Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

TW: Too much truth.

I Revealed A Priest Abused Me 30 Years Ago. If I’m A Hero, Why Isn’t Christine Blasey Ford?

I think it's because the context is different. In the case of Blasey Ford, she never mentioned this for 30 years, and never said it was Kavanaugh for 36 years, and her recollections are vague. The disclosure also comes at a time when there is a motive for fabrication. Coming forward and revealing abuse that's 30 years old at time when there is no political or activist motive is different than when there is a motive. Further, the details matter, and if what you revealed about the priest is far more persuasive factually, then people would be more prone to accept the story as accurate. However, that being said, there have been false allegations made against priests, and there was a rash of "recovered memory" cases where innocent priests had their lives ruined by false accusations.

If, however, you were bringing this up now at a time when this priest was being considered for a high ranking position, and it was revealed that you didn't like this priest or supported his opposition, then some people would question whether your accusation was fabricated to further that interest.

What absolute and utter tosh. According to her own account she carried the matter with her for very many years and only began to come to terms with it when she undertook a period of therapy. So, what do you really think keeping quiet about an incident of abuse actually means, what does it show?

It depends. She "carried the matter with her" (she says) but she also says she never told a single person about it - not after running out of the house -- not at home - not a close girlfriend - nobody. She undertook a period of therapy, and still did not mention Kavanaugh's name, according to her.

What do I think keeping quiet about an abuse means? What does it show? It shows that there is no contemporaneous report of an incident. That's what it shows. Had there been, say, an immediate call to the police, that would be completely different than not reporting.

It has often been stated that keeping the matter to oneself is consistent with what some women do when they've had an incident like this happen. I'm not denying that. However, it is also true that not saying anything about an incident for 30+years is also consistent with that incident not happening.

The question isn't about what does it mean that she didn't report or mention it. The question is "what evidence is there that the allegation is true?" A contemporaneous report to, say, for example, police, would be one example of a fact which, if true, would back up the assertion that the reported event happened, particularly if the event was corroborated at the time because of the investigation. Similarly, even if it's not the police, if she went home and told a couple of close girlfriends, asking for advice on what to do, it would at least demonstrate that she reported it at the time, and that it is not a later invention. That's relevant because politics/activism can be a motive to fabricate, embellish, exaggerate, whatever. That's not controversial, really. There are many reasons people lie, and women do it too.

Does it show that an incident was or must have been trivial, insignificant, inconsequential?

It doesn't show anything, and that's the problem. A failure to report can be a result of an embarrassing experience that one doesn't want anyone else to know about (that's one example of what it could be), or it could be a result of it not actually happening. We don't know. If there is no report, it tells us nothing that bolsters the allegation or corroborates it. Certainly "failing to report" something is not evidence of it happening, right? And, "reporting an event" at or near the time of it happening is evidence, at a minimum, that the person alleged it happened at a time when there wasn't the present day motive to fabricate.

That it's been recast, or misremembered, that the actions of alleged abuser have been misinterpreted, or that it's a sign of personal maliciousness, or sociopathic malignancy? Does past silence mean that raising it years later is unjustified and unjustifiable - because 'if it really happened' they could, would, and should have mentioned at the time, or at least by the following day, or by the following week, or the following month, or the following year, or the following decade?

See above. There is a reason why it's easier to investigate a crime that is reported at or near the time it happens. When your house is robbed, it may well be that you'd be embarrassed to call the police because your vibrators and butt plugs were stolen. However, if you try to claim 10 or 20 years later that someone stole your vibrators and butt plugs from your house, and you didn't report it for 20 years out of embarrassment, folks would be understandably skeptical. Your failure to report the theft doesn't mean it didn't happen. But, it also doesn't mean it did. We're left with the question of "what evidence do you have to back up your claim?"

When it comes to criminal acts and allegations that can destroy a life-long career, we don't take people at their word. The only exception that seems to be getting any sort of traction lately is an allegation of sexual assault. That one, for some reason, has a following that wants the allegation to be given credence without proof or corroboration, because women don't lie about stuff like that. Well, I think everyone knows that some do, and women can also be mistaken, misinformed, have muddled or changed memories over time - just like everyone else.

Do you not think that anyone making allegations of that nature about a man of Kavanaugh's position and status isn't fully aware of what's coming their way?

They may be, and the person making the allegation may well have a motive for wanting to make the allegation against just such a person.

About how people in politics and the media are going to downplay the matter, or excuse it, or turn the focus on their behaviour and put their actions and their character on trial, call them a liar, or crazy, or threaten them on Facebook etc? And yet people do this anyway. Do you think that shows a strength of character or signifies the dishonest, partisan, spiteful weakness of character your speculations seem keen to imply?

I think it doesn't show either, because it assumes things we don't know about Ms. Ford. Is the fact that she kept quiet for 30 years, and now has come forward knowing that she'll be criticized and (if she testifies) will be subject to cross-examination, evidence that she is honest and forthright? I would say, no. It's not. It's not evidence of the opposite either.

But, at bottom, all the going around about how often women lie about stuff like this, or how women know that some people won't believe them or will question their stories - the reality is that some women lie, even though most don't. Just like everyone else. Some women are mistaken, just like everyone else. Some women have bad motives and biases. Some women are crazy. Some women are mean. Some women are vindictive. They have the same bad qualities as men. Men lie sometimes, too. Some men cheat, steal, file false reports, etc.

And, we quite simply cannot have a system that imposes guilt by accusation, or results in careers being destroyed, by virtue of unsubstantiated allegations. There needs to be corroboration or proof - evidence. That's the same in every other sphere.

And, the passage of time doesn't make a truth become a lie - but it does, as with everything else, generally make it more difficult to ascertain the truth. Even though we all know people react to different traumatic events in different ways, and some people run to the police and friends for help, and others shut down and say nothing for decades. That doesn't change the fact that none of us were there, and so the only thing that we can do is look for evidence. If it's not there, we can't just take Blasey Ford's word for it, don't you agree?

[Sean Hayden]

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.

[Brian Peacock]

TW: Too much truth.

I Revealed A Priest Abused Me 30 Years Ago. If I’m A Hero, Why Isn’t Christine Blasey Ford?

I think it's because the context is different. In the case of Blasey Ford, she never mentioned this for 30 years, and never said it was Kavanaugh for 36 years, and her recollections are vague. The disclosure also comes at a time when there is a motive for fabrication. Coming forward and revealing abuse that's 30 years old at time when there is no political or activist motive is different than when there is a motive. Further, the details matter, and if what you revealed about the priest is far more persuasive factually, then people would be more prone to accept the story as accurate. However, that being said, there have been false allegations made against priests, and there was a rash of "recovered memory" cases where innocent priests had their lives ruined by false accusations.

If, however, you were bringing this up now at a time when this priest was being considered for a high ranking position, and it was revealed that you didn't like this priest or supported his opposition, then some people would question whether your accusation was fabricated to further that interest.

What absolute and utter tosh. According to her own account she carried the matter with her for very many years and only began to come to terms with it when she undertook a period of therapy. So, what do you really think keeping quiet about an incident of abuse actually means, what does it show?

It depends. She "carried the matter with her" (she says) but she also says she never told a single person about it - not after running out of the house -- not at home - not a close girlfriend - nobody. She undertook a period of therapy, and still did not mention Kavanaugh's name, according to her.

What do I think keeping quiet about an abuse means? What does it show? It shows that there is no contemporaneous report of an incident. That's what it shows. Had there been, say, an immediate call to the police, that would be completely different than not reporting.

It has often been stated that keeping the matter to oneself is consistent with what some women do when they've had an incident like this happen. I'm not denying that. However, it is also true that not saying anything about an incident for 30+years is also consistent with that incident not happening.

The question isn't about what does it mean that she didn't report or mention it. The question is "what evidence is there that the allegation is true?" A contemporaneous report to, say, for example, police, would be one example of a fact which, if true, would back up the assertion that the reported event happened, particularly if the event was corroborated at the time because of the investigation. Similarly, even if it's not the police, if she went home and told a couple of close girlfriends, asking for advice on what to do, it would at least demonstrate that she reported it at the time, and that it is not a later invention. That's relevant because politics/activism can be a motive to fabricate, embellish, exaggerate, whatever. That's not controversial, really. There are many reasons people lie, and women do it too.

Does it show that an incident was or must have been trivial, insignificant, inconsequential?

It doesn't show anything, and that's the problem. A failure to report can be a result of an embarrassing experience that one doesn't want anyone else to know about (that's one example of what it could be), or it could be a result of it not actually happening. We don't know. If there is no report, it tells us nothing that bolsters the allegation or corroborates it. Certainly "failing to report" something is not evidence of it happening, right? And, "reporting an event" at or near the time of it happening is evidence, at a minimum, that the person alleged it happened at a time when there wasn't the present day motive to fabricate.

That it's been recast, or misremembered, that the actions of alleged abuser have been misinterpreted, or that it's a sign of personal maliciousness, or sociopathic malignancy? Does past silence mean that raising it years later is unjustified and unjustifiable - because 'if it really happened' they could, would, and should have mentioned at the time, or at least by the following day, or by the following week, or the following month, or the following year, or the following decade?

See above. There is a reason why it's easier to investigate a crime that is reported at or near the time it happens. When your house is robbed, it may well be that you'd be embarrassed to call the police because your vibrators and butt plugs were stolen. However, if you try to claim 10 or 20 years later that someone stole your vibrators and butt plugs from your house, and you didn't report it for 20 years out of embarrassment, folks would be understandably skeptical. Your failure to report the theft doesn't mean it didn't happen. But, it also doesn't mean it did. We're left with the question of "what evidence do you have to back up your claim?"

When it comes to criminal acts and allegations that can destroy a life-long career, we don't take people at their word. The only exception that seems to be getting any sort of traction lately is an allegation of sexual assault. That one, for some reason, has a following that wants the allegation to be given credence without proof or corroboration, because women don't lie about stuff like that. Well, I think everyone knows that some do, and women can also be mistaken, misinformed, have muddled or changed memories over time - just like everyone else.

Do you not think that anyone making allegations of that nature about a man of Kavanaugh's position and status isn't fully aware of what's coming their way?

They may be, and the person making the allegation may well have a motive for wanting to make the allegation against just such a person.

About how people in politics and the media are going to downplay the matter, or excuse it, or turn the focus on their behaviour and put their actions and their character on trial, call them a liar, or crazy, or threaten them on Facebook etc? And yet people do this anyway. Do you think that shows a strength of character or signifies the dishonest, partisan, spiteful weakness of character your speculations seem keen to imply?

I think it doesn't show either, because it assumes things we don't know about Ms. Ford. Is the fact that she kept quiet for 30 years, and now has come forward knowing that she'll be criticized and (if she testifies) will be subject to cross-examination, evidence that she is honest and forthright? I would say, no. It's not. It's not evidence of the opposite either.

But, at bottom, all the going around about how often women lie about stuff like this, or how women know that some people won't believe them or will question their stories - the reality is that some women lie, even though most don't. Just like everyone else. Some women are mistaken, just like everyone else. Some women have bad motives and biases. Some women are crazy. Some women are mean. Some women are vindictive. They have the same bad qualities as men. Men lie sometimes, too. Some men cheat, steal, file false reports, etc.

And, we quite simply cannot have a system that imposes guilt by accusation, or results in careers being destroyed, by virtue of unsubstantiated allegations. There needs to be corroboration or proof - evidence. That's the same in every other sphere.

And, the passage of time doesn't make a truth become a lie - but it does, as with everything else, generally make it more difficult to ascertain the truth. Even though we all know people react to different traumatic events in different ways, and some people run to the police and friends for help, and others shut down and say nothing for decades. That doesn't change the fact that none of us were there, and so the only thing that we can do is look for evidence. If it's not there, we can't just take Blasey Ford's word for it, don't you agree?

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?

[Sean Hayden]

Is it more likely that she was approached by democrat operatives and made to testify to the misdeeds of Kavanaugh as a last ditch effort to keep him from being appointed, or that she's a politically active individual who couldn't live with herself if she didn't say anything and he got in?

Well, if you're an intelligent scumbag you don't even have to worry. Your reputation speaks for itself, and the law is such that a sufficiently technical examination of the details should nearly always, if not always provide reasonable doubt.

It's kind of weird isn't it, how the law and the psychopath make use of the same tactics?

A smart psychopath will make you question reality by having you abandon good sense in favor of a close inspection of details, which while admittedly often justifying your suspicions, nearly always fall short of confirming them and even allow for some doubt.

Yes, technically it is possible that she is lying, technically it is possible that she is mistaken, technically it is possible that she is part of a conspiracy, and yes, technically it is accurate to say that we cannot confirm her story.

But neither can we find sufficient reason to doubt her, and don't allow these technically true statements to blind you to all the reasonable assumptions that may be made based on what you know about the accused, and that may confirm that the behavior would not have been out of the ordinary for him and his associates.

[Cunt]

Brian Peacock, do you think it is just barely possible, that a therapist can evoke memories of things which never really happened?

Can a memory of a decades-old trauma, be relied upon completely, regardless of the methods used by the therapist?

[Svartalf]

Hypnosis can create memory of things that never happened, heck, I once attempted a "former life regression" experience, and found myself in the skin of an imaginary character I had created for Dungeons and Dragons, and not quite a human one at that it was quite interesting, but... let's say that after that, I'm totally skeptical about "recovered memories".

[Sean Hayden]

Who said it was a recovered memory?

[Sean Hayden]

She doesn't say it, does she? The recovered memory angle is just made up, isn't it?

[laklak]

They aren't particularly reliable, from what I found on-line. Not listed in the DSM and not approved or recommended by any mainstream professional organization. Too much room for suggestion, for one thing. I'd be really skeptical if that's what these are. That's just Wiki, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy

The frightening part about all this is how easy it would be to really fuck somebody over. Now I'm NOT saying that's what she's doing. They put the McMartin family and their employees on trial for Satanic child abuse based on nothing but "recovered memories". Those memories were later shown, on video, to have been implanted by the therapist. All defendants were acquitted, but their lives were utterly ruined.

How many men here can say with honestly that they never pushed a teen aged girl too hard? Didn't take the first "No" for a final answer? I'm honestly interested, because I sure as hell can't say that. Course I wouldn't want me as a SCOTUS judge. If nominated I will not stand, if confirmed I will not serve.

[Sean Hayden]

But I'm not aware of her saying that it was a recovered memory. I can't find her saying that anywhere. I can only find others hinting that it could have been a recovered memory.

[Sean Hayden]

Anyway, look at all the good sense you're having to ignore to find a reason, any reason to make her story just possibly false!

Maybe it would help to gain some perspective by accepting that he'll never be convicted, and that almost everyone will agree with you that a conviction based on what we know right now would be out of line.

Are there any good reasons to accept her story is true?

[laklak]

I've no idea. I'd have to listen to her, which it looks like they're going to do. And to him. People blow shit all out of proportion all the time, is this one of those times? It's all partisan politics and nothing can be taken at face value, so I don't know. Either somebody's lying, somebody's mis-remembering, somebody's confused, or it's a hack job. I don't see any other options. Maybe they're both lying. Maybe they're both confused.

[Cunt]

If her accusation is rejected, it will be because Trump is an asshole, and patriarchy. If her accusation becomes a rape sentence for Kavanaugh, it will be because Trump is an asshole, and patriarchy.

In fact, I can't see any way this might play out, which will not be waved around as evidence that the patriarchy oppresses women.

Now as to how this affects his ability to do the job he is being considered for, that's obvious - no matter what he did, or does about this, he shouldn't be given that position, because patriarchy.

[Sean Hayden]

I've no idea. I'd have to listen to her, which it looks like they're going to do. And to him. People blow shit all out of proportion all the time, is this one of those times? It's all partisan politics and nothing can be taken at face value, so I don't know. Either somebody's lying, somebody's mis-remembering, somebody's confused, or it's a hack job. I don't see any other options. Maybe they're both lying. Maybe they're both confused.

I get it, I was right there too. Heck, I even know guys that have been screwed over.

I knew a guy facing big time for kidnapping. That's a scary word. Well, in reality he and his wife had gotten into a fight and he refused to take her straight home as she insisted, and instead drove around trying to make her talk it out with him. He's no doubt an asshole, and his priors probably played a part in the decision to charge him with kidnapping. But I wouldn't call it kidnapping. It's an exaggeration. In some even more rare instances guys are completely innocent. But I believe they are exceedingly rare, much more rare than the reverse.

So what makes this an exceptional case, why can't we believe her? Because of politics? Well, that seems legit until we consider that she's going to be put through the wringer and coming out now is exactly what we would expect from someone who's been fighting with this for years. "I'll be damned if that motherfucker gets this" --makes sense

[pErvinalia]

I hope the accusations stand and he doesn't get the job, just to piss Cunt off.