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 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 157 of 157
  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,084
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is probably a real danger. Just like women in abusive marriages are at risk of further abuse if they say something.
    I recognize that is a legitimate problem, however we still encourage women in abusive marriages to do something about it yes?
    So, what you are saying doesn't really absolve them of responsibility. And while we can understand why a sexual assault victim would wait years to step forward, it still reduces their credibility in a substinative way.
    Maybe now, not then, a decade after married women were allowed to have a credit card in their own name. Ford testified as to why she didn't say anything - being happy that she had escaped, that it hadn't been rape just attempted, and that she was at a house with boys drinking beer while unchaperoned. "She was asking for it" was a popular meme then even in a famous case of gang rape in a bar. We still haven't gotten fully over shaming and blaming the victim but it was definitely more prevalent then.

    Context restores her credibility.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #142
    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
    That is probably a real danger. Just like women in abusive marriages are at risk of further abuse if they say something.
    I recognize that is a legitimate problem, however we still encourage women in abusive marriages to do something about it yes?
    So, what you are saying doesn't really absolve them of responsibility. And while we can understand why a sexual assault victim would wait years to step forward, it still reduces their credibility in a substinative way.
    I find that contradictory. If one actually understands why a sexual assault victim waits years to step forward, then they would not find the claim significantly less credible. I personally just experienced this as a woman I know told me of being assaulted as a child and I have no reason to think her claim is not credible just because I was told of it decades after it happened.

    It's those that don't understand why a woman would wait who would find the claim less credible because she waited to reveal it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just for clarification, this is not a he said/she said situation. That is for instances where it is only a man and a woman in a room. (or just two people).
    In this case there were 3, and it turned into a she said vs they said.
    A distinction without a difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It was not limited so that it did not include other possible witnesses. They spoke ONLY to possible witnesses. So while the media played it that there were 17ish people that could have cooberated her story, they were not witnesse to the event, they were hear say from years later.
    So that is a bit of mis-information that they did not interview all possible witnesses. It was limited in scope so that it dealt specifically with this alligation.
    They were witnesses to her telling her story prior to the confirmation which supports that she did not invent the story in order to sink Trump's pick for SCOTUS.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't have any problem with how he conducted himself. He was accused of gang rape by U.S senators, and was the target of a clear smear job by democrats, who broke protocol and played politics in order to sink his nomination.
    I don't think it's a clear smear job. I mean let's assume for a moment that the Dems motivation was nothing more or less than trying to figure out if Kavanaugh had indeed assault Ford as a teenager and politics had nothing to do with it. If that was the case, I don't see what they would have done differently than what they did.

    And what we saw from Kavanaugh was not someone whose emotions got the better of him in the heat of the moment. His statement was prepared and he clearly said that it was, in part, revenge for the Clintons. And I very much doubt that he has any credible evidence that it was indeed Democrats seeking revenge for the Clintons which indicates that that particular charge is based on partisan animosity.

    And while I don't doubt that there is some level of politicking on the side of the Democrats, it's even more clear that there was some very clear politicking on the side of the Republicans and that they wanted to confirm K regardless of whether he sexually assaulted Ford of not as their actions clearly show that they were not interested in learning the truth about the assault prior to voting on Kavanaugh. If they were indeed interested in learning whether it did or did not happen prior to the vote, then they would not have limited the investigation. They would have let the FBI take whatever time it needed to interview whatever witnesses it thought would have valuable information on the matter so that when the vote was taken, everyone would have as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision on the matter. Not only was the investigation unnecessarily limited, most Republicans didn't want an investigation at all. So it really does look like the accusation, no matter how credible or evidenced, made little difference to whether Republicans were going to vote for Kavanaugh.
    Last edited by mican333; October 11th, 2018 at 10:48 AM.

  3. #143
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    So there seems to be some confusion still on why waiting makes it less credible.

    So basically let's talk credibility. A claim is most credible if it is the ONLY possible explanation for a claim.
    With me so far?
    Now we basically don't get examples such as the above. There are always other possible explanations.
    My point is that those increase over time.
    First and foremost are those relating to memory of the event. Time can distort events in all kinds of ways.(not speaking to this case specifically) A consentual drunken encounter could be remembered as rape by simple omission of a fact.

    This memory aspect makes any claim LESS credible on it's own with no other facts.

    Still with me? You should be able to agree and indeed I believe you are appealing to this very point in your own artuments, that time degraded credibility. Because you are referring to an EARLIER account and acting as though it too is more credible and this lends credibility to the later claim.

    So.. we on the same page so far?
    Context is less than if claimed imediatly.
    To serve man.

  4. #144
    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
    So there seems to be some confusion still on why waiting makes it less credible.

    So basically let's talk credibility. A claim is most credible if it is the ONLY possible explanation for a claim.
    With me so far?
    Now we basically don't get examples such as the above. There are always other possible explanations.
    My point is that those increase over time.
    First and foremost are those relating to memory of the event. Time can distort events in all kinds of ways.(not speaking to this case specifically) A consentual drunken encounter could be remembered as rape by simple omission of a fact.

    This memory aspect makes any claim LESS credible on it's own with no other facts.

    Still with me? You should be able to agree and indeed I believe you are appealing to this very point in your own artuments, that time degraded credibility. Because you are referring to an EARLIER account and acting as though it too is more credible and this lends credibility to the later claim.
    I don't discount the effect you are referring to but "less credible than a recent memory" is not the same thing as "not credible".

    In other words, I really, really, really doubt that Ford's memory of the event (assuming it happened) has degraded so much that she doesn't accurately remember the most vivid portions of the event, such as who attacked her and what the attack was like and how she escaped. I would think that the details that she would lose would be things like the exact day and exact location and some of the people who were around but not directly involved in the assault, which not coincidentally are the details she doesn't seem to be able to remember so well. And she testified that she was 100% certain that Kavanaugh attacked her which indicates that it's not a fuzzy memory. So given that, the mere possibility that her memory was so flawed that she misremembered who attacked her is not nearly enough to sap a significant amount of credibility from her claim.

    So yes, memory of an event does degrade over time but not in a way that renders her general claim not credible.
    Last edited by mican333; October 11th, 2018 at 11:35 AM.

  5. #145
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    I claimed that "regardless of Kavanaugh's innocence, his partisan response and temperament are more than sufficient to disqualify him from the position." What is your point?
    Is it only true for K, or is this test true for all SCOTUS nominees and present members?

    ---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You mean the one where she went upstairs (contrary to the lie Trump spouted) to the bathroom where she was pushed into a bedroom with a bed on the right? The bedroom was across from the small bathroom and the stairs were narrow.

    She says she has more details for the FBI - those were the most vivid - and more witnesses. Too bad she nor they weren't spoken to. Maybe they would've found the address.

    But you're not fooling anyone that you're interested, anymore than the senators are.

    ---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

    Ohhhh, phew. So, we only needed to find a house with a second floor a bedroom and a bathroom? Well, now that IS specific. Where did she say this specific house is again?

    She had plenty of time to offer details and provide witnesses. Her supposed witnesses involved people who she had talked to post 2012. Oh, hey, I talked to a Scottish guy who claimed to have seen Lockness. Should the FBI question me as a witness to Lockness' existence?

    You said she had details. She has none.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Giving one's opinion is light years away from towing a party created conspiracy theory which would make Alex Jones envious.
    Oh, right, light years. Because you like Ginsburg and don't like K. At least be honest about it.

    ---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's not a real-world example of someone in the kind of situation that K is in being convicted of perjury even though he told the truth.

    If you want me to concede that you've provided a hypothetical scenario that might possibly occur, I concede that (I don't know for a fact that it could but I'm not going to argue the point). But that does not mean that it's something that is likely to happen. Again, the reason lawyers tell people to not talk to the police is that there is a decent chance that it will get them in trouble. Kavanaugh has received no such warning because the situation that he is in is quite different.

    A hypothetical scenario where he MIGHT get in trouble does not change that.

    Since there's no convincing argument that he would actually suffer any criminal sanctions if that were to happen, he probably wouldn't need a lawyer.
    It is an example that truth telling can be subjective. It is an example that there can be consequences if the FBI determines you lied. There is always the possibility of being accused of lying when talking to the FBI, particularly over matters which occurred a very long time ago. A real example where someone did get into trouble supports my argument. Just because you claim it is a hypothetical doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I said, I'm not going to address notions from "anything can happen" land. Let's stick with realistic scenarios. And the notion that if he tells the truth of not committing a crime, he could lose his current job is unlikely.
    Well, based solely on accusations he has lost his Harvard teaching job. That is a real scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean the cold harsh reality is that there are credible accusations of perjury made against him right now. His college roommate has directly accused him of lying in his Senate hearing and as I write this, the most likely outcome is that he's going to get the seat. So whether he told the truth or lied to the Senate, he's probably going to get confirmed. So that is the REAL consequences of telling the truth to the Senate (assuming he is).
    Credible accusation is a smuggled premise. Credible because you say so? Did his roommate ever 'see' him blackout? K has not been convicted of lying under oath nor has he been found guilty of it. However, he has lost a job due to the allegations. In addition, there has been harm caused to his children and family due to the wild reporting of allegations which, so far, none of which have been substantiated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Unless:
    1. Manafort was indeed telling the truth
    2. Manafort has been legal punished for lying.

    This is not a relevant case outside of "anything can happen" land.
    The original FBI investigators believed he was telling the truth. He was punished for lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And it's been credibly claimed that the investigation was designed to not find anything new. Again, his college roommate directly accused him of lying. If he had been interviewed, then something new would have been presented.
    His college roommate didn't believe K but cannot prove he lied. What should he have been asked? Did you ever see K blackout? Umm, you cannot see someone blackout. They either lost memory (blacked out) or didn't. The roommate never claimed knowledge that K lost memory of an entire evening or period of time. He only claimed he believed it was unlikely that it ever happened. Ok. What questions do you think the FBI could/should possibly ask? Good grief.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That only decreases her credibility if it would be expected that witnesses would corroborate her story if it were true. Since that would not be expected, this lack does not decrease her credibility.
    According to you. You aren't the sole arbiter of credibility. To me, if someone claims a story and provides witnesses and none of the witnesses confirm the story, or contradict the story, then the story loses credibility. Then, when we add in all the other missing details or contradictions, her story loses even more credibility. Her story is not corroborated by K's calendar of events. Her story changed dates on three occasions. Her story about her therapy session is contradicted by the therapist's own notes. And you still claim her story has not decreased in credibility? She lied about her phobia of flying if we are to believe her ex-boyfriend. She possibly lied under oath about coaching a friend to take a polygraph test. Still think her story's credibility is rock solid? The neighborhood where she claims the alleged event occurred is about 10 miles from her home. How did she get home pre-cell phone? The area the event allegedly happened was in a place where K and all witnesses have claimed they never went to for parties. This isn't even denying a specific event. This is saying, hey, we never hung out in that area. Period. Yet, this doesn't impact her credibility? If after, all this, and you don't believe her story's credibility has been negatively impacted, then you are either a) just arguing for the sake of it or b) a friend of Cowboys.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know she's been consistently unsure of the date, which is not unexpected either.
    Wait. She was not merely unsure of the month or week. She has made significant changes to the year. Originally, it was the mid 80's. Then, she changed it to the early 80's. Then suddenly she decided upon the summer of '83. Is it normal that our memory gets better as time goes by? It kinda seems like you are saying when she supposedly remembers something it makes her story more credible and when she cannot remember something, it is expected, and therefore, makes her story more credible. Wow, sounds like a rock solid case.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Also not unexpected from an event that occurred decades ago. Do you remember how you got home from every party you went to when you were younger? I don't.
    I can only remember how I got home from the parties where I almost got raped.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Also not unusual. It's very common for sexual assault victims to not discuss the event until much later or not at all. I'm not going to get into detail, but someone in my life just revealed such an event that occurred longer ago than that.
    It does not make her story more credible because she waited 38 years. You are offering a reason why she may have waited, but it does not make her story more credible. The story is still the story and it is still full of holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yeah. You seem to think that things that would be quite common for a victim of sexual assault decades ago to do or say somehow decreases her credibility. And you are very incorrect about that.
    Thanks for your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right now, I could tell you completely true story about an event at a party from my college days, which also were about thirty years ago, and would, not surprisingly at all, be fuzzy on a lot of details expect the most memorable parts of the experience. I could tell you what happened at the party and some of the people there, but I could not nail down the date, the location of the house, how I got home afterwards and I would be telling you about it decades after it happened and likewise there would be plenty of people there who would not remember that I was there.
    However, you are not accusing someone of attempted rape. So, the threshold for credibility differs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if Ford is as fuzzy as the details of her experience as I am in mine, I should think her claim that it happened is not credible? Not by any logic that I can think of.
    Except for all the logical flaws I pointed out which you have ignored or excused.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Her story is not suppose to be credible because she remembered that she had one beer? I have to pretty much suspend logic to accept that as a valid point.
    Here you are telling me how fuzzy your memory is of all your past parties. Great. Tell me the beer and how many you had at each party. Talk about an obscure detail. But, not so obscure because her claim (which cannot be contradicted) also means she was sober and of clear mind. Self-serving important detail that she oddly remembers? Yeah, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And again, I find her story credible because she told it in a situation where she would have absolutely no incentive to lie and a lot of incentive to tell the truth. It's when she told her therapist about it. One does not pay a therapist so they can lie to her.
    Really? Please do share. You know her motivations? Why did the Duke lacrosse accuser lie? Why do any women lie about being assaulted? You are making an absurd claim that you cannot support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, appeal to ridicule aside, this is relevant to the situation.

    What he wrote in his yearbook tended to reveal who was very much into drinking and sex and considering that the accusation was about those two things specifically (sexual assault while drunk), it's quite relevant to bring up at the hearing. And since he apparently lied about what "boof" meant, journalists SHOULD look into it assuming that whether K lied to the Senate is relevant (which it is).
    First, support or retract your claim that he lied about the meaning of the word "boof". His yearbook revealed he was into drinking. Sex? Please support or retract your claim that he was into sex in high school. He has claimed that he was a virgin until after college. You have proof that he lied?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Begging the question. You have not made the case that Ford is not credible.
    That's the best rebuttal you can come up with there? For all the reasons I listed above, her claim isn't credible. More importantly, support or retract your claim that there exists a senator who supports sexual assault.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I'll chalk that up to hyperbolic nonsense and credit you with knowing that me thinking that he's guilty in no way deprives him of due process.
    Chalk it up however you want. You support Senators that voted to deny K a SCOTUS approval based on untried and unsupported allegations.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #146
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Maybe now, not then, a decade after married women were allowed to have a credit card in their own name. Ford testified as to why she didn't say anything - being happy that she had escaped, that it hadn't been rape just attempted, and that she was at a house with boys drinking beer while unchaperoned. "She was asking for it" was a popular meme then even in a famous case of gang rape in a bar. We still haven't gotten fully over shaming and blaming the victim but it was definitely more prevalent then.

    Context restores her credibility.
    Not at all, because none of this contradicts the points I made.
    We understand the reasons people wait, understanding does not make them more credible. Because we should also understand why time messes things up for the accuser and also for the innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I find that contradictory. If one actually understands why a sexual assault victim waits years to step forward, then they would not find the claim significantly less credible. I personally just experienced this as a woman I know told me of being assaulted as a child and I have no reason to think her claim is not credible just because I was told of it decades after it happened.

    It's those that don't understand why a woman would wait who would find the claim less credible because she waited to reveal it.
    False, as I said I understand why people wait. That does not help their case. Waiting hurts their case. As it hurts their case in several ways, it hurts the credibility of the case.

    This is like understanding why someone WOULD lie, doesn't mean that they DID lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A distinction without a difference.
    ABSOLUTLY NOT!
    The distinction is VERY significant. The very nature of a he said she said, is that it is ONE PERSONS word against ANOTHER SINGULAR PERSON.
    This is not that kind of case. This is one persons word against that of at least 2 others.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    They were witnesses to her telling her story prior to the confirmation which supports that she did not invent the story in order to sink Trump's pick for SCOTUS.
    False. Because she has not had ONE story. She has had multipe versions, and non of the early ones named the person until now.
    There is not some unbroken chain of a consisten story. Rather a very, very general claim, that stays vague on relevant and important details, that finally comes to rest at a political moment pointing at a specific person/persons.

    For example, her earliest recorded telling had 4 people present in the room. (per the notes.. which we haven't seen apparently)
    You are free to fill in the blanks yourself.. but that isn't HER being credible, that is just you believing her.

    Further, they don't really matter. This is evidenced by the fact that the FBI nor any court would be interested in their testimoney.
    They don't have first hand knowledge, they are only carriers of gossip, and pretty worthless to determining truth value of the claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't think it's a clear smear job. I mean let's assume for a moment that the Dems motivation was nothing more or less than trying to figure out if Kavanaugh had indeed assault Ford as a teenager and politics had nothing to do with it. If that was the case, I don't see what they would have done differently than what they did.
    #1 they would have asked him directly about the charges when the met with him privatly and had the information.
    #2 They would have referred it to the entire body 6 weeks earlier. meaning that The FBI could have done another background check into the information prior to the circus of a last minute interjection.
    #3 They could have demanded the support and proof she claimed to have, before taking the charges seriously. (IE .. O you have a video.. hand it over.. No, you don't want too? Then your not serious, and we aren't going to take you seriuos).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And what we saw from Kavanaugh was not someone whose emotions got the better of him in the heat of the moment. His statement was prepared and he clearly said that it was, in part, revenge for the Clintons. And I very much doubt that he has any credible evidence that it was indeed Democrats seeking revenge for the Clintons which indicates that that particular charge is based on partisan animosity.
    Clearly he was refering to the handling of the entire issue, and the multiple charges he was being demanded to answer too. All you have to do is recognize that the senate decided to grill this guy on his High school year book referance to farting.
    it's dirty politics attempting to smear him plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And while I don't doubt that there is some level of politicking on the side of the Democrats, it's even more clear that there was some very clear politicking on the side of the Republicans and that they wanted to confirm K regardless of whether he sexually assaulted Ford of not as their actions clearly show that they were not interested in learning the truth about the assault prior to voting on Kavanaugh.
    There was no truth to learn, it was a baseless charge that should have been dismissed. some republicans did.
    however that is not the point, the point was that the Dems were charged with a political smear job. What the republicans did has nothing to do with that charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If they were indeed interested in learning whether it did or did not happen prior to the vote, then they would not have limited the investigation. They would have let the FBI take whatever time it needed to interview whatever witnesses it thought would have valuable information on the matter so that when the vote was taken, everyone would have as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision on the matter. Not only was the investigation unnecessarily limited, most Republicans didn't want an investigation at all.
    So this is a bit of spin on your part, moving away from the accusation about the Dems and trying to bring the focus on the republicans.
    The only "limit" that was relevant in the FBI, was which accusations they were investigating. The time, is only a problem if they did not have time to question/investigate relevant leads.
    As there was NO EVIDENCE for the claim, there was litterally nothing to investigate. They spoke to anyone they suspected may have been there that night.. and that was that.

    Now, here is the problem with resting finding the truth on the FBI. The FBI didn't have supena power. If they wanted to question someone, and they declined.. that was the end of it.
    Now think about that for a second. Who had the power to actually investigate?.. Why, it was the senate with it's subpena power.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So it really does look like the accusation, no matter how credible or evidenced, made little difference to whether Republicans were going to vote for Kavanaugh.
    There is no evidence to support this claim. The Republicans took the time to interview and investigate anything that had to do with the claim.
    There just wasn't any there, there to find.
    If you start with nothing, you are going to end up with nothing. She had nothing but a song. She sang it, they heard it.. and that was the end.
    your blaiming republicans for not digging deeper into something that had nothing to dig into. who were they supposed to talk to? What records were they supposed to subpena?
    What justified an investigation? Nothing. The sexual crimes unit lady said she would not have persuied the issue any furhter.... so why should the senate?
    But they did, they did persue it further and your taking that as to mean they were not serious. Which is contrary to the facts in every way.

    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't discount the effect you are referring to but "less credible than a recent memory" is not the same thing as "not credible".
    Correct. however your forgetting what I was responding too.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's those that don't understand why a woman would wait who would find the claim less credible because she waited to reveal it.
    your moving the goal posts. You went from a stand against it being less credible. To significantly less credible.
    Which can mean whatever the heck you want.

    So my point is supported that it is less credible. The only thing left to argue is how much less.
    to which I would refer you to IBELSD's arguments as to why her claim became less and less credible as at every turn her claims were contradicted or left unsupported.

    her claim that it was in the late 80's .. contradicted by herself
    her claim it was the early 80's unsupported
    her claim that it was in the summer of 82(or was it 83), unsupported as to why she changed or what she remebered.
    Her claim that 4 people were there. 2 claim the event never happened, one claimed to have NEVER known the guy.
    Her claim she was afraid of flying, so much so she would need to drive to washington. Contradicted by her ex-boyfriend in a sworn testimony, also contradicted by her history of flying.
    Her claim that it was Judge K, when no other account or support mentioned him.

    This is not the consturction of a solid claim.

    Just tell me why I should believe it was early 80's and not the late 80's? It's the same witness. Only one claim was made earlier, when the event was fresher in her mind.
    To serve man.

  7. #147
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I also see an issue with the women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault rarely face any serious legal issues themselves (with a few highly publicized exceptions).

    http://www.americanjournalreview.com/fra/
    "Another #METOO Backfire: Five Girls Falsely Accuse Boy Of Sexual Assault, Potentially DESTROYING His Life Forever "

    Perhaps women that lie about being sexually assaulted should be on the same sex offender list as those that actually assault? That may be extreme, but there should be consequences, and they should be similar in gravity. This is an accusation that should be reserved for those actually assaulted.
    To date, I don't see those that are falsely accusing suffering anywhere near what the falsely accused suffer.
    By all means I agree. Although questionable is what level consequence one should face for making false allegations, consequence's should also be applied to those, especially a Supreme Court nominee, who not only answered questions of drinking dishonestly, but also continued to answer evasively throughout most the hearings.

    ---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It does not make her story more credible because she waited 38 years. You are offering a reason why she may have waited, but it does not make her story more credible. The story is still the story and it is still full of holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
    Again, it was the manner of which he testified throughout the hearings while under oath. Allegations aside, fact is, Kavanaugh should have at least been transparent instead of attempting to downplay the extent of his drinking. That he also presented a narrative that Democrats were somehow plotting against him? Not exactly worthy of the position he's suddenly in.

  8. #148
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,084
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    that time degraded credibility.

    So.. we on the same page so far?
    Context is less than if claimed imediatly.
    Why? Because of faulty memory?

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ohhhh, phew. So, we only needed to find a house with a second floor a bedroom and a bathroom? Well, now that IS specific. Where did she say this specific house is again?

    She had plenty of time to offer details and provide witnesses. Her supposed witnesses involved people who she had talked to post 2012. Oh, hey, I talked to a Scottish guy who claimed to have seen Lockness. Should the FBI question me as a witness to Lockness' existence?

    You said she had details. She has none.
    She had a general location. I'd bet the FBI could find it if they had been allowed to investigate properly, speak to her and her additional witnesses and hear her additional evidence.

    Who ordered that again? Oh, yes, not the guy you voted for.

    ---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Oh, right, light years. Because you like Ginsburg and don't like K. At least be honest about it.
    Yes, I see no reason to dislike Ginsburg. I'd like to drop Kavanaugh on the Yale campus and would bet good money he couldn't even find the library. More likely he'd use his nose would lead him to the nearest frat house basement.

    ---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all, because none of this contradicts the points I made.
    We understand the reasons people wait, understanding does not make them more credible. Because we should also understand why time messes things up for the accuser and also for the innocent.
    Huh. That's not what I hear. All I hear is "36 years...36 years" similar to "lock her up...lock her up" looks like due process is only for rich entitled little pricks.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #149
    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
    False, as I said I understand why people wait. That does not help their case. Waiting hurts their case. As it hurts their case in several ways, it hurts the credibility of the case.
    Yes. It hurts it A LITTLE BIT.

    Just because case B is not as strong as Case A does not mean that Case B is not credible.

    Again, I acknowledge the concept. But it's just not that significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ABSOLUTLY NOT!
    The distinction is VERY significant. The very nature of a he said she said, is that it is ONE PERSONS word against ANOTHER SINGULAR PERSON.
    This is not that kind of case. This is one persons word against that of at least 2 others.
    I understand. But that does not hurt her case. She is accusing two men of being involved in a sexual assault. They both have a strong incentive to deny it so even if they did do it, they would deny it so whether it was one person denying it or two people denying it, it doesn't make much difference.

    By the logic you seem to be forwarding, if there's a gang rape, the larger number of men that were involved in the rape, the less credible the accusation of rape is.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False. Because she has not had ONE story. She has had multipe versions, and non of the early ones named the person until now.
    That does not change the fact that she has spoken of the assault prior to the nomination which indicates that she did not recently make up the story. When she chose to specifically name her attacker makes no difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is not some unbroken chain of a consisten story. Rather a very, very general claim, that stays vague on relevant and important details, that finally comes to rest at a political moment pointing at a specific person/persons.

    For example, her earliest recorded telling had 4 people present in the room. (per the notes.. which we haven't seen apparently)
    You are free to fill in the blanks yourself.. but that isn't HER being credible, that is just you believing her.
    Ah, so you are the sole expert on what is and is not credible and my assessment is only as valid as it aligns with your belief?

    Obviously I disagree and can justify my feelings that her claim is indeed credible. First I ask myself the question of why Ford told her therapist of an attack from her classmate when she was a teenager? What is the most likely answer?

    And the most likely answer is because the assault actually happened. That's not to say that it's only possible answer but I can think of no answer that is remotely as likely as that one.

    And then I ask myself the question of why she chose to identify Kavanaugh as the attacker when she learned that he was on the short list to be a SCOTUS nominee. And her answer was that she was concerned that such a man would be a SCOTUS judge. So that seems like the most likely answer and I can think of no other answer that is even close to being as likely.

    I mean any alternative theories to that fall into the tinfoil-hat conspiracy level (like she's being paid by Soros) or is just extremely unlikely.

    If you want to tell me an alternative theory about why she told her therapist about being attacked as a teenager and likewise why she pointed to Kavanaugh when she learned he was on the short list, feel free to forward it. But until someone presents some kind of coherent, credible alternative to what seems most likely, her claim must be considered not only credible but likely true.

    I guess you can disagree with my logic but unless you can show that it's wrong, I am justified in maintaining the position that her claim is credible and even likely to be true.



    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;561618]Further, they don't really matter. This is evidenced by the fact that the FBI nor any court would be interested in their testimoney.
    They don't have first hand knowledge, they are only carriers of gossip, and pretty worthless to determining truth value of the claim.[/quote[

    First off, you are missing the word "gossip" (look up the word in the dictionary) and testimony is indeed of value in an investigation. If they find two or three people who independently tell them that Ford spoke of the assault, that lends credibility to the notion that she did not recently make up the story.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    #1 they would have asked him directly about the charges when the met with him privatly and had the information.
    #2 They would have referred it to the entire body 6 weeks earlier. meaning that The FBI could have done another background check into the information prior to the circus of a last minute interjection.
    #3 They could have demanded the support and proof she claimed to have, before taking the charges seriously. (IE .. O you have a video.. hand it over.. No, you don't want too? Then your not serious, and we aren't going to take you seriuos).
    And you know this how?

    I mean I'm not an expert on how these kinds of things are typically handled but then neither are you. So if you want to say that you think it's all a smear job, then I acknowledge your opinion on the matter. But if you are going to say it CLEARLY is, then you need to provide something more than guesses.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Clearly he was refering to the handling of the entire issue, and the multiple charges he was being demanded to answer too.
    You aren't addressing my point. He said it was revenge for the Clintons. So was it? How did he know if it was? Did Bill and Hillary call him and tell him as much?

    My point is that his accusation is a highly partisan statement and reveals that he's not likely to be impartial when it comes to a Republican vs. Democrat case.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All you have to do is recognize that the senate decided to grill this guy on his High school year book referance to farting.
    it's dirty politics attempting to smear him plain and simple.
    You are misstating the issue and therefore you conclusion is based on a falsity.

    "Boofing" apparently did not refer to farting but the anally consuming alcohol. He made several other references in his yearbook to drinking and sex and apparently lied about them all when questioned about them. Since he was being accused of a sexual assault when drunk, his attitude towards drinking and sex was quite relevant to the charge. And likewise if he was a heavy drinker (and apparently he was), then he would be subject to blackouts (where he doesn't remember doing things while drunk) which harms his credibility in his denial of not attacking Ford while drunk since he could have done it while blacked out and not remembered it.

    So the whole thing is quite relevant to the accusation and if one is interested in trying to figure out whether the accusation is true or not, it's something that should be looked into. What kind of person he was at the time is very pertinent to whether he did or not did not commit the act.

    So no, this was not just a plain and simple smear but instead looking into something quite relevant in regard to the claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There was no truth to learn, it was a baseless charge that should have been dismissed.
    So is that your attitude towards all sexual assault claims when the only people who witnessed it were the participants and there's no physical evidence to show for it?

    I mean that seems to be what you are saying. if the girl can't show some kind of solid evidence that she was assaulted, there's nothing to look into and her claim should be dismissed.

    Needless to say I vehemently disagree and likewise disagree that that is what should have been done with Ford's accusation.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your moving the goal posts. You went from a stand against it being less credible. To significantly less credible.
    Which can mean whatever the heck you want.
    I didn't take the stand that older claims are less credible and you will not find me ever saying that. I am challenging YOUR argument that older claims "reduces their credibility in a substinative way" and seem to be arguing that old claims are not credible. And I disagree with that argument. I do not think old claims become non-credible just because they are old. So I reject your argument and you will need to support it before I will accept it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So my point is supported that it is less credible. The only thing left to argue is how much less.
    to which I would refer you to IBELSD's arguments as to why her claim became less and less credible as at every turn her claims were contradicted or left unsupported.

    her claim that it was in the late 80's .. contradicted by herself
    her claim it was the early 80's unsupported
    her claim that it was in the summer of 82(or was it 83), unsupported as to why she changed or what she remebered.
    Her claim that 4 people were there. 2 claim the event never happened, one claimed to have NEVER known the guy.
    Her claim she was afraid of flying, so much so she would need to drive to washington. Contradicted by her ex-boyfriend in a sworn testimony, also contradicted by her history of flying.
    Her claim that it was Judge K, when no other account or support mentioned him.

    This is not the consturction of a solid claim.
    Because you say so?

    I think all of these things are practically irrelevant.

    I mean the whole "fear of flying" thing has absolutely no relevance to the alleged assault (and "fear of flying" does not mean that one cannot fly but just that they don't like to fly - I've intentionally done things that I was afraid to do). And she has been consistent in how old she was (15) so some confusion on the year doesn't mean much. And not being clear on who else was there, beyond the alleged attackers, is to be expected after decades.

    And to repeat, I think the claim is credible because the only explanation about why she told her therapist about the attack and later named Kavanaugh as the attacker was because Kavanaugh attacked her. All alternative theories that I've heard sound patently ridiculous or are just extremely unlikely (like she was assaulted by a different pair of classmates that she confused with Kavanaugh and Judge). If you can provide a more likely, or even equally likely, explanation for why this happened, please present it. Otherwise, I have to conclude that her claim is not only credible but likely to be true.
    Last edited by mican333; October 11th, 2018 at 08:00 PM.

  10. #150
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    @ mican.. on the phone so can't quote.

    So the problem is, your using an unjust and unreasonable standard.
    What you have done is said, I believe the accusation so unless you can prove she is a liar, then he is probably guilty.
    You have started out with a "why would she lie" mindset. Now I understand this, but it is in fact unreasonable and unjust.

    First, you have turned the presumption of innocence on it's head. Now before judge k spoke you gave him a burden of proof the does not rest on him. It is not his responsibility tocome up with some reason for her to lie. It is her responsibility to prove that he infact did what he is accused of. Now by the evidence you can't even out them at the same party together.

    Second, you have used an unreasonable standard for her. You have take her partial account (which we have not seen or been provided) to her therapist and said.. why would she lie. But when does that reason not exist? Of the first time she ever spoke of it was infront of Congress under oath, the question would be equally applicable. If she had reported it imediatly, it would still be valid. Which means that when and how many times she made the claim does not add relevant information.

    You may say. And I think have, that it is consistent with a truthful story, but as ibelsd pointed out. Both he speaking and her silence is constient with it being true.. and I will poiint out that it is also consistent with if she is lying.

    Finally your standard is unjust, because is is predjudiced against the innocent. if judge k is innocent and she is lying, you are requiring him to understand her psycoligy her past etc in order to provide any qualified speculation on why she would lie. . If she is in fact lying how in the world is he supposed to know why?
    So you are demanding evidence an innocent man wouldn't have access too, but not demanding evidence fro lm the accuser to even place him at the party.
    ---
    More later
    To serve man.

  11. #151
    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
    @ mican.. on the phone so can't quote.

    So the problem is, your using an unjust and unreasonable standard.
    What you have done is said, I believe the accusation so unless you can prove she is a liar, then he is probably guilty.
    You have started out with a "why would she lie" mindset. Now I understand this, but it is in fact unreasonable and unjust.
    No, I laid out a solid, logical argument for why the most likely conclusion, by far, is that she is telling the truth in my last post and until you address that particular argument, you have no basis to say that my reasoning is wrong in any way. I'll paste it into this post and it stands until it is effectively rebutted.

    First I ask myself the question of why Ford told her therapist of an attack from her classmate when she was a teenager? What is the most likely answer?

    And the most likely answer is because the assault actually happened. That's not to say that it's only possible answer but I can think of no answer that is remotely as likely as that one.

    And then I ask myself the question of why she chose to identify Kavanaugh as the attacker when she learned that he was on the short list to be a SCOTUS nominee. And her answer was that she was concerned that such a man would be a SCOTUS judge. So that seems like the most likely answer and I can think of no other answer that is even close to being as likely.

    I mean any alternative theories to that fall into the tinfoil-hat conspiracy level (like she's being paid by Soros) or is just extremely unlikely.

    If you want to tell me an alternative theory about why she told her therapist about being attacked as a teenager and likewise why she pointed to Kavanaugh when she learned he was on the short list, feel free to forward it. But until someone presents some kind of coherent, credible alternative to what seems most likely, her claim must be considered not only credible but likely true.


    I guess you can disagree with my logic but unless you can show that it's wrong, I am justified in maintaining the position that her claim is credible and even likely to be true.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, you have turned the presumption of innocence on it's head. Now before judge k spoke you gave him a burden of proof the does not rest on him. It is not his responsibility tocome up with some reason for her to lie. It is her responsibility to prove that he infact did what he is accused of. Now by the evidence you can't even out them at the same party together.
    I consider this to be a straw man argument.

    As far as I know, I've made no argument in this thread regarding K's burden of proof. And right now I am limiting my argument to the credibility of Ford's claim which has nothing to do with K's burden of proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, you have used an unreasonable standard for her. You have take her partial account (which we have not seen or been provided) to her therapist and said.. why would she lie. But when does that reason not exist? Of the first time she ever spoke of it was infront of Congress under oath, the question would be equally applicable. If she had reported it imediatly, it would still be valid. Which means that when and how many times she made the claim does not add relevant information.
    I didn't ask the question "why would she lie".

    I'm saying that it's extremely unlikely that she would lie to her therapist about an assault. When one pays money to see a therapist to deal with a traumatic event, they are almost certainly going to talk about an event that actually happened. So I'd say the odds of her lying to the therapist are under 1% but will round it up to 1% for the sake of a round number.

    So when the odds are 99 to 1 that Ford told her therapist the truth, that means that the claim that the assault happened is indeed credible. I can't even think of a remotely likely alternative and no one on the other side of the issue as been able to present one. Any alternative theory to Ford honestly and accurately relaying an account of an assault that actually happened all seem very unlikely if not ridiculous.

    So that is MY justification for thinking that she's probably not lying. If you are going to argue that I should think otherwise, tell me why I should.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally your standard is unjust, because is is predjudiced against the innocent. if judge k is innocent and she is lying, you are requiring him to understand her psycoligy her past etc in order to provide any qualified speculation on why she would lie. . If she is in fact lying how in the world is he supposed to know why?
    So you are demanding evidence an innocent man wouldn't have access too, but not demanding evidence fro lm the accuser to even place him at the party.
    Another Straw Man. I did not demand any evidence from him nor have I declared that he is guilty.

    I am just arguing that her claim is credible.
    Last edited by mican333; October 13th, 2018 at 10:51 AM.

  12. #152
    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 Ibelsd View Post
    It is an example that truth telling can be subjective. It is an example that there can be consequences if the FBI determines you lied. There is always the possibility of being accused of lying when talking to the FBI, particularly over matters which occurred a very long time ago. A real example where someone did get into trouble supports my argument. Just because you claim it is a hypothetical doesn't make it so.
    So you have a real-world example of someone answering HONESTLY to the FBI and yet being subject to a perjury charge because they either honestly answered incorrectly or someone believed that the truth was something different? If so, please give me the real-world example of this happening. If not, then by all evidence presented, it's a purely hypothetical situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Well, based solely on accusations he has lost his Harvard teaching job. That is a real scenario.
    But it's not a scenario of criminal prosecution based on him answering a question honestly.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Credible accusation is a smuggled premise. Credible because you say so? Did his roommate ever 'see' him blackout? K has not been convicted of lying under oath nor has he been found guilty of it. However, he has lost a job due to the allegations. In addition, there has been harm caused to his children and family due to the wild reporting of allegations which, so far, none of which have been substantiated.
    I didn't say he has been convicted. I said there is a credible accusation of his being so drunk he blacked out. And you are clearly artificially raising the bar of "credible". Credible means believable and if the roommate regularly saw K stumbling/slurring drunk then it's credible that he experienced black outs. And likewise K's statements about what various slang in his yearbook means have been contradicted by others. This is not iron-clad proof that he committed perjury but it does make the claim that he has lied CREDIBLE.

    And as we can see, it didn't matter much to whether he got the seat.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The original FBI investigators believed he was telling the truth. He was punished for lying.
    Then that would indicate that evidence was found that showed that he was lying. So he apparently got punished for lying because he actually lied. If you are going to argue that he was telling the truth, please support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    His college roommate didn't believe K but cannot prove he lied. What should he have been asked? Did you ever see K blackout? Umm, you cannot see someone blackout. They either lost memory (blacked out) or didn't. The roommate never claimed knowledge that K lost memory of an entire evening or period of time. He only claimed he believed it was unlikely that it ever happened. Ok. What questions do you think the FBI could/should possibly ask? Good grief.
    Well, Charlie Brown, how about:

    "To the best of your knowledge, did Brett Kavanaugh ever get so drunk that he blacked out and if so, can you give me an example of such an event?"

    And if that very question was asked of me of a roommate that I had when I was in college, I could answer that question and testify that he blacked out.

    True story - I had a roommate and one night, while we were drunk he "went off" on one of other roommates and started yelling at him (the other roommate kind of had it coming so I didn't really disapprove). The next day, I told him about it and he had absolutely no recollection of doing that. So when he was yelling at my roommate, he was apparently experiencing a black out and if he said he never blacked out, then I would sincerely say that he was not being truthful.

    Likewise Kavanaugh's roommate might have a similar story or stories to tell if interviewed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    According to you. You aren't the sole arbiter of credibility. To me, if someone claims a story and provides witnesses and none of the witnesses confirm the story, or contradict the story, then the story loses credibility. Then, when we add in all the other missing details or contradictions, her story loses even more credibility. Her story is not corroborated by K's calendar of events. Her story changed dates on three occasions. Her story about her therapy session is contradicted by the therapist's own notes. And you still claim her story has not decreased in credibility? She lied about her phobia of flying if we are to believe her ex-boyfriend. She possibly lied under oath about coaching a friend to take a polygraph test. Still think her story's credibility is rock solid? The neighborhood where she claims the alleged event occurred is about 10 miles from her home. How did she get home pre-cell phone? The area the event allegedly happened was in a place where K and all witnesses have claimed they never went to for parties. This isn't even denying a specific event. This is saying, hey, we never hung out in that area. Period. Yet, this doesn't impact her credibility? If after, all this, and you don't believe her story's credibility has been negatively impacted, then you are either a) just arguing for the sake of it or b) a friend of Cowboys.
    I didn't say that it doesn't damage her credibility at all but just not enough to render her story non-credible.

    Again, one should be expected to be fuzzy on some details regarding events that happened decades ago. And many of the things that you think damage her credibility doesn't have anything to do with the story of the assault (like the fear of flying issue). I do think a claim from decades ago is less credible than a claim from last week. But that does mean that ALL claims from decades ago are not credible.

    And there's LOTS that makes her story credible.

    A liar does not:
    1. Tell multiple other people about an assault years prior to making it public
    2. Add another person, who can and has an incentive to contradict her story, in the room
    3. Demands that the FBI investigates her claim (since she would be subject to criminal prosecution if they find that she is lying)

    #3 by itself makes it a near-certainty in my mind that she is not lying.

    These little threads that you are picking at are practically nothing compared to the clear evidence that she is not lying.

    I would like you to give me a remotely credible reason why she would ask the FBI to investigate her claim if she did not believe that the event actually happened. Until you do, I rightfully maintain that her story is credible.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Wait. She was not merely unsure of the month or week. She has made significant changes to the year. Originally, it was the mid 80's. Then, she changed it to the early 80's. Then suddenly she decided upon the summer of '83. Is it normal that our memory gets better as time goes by? It kinda seems like you are saying when she supposedly remembers something it makes her story more credible and when she cannot remember something, it is expected, and therefore, makes her story more credible. Wow, sounds like a rock solid case.
    She has consistently said that she was 15. Simple math will nail down the year and if she somehow got the year wrong, then it's a math error.

    Thinking that this somehow significantly damages her credibility is just grasping at straws IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I can only remember how I got home from the parties where I almost got raped.
    Well, that's a non-answer. So you don't challenge that it's not uncommon for someone to not remember how they got home from a party that occurred decades ago and therefore her not remembering doesn't mean anything.

    If you are going to make the argument that she would remember if the assault occurred, please support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It does not make her story more credible because she waited 38 years. You are offering a reason why she may have waited, but it does not make her story more credible. The story is still the story and it is still full of holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
    I didn't argue that it makes it more credible. But I am saying that it's to expected that a story will have some holes if it occurred 30 years ago so such things don't significantly damage the credibility of the story.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Thanks for your opinion.
    And your opinion to the contrary is likewise noted. So I'll ignore this point until it is supported with something other than opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, you are not accusing someone of attempted rape. So, the threshold for credibility differs.
    I don't see why. In both instances we are addressing if not remembering certain details of a party that occurred decades ago significantly harms the credibility of that something happened there. If I can't be expected to remember the location of a party where something hilarious happened, I don't see why it's any different if Ford can't remember the location of a party where something traumatic happened. Are you arguing that if one is assaulted, they will have a better memory of insignificant details than someone who experienced something hilarious?

    And whether someone is accused of doing something bad at the party is irrelevant to whether one should be expected to remember a certain detail.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Except for all the logical flaws I pointed out which you have ignored or excused.
    Well, someone is more impressed with their own arguments than I am, I guess.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here you are telling me how fuzzy your memory is of all your past parties. Great. Tell me the beer and how many you had at each party. Talk about an obscure detail. But, not so obscure because her claim (which cannot be contradicted) also means she was sober and of clear mind. Self-serving important detail that she oddly remembers? Yeah, maybe.
    So because I don't remember certain specific details, I don't remember ANY details and to point out one specific details means one is lying?

    Talk about reaching...


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Really? Please do share. You know her motivations? Why did the Duke lacrosse accuser lie? Why do any women lie about being assaulted? You are making an absurd claim that you cannot support.
    I can certainly support that it's extremely unlikely that she is lying. I did above (the FBI). But even if we want to ignore that and just play the odds, since a significant majority of sexual assault allegations are not lies, odds are she's not lying and therefore based on that alone, her claim is truthful. I will support this:

    A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1 percent rate of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009).

    A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate
    of false reports (Lisak et al., 2010).

    Using qualitative and quantitative analysis, researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1 percent rate of false reports (Heenan
    & Murray 2006).


    https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/...-Reporting.pdf

    So at worst around 7% of accusations are false and therefore odds are Ford is not lying. And once we add that she demanded an FBI investigation into her claim, the odds that she lied sinks very low.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, support or retract your claim that he lied about the meaning of the word "boof". His yearbook revealed he was into drinking. Sex? Please support or retract your claim that he was into sex in high school. He has claimed that he was a virgin until after college. You have proof that he lied?
    Moving the goalpost. We are discussing the motivation for questioning him on those things. And here's what the phrases commonly meant:

    Boof - anally ingesting booze
    Devil's Triangle - A threeway with two guys and a woman
    Ralph Club - Heavy drinking leading to vomiting
    100 kegs or bust - obviously beer kegs
    Renate Alumnus - Having slept with Renate.

    Now, if you want to hold that K's explanations are all absolutely truthful and he happened to have legitimate innocent explanations for terms that typically do refer to drinking/sex, you may. But since the terms were commonly referring to drinking/sex and therefore were relevant to the charges, it was something that the Senators had a legitimate reason to ask him about.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's the best rebuttal you can come up with there? For all the reasons I listed above, her claim isn't credible.
    Begging the question. You don't get to declare victory while the battle is still ongoing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    More importantly, support or retract your claim that there exists a senator who supports sexual assault.
    Support or retract that I said there exists a senator who supports sexual assault.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Chalk it up however you want. You support Senators that voted to deny K a SCOTUS approval based on untried and unsupported allegations.
    And you support Senators that weren't particularly concerned if the allegations were true.

    If one was concerned if the allegations were true, they would want the FBI to take all of the time it needs to fully investigate the claims, including interviewing both Ford and Kavanaugh.
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 12:58 PM.

  13. #153
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A liar does not:
    1. Tell multiple other people about an assault years prior to making it public
    2. Add another person, who can and has an incentive to contradict her story, in the room
    3. Demands that the FBI investigates her claim (since she would be subject to criminal prosecution if they find that she is lying)
    Women who lie about sexual assault report it as a crime to be investigated all the time.
    To serve man.

  14. #154
    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
    Women who lie about sexual assault report it as a crime to be investigated all the time.
    And that is significantly different than demanding that a claim one has already made be investigated.

    It's pretty obvious that when a woman falsely reports a sexual assault, she is hoping that her word alone will be enough to get the guy in trouble and, unless he's an idiot, does not want her claim investigated because the more it's investigated, the more likely the truth of the matter will be revealed.

    So while a false claimant may expect an investigation, she would want as little investigating as possible and DEFINITELY would not demand an investigation into her claim.

  15. #155
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's pretty obvious that when a woman falsely reports a sexual assault, she is hoping that her word alone will be enough to get the guy in trouble and, unless he's an idiot, does not want her claim investigated because the more it's investigated, the more likely the truth of the matter will be revealed.
    That doesn't seem obvious at all. Because an investigation is what always happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So while a false claimant may expect an investigation, she would want as little investigating as possible and DEFINITELY would not demand an investigation into her claim.
    Not definitely. As long as they expect for an investigation to find nothing, they may ask for one, or even demand one. After all, that is what an innocent victim would do, and a liar has to act innocent.

    I understand your perceived expectation, but I don't see how we can say they typically don't want an investigation, when they are going to the investigative authorities. Your making a distinction without a difference, and really just projecting motive that you can't possibly know.

    anyway, the counter point is pretty much self evident. Liars ask for investigations all the time, even if they are just too stupid to realize that will hurt their case.. that is what they do regularly.
    It seems to me that if a person knows nothing can be found to directly contradict them, then they may demand all the investigation possible simply to garner sympathy for their case. Which seems typical in a he/said she said situation (IE one where there really is a lack of any evidence what so ever).

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Why? Because of faulty memory?
    All sorts of reasons. Like if you wait for a politically damaging moment to come forward, vs ample time for it not to be, then it can introduce possible motives that would otherwise not exist when made earlier.
    while people may think she is not politically motivated, timing is evidence of otherwise.

    What I am more concerned about is that by simply waiting, one can frame an innocent man easier. I have elaborated on that at length.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    She had a general location. I'd bet the FBI could find it if they had been allowed to investigate properly, speak to her and her additional witnesses and hear her additional evidence.
    Maybe so could her lawyer, with a long car ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Who ordered that again? Oh, yes, not the guy you voted for.
    Not even her own lawyer, in order to find evidence to help his clients case.
    I really don't see it as a reasonable demand, when she is the one that is supposed to know.
    Again back the credibility thing, if she had made this claim 36 years ago, we would expect her to know and her not knowing would be stronger indication that maybe there was no party.
    Now.. it is the same claim, but 36 years later.. and her case is supposed to be "better" and just as reasonable? I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Huh. That's not what I hear. All I hear is "36 years...36 years" similar to "lock her up...lock her up" looks like due process is only for rich entitled little pricks.
    I can't really help your hearing. All I can do is present the case, you have to hear the other side yourself. It can only be spoon fed so much.

    ---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, I laid out a solid, logical argument for why the most likely conclusion, by far, is that she is telling the truth in my last post and until you address that particular argument, you have no basis to say that my reasoning is wrong in any way. I'll paste it into this post and it stands until it is effectively rebutted.
    The rebuttal is that your using a standard and a line of argument that is flawed so as to be unjustly biased against the accused.
    see below..
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I guess you can disagree with my logic but unless you can show that it's wrong, I am justified in maintaining the position that her claim is credible and even likely to be true.
    Yes, it is unjustly biased against the accused.
    You hear her side which is nothing more than an accusation, and timming of it. (Which I have already argued is not make it more truthful).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    If you want to tell me an alternative theory about why she told her therapist about being attacked as a teenager and likewise why she pointed to Kavanaugh when she learned he was on the short list, feel free to forward it. But until someone presents some kind of coherent, credible alternative to what seems most likely, her claim must be considered not only credible but likely true.
    Here is why your argument is biased againt the accused.
    --You have shifted the burden of proof onto the accused, to prove something that an innocent person would have no knowledge of.
    An innocent person does not have to provide a motive for his accuser to be a liar. That would be an unjust burden, and would create an assumption of guilt.

    Your argument form goes like this.

    Accuser makes accusation at X time.
    Why would that person lie? Answer.. no clue..
    Therefore, the accused is probably guilty.

    That is patiently unjust, and violates any assumption of innocence. It also turns simply the accusation, into "evidence" to support the accusation. Which it is not.

    No innocent person could defend against such a claim or a low burden of evidence, and thus it is unreasonable as a valid standard of justice.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I consider this to be a straw man argument.

    As far as I know, I've made no argument in this thread regarding K's burden of proof. And right now I am limiting my argument to the credibility of Ford's claim which has nothing to do with K's burden of proof.
    you did this when you said
    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    If you have an alternative theory about why she told her therapist about being attacked as a teenager and likwise why she pointed to kavaaugh when she learned he was on the short list, feel free to forward it. But until someone presents some kind of coherent, credible alternative to what seems most likely, her claim must be considered not only credible but likely true.
    You have created a position which puts the burden of evidence on the accused, and not the accuser.
    So, not a strawman at all, you just may not realize what the implication of your argument is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't ask the question "why would she lie".
    Yes you did. Here is how and where you said it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you want to tell me an alternative theory about why she told her therapist about being attacked as a teenager and likewise why she pointed to Kavanaugh when she learned he was on the short list...
    That "theory" if Judge K is innocent would be that she is lying.
    So your asking for a theory of why she would lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm saying that it's extremely unlikely that she would lie to her therapist about an assault. When one pays money to see a therapist to deal with a traumatic event, they are almost certainly going to talk about an event that actually happened. So I'd say the odds of her lying to the therapist are under 1% but will round it up to 1% for the sake of a round number.
    You should consider any appeal to her therapist or the contents and context of that visit.. rejected until evidence that it actually occured outside of her own testimony.
    for all you know the therapist suggested youn sexual trama to explain her marital problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So when the odds are 99 to 1 that Ford told her therapist the truth, that means that the claim that the assault happened is indeed credible. I can't even think of a remotely likely alternative and no one on the other side of the issue as been able to present one. Any alternative theory to Ford honestly and accurately relaying an account of an assault that actually happened all seem very unlikely if not ridiculous.
    Then you lack imagination. Your just appealing to ignorance and shifting the burden onto the accused.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So that is MY justification for thinking that she's probably not lying. If you are going to argue that I should think otherwise, tell me why I should.
    1) because she refused to produce the evidence of her therapist visit. So you don't actually have that data point to appeal to as evidence, because it has NEVER been submitted.
    2) because she has chosen to speak at the most politically damaging time.
    3) Because her claim evolved over time.
    4) Because the notes (we haven't seen) contradict her claim and so she has resorted to discrediting her own evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Another Straw Man. I did not demand any evidence from him nor have I declared that he is guilty.

    I am just arguing that her claim is credible.
    you said " position that her claim is credible and even likely to be true."
    That is logically equivilant to saying he is guilty.
    I don't understand how to percieve the statement.. I think he did it. but then a rejecton when called on a persumption of guilt.

    ----
    from previous post...
    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I understand. But that does not hurt her case. She is accusing two men of being involved in a sexual assault. They both have a strong incentive to deny it so even if they did do it, they would deny it so whether it was one person denying it or two people denying it, it doesn't make much difference.

    By the logic you seem to be forwarding, if there's a gang rape, the larger number of men that were involved in the rape, the less credible the accusation of rape is.
    Yes, it is a greater burden of evidence to prove 20 people did something, rather than 1 person.
    That is why "conspiracy theories" have such a difficutl burden of evidence.

    Also, you are ASSUMING guilt if you assert that they have an incentive to lie.
    they only have such an incentive if they are guilty.. and that has not been established.
    It is this kind of reasoning on your part that has lead me to say that your standard is biased against the accused.
    Anyone who is accused of any crime has the same "incentive" to lie, but we are to assume innocense, until an actual incentive is proven to actually exist.

    If She is lying, then she has an incentive to lie, it may even be a stupid incentive that we wouldn't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, you are missing the word "gossip" (look up the word in the dictionary) and testimony is indeed of value in an investigation. If they find two or three people who independently tell them that Ford spoke of the assault, that lends credibility to the notion that she did not recently make up the story.
    Not if all the people who were actually there contradicts the "gossip". Which is what we have in this case.
    100 people could say "I recall there being talk of a party, and 5 people were there", but then all 5 people deny it.
    Well.. which one do you belive? the people that were not there and have no first hand knowledge.. or the people who were there.

    I am supported by the fact that the FBI was only interested in talking to people who had first hand knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you know this how?

    I mean I'm not an expert on how these kinds of things are typically handled but then neither are you. So if you want to say that you think it's all a smear job, then I acknowledge your opinion on the matter. But if you are going to say it CLEARLY is, then you need to provide something more than guesses.
    Because that is their job. That is why he was corresponding with them, that was the point of all the investigations that came before this one.

    A smear job is using the situation to damage his name unecissarily. That is what happened here, as this could and should have been handled behind closed doors before hand.
    This all would have been a byline, or a foot note if not for the dems theatrics.

    None of that is a guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You aren't addressing my point. He said it was revenge for the Clintons. So was it? How did he know if it was? Did Bill and Hillary call him and tell him as much?
    I can't imagine a reasonable explination for him to lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My point is that his accusation is a highly partisan statement and reveals that he's not likely to be impartial when it comes to a Republican vs. Democrat case
    That doesn't follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Boofing" apparently did not refer to farting but the anally consuming alcohol.
    Says who? Support.
    He claimed under oath that it was a referance to farting. Who are you to say what he really meant?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He made several other references in his yearbook to drinking and sex and apparently lied about them all when questioned about them. Since he was being accused of a sexual assault when drunk, his attitude towards drinking and sex was quite relevant to the charge.
    How? Because drinking makes you a rapist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And likewise if he was a heavy drinker (and apparently he was), then he would be subject to blackouts (where he doesn't remember doing things while drunk) which harms his credibility in his denial of not attacking Ford while drunk since he could have done it while blacked out and not remembered it.
    COULD BE... not established that he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So the whole thing is quite relevant to the accusation and if one is interested in trying to figure out whether the accusation is true or not, it's something that should be looked into. What kind of person he was at the time is very pertinent to whether he did or not did not commit the act.
    Not really, because nothing you have said here has anything to do with attempting rape on some unknown day, at some unknown party, at some unknown place.
    I mean, if you could first place him in the actual same house with the girl, that would help.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So no, this was not just a plain and simple smear but instead looking into something quite relevant in regard to the claim.
    It is a smear for exactly the illogical reasoning you have offered above.
    That drinking heavily in general, means you were drunk on a specific unknown day.
    That talking about sex or referancing sex (as a teenage boy) makes you more likely to have attempted to rape someone.
    That drinking heavily means you probably blacked out and that eplains your not remembering attempting rape.

    these are smear tactics, and don't establish anything relevant to an actual event occuring. It is actually pretty specatular in how badly reasoned it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So is that your attitude towards all sexual assault claims when the only people who witnessed it were the participants and there's no physical evidence to show for it?
    36 years later... after they are dead.. and in various other instances.
    yes. Basically any time the person waits to make the claim so that I am put in a position of not possibly knowing the truth of the claim
    it should be dismissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I mean that seems to be what you are saying. if the girl can't show some kind of solid evidence that she was assaulted, there's nothing to look into and her claim should be dismissed.
    36 years later.. yea.see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I mean the whole "fear of flying" thing has absolutely no relevance to the alleged assault (and "fear of flying" does not mean that one cannot fly but just that they don't like to fly - I've intentionally done things that I was afraid to do). And she has been consistent in how old she was (15) so some confusion on the year doesn't mean much. And not being clear on who else was there, beyond the alleged attackers, is to be expected after decades.
    No her fear of flying was part of the politial delay tactic she took.
    So it is not irrelevant.
    She has not been consistent with her age, and I'm not aware of any other testimony where she referanced her age.
    Can you support that claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And to repeat, I think the claim is credible because the only explanation about why she told her therapist about the attack and later named Kavanaugh as the attacker was because Kavanaugh attacked her.
    Because you say so?
    Got it.. just need to hear you claim it a few more times.


    ---

    At this point, the only thing I really want to know, is why has no one seen her therapist notes, but everyone seems fine in appealing to them.
    I mean your entire argument rests on that one data point.. and it doesn't even exist. As far as you know, there are NO actual notes.
    That seems pretty significant. I tried to highlight that significance by using the analogy of if she had claimed to actually have video of it. .. but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
    I am just very unclear as to why actually having the evidence one is appealing too, isn't very important in this case.
    To serve man.

  16. #156
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,084
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Maybe so could her lawyer, with a long car ride.
    Maybe they did. They asked to talk to the FBI and said they had more evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Not even her own lawyer, in order to find evidence to help his clients case.
    I really don't see it as a reasonable demand, when she is the one that is supposed to know.
    You don't know that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #157
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Maybe they did. They asked to talk to the FBI and said they had more evidence.
    As far as I am aware, the "evidence" was more hear say witnesses. Not really "evidence" that supported her claim.
    It's not like they had come up with a date, or place.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    You don't know that.
    We know because they have not produced the evidence.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

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
  •