wished for anyone to stop thinking or stop pursuing the truth. Is it possible right now to know with any confidence what really happened? No. But it might be, depending on what becomes known in the future, and depending on our ability as observers to analyze. Maybe if we don't presume that we already know what happened because victimsareneverwrong and shut down all open-minded examination that merely threatens to cast a single reasonable/plausible doubt on any the victim's preferred narrative, then we might actually figure out more stuff about the case that adds logical/evidentiary weight to her side. But hey, since people are so fucking sure she's already telling the whole truth and nothing but, then why bother discussing anything, at all, except for how wonderful it is to be super-duper-pro-victim?

Not much of a leap from Charles Manson to Woody Allen.

Charlie is 5'2". Woody is 5'5". Two short men, born a year apart, with aloof mothers. Both relatively poor. Craving to be one of The Beautiful People....

Background on Marilyn Manson's "The Beautiful People":

"The term 'The Beautiful People' was inspired by a book that came out in the mid-'60s. It was about the Kennedys, politics and fashion at the time. The whole culture of beauty as being created at the time. We live in a world where the culture of beauty is taken for granted, but it didn't exist in the same way in the '60s. Then Charles Manson and his 'family' took that culture, hated it and reacted against it. In many ways his reaction is the same as mine, but I'm playing with it from both sides. I make things glamorous as a revolt to glamour."

...
Its lyrics discuss two major themes: what Manson refers to as "the culture of beauty", and that culture's connection to Friedrich Nietzsche's theory of master-slave morality — the song's "weak ones", who are "always wrong", are oppressed by and exist solely to "justify the strong";

Charlie could be Woody's older brother. .

From a NY times book review of The Unruly Life of Woody Allen https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/meade-woody.html: :

"Did you hit me?" he asked from behind the camera. Making a documentary about her life and the life of Mia Farrow's mother, actress Maureen O'Sullivan, two women who seemed to share nothing in common, seemed like an intriguing idea. "Mia's mother was a movie star all her life and knew nothing else," he explained afterward. "She was Tarzan's mate. She had a Beverly Hills pool and hung around with Bogart and all these people." Maureen was a thoroughbred filly, whereas his own mother was a plow horse, "a typical Jewish-neighborhood cliché in every way," he said.

The tiny, snowy-haired woman was squinting.

"I remember you would hit me every day when I was a child."

Hit him? she asked incredulously. What did that mean? That she whipped him?

"No, but you were always slapping me."

Charlie would often tell his "girls" to imagine he was their father, as he raped them.

Woody gets away with molesting his own daughter because he's one of The Beautiful People, who gain even more power by exerting their will over the weak. Charlie could never be one of The Beautiful People.

Kennedys, Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn Manson, Charles Manson, Woody (why wouldn't he?), Mia Farrow, Tarzan's mate, Dylan (Thomas, Bob, Farrow), Nietzsche, Nabokov, Polanski...what a heady witch's brew! ha ha


...just a little diversion from the RI battle.

Fourthbase wrote:

Zero, more or less. Fine. A little more than zero. Enough to convict in any courtroom? No. And if you think so, please excuse yourself from jury duty in advance for the rest of your life. Enough to even win a civil suit? Nope. Not even that. What's left? What's left might as well be zero certainty. About what happened 20-odd years ago. Am I being inconsistent about confidently measuring the amount of new suffering Dylan probably should or should not be feeling? No, because what I'm talking about there is not really in dispute, i.e., Dylan has the full support of her family except one brother who doesn't really blame her, and Dylan is certainly being inundated with a shower of adulation and support, more in total than almost every other victim who's ever existed. Is it unanimous? No. Non-unanimity of support and belief is not grounds for suffering in any reasonable worldview. If she doesn't have a reasonable worldview, then frankly I have no sympathy for whatever new suffering she may be feeling. For christ's sake, she should be REJOICING over how much she has been listened to. Will she only stop suffering once everyone completely agrees with her? What hasn't gone right for her since the VF article? What palpable reason does she possibly have to be suffering more now than before coming forward again?

Fourthbase, if you read the 33 page custody report I think there was more than enough concern that Allen could have been convicted if it went to court. If you recall, though,

"The custody suit was not an investigation into whether Allen abused Dylan or a criminal procedure, nor was Justice Wilk’s decision a binding legal conclusion regarding Allen’s guilt or innocence, but the judge did discuss the allegations in his decision in the case.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -saga.html

The decision not to pursue the matter further criminally was because of the interest of how it would have effected Dylan. Not because of validity of the claims.There would have been more digging and much stricter analysis and yes, more bullshit from both sides, but if pursued a decision would have been made, and I think it wouldn't have been good for Mr. Allen. Possibly he could even been completely exonerated somehow, but I doubt it. But how you can accuse me of playing judge and jury when you are able to confidently issue a verdict on the case? There may even be things the custody Judge was privy to but didn't allow in the courtroom for one reason or another and the public isn't even aware of. There may even be things that Mia Farrow is complicit on that prevented her from pursing the case. Who knows? I think you should skip jury duty because you obviously like snap verdicts.

Yes, she should be REJOICING Fourthbase! Why even Stephen King and Joyce Carol Oates are tweeting about the most painful event in her life! She has the support of her entire family! Oops, except one brother, her adoptive father, and oh yeah, her sister Soon-Yi who her father married around the time she believes he molested her. But that's ok because Hollywood is standing beside her:

Other stars of Allen movies whose representatives PEOPLE has contacted have had no comment. Among celebrities offering support for Farrow was Lena Dunham, who Tweeted: "To share in this way is courageous, powerful and generous." She adds: "Grateful my timeline is full of so much love and respect for Dylan."

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 17,00.html

But she has Lena Dunham! Whoever that is, I think she is famous. And Rosie O'Donnel supports her! Don't forget Rosie O'Donnel and, and...? But maybe politicians have come forward? The famous athletes?
Regarding the suffering thing. You don't get it. And I don't think you ever will. Not my job.

brekin wrote:
So, yeah tell me, what isn't disputed?

minime wrote:
Disputation itself.

brekin » 17 Feb 2014 14:14 wrote:
ha, ha. You should look through this thread and the forum in general. How many people were arguing that we shouldn't even be disputing this? We don't have all the facts, we won't ever know, it is family matter, only Woody and Dylan really know, leave it to the courts, everybody else should just shut up, etc In fact I'd say most of the comments boil down to whether another commenter believes someone is an authority enough to weigh in on the dispute or their bias has precluded them from being able to look at the matter in a clear way. The core dispute really is whether or not we should be disputing this.

Fourthbase wrote:
ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?

You have it EXACTLY WRONG.

The people saying there is nothing to dispute are the ones saying that victims must be unanimously believed always or we're sexist enablers of pedophilia, that we should shut up about asking questions, that never knowing isn't a problem because the only information ever really needed is a self-professed victim's word, everything else being a bonus on top of the unimpeachable authority of someone -- anyone -- claiming victimhood status. The people saying we don't have all the facts are 1) Right and 2) Saying the case should be disputed MORE, not less. How the FUCK you managed to portray the agnostics here as the close-minded ones is mind-boggling. I have done nothing in this thread EXCEPT FOR DISPUTE AND QUESTION, as objectively as I can. I have implored people not to be so sure, yet. I have not wished for anyone to stop thinking or stop pursuing the truth. Is it possible right now to know with any confidence what really happened? No. But it might be, depending on what becomes known in the future, and depending on our ability as observers to analyze. Maybe if we don't presume that we already know what happened because victimsareneverwrong and shut down all open-minded examination that merely threatens to cast a single reasonable/plausible doubt on any the victim's preferred narrative, then we might actually figure out more stuff about the case that adds logical/evidentiary weight to her side. But hey, since people are so fucking sure she's already telling the whole truth and nothing but, then why bother discussing anything, at all, except for how wonderful it is to be super-duper-pro-victim?

Hey, trust me there has been righteous indignation and reflexive conclusions from ALL camps in this thread. Don't think I haven't tried to be evenhanded. But I'm not going to the trenches over every skirmish and since I'm not a mod I'm not compelled to weigh in on every difference of opinion that goes wrong. But you are agnostic? Bro, you are the most holy rolling agnostic I have ever met.

Have you considered that perhaps the reason you react so violently (sorry I'm not buying your zen, you only get annoyed on the internet, not mad thing) is because the rigid stances that provoke you, are very much like your own? Not in content but in style? That the same person who can write this:

Fourthbase wrote:
ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?
You have it EXACTLY WRONG.

When they see something that is not logical, or they believe to be, is not going to react completely logically?
That when their righteous hubris is triggered by others righteous hubris they really have more in common than not?
Have you considered that you are arguing so much with people you are similar to?
I'm willing to even consider somehow Allen is even innocent in some long shot scenario. And welcome any evidence or opinion that fleshes that out. (I just get annoyed at the "we can never know", "she was brainwashed" "it is complicated" cop outs) You seem to think any negative evidence, or opinion, presented against Allen is part of some blind victims crusade and Dylan Farrow is some professional victim celebrity who should be glowing in all the publicity she is getting.

Spy meet Spy.

brekin » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:I'm willing to even consider somehow Allen is even innocent in some long shot scenario. And welcome any evidence or opinion that fleshes that out. (I just get annoyed at the "we can never know", "she was brainwashed" "it is complicated" cop outs) You seem to think any negative evidence, or opinion, presented against Allen is part of some blind victims crusade and Dylan Farrow is some professional victim celebrity who should be glowing in all the publicity she is getting.

I agree. The probability leans toward Woody Allen being guilty, but of course probability isn't certainty and perhaps he's innocent.

Anyone with an strong opinion on something that has no bearing on his day-to-day life (such as a stranger possibly molesting another stranger) is either emotionally invested in the subject, or indoctrinated. Either way, that person is incapable of assessing that scenario objectively.

BrandonD » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:17 pm wrote:

brekin » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:I'm willing to even consider somehow Allen is even innocent in some long shot scenario. And welcome any evidence or opinion that fleshes that out. (I just get annoyed at the "we can never know", "she was brainwashed" "it is complicated" cop outs) You seem to think any negative evidence, or opinion, presented against Allen is part of some blind victims crusade and Dylan Farrow is some professional victim celebrity who should be glowing in all the publicity she is getting.

I agree. The probability leans toward Woody Allen being guilty, but of course probability isn't certainty and perhaps he's innocent.

Anyone with an strong opinion on something that has no bearing on his day-to-day life (such as a stranger possibly molesting another stranger) is either emotionally invested in the subject, or indoctrinated. Either way, that person is incapable of assessing that scenario objectively.

No. Because you can have an extremely strong opinion as to the probability of the guilt.

Like I do. My strong opinion is based completely on probability, motivation, past and present patterns, and way more.

I don't see how anyone can argue that anything else is probable. It's extremely remote.

If someone has any sort of evidence as to Allen not being guilty, I'm all ears. But so far I've heard almost nothing. And I see a lot of reactions from people who really need to question their own "objectivity" because I'm seeing very little of that from a surprising number of people.

If someone has any sort of evidence as to Allen not being guilty, I'm all ears.

If someone has any sort of evidence as to Allen not being guilty?... Hhhhhyelllo!

Throw him in the river. If he drowns, he's innocent.

minime » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:00 am wrote:

If someone has any sort of evidence as to Allen not being guilty, I'm all ears.

If someone has any sort of evidence as to Allen not being guilty?... Hhhhhyelllo!

Throw him in the river. If he drowns, he's innocent.

Strawman much?

Nordic,

Do I strawman? Am I strawmanning?

I looked it up on wikipedia to see if the definition had morphed recently.

As Descartes said, "I think not..."

Nordic » Today, 08:43 wrote:I don't see how anyone can argue that anything else is probable. It's extremely remote.

The problem with employing a law of probability to determine the likelihood of something that's already happened is that that thing that's already happened is not probably one thing or another, but only one thing.

That said, jurisprudence as practised in the land of the free requires a probability of guilt for the handing down of an indictment. If memory serves, case law exists in which the verbiage "more likely than not" is applied. That would seem to nevertheless leave the door fairly ajar when it comes to a defender establishing reasonable doubt.

What stinks most about this particular case is what we know for sure about it. Not that some creepy little man woo'd away from his common law partner one of her most prized collections out of her litter with her former most prized co-collector. Not that a guy whose films somebody didn't like anyway spun tales involving an older man and an intellectually precocious teenager and made many other allusions to the same. Not that "both sides" of the case have had both nanny and brood along with their many character witnesses to back them up. Not that experts weighed in that Allen undoubtedly engaged in inappropriate behavior with the victim. Not that experts weighed in that the victim version of events seemed questionable. All of that shit leads to nothing but a kind-of-knowingness that judgemental people use to make them feel superior to other judgementally-minded people.

The most undisputed part of this case is that a prosecutor decided to have his cake and eat it too at the expense of the victim under the pretext that he was sparing the same. We know that there are no shortage of jurists tasked with dispensing justice who will make public their opinions of probable guilt without filing any charges. How probable would this same guilt be short of the court acting out-of court?