18 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-03-13 0520 +May Ling

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-03-13 0520 +May Ling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vuBhKPy1As&lc=Ugz470_r33U20w3Qsu54AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/9d5L4S2f
__

+May Ling __ How about you reassess this: the issue with "Lawrence Krauss" is highlighting the fact that atheists have an intellectual blind spot. It is showing that atheists form beliefs - and reject claims - based on feelings in their tummy, just like religious folk do. Atheists employ specious reasoning in order to cling to beliefs, and reject claims, when all they have to go on are feelings. Just like religious folk. Allow me to explain.

You talk about there being a lack of evidence but go on to claim that: 1) You have been associated (on and off) with "Lawrence Krauss" for 10 years. 2) You claim to have never seen "Krauss" behave improperly. 3) You claim to have never heard the rumours about "Krauss" behaving improperly.

In other words, you want us to believe your word above the word of others who say otherwise. How can a person who is guided by logic and reason, as opposed to gut feeling, not see the problem with that? If you want us to disregard the word of the women making the allegations against "Krauss", then you must realise your own word is equally worthless.

Do you know what "Bill Clinton", "Bill Cosby", "Jeffrey Epstein", and "Lawrence Krauss" have in common? What they have in common is that there are literally hundreds of millions of women who can honestly say they were never improperly treated by them. Just because a lot of women can vouch for them does not mean they are innocent of what some women have alleged about them.

Having a lot of people vouch that "Lawrence Krauss" never behaved improperly with them can tell us nothing about the merits of the claims about him.

Even if we accepted what you are saying on your word (which is what you do not want us to do with the other women) you have not offered any counter-evidence. You talk about a need for evidence but you have offered none that suggests the claims made against "Krauss" *cannot* be true.

Furthermore, there are plenty of people - _more and more_ - who say they have heard the rumours about "Lawrence Krauss". In fact, "Sam Harris" in this video claimed he did not know about the rumours, but after some digging became satisfied there is probably merit to them. The fact you know that (you did listen to this video before commenting, right?), but yet insist otherwise, suggests you were never close to "Krauss" or those around him.

Else you would have heard about the rumours, right? Or do you suppose "Sam Harris" is lying in this video?

Sure, I don't doubt that "Lawrence Krauss" made you feel "special" and that has caused you to lower your guard and make you feel protective towards him. If you are who you say you are, then it's clear you do not want the claims about "Krauss" to be true. It seems that you are, understandably, in denial.

Many people who are the victims of scams (and worse) do not see it coming. If they saw it coming, they would have avoided involvement! The way you feel about "Krauss" makes sense because *your* experience with him simply differs to that of the women making the allegations.

Please reassess the situation. Atheists like to think they are clever, and undoubtedly some of them are, but many fail to realise that it makes a lot of sense for an intelligent sexual predator to involve himself in the atheist community and gravitate towards leadership roles. Why? Because atheists struggle to accept many claims without requiring a certain kind of evidence that is so often absent from sexual crimes and misconduct.

And when there are claims made that lack the kind of evidence you require, atheists can be expected to employ specious and hypocritical reasoning to reject them. Like you have done on this thread.

Only a person who is in denial and guided by gut feeling would insist that accusations of sexual misconduct can only be true when they are accompanied with irrefutable evidence. That is not how the real world works. No doubt you will deny this, but I can imagine you are someone who refuses to accept any claim against a person's character without evidence if it doesn't match up with how you personally feel about that person.

If you didn't like the cut of Krauss's jib, I'm sure you'd be down with calling him out. But because he has made you feel "special", you are here on YouTube White Knighting for a potential sexual predator.

There are more reasons to think that at least one of the rumours about "Krauss" is true than to think *all* of them are wholly fabricated. Only one of them needs to be true. "Sam Harris" has made the right call, what is stopping you?

It seems you just want people to not rush in to judging and shunning "Krauss". You cited an example where some people were falsely accused of many horrible crimes. I don't know anything about that particular case and will have to take your word for it. Let me point out that it is very easy to defend innocent people once we have the benefit of hindsight. But, with the benefit of hindsight "Lawrence Krauss" has chosen to defend the guilty e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein". So, be careful that you're not doing that as well. Otherwise, it just looks like the guilty are coming out of the woodwork to defend the guilty.

You wouldn't be doing that, right?

So, listen to what "Sam Harris" has to say in this video and take the time to reassess the situation. You don't have to condemn "Krauss", he can remain "special" to you, but he is surely not being helped when emotional people like you are defending him with obviously specious reasoning.

Remember, the first stage of grief is "denial". Then comes "anger". All the best with your journey through grief.



__________
2018-03-14 0640

+May Ling __ I understand that you feel angry and frustrated with the "Krauss" allegations. Claiming that I "hate atheists" and throwing all manner of unpleasant words and terms at me such as "bigotry", "I could not care less", "sexist pig", etc. is not helpful. If "Lawrence Krauss" did not need to use that kind of emotional language when responding to the allegations against him, then you have even less of a reason to use such language with me. I forgive you, but try not to be so crass in future.

I am sure it made you feel better to call me a "bigot", a "sexist pig", and to inform me that you "couldn't care less" about what I have to say, but you are incorrect to claim I hate atheists. I do not hate atheists. That is a very poor and insecure reading of what I wrote. I simply pointed out that atheists have a blind spot when it comes to claims that require a certain kind of evidence. A certain kind of evidence that is so often absent with sexual crimes and misconduct.

That is not controversial. Nothing I have written has been incorrect, but it is easy for someone feeling emotional to incorrectly interpret what I have written. If you are wise, you will pause, acknowledge that atheists do indeed have a blind spot, and then reflect on how that blind spot has been affecting your judgement with the "Lawrence Krauss" drama.

Sure, you want everyone to wait for "evidence". That is fair and reasonable. Ordinarily, it is terrific advice! But, alas, we will be waiting forever for the kind of "evidence" you want because so often it does not exist (at least not in an ideal form that's universally accepted) with claims of sexual misconduct. I have already explained why atheists struggle with this.

The reason I mentioned that you have not provided any counter-evidence was purely to point out that the only counter-evidence in support of "Krauss", evidence that can mean anything, would be counter-evidence that proves he is literally incapable of having done what has been alleged. Obviously that does not exist because "Krauss" *is* capable. In other words, my point is that neither side can be expected to produce worthwhile evidence.

Yet you want everyone to wait for "evidence"! Well, I have explained why that is not going to be forthcoming.

I understand that you want this drama to blow over - for everyone to shift their attention to the next #MeToo scandal - so that everyone forgets about "Krauss". But that's not going to happen, either. This scandal with "Krauss" is here to stay so you may as well come to terms with it.

I realise now that you have not been reading my words with sincerity or with a clear head. Instead you have been reacting to my words emotionally, with incorrect interpretations while missing the actual points I am making. If not outright disregarding them. There is little point in using more of my limited time to help you understand something you have no intention of understanding.

So, I shall leave you to be with your little pro "Krauss" echo-chamber where you are merely reinforcing a tribal mentality while inoculating yourself from valid opposing points. Have you even listened to what "Sam Harris" had to say on this matter? Or are you only listening dispassionately to those who agree with you?

I hope that in a few months' time, when this drama has matured (it's never going away), you return to this thread and revisit what I wrote to you. If you do, be sure to read my words with the understanding that I do not "hate atheists" and that I am not your enemy just because I disagree with you.

There is no need to apologise for your nasty words to me, I genuinely understand that you are feeling angry and frustrated about this issue. It is popular to say that there are "five stages to grief" - well, however many stages there really are, all the best with getting through them.




__________
2018-03-16 0240

+May Ling __ Oh, so now you claim you were the target of sexual harassment and unwanted attention. Have you got any proof of that? Oh, you have offered your userpic as proof that your claim must be true. Okay, how about I offer some counter-evidence that's on your level: Have you seen what "Lawrence Krauss" looks like? Well, he must be guilty! Throw away the key, right?

You keep expecting us to automatically believe your word for things while doing your best with every message to have everyone be overly hesitant and extremely cautious with the claims that have been levelled at "Krauss". *Claims that "Sam Harris" concedes - in this very video - are more likely to have merit than not.*

You are a hypocrite. Your worthless response to me above was, _"You understand very little"._ No, it is you who understands little. You are projecting again, you are guilty of everything you have accused me of.

You still haven't grasped the central point I made with my opening reply about the blind spot atheists have with certain claims. Meanwhile, you carry on making wild claims *with even less evidence* than the claims you're trying to protect "Krauss" from. Is he paying you to be a White Knight?

You may not think of yourself as a troll, but you are indistinguishable from one. _Good day._



__________
2018-03-21 1650

+May Ling __ No one is accusing "Lawrence Krauss" of being a serial r4pist or anything outrageous and criminal like that. If that is what he is, then "Krauss" is far too intelligent to get caught doing such things with the women he comes into contact with in a professional (and associated social) setting. For example, by your own admission you have had encounters with "Krauss" and ended up unscathed! But, as has been pointed out to you, that does not mean he is innocent, either.

Rather, "Lawrence Krauss" has been accused - _by several women_ - of being too "touchy feely" in an unwanted and overly creepy way. Not in a criminal way as you seem to be making out. No one is equating "Lawrence Krauss" with "Harvey Weinstein", though anyone defending "Krauss" in a biased way can be expected to give that false impression.

The string of independent testimony from unconnected women suggests that what has been alleged against "Krauss" is more likely the case than not. Or, do you somehow conceive of a *grand conspiracy* whereby a few vindictive women are smearing his name for attention? All because *you* met "Krauss" on a few occasions and know better than everyone else because he did not sexually harass you?

You keep urging everyone to suspend judgement and express no negative opinion on the matter until there is "evidence". But what evidence would you accept? You keep demanding that we wait for "evidence" - which I agree is sensible - but you have not indicated what you would accept as evidence. From the way you are tirelessly sticking up for "Lawrence Krauss" I don't think there is any evidence you would actually accept!

That you implore us to "wait for more evidence" seems to be more of a ploy to take the heat off of "Krauss" and buy him some time than a genuine expression of concern. In matters of sexual misconduct what makes you think the kind of evidence you demand (which you have not yet defined) would even exist? All of this has been explained to you, but you either don't read what has been written or don't understand what you have read.

I wonder, what are your thoughts on *"Cristina Rad"?* No doubt someone like you who is White Knighting for "Lawrence Krauss" would by now be aware of her testimony?

The broader problem is that status and celebrity often enables a pervert to get away with unacceptable behaviour for a long time. If you want to claim that "Lawrence Krauss" is simply "autistic" when it comes to interacting with women (as many are trying to claim), then what makes you think a guy who cannot figure out and respect the boundaries of women can also figure out the secrets and boundaries of the universe?!

_Give me a break._

The fact "Lawrence Krauss" did not do anything that could be interpreted as creepy with you suggests he is *not* simply "autistic" when it comes to interacting with women. Otherwise, far more women would have a similar story to tell! Instead, everything suggests his lecherous behaviour is selective, opportunistic, and calculated. Doesn't that seem rather more likely when it comes to an intelligent man who has chosen to surround himself with many young and impressionable women by pursuing a career in education?

Are you still in denial about what "Sam Harris" has had to say about this matter?

Your relentless misunderstanding of what I have written and your recent mischaracterisation of my Twitter is also revealing. _"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"_ Anyone who reads your messages and responses on this thread will probably wonder if you are being compensated for your endless White Knighting. But getting you to admit it would be like getting "Krauss" to admit he ever behaved inappropriately with women who didn't want his hands all over them.

You may not read or understand what I write, but other people do. And ultimately that's what matters.


__________
2018-03-21 2110

+May Ling __ If you don't want me to address you again, then do not misrepresent me. You say that my Tweets promote "flat Earth" and "creationist propaganda" but that is not true. You really want to shut down dissenting opinions, huh? I wonder why that is. You are free to block me but you are not free to dictate who can and cannot reply on a public thread. Misrepresenting my replies and Tweets may not be the only thing you are misrepresenting. Perhaps you did not want to accept that gentleman's offer for a Skype call because you are misrepresenting your identity. Can you prove you are the person in your userpic? Yeah, I didn't think so. It's pretty obvious what you're all about.



__________
2018-03-24 0920

+T Jones __ "May Ling" has a pattern of ignoring and misrepresenting whatever is inconvenient. You may as well be talking to "Lawrence Krauss" in disguise.



__________
2018-03-25 1015

+T Jones __ You are not interacting with genuine people - they may as well both be puppet accounts of "Lawrence Krauss" himself. I have addressed the entirety of their White Knighting with my replies above which they continue to ignore and misrepresent.

I wonder, if a Catholic priest were accused of the same things - would they urging everyone to "wait for more evidence"? (Evidence that seldom exists in matters of sexual misconduct.)

Notice how neither of them have anything to say about Cristina Rad's testimony (search for and watch her video if you aren't aware of it). But, if they do comment on her testimony, watch how they will brush it aside as "no big deal" without acknowledging that it indicates a sleazy *pattern of behaviour* coming from "Lawrence Krauss".

Of course, "Krauss" cannot deny what he has been accused of (as an innocent person would). Imagine how paranoid it would sound: _"I am innocent of everything because there is a vast and longstanding conspiracy of vindictive women who want to tarnish my good name for absolutely no reason whatsoever."_

If "Krauss" were simply "socially autistic", as these people often try to claim, then there would be *far more women with similar stories.* After all, "Krauss" has chosen to be a public educator which gives him access to *many* young and impressionable women. So why aren't there *hundreds* of similar stories? Instead, it seems "Krauss" has been selective in who he focuses his creepy attention on. Pointing that out with a Tweet apparently makes me a "flat Earther" and "creationist". Judge for yourself: https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/972671998894620672

If these people White Knighting for "Krauss" are genuine and not simply involved with or compensated by a crisis management team, then they are experiencing grief and denial is the first stage. I disagree with much of what "Sam Harris" has to say, but on this issue he is on the money and has done everything right. Notice how these people cannot acknowledge that "Sam Harris" has looked into the matter and quickly obtained confirmation that what has been alleged against "Krauss" is far more likely true than not and so has wisely distanced himself.

To echo what "Sam Harris" has said in this video: "Krauss" needs to own up to what he has done, genuinely apologise, and make amends while vowing never to do it again. (I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for it to happen.)




__________
2018-03-26 1035

+May Ling __ Yes, it's a grand conspiracy of vindictive women to sully the name of "Lawrence Krauss" for no reason at all (it can't be for attention if many of the accusers are anonymous, right?). It is all just a diabolical witch hunt, isn't it? Have you got any evidence that it is actually a witch hunt and not more simply a sleaze who, among other things, likes to tug at women's skirts is being held to account for a long history of sleazy actions? Or do you only demand evidence for claims when the claims are inconvenient? If you aren't compensated for White Knighting "Lawrence Krauss", then you are certainly experiencing grief and remain stuck on the first stage: denial. Next comes anger, oh boy, here it comes..



__________
2018-03-30 1115

+Bunnies Kitties __ ::sigh:: Oh my, I wonder from whence you came. No one is suggesting that accusing a man of being a r4pist in and of itself makes him a r4pist. That is absurd. Nor is anyone accusing "Lawrence Krauss" of r4pe, either. It is a cheap and obvious ploy to conflate what he _has_ been accused of with that of r4pe and m0lesting children etc.

Do you really think it is just a vast conspiracy of vindictive women to sully the name of "Lawrence Krauss" for no good reason? Well, they can't all be accusing him for attention since many of the women have remained anonymous. And, of those who have revealed their identity - many (if not all) have received hate and vitriol from people like you.

No one is organising a mob against "Krauss" to "lynch" him. That is more paranoia. But, it's understandable given *you* associate with people who _would_ hate others just because you told them they want to lynch someone. If you have unthinking and emotional friends, then it makes sense you could believe "Lawrence Krauss" had been framed by the "wealthy enemies" you say he has.

(I wonder, is "Jeffrey Epstein" considered a "wealthy friend" or a "wealthy enemy" of "Lawrence Krauss"? All I know is that "Epstein" is a registered sex offender and that fact has not deterred "Krauss" from sticking up for him and making excuses for his unconventional proclivities and inclinations.

So, do you think that this is just a witch hunt? You seem to have made up your mind that the allegations against "Krauss" are entirely lies. Are you willing to say that you think the testimony given by "Cristina Rad" was a wholesale lie? Are you willing to say that "Sam Harris" was wrong to have distanced himself from "Krauss" after looking into the matter and getting confirmation that the accusations are more likely true than not?

You are one more person who *demands* evidence - which is fair enough - but you reject everything that has been presented. You say that the available evidence is not good enough. But what exactly is _your_ evidence that it is all a terrible conspiracy of vindictive women to sully the name of "Krauss"? I can point you to Cristina Rad's testimony to _support_ the claims made against "Krauss" in the "Buzzfeed" article, but where is *any* evidence to support your claim that "Krauss" is being "framed" - a victim of a witch hunt?

I wonder, what evidence _would_ you accept? I have a feeling there is none. Even if there were recordings, biological proof, or a credible unbiased eye-witness - you'd still find a way to fault it. You have made up your mind that "Krauss" is innocent and attack anyone who does not articulate the same opinion as yourself.

With regard to sexual harassment you have set the bar impossibly high. It is no wonder that intelligent sexual predators and creeps would gravitate towards leadership roles within the atheist community. After all, it is comprised of people who have an intellectual blind spot that makes them unable to rationally entertain certain claims. In particular, sexual crimes and misconduct where the evidence you require is so often absent.

If someone were to accuse me of any sexual misconduct, then I should expect you to stick up for me, right? Because you are against witch-hunts, right? But, from the way you write, I get the impression you only stick up for the people you like or have been compensated to defend. It does not sound like you are able to be consistent when it comes to applying your own reasoning and standards to everyone else.




__________
2018-04-01 1750

Alberta Fazzio __ The person you are responding to ("Lavos2007") suggested there is a 50/50 chance of destroying an innocent man's career if we believe the accusations. "Lavos2007" wrote: _"blindly beleiving [sic] either side has a 50/50 chance of being the truth OR annihilating someones career"_

It seems you have fallen victim to a sly misrepresentation of the situation by those White Knighting for "Lawrence Krauss". Only if you drew random names from a hat before flipping a coin to determine if they are guilty of sexual misconduct would it be a 50/50 chance of ruining someone's career. But that is not an accurate description of the situation.

"Lawrence Krauss" is not some random name and the accusations against him have not arisen out of nothing (which he would insist is still something). The accusations have come from a litany of women who are not connected to each other - over many years. Accusations that "Krauss" himself does not outright deny - though, of course, he has put his own spin on them.

Comparing "Lawrence Krauss" with "Martin Luther King" and "Nelson Mandela" is cute. I wonder whether you would also compare "O. J. Simpson" and "Bill Cosby" with those people, too?

That "Krauss" does not outright deny the accusations is important. His admission, however slight, tells us he isn't a random name drawn from a #MeToo hat with trumped up allegations. Therefore, it is incorrect and misleading to characterise this situation as some "50/50 chance" as "Lavos2007" wants everyone to think.

Does "Lavos2007" want to arrive at the objective truth - or arrive at the truth that he personally wants?

I wonder, would an atheist ever suggest there is a 50/50 chance of there being a God? I'd think they would say there is _no_ chance for a God! Atheists would have a rat in their ranks if one of their own were to point out: _"Well, I suppose there is no evidence either way - I guess it's 50/50 if God exists."_

But there *is* evidence against "Krauss" by way of testimony that "Krauss" does not outright deny. If "Krauss" outright denied every accusation, then it would indeed be 50/50 without knowing more. But there is testimony. Have you got any thoughts on what Cristina Rad had to say?

Why do you suppose an intelligent guy like "Sam Harris" would wait as he looked into the matter and then choose to distance himself from "Lawrence Krauss" after concluding it is more likely than not the allegations have merit?

What is preventing you from realising and accepting that "Krauss" has been inappropriate around some women and got a bit too touchy feely with them? In matters of sexual misconduct the kind of evidence we would want to see is so often absent (due to the nature of the activity). In cases like that, "where there is smoke there is probably a fire" can be a useful guide.

If you insist on evidence before believing something - which is a good thing - I wonder: Do you have any evidence to support the notion it has been a vast conspiracy of vindictive women who just want to sully the name of "Lawrence Krauss" for no good reason? (Perhaps started by wealthy and powerful enemies of "Krauss"?)



____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.