Kavanaugh hearing

[Animavore]

Wow! How did I know Trump-supporting scumbags would try justify this shit?

[Animavore]

[Sean Hayden]

I understand...you believe her. You believe her despite the social media scrub, despite the fact that an accusation of this nature at this time is VERY useful politically. You believe her no matter what.

I don't. The best she can hope for, as far as I'm concerned, is that she will reveal some reliable evidence under investigation, which will confirm or disconfirm her story.

Of course, either way many people will still believe her. I'm sure many still believe mattress girl.

It's a little more complicated than that. Your relationship to her doesn't require you to believe her or disbelieve. It also doesn't require you to make a determination of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. You're free to think whatever you like. I'm in the same boat.

So, I go through the initial hostility. I think because it is so natural to be suspicious. But then I recognize my position. I relax, and then I allow myself to consider the possibilities.

From this position I see your talk of faulty memory as weak and coming from the initial position of hostility. I gave you a good example of its weakness. This doesn't require you to believe her. You're in exactly the same position as before. Only now you should, if your honest, in my opinion, think less of your attempt to fault her memory. There was no evidence which should have led you to do so in the first place afterall.

You're still in the same position. You don't have to believe, or disbelieve.

[Forty Two]

Yes, but I'm sympathetic. It has been my experience that scumbags, especially the highly intelligent are almost invincible. They always have supporters. They are always minding their reputations such that everyone but their victims thinks they are saints, so that when a victim does speak up they get nowhere.

Me too, I am sympathetic to people who have been injured. But, presuming injury based on the assertion of injury is called "begging the question." If the allegation is, "John Smith beat the shit out of me," then to prove the allegation we need more than the allegation. If we say, John Smith beat the shit out of me, and people making accusations don't lie, make mistakes, or have failures in memory/narration, therefore, it's true that John Smith beat the shit out of me, then we have a logical conclusion. Ironclad reasoning there.

One problem arises, though, when we examine the basic premise. All people do and/or are capable of, in fact, lying, making mistakes or having failures in memory/narration. So, the argument fails because one of the basic premises is false. The allegation is one piece of information, sure - it's the testimony of a witness (me). But, since that's the assertion that's sought to be proved, we can't just accept the assertion itself as evidence of itself. And, the fact remains that over time memories get worse, not better. Over time, forensic evidence gets more scarce, not less. So, as understanding as we may be that a person may want to keep embarrassing or scary things secret, that doesn't mean that we no longer need evidence outside of the allegation itself before accepting it as true. Because if we do not need evidence outside of the allegation itself to accept it as true, we have guilt by accusation. That way lies madness.

[Sean Hayden]

I've already said you can't convict the guy.

It's more about being willing to recognize/look at her side as being true. We can see that he can't be convicted even without discrediting her.

If she is telling the truth we still can't convict him.

Like I said, it's complicated.

[Forty Two]

I'm not suggesting that we just take Ms Blasey Ford's word for it. I'm saying that her allegations can't be ignored, downplayed, or Kavanaugh's behaviour excused, based on speculation about her character and motives due to her historical silence, and her breaking of that silence now. I think that is not only disingenuous, but it puts her on public trial charged with proving that she's not the motivated liar you just implied she is. Sure, some women lie - but can we safely use that fact to imply that we should assume that everyone who claims to be the victim of historical abuse is liar until they prove otherwise (Or is that judgement uniquely reserved for Ms Blasey Ford?). If true, the allegation would act as a powerful motivator for Mr Kavanaugh to lie also - and some men do lie, don't they? IMO an FBI investigation is a more appropriate vehicle for examining this allegation than a public grilling from right-leaning commentators or even a Senate committee. Do you agree, and do you think we also can't take Mr Kavanaugh's word for it either, or assume that he's an honest agent in this matter? If we cannot take Mr Kavanaugh's word for it then what do you think that does for his nomination?

Far from her allegations being ignored, they are being championed by powerful people. All the Senate Committee members are treating this carefully and they've invited her to sit down and tell her story, which is how Senate committees gather evidence. It's their job to investigate. She doesn't have to come forward and do anything - she's free to leave her allegations where they are. However, there isn't much anyone can do with those allegations, if the demand is that they not be questioned.

As for Kavanaugh's behavior being excused - that begs the question. His behavior is alleged, not proved. So, we still have the question ahead of us to answer - did he engage in that behavior? If he did not, then of course it's excused. Everyone is excused from the consequences of behavior they didn't engage in. At this time, our normal thinking process when it comes to any assertion of the truth of a fact or event is that the assertion is not itself evidence or proof of it occurring.

You said "Sure, some women lie - but can we safely use that fact to imply that we should assume that everyone who claims to be the victim of historical abuse is liar until they prove otherwise (Or is that judgement uniquely reserved for Ms Blasey Ford?). " Nobody is implying that everyone who claims to be victim of historical abuse "is" a liar until they prove otherwise. Back up for a minute. She's not being treated any differently than anyone else, except she is being treated with more courtesy, not less.

Whenever a negative allegation is made against anyone, corroboration is sought. Why? Because we cannot take anyone's word for negative allegations. It's not reserved just for Blasey Ford. It's reserved for everyone. That doesn't mean everyone who makes negative allegations about other people are liars. It recognizes that some people will be lying, and we don't know which allegations are true just based on the allegation. Women are not exempt - it's not that women are being treated harsher than everyone else, it's that some factions of people out there are asking that their allegations be treated as more credible than everyone else's allegations because "women don't lie" about stuff like this.

By saying "you've made an allegation, is there any proof for it?" we aren't assuming she's a liar until she proves otherwise. We're examining the allegation like we would any other. And, she doesn't have to be "lying" in order to be wrong - add that to the mix. 30 years later, memories fade. It is not unusual for a person to be sure that they attended a party with someone ages ago, and it turns out that person was never there. It's not unusual for people's memories to fade, to change, to be mistaken. She could be sincerely holding a view which is just wrong. And that's not a comment about women - that's everyone.

Eyewitness testimony - even by people directly involved in an incident - is notoriously bad. Even when people are reporting events close in time, people can sincerely believe they saw something, and be certain of it, and be dead wrong. People have been sent to prison on eyewitness testimony that turned out to be wrong. People have picked perpetrators out of a lineup and been flat out wrong. People have even been manipulated into a sincere belief that people committed heinous acts, and they were wrong.

This has nothing to do with assuming anything about Blasey Ford - sure, we don't know if she was motivated by political interests to come forward now. And, it's possible that even if she is motivated by politics now, her allegations are still true. All that I said on that note is that bias and politics are motives to fabricate. And, they are. We don't know. The timing of the release of information is relevant to determining whether a possible motive exists. So, when I say that it would be better if the matter is reported when there is no possible political motive, it's to rule that out. Saying that there is a possible motive is not to say it must be the assumed motive. It's a possible motive.

[Forty Two]

I've already said you can't convict the guy.

It's more about being willing to recognize/look at her side as being true. We can see that he can't be convicted even without discrediting her.

If she is telling the truth we still can't convict him.

Like I said, it's complicated.

Her allegations are being given a full airing. What does it mean to be willing to recognize/look at her side as being true? To me, any allegation is an allegation. We look at it to understand it. Once we understand it, if we are being asked to do something with it, then we generally need corroboration. The degree of corroboration needed depends on what we're being asked to do. If it's to put him in jail, corroboration must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's to deny him a supreme court seat, then the Senators are really just trying to figure out what happened. If the allegation is something that just can't be proved either way, then what should they do with it? Should they not confirm him because of it? (not saying convict - he's not on trial - should they not confirm him, based on the allegations we've seen come out in the last couple of weeks - is that the same standard that is going to be applied to future SCOTUS appointees?).

[Sean Hayden]

It means not attempting to discredit her. It means not being hostile towards her. It means not making excuses for the bad behavior of men. It means not minizing the impact of assault.

All of these things happened, and are happening.

If her side can be true then you've got no excuse to engage in any of those activities. It is sufficient for you to require evidence.

[Cunt]

You're still in the same position. You don't have to believe, or disbelieve.

How does the removal of all those yearbooks affect your assessment? The timing?

How much evidence do you suggest she needs to present, in order to deny him that supreme court seat? Is the allegation enough?

Would you examine her behaviour to see if it was sketchy? If, for example, lots of stuff was deleted, seemingly in to make it difficult to investigate her side of the story, would that affect your assessment?

So in short - what would make you accept this claim, and prefer that K. be denied the seat? And what would make you reject this claim, and prefer that K. not be denied the seat on these grounds?

Or are you just here to say 'believe the victims'?

[Forty Two]

Actually, it is rare to remember major events that never happened. It's not rare to get the details wrong.

One of those details is the identity of the alleged perpetrator - https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWo ... id=4521253 and https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 588406002/ and https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... emma-beale

Duke LaCrosse team - Virginia Tech Rolling Stone article - Mattress girl.

The first person exonerated by the DNA innocence project was Kirk Bloodsworth, who was convicted at age 22 and spent 9 years in prison for the rape and murder of a 9 year old girl, based on the testimony of 5 eyewitnesses who testified they saw him either with the girl or near the crime scene. The problem was, it wasn't him.

What will happen 20 years from now when one of the men involved in the above instances is about to be appointed to a government position? Do we need to believe the victim?

Where were you when 9/11 happened? I was at the in-laws on the computer. And that one's not even hard to remember, and it's not like I was getting raped or something.

R.T. first heard about the Challenger explosion as she and her roommate sat watching television in their Emory University dorm room. A news flash came across the screen, shocking them both. R. T., visibly upset, raced upstairs to tell another friend the news. Then she called her parents. Two and a half years after the event, she remembered it as if it were yesterday: the TV, the terrible news, the call home. She could say with absolute certainty that that’s precisely how it happened. Except, it turns out, none of what she remembered was accurate.

R. T. was a student in a class taught by Ulric Neisser, a cognitive psychologist who had begun studying memory in the seventies. Early in his career, Neisser became fascinated by the concept of flashbulb memories—the times when a shocking, emotional event seems to leave a particularly vivid imprint on the mind. William James had described such impressions, in 1890, as “so exciting emotionally as almost to leave a scar upon the cerebral tissues.”

The day following the explosion of the Challenger, in January, 1986, Neisser, then a professor of cognitive psychology at Emory, and his assistant, Nicole Harsch, handed out a questionnaire about the event to the hundred and six students in their ten o’clock psychology 101 class, “Personality Development.” Where were the students when they heard the news? Whom were they with? What were they doing? The professor and his assistant carefully filed the responses away.

In the fall of 1988, two and a half years later, the questionnaire was given a second time to the same students. It was then that R. T. recalled, with absolute confidence, her dorm-room experience. But when Neisser and Harsch compared the two sets of answers, they found barely any similarities. According to R. T.’s first recounting, she’d been in her religion class when she heard some students begin to talk about an explosion. She didn’t know any details of what had happened, “except that it had exploded and the schoolteacher’s students had all been watching, which I thought was sad.” After class, she went to her room, where she watched the news on TV, by herself, and learned more about the tragedy.

R. T. was far from alone in her misplaced confidence. When the psychologists rated the accuracy of the students’ recollections for things like where they were and what they were doing, the average student scored less than three on a scale of seven. A quarter scored zero. But when the students were asked about their confidence levels, with five being the highest, they averaged 4.17. Their memories were vivid, clear—and wrong. There was no relationship at all between confidence and accuracy.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria ... collection

Memories aren't good. And there are plenty of reasons why someone could honestly mis-remember the person they think groped them at a part 36 years ago - a party at which the complainant says she too was drinking to excess.

[Cunt]

I remember seeing Dawkins and Hitchins talking about a situation where they BOTH remembered something vividly - which didn't happen.

They found the video, and BOTH had a factually inaccurate memory of what had happened - on stage - while they were working professionally.

Memory is shit. In my investigative work, I realized just how shitty it is. Lying is definitely one of the problems, but you don't need lying at ALL to get a bunch of contradictory accounts from eye-witnesses.

[Sean Hayden]

You're still in the same position. You don't have to believe, or disbelieve.

How does the removal of all those yearbooks affect your assessment? The timing?

How much evidence do you suggest she needs to present, in order to deny him that supreme court seat? Is the allegation enough?

Would you examine her behaviour to see if it was sketchy? If, for example, lots of stuff was deleted, seemingly in to make it difficult to investigate her side of the story, would that affect your assessment?

So in short - what would make you accept this claim, and prefer that K. be denied the seat? And what would make you reject this claim, and prefer that K. not be denied the seat on these grounds?

Or are you just here to say 'believe the victims'?

I'd say you're an idiot if you don't remove your social media before coming out against a major player in any political party. You're also irresponsible because you're exposing your friends and family. Women tend to think of that sort of thing too don't they? I wonder what kind of relevant information you expect to be found in her social media? I could guess, but I'd rather not.

I don't have to accept her claims. I'm just noting that I'm sympathetic in general, given the difficulty of facing bad guys, and while I would require evidence to confirm her story I refrain from calling her a liar or attempting to discredit her.

As for the Kavnaugh hearing I gave a good --if somewhat tongue in cheek-- litmus test to determine Kavanaugh's eligibility that doesn't rely on the truth of the sexual assault allegations. Most people have pointed out other problems too. I'm not really talking about that here am I?

[Sean Hayden]

I remember seeing Dawkins and Hitchins talking about a situation where they BOTH remembered something vividly - which didn't happen.

They found the video, and BOTH had a factually inaccurate memory of what had happened - on stage - while they were working professionally.

Memory is shit. In my investigative work, I realized just how shitty it is. Lying is definitely one of the problems, but you don't need lying at ALL to get a bunch of contradictory accounts from eye-witnesses.

Were either of them getting raped at the time?

[Sean Hayden]

--and where were you on 9/11?

[Forty Two]

It means not attempting to discredit her. It means not being hostile towards her. It means not making excuses for the bad behavior of men. It means not minizing the impact of assault.

All of these things happened, and are happening.

If her side can be true then you've got no excuse to engage in any of those activities. It is sufficient for you to require evidence.

They aren't happening from the Senators, or the media. Even the conservative, pro-Kavanaugh media is repeating the language of "take the allegations seriously" - "find the truth" - "be careful in the age of #metoo" - "give Ms. Ford courtesy and be careful how she's treated" - all that. The Senate offered to fly representatives out to California and meet with her privately. They offered to have her come out when she felt comfortable, and meet either in open Senate or in a private room. They offered to have females be the ones questioning her. There has been more attempted accommodation and care for the feelings of the accuser here than I have ever seen in any other context.

Yes, there are general members of the citizenry that say nasty things about her. But, I see the same things about Kavanaugh, too. Plenty of people are inappropriately commenting on them. What can you do about that?

Who is making excuses for the bad behavior of men, besides some crackpot social media commentators? Saying that corroboration for a claim that this particular man engaged in bad behavior is not a comment on the bad behavior of other men.

Who is minimizing the impact of assault? Assaults can have lots of impacts, and some people are impacted more than others to different assaults. The thing is, we don't know if she was assaulted. If she wasn't, then any impacts were a result of something else. And, the key feature for the purpose of the Senate hearings is whether Kavanaugh did the assaulting, not whether she was assaulted. It would be awful if she was assaulted by anyone, but the reason she disclosed the info was because she says Kavanaugh did it.

All I'm requiring is evidence. However, the value of evidence - in every case, not just this one - is judged by the circumstances. Take the Jian Ghomeshi case in Canada, where multdiple women accused him of sexual assault. Turns out, proof was obtained by virtue of emails that each of them was lying, and that they were even in communication with each other to coordinate their purposeful take-down, which was motivated by revenge for him being a general asshole and rejecting some of the women involved. Their motive matters.

When people ask, almost rhetorically, "why would women lie, when there is so much scrutiny put on accusers...?" - the answer is, for the same motives and purposes as people lie about almost everything - money, power, jealousy, anger, vengeance/revenge, the list goes on and on. And, again, they don't have to be "lying" - they could be honestly mistaken.