“Criminal charges have never been brought against him, owing to lack of evidence (an unfortunately perennial problem in cases of this type).”
Could it be, that there is no evidence, because these rapes did not happen? Could it be, that famous men have become cultural targets for opportunistic liars who want fame and fortune for victimhood of someone famous?
I don’t know what the civil court standards to convict are in Ireland. In the USA, it’s “a preponderance of evidence” standard, or “>50% chance of guilt.” What makes you think the professional managerial class who runs the courts wasn’t simply biased against him, and eager to convict?
I think Conor McGregor is a rapist. You're welcome to believe otherwise, but am I unlikely to be persuaded otherwise, and certainly not by tiresome tropes about his accusers looking to cynically "make a name for themselves". The accusations against him seem entirely of a piece with his other documented acts of random, unprovoked violence (e.g. the incident in the pub in which he assaulted an older gentleman, all of which was captured on CCTV).
Fighting random people isn’t comparable to rape. This is an irrational view. To be honest, I think you are a very soft person with sheltered life experience, if you jump to these kind of conclusions about basic fighting. I grew up around a lot of fighting, lots of it gang related. Typical Barron brawling isn’t an indicator of rape.
By your own admission, you lack evidence that Conor McGregor is a rapist. You seem to be buying into the modern hysterical notion that accusations are evidence unto themselves. This is highly irrational, from a person who seems to speak of logic and rationality in his writing.
I don't believe that getting into fights with people is comparable to rape. I do, however, believe that wantonly striking someone without provocation and sexually assaulting someone are indicative of a temperament which is profoundly selfish and inconsiderate to others.
You lecture me about "jumping to conclusions", and yet your reflexive assumption when heating about a rich and famous man who's been accused of rape is to assume that the allegations against him were invented by women looking to make themselves rich and famous at his expense, despite (I assume) bring unable to name a single woman who has succeeded in so doing.
I don't believe that an accusation of rape is equivalent to guilt, but even if the amount of evidence marshalled against McGregor is insufficient for a criminal conviction, it WAS sufficient for a civil conviction which, while certainly a lower bar, is not zero: there have been rich, famous men who've faced civil trials for rape and been acquitted. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her going out with McGregor, and I assume you wouldn't either.
Great article. But I think the framing in the title is more confusing than clarifying. You have modus ponens right, and that seems to me the overarching theme. But modus tollens is essentially the contrapositive, which isn't really touched on. Recall that there are 3 pieces in the modus tollens and ponens arguments: "if A then B", A, and B. Both rely on the assumption of the first. My interpretation of the events you describe is that they represent a tacit rejection if the premise "if A then B" itself on social grounds, which is not modus tollens. But feel free to correct my mapping.
Thank you for the feedback. Somebody else suggested that what I was talking about wasn't so much "modus ponens" as the converse. I may have slipped up here but I think the general sense is still intelligible.
Yes, this man is a pice of shit.
“Criminal charges have never been brought against him, owing to lack of evidence (an unfortunately perennial problem in cases of this type).”
Could it be, that there is no evidence, because these rapes did not happen? Could it be, that famous men have become cultural targets for opportunistic liars who want fame and fortune for victimhood of someone famous?
I don’t know what the civil court standards to convict are in Ireland. In the USA, it’s “a preponderance of evidence” standard, or “>50% chance of guilt.” What makes you think the professional managerial class who runs the courts wasn’t simply biased against him, and eager to convict?
I think Conor McGregor is a rapist. You're welcome to believe otherwise, but am I unlikely to be persuaded otherwise, and certainly not by tiresome tropes about his accusers looking to cynically "make a name for themselves". The accusations against him seem entirely of a piece with his other documented acts of random, unprovoked violence (e.g. the incident in the pub in which he assaulted an older gentleman, all of which was captured on CCTV).
Fighting random people isn’t comparable to rape. This is an irrational view. To be honest, I think you are a very soft person with sheltered life experience, if you jump to these kind of conclusions about basic fighting. I grew up around a lot of fighting, lots of it gang related. Typical Barron brawling isn’t an indicator of rape.
By your own admission, you lack evidence that Conor McGregor is a rapist. You seem to be buying into the modern hysterical notion that accusations are evidence unto themselves. This is highly irrational, from a person who seems to speak of logic and rationality in his writing.
I don't believe that getting into fights with people is comparable to rape. I do, however, believe that wantonly striking someone without provocation and sexually assaulting someone are indicative of a temperament which is profoundly selfish and inconsiderate to others.
You lecture me about "jumping to conclusions", and yet your reflexive assumption when heating about a rich and famous man who's been accused of rape is to assume that the allegations against him were invented by women looking to make themselves rich and famous at his expense, despite (I assume) bring unable to name a single woman who has succeeded in so doing.
I don't believe that an accusation of rape is equivalent to guilt, but even if the amount of evidence marshalled against McGregor is insufficient for a criminal conviction, it WAS sufficient for a civil conviction which, while certainly a lower bar, is not zero: there have been rich, famous men who've faced civil trials for rape and been acquitted. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her going out with McGregor, and I assume you wouldn't either.
Great article. But I think the framing in the title is more confusing than clarifying. You have modus ponens right, and that seems to me the overarching theme. But modus tollens is essentially the contrapositive, which isn't really touched on. Recall that there are 3 pieces in the modus tollens and ponens arguments: "if A then B", A, and B. Both rely on the assumption of the first. My interpretation of the events you describe is that they represent a tacit rejection if the premise "if A then B" itself on social grounds, which is not modus tollens. But feel free to correct my mapping.
Thank you for the feedback. Somebody else suggested that what I was talking about wasn't so much "modus ponens" as the converse. I may have slipped up here but I think the general sense is still intelligible.