That’s a good point. I’ve made changes to reflect that.

@Richard Carrier

Amy now says she wants the SSA to have published the accusation. They didn’t have to, because I did. In Doing Wrong Right. Within two months. So the information was actually made public. By me.

[…]
I do not see what more she could honestly have wanted done.

Yes, it was made publicly available by you, but what she wanted instead (I think) was for SSA to ensure certain people would know that about you. Your blog post isn’t likely to ensure that.

Or at the very least you should be able to see that if SSA published such info, it probably would reach a different audience than if only you published it, right? Even if it isn’t ensured that everyone would see it. If SSA had a responsibility to inform their own audience, we can still judge them for failing it, even if you told your own audience eventually.

Anyone who refers to a woman as “a female” is probably a sexist douchebag. Who is an embarrassingly unskilled and unimaginative troll. Or twelve. Or both.

So, the flaw is in your honesty. Got it.

There is a flaw either in your honesty or your epistemology.

SSA groups aren’t bound by the policy in question. That only applies as a requirement to be on the national organization’s bureau. Which the affiliates don’t have to use. Not to be a speaker. Hence.

Which should be a relief to most people. The policy is unrealistically strict in general application.

Comments policy.

So basically the analogy isn’t valid because of possibiliter fallacy. Thanks!

Only one complaint. For violating the one policy that only has to be followed to be on the speaker’s bureau, not to be a speaker. Speakers are covered by other policies, but not that one. It’s only a requirement to be boosted by the SSA national with promotion and funding for local affiliates. I have written before on why I don’t think that overly strict policy is one any organization should have. And most orgs agree (which is why no such policy exists in most other orgs). But the SSA national doesn’t have to promote speakers or fund speakers for local affiliates. So that they only apply that overly strict policy to that one activity is their prerogative. One then has the freedom to decide whether they want the perks in exchange for submitting to greater restrictions, or not. And affiliates have the same choice of whom to bring in as a speaker.

In a same way Gospels, even if written decades after, write down what people who were associated with Jesus said he did.

That’s actually never said in the Gospels themselves nor established by any known facts. So we actually don’t know that they wrote down anything anyone who would have known Jesus said.

Shouldn’t this imply that Gospels could transfer historical tradition?

Possibiliter fallacy (Proving History, index): possible does not get you to probable.