I think the onus is on you and those who agree with you to discard all this "intuitively" and other hand-wavy stuff and come up with some hard evidence and/or citations, or back down and say, "we're making this shit up because it suits our biases."
I wasn't born yesterday. If someone makes a claim without a shred of evidence, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "Well, here's another alternate explanation that's just as unproven, so clearly yours has nothing special going for it." I gave you a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you're telling me that intuitively, God has a long white beard, not a saucer.
I'm perfectly ok with your saying that you choose to believe something without a shred of evidence, to take it as faith.
But that won't change the fact that simply making shit up, asking if it's "wrong," and then saying that you'll stick to it unless someone else proves your unsubstantiated prejudices are mistaken is bunkum.
His intuitions are simply basic mathematical intuitions ("natural functions are differentiable") and have nothing whatsoever to do with any prejudices. He isn't "making shit up", he just isn't justifying it with as much mathematical rigor as I did.
It really does not help discussions like this to simply assume and accuse those you disagree with are prejudiced and unthinking.
Sorry, what he and you are doing is starting with assumptions you are making up and then saying GIVEN this shit I'm making up THEN given these mathematical intuitions I cherry-pick as simple demonstrations of the conclusions I've drawn THEN the conclusion I drew before I back-filled my reasoning holds.
Again, without even the barest attempt to go out and gather some empirical data. That kind of talk belongs amongst consultants pedalling methodology snake-oil. And yes I am being dismissive of your so-called arguments.
Around here we regularly make fun of the "social sciences" for their lack of rigor. Except, it appears, when we want to throw our prejudices around. Shame on you all for treating Hacker News like it's Reddit.
I made three assumptions. One was social distance (a harasser will harass only one of the K < N people he has met). The other was your assumption that a harasser always harasses. The third was your assumption that all harassment allegations are true.
I assume that the social distance assumption is the one you believe to be prejudiced?
I'm also curious why you believe your post is any different. You also posited a mathematical model (exactly like mine, except without the social distance), and hinted that those you disagree with must be sexist. Is it merely the existence of an ad-hominem attack that makes your post more valid?
I wasn't born yesterday. If someone makes a claim without a shred of evidence, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "Well, here's another alternate explanation that's just as unproven, so clearly yours has nothing special going for it." I gave you a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you're telling me that intuitively, God has a long white beard, not a saucer.
I'm perfectly ok with your saying that you choose to believe something without a shred of evidence, to take it as faith.
But that won't change the fact that simply making shit up, asking if it's "wrong," and then saying that you'll stick to it unless someone else proves your unsubstantiated prejudices are mistaken is bunkum.
That thinking isn't thinking.