Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 167
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    yes, failed her duty. Rape and sexual assault victims hurt themselves and society at large when they fail their duty to report the crime in a timely manner. They also forfiet their credibility when they wait 30 years to make an accusation, because we as unknowing an unbiased judges are robbed of our ability to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. Because the actually innocent are robbed of their opportunity of an effective defense. (as already argued. please review).

    We should not take the time to hear her out, because her claim is no longer credible.
    Demanding Kavenaugh to "recall from those days" 30 years ago is an unreasonable demand. Again review my argument, we could actually expect an innocent man to incriminate himself and come across as a liar by simply sim-remembering.

    While you can make a decision as to who you believe, you do not have a reasonable case to make for it. Because any reasonable case for an actually innocent man, has been made impossible by the accuser waiting 30 years.
    You would be unjust to believe the accuser over the accused at this point in time 30years later. You would be unjust in your approach, and unjust in your method.

    I have offered extensive reason why that is the case. I look forward to any rebuttal you have to offer.
    So if Kavanaugh did force himself on Dr. Ford, he should just get away with it?

    You would be unjust to believe the accuser over the accused at this point in time 30years later.

    Why is either person more or less credible than the other?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACKBOY
    So if Kavanaugh did force himself on Dr. Ford, he should just get away with it?
    no one SHOULD get away with crimes.
    However we SHOULD dismiss accusations that even an innocent person could not mount a defense against.. because they place unreasonable demands.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Why is either person more or less credible than the other?
    It isn't about the person being credible, it is about the claim.

    "I am accusing you of a crime"
    Is that a credible accusation? Does it become credible because of who says it?
    The answer is no it is not. The reason it is is not is because it is too vague. What crime? Where? When? etc. It doesn't matter if there person making the claim is a crack whore or the most honest person possible.

    That is what we have here. A claim that is too old, and to general to be reasonably defended by an innocent person, and thus it is not credible.
    To serve man.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) This woman has failed in her duty to report the crime in a timely manner, and thus has made her claim not credible.
    - Support- An accuser has a duty to report a crime in a timely manner, to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, and that others are not put at risk of her fate. This is what justice demands, without it the possibility for justice is diminished, and makes injustice and damage to the innocent more probable.
    This argument is invalid as it sets an unreasonable standard for credibility. Kavanaugh is not on trial for a crime that, if convicted, will result in going to jail and I would say setting the level of "credibility" at the standard of where it would be acceptable in a criminal trial is pretty arbitrary.

    I hold that a claim is credible where it sounds believable. And since Ford made the claim years ago in a situation where she would have no incentive to lie (at the therapist), it seems very likely that she is telling the truth and therefore her claim is credible. Whether it would stand up in court or whatever is pretty much irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) The claims are not credible because they are too vague and too old for even an innocent man to properly defend himself.
    - Justification- An innocent man may have proof of a valid alibi when the event is first alleged, but can not reasonably be expected to still have that evidence 30 years later.
    - An innocent man may remember details that would exonerate him, but 30 years late can not reasonably be expected to remember those details, and indeed,may be expected to remember things in such a way so as to incriminate himself. IE he remembers being at one place, but someone neutral claims to remember different, casting him as a liar.
    My rebuttal here is the same as above. There is no reason to examine her claim as if it's being presented in a criminal trial in order to consider whether it is credible or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3) If an innocent man could not reasonably defend himself, then any investigation is inherently unfair and unjust.
    If the man is indeed innocent, an investigation into the facts of the case are more likely to support that he's innocent. I mean if fellow classmates say that Ford was angry at Kavanaugh for reasons that had nothing to do with the alleged assault (like she had a crush on him and he rudely turned her down), the would weaken the credibility of her claim. The only reason to think that investigating the truth of the matter would hurt K is because one thinks the facts are more likely to show that he did it than he didn't.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4) No investigation should take place.
    Assuming we want to learn as much as possible about whether he did it or not, an investigation should take place.

    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation is more likely to show us that he's innocent. And then if he is confirmed, the SCOTUS is less likely to have the taint of having a judge who is suspected of committing sexual assault.

    I just don't see how learning the facts of the case would harm the US. If he did it, we should know that. If he didn't do it, we should know that. An investigation will increase the chances of us knowing whether he did it or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - Job interview vs criminal.
    Mican makes a valid point that the standards applied to a criminal investigation do not apply here. In that case, there is no need for any investigation the interviewer can if they so choose refuse his nomination on the power of a simple accusation if they like. Reasoning within themselves whatever they like, such as it isn't worth the trouble or the risk.
    That is however not a just reasoning. Any kind of real justice and fairness demands that we dismiss the charges. Based on the same reasoning as those for a statue of limitations in a criminal setting. Because that reasoning is still valid, and still reflects justice.
    Accepting the claim as valid and credible at this point, is unjust. Job interviewers are free to be unjust, but they should not be.
    Well, if someone was interviewing someone for an important position but learned that he was accused of doing something that, if true, would disqualify him from being an acceptable applicant for the job, what would be the correct course of action?

    You wouldn't want to just disqualify him if you aren't sure the accusation is true but then you wouldn't want to hire the guy in case the rumors are true since that would damage your company. So what would be the best course of action.

    Wouldn't it be to investigate the accusation as thoroughly as possible before making a decision? Obviously yes. If not, then explain why it would not be.






    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - Micans point An investigation COULD occur -
    I am arguing that it should not occur, as it would inherently be unfair to the innocent. So as you earlier argued that even if some magic rule disallowed the investigation it should still occur, i am arguing that even if some special rule or appeal to procedure could allow an investigation, one ought not occur.
    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation into the facts is more likely to confirm that he's innocent. If he's innocent, NOT having an investigation would increase the likelihood that people would think he's guilty when he's not and THAT is what would be unfair to an innocent man.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - Micans point, If someone believes something happened, then it probably happened-
    1) This gives a presupposition preference to an accuser, which is an unfair to the innocent approach to any just investigation or job interview.
    Whether that is the case or not, it does not support that I am incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) This is not a reasonable assumption when mind altering drugs are involved, such as alcohol, or when a great amount of time is added. Both of which seem to be the case here.
    Please support this. While I agree that intoxication and time make memory of past events less reliable, the notion that one generally cannot believe one's own memory, especially when it comes to a very dramatic event that has caused trauma, seems very far-fetched to me and such a memory should be considered as likely a false memory as a real memory seems very far-fetched. So again, please support this assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In this case the earliest report was in 2012, it was a partial report and still fails any reasonable length of time.
    Based on what criteria? Seriously, show me some formula for when it's been too long for credibilty that is based pm something other than what apparently is need to hold up your side of the argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See my argument why a case for the truth is not reasonably available to us.
    What people not at the event would say is not "evidence", it is gossip and hear say and does not shed light or truth on the event.
    As I supported in my last post, using the term "gossip" is begging the question (since the term presumes that the claim is doubtful).

    If ten people distinctly recall her complaining about the assault after a specific weekend, then that would indeed help support the claim that it happened. If it wouldn't convince you because you just don't trust any second-hand information, so be it. But if such people do exist, we should hear from them. And likewise, if it's revealed Ford had a grudge against K for unrelated reasons, we should learn that also as it will help clear his name.

    The more information we get, the better.

  4. Likes Sigfried, snackboy liked this post
  5. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    no one SHOULD get away with crimes.
    However we SHOULD dismiss accusations that even an innocent person could not mount a defense against.. because they place unreasonable demands.


    It isn't about the person being credible, it is about the claim.

    "I am accusing you of a crime"
    Is that a credible accusation? Does it become credible because of who says it?
    The answer is no it is not. The reason it is is not is because it is too vague. What crime? Where? When? etc. It doesn't matter if there person making the claim is a crack whore or the most honest person possible.

    That is what we have here. A claim that is too old, and to general to be reasonably defended by an innocent person, and thus it is not credible.
    How can you know if an accusation is credible if an investigation hasn't happened?

    You make the claim that it happened too long ago to make it credible. Should we tell minors who were raped by their Priests that their claim is no longer credible because they failed to report it when it happened? Is there no tolerance or understanding in your world of what it means to be traumatized?

    Is that a credible accusation? Does it become credible because of who says it?

    What if Kavanaugh has said, "Yep, I did that." Is Ford's accusation credible?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    How can you know if an accusation is credible if an investigation hasn't happened?
    You are confusing credible with true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You make the claim that it happened too long ago to make it credible. Should we tell minors who were raped by their Priests that their claim is no longer credible because they failed to report it when it happened? Is there no tolerance or understanding in your world of what it means to be traumatized?
    False equivocation. And I guess if you cared about protecting innocent people at all, you would not be so quick to hang people.
    See what I did there? I gave as good as I got. Maybe we can keep it a reasonable discussion instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    What if Kavanaugh has said, "Yep, I did that." Is Ford's accusation credible?
    If, if were a skiff we would all have a boat.
    To serve man.

  7. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are confusing credible with true.
    You failed to answer the question: How can you know if an accusation is credible if an investigation hasn't happened?

    False equivocation. And I guess if you cared about protecting innocent people at all, you would not be so quick to hang people.
    How is it a false equivocation? Kids were raped by their Priests decades ago. By your standard, they have no claim for justice because they didn't report it at the time it happened. Right? MT: Rape and sexual assault victims hurt themselves and society at large when they fail their duty to report the crime in a timely manner.

    If, if were a skiff we would all have a boat.
    Yet another failure to answer the question. What if Kavanaugh had said, "Yep, I did that." Is Ford's accusation credible?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This argument is invalid as it sets an unreasonable standard for credibility. Kavanaugh is not on trial for a crime that, if convicted, will result in going to jail and I would say setting the level of "credibility" at the standard of where it would be acceptable in a criminal trial is pretty arbitrary.
    That isn't actually an argument, and considering the amount of supporting reasoning and the examples I put into the argument I offered for the standard, this is nothing more than a dismissal.
    I can't really do anything with that.

    None of my argument's assumptions are reasons were based on a requirement for a trial.
    My argument that was these justification and reasoning's that apply during a trial are still valid. For example, you will see me reject "hear say", and I will appeal to the same standard as that used in a trial. Not because he is on legal trial, but because the justification for rejecting hear say within a trial is still valid and justified in this case. As you have appealed to hear say as valid evidence, you should at least have the burden to rebut the justifications I have offered, because the fact that this is not a trial doesn't make the justifications suddenly unreasonable or invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My rebuttal here is the same as above. There is no reason to examine her claim as if it's being presented in a criminal trial in order to consider whether it is credible or not.
    And here too you are simply ignoring my argument, because I gave reasoning to support the assertion that her claims are not credible. Your assertion of "as if it were a criminal trial" is not valid, because I am not appealing to a criminal trial procedure.
    I am appealing to the just reasoning behind certain standards, that while they are applied in criminal trials, should also be applied here. .. because they are themselves reasonable and just.
    If you don't want me to appeal to reasonable and just arguments.. then I really have nothing to offer you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If the man is indeed innocent, an investigation into the facts of the case are more likely to support that he's innocent. I mean if fellow classmates say that Ford was angry at Kavanaugh for reasons that had nothing to do with the alleged assault (like she had a crush on him and he rudely turned her down), the would weaken the credibility of her claim. The only reason to think that investigating the truth of the matter would hurt K is because one thinks the facts are more likely to show that he did it than he didn't.
    You know, I offered specific examples of how and why the accused are put at an inherent disadvantage in their defense 30 years after the fact. You appear to again to be simply ignoring it. I can't respond to you if you are not going to address the points that are specifically relevant to your denials.
    This line you have offered is false, and I have already addressed it specifically. would you mind at least recognizing I made an effort to these points?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Assuming we want to learn as much as possible about whether he did it or not, an investigation should take place.

    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation is more likely to show us that he's innocent. And then if he is confirmed, the SCOTUS is less likely to have the taint of having a judge who is suspected of committing sexual assault.

    I just don't see how learning the facts of the case would harm the US. If he did it, we should know that. If he didn't do it, we should know that. An investigation will increase the chances of us knowing whether he did it or not.
    I have offered a specific reason why such an investigation would be inherently unfairly biased against the innocent. Thus I have already addressed this assumption you are simply repeating... both of them.
    I mean.. if you just don't want to address my argument and reasoning's, that is fine. It's a free country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, if someone was interviewing someone for an important position but learned that he was accused of doing something that, if true, would disqualify him from being an acceptable applicant for the job, what would be the correct course of action?

    You wouldn't want to just disqualify him if you aren't sure the accusation is true but then you wouldn't want to hire the guy in case the rumors are true since that would damage your company. So what would be the best course of action.

    Wouldn't it be to investigate the accusation as thoroughly as possible before making a decision? Obviously yes. If not, then explain why it would not be.
    The correct course of action would of course be to break down his door with a search warrant, demand that he turn over every correspondence with anyone over the last 30 years, and treat every mis-remembered fact as a lie.
    so.. yea, I have already explained why it would not be. Some accusations are inherently unfair to the innocent, and thus are not credible claims.
    I mean, dude.. I spent a good bit of time laying out a specific case to that effect and you are just not paying attention.
    I know you don't like it when I say "do better', so I'm not trying to do that.. but come one man... I really set something out with effort and research and justifications for each point, and you are far to reasonable a person to simply steam roll past all that and then end it with some appeal for me to "explain" this or that position. You have some kind of burden here to address the relevant points I have made.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation into the facts is more likely to confirm that he's innocent. If he's innocent, NOT having an investigation would increase the likelihood that people would think he's guilty when he's not and THAT is what would be unfair to an innocent man.
    both of these are false assertions. I have addressed the first already, let me know if it is unclear why an investigation is more likely to help the innocent then hurt them.
    The second, is simply not in line with any experience that the innocent has had in regards to this sort of accusation. This is going to be a public dragging of his name in the mud for as long as the democrats can get away with it. Even innocent, he is likely to not get the seat on the supreme court, and he will probably lose his job or be stunted in his career... and that is if he is completely innocent. So this idea that he is more likely to be thought of as innocent if he is put through that process, is ignoring some pretty relevant context.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Whether that is the case or not, it does not support that I am incorrect.
    How so? We are not inside of her head, we are outside observers. We simply don't have access to what she really believes.
    Also see drug altering effect response as relevant.. below.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Please support this. While I agree that intoxication and time make memory of past events less reliable, the notion that one generally cannot believe one's own memory, especially when it comes to a very dramatic event that has caused trauma, seems very far-fetched to me and such a memory should be considered as likely a false memory as a real memory seems very far-fetched. So again, please support this assertion.
    So, my point here is something like this.
    Your point about memory has some validity, and a sober persons memory can be trusted more than a drunk persons memory.
    While we might not expect a sober person to think Bob raped her, when it was in fact sam, we could see that event occur with a drunk person, or a person on some other kinds of drugs.
    Just as we may not expect a sober person to not remember, or mis-remember their giving clear consent, the same simply can not be said about a drunk person. A woman may give consent for various sexual acts, and simply not recall it due to mind altering drugs.

    let me know if what I have said above is failing your personal reasonableness test.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Based on what criteria? Seriously, show me some formula for when it's been too long for credibilty that is based pm something other than what apparently is need to hold up your side of the argument.
    Based on the critiera of degrading an innocent mans ability to defend himself. As I have argued, and explained. Sure there is a sliding scale.. but it should be pretty clear where the 30 years later mark falls on it.
    Also, lets not forget the vague ness of the charge. .. That is being totally ignored in this exchange so far.. and it was a very relevant point that I made.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I supported in my last post, using the term "gossip" is begging the question (since the term presumes that the claim is doubtful).

    If ten people distinctly recall her complaining about the assault after a specific weekend, then that would indeed help support the claim that it happened. If it wouldn't convince you because you just don't trust any second-hand information, so be it. But if such people do exist, we should hear from them. And likewise, if it's revealed Ford had a grudge against K for unrelated reasons, we should learn that also as it will help clear his name.

    The more information we get, the better.
    In relation to your appeal to what people not at the event "heard" .. I have appropriately used the term "gossip".
    nothing you have added to the exchange has made the "hear say" anything more than "hear say", and as far as evidence goes I am very much justified in pointing out the weakness of such "evidence".
    There is also the little problem of everyone she has pointed too so far as retracting their statements..

    ---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

    -
    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy
    You failed to answer the question: How can you know if an accusation is credible if an investigation hasn't happened?
    Please see my argument. it was in that post that you ignored and quoted only one line out of in your first response.. can't miss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy
    How is it a false equivocation? Kids were raped by their Priests decades ago. By your standard, they have no claim for justice because they didn't report it at the time it happened. Right? MT: Rape and sexual assault victims hurt themselves and society at large when they fail their duty to report the crime in a timely manner.
    Equating the time passage of a 5 year old to a 15 year old, to that of a 15 year old to a 45 year old. Seems to be very different.
    While we can't fault a 5 year old for not knowing they should report a crime, or even that there is a crime occurring. A 15 year old is simply not on the same level of responsibility.
    So I reject the comparison and point out a false equivocation on those grounds.
    I think the rest of my argument would still hold though. 30 years later an innocent man is at a disadvantage to any charge.. even if it involves a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Yet another failure to answer the question. What if Kavanaugh had said, "Yep, I did that." Is Ford's accusation credible?
    Yea, because it isn't releven to this example..
    Its like saying.. what if she admits to lying?
    I see no reason to discuss the hypothetical.
    To serve man.

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Please see my argument. it was in that post that you ignored and quoted only one line out of in your first response.. can't miss it.
    I don't find your argument valid at all. You basically say that because the incident Dr. Ford describes isn't subject to criminal prosecution (which I note below it could be), it shouldn't be investigated at all. That merely, the interviewer could just believe the accuser and not hire Judge Kavanaugh to the court. Now, how would that fair to Kavanaugh, i.e. the "innocent"? You also say: "
    Any kind of real justice and fairness demands that we dismiss the charges." How is it just or fair to Kavanaugh or Ford to dismiss a charge of sexual assault? If Ford is wrong, Kavanaugh has the legal recourse of slander. So why not investigate?

    Also, note that there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual offense in the state of Maryland where this occurred. So the idea that because a certain amount of time has passed, this should be let go is not consistent with the law. Dr. Ford could indeed, if she desired to, press charges.

    Equating the time passage of a 5 year old to a 15 year old, to that of a 15 year old to a 45 year old. Seems to be very different.
    While we can't fault a 5 year old for not knowing they should report a crime, or even that there is a crime occurring. A 15 year old is simply not on the same level of responsibility.
    So I reject the comparison and point out a false equivocation on those grounds.
    I think the rest of my argument would still hold though. 30 years later an innocent man is at a disadvantage to any charge.. even if it involves a child.


    Sexual predators prey on the vulnerable. A vulnerable person will likely not come forward. And if they do, it will be their word against that of a Priest or other authority. Who do you think will be believed? So it takes time. And it some cases, it may take a long time.

    Yea, because it isn't releven to this example..
    Its like saying.. what if she admits to lying?
    I see no reason to discuss the hypothetical.

    I see. Do you think Dr. Ford is lying?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  10. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    I don't find your argument valid at all.
    Your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    . You basically say that because the incident Dr. Ford describes isn't subject to criminal prosecution (which I note below it could be), it shouldn't be investigated at all.
    Incorrect, that was not my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    That merely, the interviewer could just believe the accuser and not hire Judge Kavanaugh to the court. Now, how would that fair to Kavanaugh, i.e. the "innocent"?
    The context of that was that mican pointed out that this is not a criminal trial setting. This is a job interview.
    Which I noted is a valid point, and as such they are not required to investigate anything in order to reject the application. If they believe the woman, for whatever reason seams good to them, even if it is logically inconsitent or out right stupid.
    .. that is, as best as i can tell within their power and right to do.
    Of course I argued that they should not do such a thing and that it would be unjust, but you seem to have gotten the context very wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You also say: "Any kind of real justice and fairness demands that we dismiss the charges." How is it just or fair to Kavanaugh or Ford to dismiss a charge of sexual assault? If Ford is wrong, Kavanaugh has the legal recourse of slander. So why not investigate?
    Wouldn't that be his peragative and not ours? Why should the senate make that decission?
    This doesn't make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Also, note that there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual offense in the state of Maryland where this occurred. So the idea that because a certain amount of time has passed, this should be let go is not consistent with the law. Dr. Ford could indeed, if she desired to, press charges.
    https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryla...ault-laws.html
    What he is being accused of does not fall under any of the listed categories.
    There "sexual offense" does not cover "attempting to remove clothing". It covers genetal and anal contact against ones will, and has varying degrees.

    https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...ual-abuse.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Felony sexual offenses: no statute of limitations, and
    Misdemeanor offenses: one year from the event.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In Maryland, a civil sexual abuse case must be filed within:

    In childhood sexual abuse cases, seven years from the victim’s 18th birthday, and
    Three years from the event for adult cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Sexual predators prey on the vulnerable. A vulnerable person will likely not come forward. And if they do, it will be their word against that of a Priest or other authority. Who do you think will be believed? So it takes time. And it some cases, it may take a long time.
    I don't understand the relevance to what is at hand, or any of the facts that we know.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    I see. Do you think Dr. Ford is lying?
    That is a question we are not in a position to discover the truth on, and I'm not interested in speculating.

    So far we have two eye witnesses that say she is not correct. According to some here, even if there were 10.. we still couldn't "know" if she was lying.
    Last edited by Squatch347; September 25th, 2018 at 05:13 AM.
    To serve man.

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    I don't find your argument valid at all.
    Your opinion is noted.


    Incorrect, that was not my argument.


    The context of that was that mican pointed out that this is not a criminal trial setting. This is a job interview.
    Which I noted is a valid point, and as such they are not required to investigate anything in order to reject the application. If they believe the woman, for whatever reason seams good to them, even if it is logically inconsitent or out right stupid.
    .. that is, as best as i can tell within their power and right to do.
    Of course I argued that they should not do such a thing and that it would be unjust, but you seem to have gotten the context very wrong.


    Wouldn't that be his peragative and not ours? Why should the senate make that decission?
    This doesn't make any sense.
    Fair enough. I need to do more work on the thread to really understand your argument.

    https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryla...ault-laws.html
    What he is being accused of does not fall under any of the listed categories.
    There "sexual offense" does not cover "attempting to remove clothing". It covers genetal and anal contact against ones will, and has varying degrees.

    https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...ual-abuse.html
    Point conceded.

    I don't understand the relevance to what is at hand, or any of the facts that we know.
    Because it explains why Dr. Ford hasn't come forth until now. She has describe the event at least twice to her psychologist. So obviously this event had a traumatizing effect on her. That's why folks don't immediately come forward after being assaulted.

    That is a question we are not in a position to discover the truth on, and I'm not interested in speculating.
    Nor does it seem you're interested in the truth. But the Senate is in a position of discovering the truth.

    So far we have two eye witnesses that say she is not correct. According to some here, even if there were 10.. we still couldn't "know" if she was lying.
    They are not eye-witnesses as they don't recall going to this particular party. They haven't said she is lying.
    Last edited by snackboy; September 24th, 2018 at 12:26 PM.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  12. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And here too you are simply ignoring my argument, because I gave reasoning to support the assertion that her claims are not credible. Your assertion of "as if it were a criminal trial" is not valid, because I am not appealing to a criminal trial procedure.
    I am appealing to the just reasoning behind certain standards, that while they are applied in criminal trials, should also be applied here. .. because they are themselves reasonable and just.
    I concede that they are reasonable and just FOR A CRIMINAL TRIAL. I disagree that they are reasonable standard for determining whether it shows that a claim is credible enough to warrant further investigation in this particular case.

    So please support that we should incorporate the criteria that is used for a criminal trial in determining whether a claim is credible enough to warrant investigation in this particular manner.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You know, I offered specific examples of how and why the accused are put at an inherent disadvantage in their defense 30 years after the fact. You appear to again to be simply ignoring it. I can't respond to you if you are not going to address the points that are specifically relevant to your denials.
    I AM addressing your point. I do not accept your argument because you are appealing to the legal standard of a criminal trial which I do not accept as valid in this situation. So you need to support that the criteria that you are applying is valid before I have any burden to accept an argument that contains such a premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have offered a specific reason why such an investigation would be inherently unfairly biased against the innocent. Thus I have already addressed this assumption you are simply repeating... both of them.
    I mean.. if you just don't want to address my argument and reasoning's, that is fine. It's a free country.
    I DID address this argument. In fact, I'll cut and paste my response from my last post. This time in bold!

    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation into the facts is more likely to confirm that he's innocent. If he's innocent, NOT having an investigation would increase the likelihood that people would think he's guilty when he's not and THAT is what would be unfair to an innocent man.

    You may not agree with my argument but please don't tell me I never made it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The correct course of action would of course be to break down his door with a search warrant, demand that he turn over every correspondence with anyone over the last 30 years, and treat every mis-remembered fact as a lie.
    What??? Who is suggesting that we do that???

    The investigation would be about interviewing people who might know something about the alleged incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    so.. yea, I have already explained why it would not be. Some accusations are inherently unfair to the innocent, and thus are not credible claims.
    And this equates to an argument against investigation how?

    If someone makes a false accusation, I say the accusation should be investigated and help show that the accusation is false and help clear an innocent man's name. Are you confusing accusations with investigation?

    To be clear, we are talking about competent unbiased investigators collecting as many facts as they can about the incident and therefore providing more facts about the accusation. I don't see how providing more facts about a false allegation is not much, much, much more likely to reveal that the accusation is false than it is to somehow make the false accusation seem more credible.

    So assuming that you agree that more factual information about a falsely accused man will help show that he's falsely accused and therefore help prove his innocence, I'm not sure how finding facts is unfair to an innocent man. So maybe I don't understand your argument. So explain how learning the truth about a false accusation is unfair to the person who is falsely accused.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second, is simply not in line with any experience that the innocent has had in regards to this sort of accusation. This is going to be a public dragging of his name in the mud for as long as the democrats can get away with it. Even innocent, he is likely to not get the seat on the supreme court, and he will probably lose his job or be stunted in his career... and that is if he is completely innocent. So this idea that he is more likely to be thought of as innocent if he is put through that process, is ignoring some pretty relevant context.
    And that argument in no way counters the notion that investigating the claim, assuming it is false, is going to do him more harm than good. The accusation and the rest is happening regardless. The investigation of the claim is something else and again, will help the truth come out which will be to his benefit if he's innocent.

    OF COURSE if the claim is false, it is a very unfair situation for K. And the FBI investigating the claim is more likely to decrease the unfairness and could even clear his name if it uncovers solid evidence that the claim is false. And again, if the claim is false, a good investigation is more likely to support that notion and restore some fairness than somehow find more false information that will be presented to make him look worse.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How so? We are not inside of her head, we are outside observers. We simply don't have access to what she really believes.
    We can use logic to determine the likelihood that she really believes it. How likely is it that someone is going to pay a lot of money to see a therapist and then make up a fake story while in session? Pretty much nil. That's how the fact that she talked about it in therapy makes the claim credible.

    And I've been neglecting to add that she passed a lie detector test.

    So yes, the evidence is very strong that she believes it happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, my point here is something like this.
    Your point about memory has some validity, and a sober persons memory can be trusted more than a drunk persons memory.
    While we might not expect a sober person to think Bob raped her, when it was in fact sam, we could see that event occur with a drunk person, or a person on some other kinds of drugs.
    Just as we may not expect a sober person to not remember, or mis-remember their giving clear consent, the same simply can not be said about a drunk person. A woman may give consent for various sexual acts, and simply not recall it due to mind altering drugs.
    First off, we are talking about alcohol, not LSD or some drug which might cause one to see things that aren't there. And the primary memory related problem with alcohol is not remembering things, not remembering things that did not happen. And that's not to say that even then, one cannot toss a bit of fuzziness into rememberance of an event but the notion that it's just as likely that she got completely confused on who assaulted her then she got it correct is very unlikely.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Based on the critiera of degrading an innocent mans ability to defend himself. As I have argued, and explained. Sure there is a sliding scale.. but it should be pretty clear where the 30 years later mark falls on it.
    Also, lets not forget the vague ness of the charge. .. That is being totally ignored in this exchange so far.. and it was a very relevant point that I made.
    As far as what allegedly happened, the claim is quite specific and not vague.

    As far as other lack of detail, that should be expected considering how long ago it was so it's not strange that some details are unclear. And none of the fuzziness shows that her claim is not credible. Again, this is not a courtroom trial and those standards are not applicable in determining whether her claim is credible.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In relation to your appeal to what people not at the event "heard" .. I have appropriately used the term "gossip".
    nothing you have added to the exchange has made the "hear say" anything more than "hear say", and as far as evidence goes I am very much justified in pointing out the weakness of such "evidence".
    There is also the little problem of everyone she has pointed too so far as retracting their statements.
    Well, your cavalier dismissal of any and all second-hand information is a subjective choice on your part. And not to get into a semantic debate, but if she told a friend that K assaulted her and her friend told an investigator of being told that, what the friend tells the investigator would NOT meet the definition of "gossip" and I can back that up with a dictionary definition of the word.

    And if there's an investigation of her claims and it's found that no one ever remember her speaking of the event then this will help K, which is a good thing if he's actually innocent. I mean pointing to the fact that no one at her school ever heard of the incident, even from Ford, will help those who want to vote for K justify their vote in spite of the accusation and he's more likely to be confirmed.

    --------------------------

    And here's one valid point that you seem to be missing (or ignoring) that bears repeating.

    The confirmation hearing, when compared to a real-world scenario, is not a "trial" but a "job interview". So really there is not presumption of innocence (where we must assume that the person did nothing wrong until it's been proven that he did) but effectively a presumption of guilt where we assume that the person is not qualified for the job until it's shown that he is qualified.

    So while being fair to K is of concern, it is not the primary concern here. The primary concern is finding the right man for the job and therefore we need to confident that K is the right man for the job. If the accusation is false, then indeed K is being treated unfairly because of it but regardless, since the accusation is credible, we need to be as certain as we can be on whether he did or did not do it before we hire him, just like if a regular businessman heard of an accusation against a prospective hiree. Soeither way, the primary concern is finding out the truth of the matter. If such investigations inconvenience K in some way, then indeed it is being even more unfair to him if he's innocent. But again, the primary goal is to make sure that he's the right man for the job so no matter what, we need to learn as much as we can before deciding to give him the job or not. He certainly is not owed the position - no more than you or I are owed a position on the Supreme Court.

  13. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Fair enough. I need to do more work on the thread to really understand your argument.
    It's cool bro, thread gets long quick..

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Because it explains why Dr. Ford hasn't come forth until now. She has describe the event at least twice to her psychologist. So obviously this event had a traumatizing effect on her. That's why folks don't immediately come forward after being assaulted.
    That would explain her actions, but that is not the only possible explination.
    I think my argument is quite seperte from this point though. Just because people do certain things, that doesn't mean that those actions don't hurt their case.
    Like a person seeking to exhonerat himself of a crime to the police (when he is innocent) will tend to try and explain himself.
    Lawyers all agree, that this is a very bad idea and one should not speak to the police, and that the ONLY thing they can do is incriminate themselves.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Nor does it seem you're interested in the truth. But the Senate is in a position of discovering the truth.
    This is a false assumption.
    For example, suppose the following is what actually happened.
    She was sober, and took a drunk kavanaugh to the bedroom, then decided it embarssed her so she lied about it.
    As she was caught, by the friend and so lied around school. Over time she recounted to everyone the tramma of her embarasment to incriminate kanaugh and to cover her own guilt in taking advantage of a happless drunk guy.

    ... Exactly HOW is the senate supposed to uncover this? The can speak to the school kids, and find out the school gossip at the time. But that wouldn't reveal the "truth".

    To be sure there are many, many variatons that COULD be true, that the senate simply will not have access too.
    And that is part of the problem when you wait 30 years. (also, consider my argument regarding all the possibilities where he is innocent and the proof of his innocens is now destroyed by time).

    So, no. it isn't that I am not interested in the truth. I have never argued such. I have argued that the nature of the accusation is hostile to the truth for an honest defendant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Nor does it seem you're interested in the truth. But the Senate is in a position of discovering the truth.
    While it is hard to say that a person who is said to be at an event that in reality did not occure is a "witness".
    Like, "you were there when aliens abducted me, so you can coberate my story."
    The two other people alledge to have been in the room both make the positive claim that the event never occured.
    They do not claim to not know. So you are incorrect, and this is an important point.

    look man, you need to be careful because there is a whole lot of forces trying to give this more credibility than it really has (not here in this thread, in the culture and in the process). That means appeals to gossip. Accepting biased processes against the innocent in the name of virtue like "truth". There are hostile forces to the truth, that will tell you when a friend claims that she knew Kavanaugh was there, but not report when they retract the claim because they really don't remember. Who will point out that kavanaugh has a 'reason' to lie, and strong motivator to lie, and then deny that the woman can possibly have a similar motive.
    I say this, only to be clear that we don't live in a neutral world on this topic.
    To serve man.

  14. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To all, my position has changed a bit so I want to stream line here, while addressing the largest concerns.
    Frankly, I feel like it has taken a decided turn for the worse. The other gents are doing a fine job rebutting your points so I'll leave them to it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I concede that they are reasonable and just FOR A CRIMINAL TRIAL. I disagree that they are reasonable standard for determining whether it shows that a claim is credible enough to warrant further investigation in this particular case.

    So please support that we should incorporate the criteria that is used for a criminal trial in determining whether a claim is credible enough to warrant investigation in this particular manner.
    I did.. it was in my original argument.
    Namely that it is hostile to an innocent person.. inherently, because it robs them of their legitimate defense.
    Such a process is thus unjust, and should be avoided.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I AM addressing your point. I do not accept your argument because you are appealing to the legal standard of a criminal trial which I do not accept as valid in this situation. So you need to support that the criteria that you are applying is valid before I have any burden to accept an argument that contains such a premise.
    I have..see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I DID address this argument. In fact, I'll cut and paste my response from my last post. This time in bold!

    Again, if he's innocent, an investigation into the facts is more likely to confirm that he's innocent. If he's innocent, NOT having an investigation would increase the likelihood that people would think he's guilty when he's not and THAT is what would be unfair to an innocent man.

    You may not agree with my argument but please don't tell me I never made it.
    That is your claim, it is not support and it doesn't address or rebut the argument with reason that I offered.
    You are simply saying "na-huh" and repeating your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, the kind of investigation that happens here would not involve such treatment and if it did, he's already been investigated (there was a general investigation by the FBI already). And if the investigation is competent (which it will be if the FBI is performing it), the odds of the found information harming the innocent instead of helping the innocent is extremely unlikely.

    The notion that finding out more facts about a false accusation against an innocent man is going to do the innocent man more harm than good is ridiculous.
    Let me again rebut this as false.
    Suppose the only piece of evidence that could exonerate him was a gas ticket and video of him somewhere other than the party.
    That evidence is now destroyed by time, and the "chance" is zero.
    So if they discovered a witness that found his shoes at the location... that would incriminate him. Even though he is innocent.
    Also, as time has passed people could mis-remember him at the party. Which would also incriminate him, even if he wasn't there and is innocent.

    So, no and doubly no. it is not more likely that they will discover only evidence that clears his name. As so much time has passed, the chances that only evidence that condemns an innocent man is higher.
    If for nothing else because the

    I have already argued this, with no direct rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that argument in no way counters the notion that investigating the claim, assuming it is false, is going to do him more harm than good. The accusation and the rest is happening regardless. The investigation of the claim is something else and again, will help the truth come out which will be to his benefit if he's innocent.
    It certainly does counter the argument, because it demonstraits a life changing harm that it could cause.
    If he had evidence that is now lost to time.. then his ability to out right clear his name has been decreased if not made inaccessible to him... and thus the risk of nothing but harm has been increased.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    OF COURSE if the claim is false, it is a very unfair situation for K. And the FBI investigating the claim is more likely to decrease the unfairness and could even clear his name if it uncovers solid evidence that the claim is false. And again, if the claim is false, a good investigation is more likely to support that notion and restore some fairness than somehow find more false information that will be presented to make him look worse.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    We can use logic to determine the likelihood that she really believes it. How likely is it that someone is going to pay a lot of money to see a therapist and then make up a fake story while in session? Pretty much nil. That's how the fact that she talked about it in therapy makes the claim credible.
    Unfortunatly that does not represent an exhaustive list of all the possible reasons or setting under which she could recount a false accusation.
    It doesn't even fully support that she believes the story herself, because she could be lying to herself and using that lie to comfort herself.. yes even in theropy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, we are talking about alcohol, not LSD or some drug which might cause one to see things that aren't there. And the primary memory related problem with alcohol is not remembering things, not remembering things that did not happen. And that's not to say that even then, one cannot toss a bit of fuzziness into rememberance of an event but the notion that it's just as likely that she got completely confused on who assaulted her then she got it correct is very unlikely.
    So a woman can't remeber an event occured, and not be sure what guy it was.. but remeber there were 5 guys at the party, and finally settles some time later on the guy she thinks it is, then convinces herself that it was that guy?

    Not really a true story, but "The Mist" has the basis of the first few episodes a story where a girl wrongly accuses a guy for raping her at a party, because he was the last guy she remebers being with in the room.
    In reality, she got drunk, was passing out, he took her upstairs (which she remembered) layed her on the bed (which she remebered him over her) and then woke up with clear sexual events having occured.
    So.. She accused him of rape, and boy did she remeber him raping her.. she recounted him over her, people at the party saw him go upstairs with her.. Tada!
    Now, you may think that sounds implausible.. but when I watched it, i personally found it a possible story line that wasn't reaching far from reality.

    However the way you have cast this, you seem to discount this kind of event as even possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as what allegedly happened, the claim is quite specific and not vague.
    Support.
    When did it occure?
    Where did it occure?

    Assuming he is innocent, and wasn't even at the event.. What kind of evidence can he possibly offer for an alibie?
    the answers are... she doesn't even know or remeber, so his opportunity for an alibie is ruled out by the nature of the accusation.
    Because it is vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as other lack of detail, that should be expected considering how long ago it was so it's not strange that some details are unclear. And none of the fuzziness shows that her claim is not credible. Again, this is not a courtroom trial and those standards are not applicable in determining whether her claim is credible.
    Actually, it really, really does.
    Not only is it not strange for if it occured so many years ago.. it is also not strange if the accusation is actually false.
    Which cuts against it's credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, your cavalier dismissal of any and all second-hand information is a subjective choice on your part. And not to get into a semantic debate, but if she told a friend that K assaulted her and her friend told an investigator of being told that, what the friend tells the investigator would NOT meet the definition of "gossip" and I can back that up with a dictionary definition of the word.
    https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...-evidence.html

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
    Quote Originally Posted by EXAMPLE GIVEN
    For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim."
    Mican that is exactly what you just described.
    You can find an extensive list of all the "expections". non of which would in this case support that the event actually occured, or be evidence of the actual event.

    I am pretty sure you had this explained to you in another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if there's an investigation of her claims and it's found that no one ever remember her speaking of the event then this will help K, which is a good thing if he's actually innocent. I mean pointing to the fact that no one at her school ever heard of the incident, even from Ford, will help those who want to vote for K justify their vote in spite of the accusation and he's more likely to be confirmed.
    I don't see why, there is already presented a justification for remaining silent for 30 years. (20 if you count her first therepy session).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And here's one valid point that you seem to be missing (or ignoring) that bears repeating.
    I'm calling you out on ********.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 18
    Job interview vs criminal.
    Mican makes a valid point that the standards applied to a criminal investigation do not apply here. In that case, there is no need for any investigation the interviewer can if they so choose refuse his nomination on the power of a simple accusation if they like. Reasoning within themselves whatever they like, such as it isn't worth the trouble or the risk.
    That is however not a just reasoning. Any kind of real justice and fairness demands that we dismiss the charges. Based on the same reasoning as those for a statue of limitations in a criminal setting. Because that reasoning is still valid, and still reflects justice.
    Accepting the claim as valid and credible at this point, is unjust. Job interviewers are free to be unjust, but they should not be.
    You may respond to that argument if you like. However, I am not going to allow you to say I did not address something, or that I ignored something that I quoted you on, gave you credit for a good point, and then offered a rebuttal.

    This is why we can't have nice things.
    I guess I'm done with you here. I presented my case, and you offer Na-huh answers while ignoring direct argumentation and support. You are factually incorrect on several aspects of the case at hand, and have been informed and the relevance explained. You are set on justifying an unjust process, and as I have more than clearly set out my case, my work is done as I am not seeking to change the unchangeable. For you to ignore where I have offering you credit, is simply hurtful.
    To serve man.

  16. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I did.. it was in my original argument.
    Namely that it is hostile to an innocent person.. inherently, because it robbs them of their legitimate defense.
    Such a process is thus unjust, and should be avoided.
    How does considering a claim credible rob someone of their legitimate defense?

    I'm not saying "he did it. period". I'm saying "the claim is credible so it's worth looking into to better decide if it's true or not".

    And if we are just going to ignore any and all claims, then it's not fair to the accuser if her accusation is true.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is your claim, it is not support and it doesn't address or rebut the argument with reason that I offered.
    You are simply saying "na-huh" and repeating your claim.
    My claim is supported by simple logic. Let me use a logic chain.

    1. Investigations competently performed reveal accurate information more often than inaccurate information.
    2. Therefore if a man is innocent, an investigation is more likely to reveal his innocence than make him look more guilty
    3. Therefore an investigation will more likely reveal that an innocent man is innocent and help clear him of the negative effects of a false accusation.
    4. THEREFORE an investigation into claims against an innocent man is more likely to be fair to the innocent man than unfair.

    So now my argument is supported and this support stands until you offer a rebuttal to it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Let me again rebut this as false.
    Suppose the only piece of evidence that could exhonerate him was a gas ticket and video of him somewhere other than the party.
    That evidence is now destroyed by time, and the "chance" is zero.
    So if they discovered a witness that found his showes at the location... that would incriminate him. Even though he is innocent.
    Also, as time has passed people could mis remeber him at the party. Which would also incriminate him, even if he wasn't there and is innocent.
    That might help your argument if it could be shown that that kind of hypothetical situation is more likely to occur than investigators finding information that proves he's innocent if he is indeed innocent.

    Just because it's possible that an investigation could result in more false information being gathered than correct information does not mean that it is likely to happen.

    I am operating on the notion that the FBI is generally a very competent investigation organization and is more likely to find correct info than incorrect info. If you are going to argue otherwise, please state that directly and then we can focus the debate there. otherwise I assume you aren't challenging that notion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, no and doubly no. it is not more likely that they will discover only evidence that clears his name. As so much time has passed, the chances that only evidence that condemns an innocent man is higher.
    Not if he's innocent. It stands to reason that if he didn't do it, there will be no evidence that shows that he did it.

    Are you arguing that the FBI will find evidence that he did it even if he didn't do it?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unfortunatly that does not represent an exhaustive list of all the possible reasons or setting under which she could recount a false accusation.
    It doesn't even fully support that she believes the story herself, because she could be lying to herself and using that lie to comfort herself.. yes even in theropy.
    If we invoke "anything is possible", you are correct. It is possible. But it's just so unlikely that it's not reasonable to consider claim not credible because of that.

    Again, most memories that one has are of things that did happen. If you told me a thousand things that you think happened to you, I would guess the amount of false memories wouldn't even be in the double digits, if there are any at all. So the mere possibility that something else may have happened does not at all support that the other thing is as likely to happen as the thing that one actually remembers.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So a woman can't remeber an event occured, and not be sure what guy it was.. but remeber there were 5 guys at the party, and finally settles some time later on the guy she thinks it is, then convinces herself that it was that guy?

    Not really a true story, but "The Mist" has the basis of the first few episodes a story where a girl wrongly accuses a guy for raping her at a party, because he was the last guy she remebers being with in the room.
    In reality, she got drunk, was passing out, he took her upstairs (which she remembered) layed her on the bed (which she remebered him over her) and then woke up with clear sexual events having occured.
    So.. She accused him of rape, and boy did she remeber him raping her.. she recounted him over her, people at the party saw him go upstairs with her.. Tada!
    Now, you may think that sounds implausible.. but when I watched it, i personally found it a possible story line that wasn't reaching far from reality.

    However the way you have cast this, you seem to discount this kind of event as even possible.
    I didn't say it's impossible. I say it's extremely unlikely and therefore does not detract from the notion that her claim is credible.

    A claim being credible does not mean that it's absolutely impossible that it's incorrect.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support.
    When did it occure?
    Where did it occure?
    I'll support it my own way instead of answering your questions. She gave very specific details of the assault itself - being pinned to the bed, having a hand over her mouth and being afraid that she might be accidentally suffocated, escaping and hiding in the bathroom and so on. That is a specific allegation, not a vague one. If she said "well, he did something bad to me", then I would say it's a vague allegation.

    So there's my support that the allegation is not vague but quite detailed.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually, it really, really does.
    Not only is it not strange for if it occured so many years ago.. it is also not strange if the accusation is actually false.
    Which cuts against it's credibility.
    Well, it's RELATIVELY less credible than a claim of something that is more current.

    But I've amply supported that claim is credible.

    The odds that she was lying to her therapist is slim. She passed a polygraph test. So it's established that she probably isn't lying. The odds that her memories are false, while not completely zero, is likewise slim (since most memories are not false). So that is support that her claim is credible.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican that is exactly what you just described.
    You can find an extensive list of all the "expections". non of which would in this case support that the event actually occured, or be evidence of the actual event.

    I am pretty sure you had this explained to you in another thread.
    Are we back in court again? Again, I do not accept a criminal court level of proof to consider a claim to be credible.

    And of course in court, unevidenced testimony is allowed and can convict. A witness who just saw the alleged incident but in no way recorded it would be engaging in "hearsay" when they give testimony and yet the jury does take their testimony into consideration when rendering a verdict.

    So I'm not quite sure what your point is here.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't see why, there is already presented a justification for remaining silent for 30 years. (20 if you count her first therepy session).
    I don't see how that rebuts my argument so I will repeat it. If her classmates all say that they are unaware of the incident in question, it gives the Senate who want to vote for K justification to say that they don't find the claim to be evidenced enough to make them vote against K and therefore it will increase the chance that he is approved.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You may respond to that argument if you like. However, I am not going to allow you to say I did not address something, or that I ignored something that I quoted you on, gave you credit for a good point, and then offered a rebuttal.
    If so, then I was mistaken. But considering you accused me of doing the same thing, it kind of seems like a "can dish it but can't take it" scenario here.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I guess I'm done with you here. I presented my case, and you offer Na-huh answers while ignoring direct argumentation and support. You are factually incorrect on several aspects of the case at hand, and have been informed and the relevance explained. You are set on justifying an unjust process, and as I have more than clearly set out my case, my work is done as I am not seeking to change the unchangeable.
    And why are you telling me this? Do you think that I'm at all inclined to agree with that malarky? Do you think that it might look to me that you are exiting the debate because your position is untenable and you are just seeking an excuse to exit so you are saying it's my poor debating that is causing you to leave?

    Seriously, if you are going to exit a debate either sign off with class ("Well, I think I'm done here - until next time") or just stop responding with no explanation. But this "I'm leaving because your debating is bad" is just a crap way to sign off. And please note, if you edit out your last section (which I recommend), I will edit out this response as well.

    And you can portray things however you want but if you don't respond further, there are a couple of objective facts here.

    1. I have offered rebuttals to many (or all) of your arguments in this post.
    2. You have not responded to my rebuttals so they all stand until you do respond to them.

    So I'm fine with leaving the debate here. And I would certainly have been more polite in this response if your sign-off had not been so unfortunately stated.

  17. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    She was at a party, but she didn't recall who's house it was. That's not too surprising given the span of time and that it was a college drinking party of some kind.

    And she wasn't raped, just sexually assaulted. The assailant never got her clothes off. She was held down and groped until the second man intervened. (according to the account I read of what Ford said)[COLOR="Silver"]
    Again, I have read mostly about this case just on ODN, but a front page article in my local newspaper today about an editorial they printed is interesting (if true, of course, it was an editorial opinion). The editorial was from Jeff Ackerman ("Jeff Ackerman | Court of public opinion Battle of the sexes: He said v. She said"):



    "...The foundation of our legal system is presumed innocence. Under that principle, Kavanaugh did not do what his last-minute accuser Christine Blasey Ford says he did 36 years ago, when they were both in high school. It’s not up to Kavanaugh to prove he did not sexually assault his accuser. He already denied it, so the burden of proof is hers.
    Never mind that another principle in our judicial process is the right to face your accuser. Kavanaugh has a fundamental right to face his accuser and have her explain her allegation against him.
    If that happens — after all the wrangling and posturing — I’m not sure how we’ll end up with anything but a “he said/she said” scenario on an event that allegedly happened sometime (the accuser can’t be sure exactly when, or where) in 1982 and involved alcohol. And why would that be enough to disqualify Kavanaugh, provided we still believe in something called “due process”?..."

    How is the accused to defend an accusation without time nor place and 36+- yrs ago? Sure if he could prove he was out of town when she said it happened...but she didn't say when, so how would he defend against this accusation?

    How many people believe that "college party's" aren't commonly about finding someone to hook up with, back then or now?
    Ok, "groping" and such shouldn't happen, but who back then would have been surprised that it did?
    Is punishing people now for things that commonly happened (and were nearly expected to happen frequently at college parties) back then appropriate?
    Applying todays morals to yesterday is a slippery slope IMHO.

    Mr. Ackerman goes on to say:
    "a great man who has already been subjected to a two-month investigation by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, two days of questioning by 18 senators and several prior investigations, including two by the American Bar Association and six by the FBI.
    Certainly the FBI would have found something in six investigations, right? I mean, really. How many of us would get a clean bill of health after a single FBI investigation — let alone six? Heaven forbid our elected officials don’t require the kind of vetting we use on a Supreme Court nominee. Our Congressional chambers would be empty."

    Two points:
    1. Two months and eight investigations found nothing apparently.
    2. Congress would be an empty place if we held them to the same standard.

    Further:
    "A seventh FBI investigation into an allegation that may or may not have happened 36 years ago involving a vague description of a place and foggy memory of the date would uncover what, exactly? I mean beyond delaying the confirmation, which is the point of this in the first place. This isn’t about Kavanaugh. It’s about Donald Trump and it wouldn’t matter if his nominee was Jesus."

    This whole situation smells like politics. The timing is stupid. This woman only cares to go public if K is on SCOTUS, but is ok with it otherwise (for instance)?

    I tire of "my way or the hwy" politics. Yes the two parties have different motives/goals ( ..., now why is that anyway? Isn't the idea about doing the most good?), but how about the search of common ground as opposed to stifle the other parties goals no matter what?
    One is constructive, the other is not, and both parties are guilty the latter in common everyday motives and actions. It is unacceptable to me, but since most people voted for the Donald or Hillary in the last election (a sad, sad, sad, day for the USA that they were the choices available from the Dem's & Rep's) I don't see a mindset that will allow logic/common sense to prevail at the moment...
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 24th, 2018 at 05:43 PM.

  18. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would explain her actions, but that is not the only possible explination.
    I think my argument is quite seperte from this point though. Just because people do certain things, that doesn't mean that those actions don't hurt their case.
    Like a person seeking to exhonerat himself of a crime to the police (when he is innocent) will tend to try and explain himself.
    Lawyers all agree, that this is a very bad idea and one should not speak to the police, and that the ONLY thing they can do is incriminate themselves.
    Sure. But how does what you just said apply in this case?

    For example, suppose the following is what actually happened.
    She was sober, and took a drunk kavanaugh to the bedroom, then decided it embarssed her so she lied about it.
    As she was caught, by the friend and so lied around school. Over time she recounted to everyone the tramma of her embarasment to incriminate kanaugh and to cover her own guilt in taking advantage of a happless drunk guy.
    I thought we weren't dealing with hypothetical examples.

    ... Exactly HOW is the senate supposed to uncover this? The can speak to the school kids, and find out the school gossip at the time. But that wouldn't reveal the "truth".
    The Senate can simply subpoena folks. They can give testimony. People can provide evidence. Kavanaugh has made the claim that this unequivocally didn't happen. Dr. Ford has said it did. If you treat each others' statements equally, then the Senate can arbitrate. Yes, it's a difficult process and may be fruitless, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

    To be sure there are many, many variatons that COULD be true, that the senate simply will not have access too.
    You're speculating.

    And that is part of the problem when you wait 30 years. (also, consider my argument regarding all the possibilities where he is innocent and the proof of his innocens is now destroyed by time).
    So we shouldn't try?

    So, no. it isn't that I am not interested in the truth. I have never argued such. I have argued that the nature of the accusation is hostile to the truth for an honest defendant.
    You're argument proves you're not interested in what actually happened. The Senate has resources; the FBI has resources. They can be leveraged to figure this out. In fact, the investigation can occur under the auspices of a background check - something the FBI is really good at.

    While it is hard to say that a person who is said to be at an event that in reality did not occure is a "witness".
    Like, "you were there when aliens abducted me, so you can coberate my story."
    The two other people alledge to have been in the room both make the positive claim that the event never occured.
    They do not claim to not know. So you are incorrect, and this is an important point.
    No. They did not say the event never occurred. They say they don't recall the party.

    look man, you need to be careful because there is a whole lot of forces trying to give this more credibility than it really has (not here in this thread, in the culture and in the process).
    Thanks for the advice.

    That means appeals to gossip.
    Ford is an eye-witness, which by your definition does not constitute gossip.

    Accepting biased processes against the innocent in the name of virtue like "truth".
    Justice is not biased. If someone does something wrong, then he deserves to be found out.
    There are hostile forces to the truth,...
    Like apathy.
    ...that will tell you when a friend claims that she knew Kavanaugh was there, but not report when they retract the claim because they really don't remember. Who will point out that kavanaugh has a 'reason' to lie, and strong motivator to lie, and then deny that the woman can possibly have a similar motive.
    Dr. Ford has nothing to gain by coming forward. Kavanaugh has everything to gain by simply denying the incident.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  19. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Justice is not biased. If someone does something wrong, then he deserves to be found out.
    Ok fine, now show me any human that ever lived that has not done something "wrong"!
    (I don't buy Jesus never did anything wrong. I say this just in case you were to suggest Jesus never having wronged, as many would).

    If one must never have done anything wrong in their past to be on the list of SCOTUS candidates, there will be NO candidates EVER!

  20. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok fine, now show me any human that ever lived that has not done something "wrong"!
    (I don't buy Jesus never did anything wrong. I say this just in case you were to suggest Jesus never having wronged, as many would).

    If one must never have done anything wrong in their past to be on the list of SCOTUS candidates, there will be NO candidates EVER!
    Don't recall Gorsuch having this kind of problem.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  21. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Don't recall Gorsuch having this kind of problem.
    Oh. Cool. I never heard of a human that did no wrong before
    Do you have any support?

 

 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 06:20 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 11:31 AM
  4. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •