Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

You're still not getting me.

She has presented zero evidence that I'm aware of. We only have her word. Her word isn't good enough. I don't even have to be skeptical.

Now, what you're doing is attempting to discredit her, and you're making all kinds of claims that don't hold up to scrutiny ie she should remember particular details and if she doesn't then that's a tick in the evidence against column. But it's not.

It is when it comes to every other crime allegation. Whenever anyone is accused of a crime, the story is weaker, the less the accuser can say about the crime. You can't just say "John Smith punched me," and then expect the story to be persuasive if you can't supply any other details.

I think I've shown that I'm able to erase every tick you want to put in the evidence against column with a plausible counter.

Well, i don't think so. How do you counter the fact that her "put in the second door" story was just false? She said she told the psychologist the story when she and her husband were wrangling about putting in a second front door - she said she needed an escape route, because of the trauma of being assaulted when she was 15. Howevever, that door was put in several years earlier, in order to accommodate strangers renting out part of her house.

She's sure Leland Keyser was at the party. Leland has no recollection of it, and flat out said she never met Kavanaugh, ever. Is there really a plausible explanation for that? Maybe there wasn't a party?

Others have pointed out that you haven't even tried this with Kavanaugh. Do you think it would be possible?

Go ahead and try it. But, he's not the one making the allegation. He's saying "I wasn't there." Go ahead and poke holes.

But somehow you already know it's not good enough.

So, what can we do? I think we can do an investigation in the hopes of finding evidence. We also have to be prepared to live with uncertainty. Where does that leave us with Kavanaugh? --doesn't matter anymore eh?

We always live with uncertainty. The alternative is tyranny and unthinkable oppression - as the notion that reason and logic would be thrown out the door leads to a bad situation. If someone makes a truth claim, it has been pretty normal practice to suggest that the person making the truth claim has the burden of demonstrating it in a verifiable sense. That is, we don't take people's word for stuff.

As you said, in this case, we have zero corroborative evidence. We don't even have a second voice saying "I was there and she's telling the truth." So what can be done with that? Well, we can examine the story itself for problems which exist even if we base the analysis just on the claimant's own words. Where the story contradicts itself, as this one does, it becomes impossible even to verify her claims.

[Forty Two]

She doesn't know when it occurred, where it occurred, or the layout of the house, or whose house it was, or how she got there (other than she's sure someone drove her), or how she got home (other than she's sure someone drove her), or who was there, or how she left the house, and she never told anyone about it (not a friend, not a confidante, not family member, not a doctor - nobody) for 30 years, and then in 2012 she supposedly told her psychologist about it because her husband didn't want her to have a second front door as an escape route from her house (but, they already had a second front door, for the strangers/tenants renting portions of her house). She's sure, though, that she only had 1 beer, and it was Judge Kavanaugh who roughhoused with her and she has been traumatized ever since....

...but it's misogyny to have the slightest concern for the veracity of that story....

Blah blah blah. You have stated that...what?...20 times. What kind of fucking psychologist are you to be the expert?

You want this thread to be just you banging on about "dick waggling" 20 times over?

Who needs to be psychologist? She's telling a story that is impossible to verify and she's contradicted herself several times, and has been caught in a clear untruth. Since when does one have to be a psychology expert to throw that kind of nonsense out the window?

[Forty Two]

[Brian Peacock]

Ah. The argument from incredulity. Another fallacy brought to bear on the character of Ms Ford.

[Forty Two]

Not sure that's all Fiamengo's commentary was - but, hasn't much of the discussion been about whether the tale is "credible" or not? Surely, "credibility" is relevant to how "credible" a story is?

We've heard a lot about his tone and his conduct in other scenarios which bear on his "credibility" in denying the allegations. Is her credibility not also relevant?

[Brian Peacock]

Not sure that's all Fiamengo's commentary was...

To be fair, you're absolutely right - it wasn't just an argument from incredulity. The argument from incredulity was applied in the service of an ad hom.

[Tero]

Multiple people tell stories of his dick waggling, drinking and attempted rape.
Senate: none of it happened because we need to approve a judge before the November election.

[Tero]

[Joe]

/quote]
If you're really butthurt, like you get when I correct you, I suggest you whine to the mods. Or you could simply stop with the strawmen.

Oh, cut it out. I didn't strawman anyone. I accurately stated what the writer's argument was. He flat out said that Kavanaugh lied when he said he was never at a party like the one described by Kavanaugh. He said that it was a lie because Kavanaugh had been to other small gatherings where people drank beer, etc. He said that, therefore, Kavanaugh saying he wasn't at a party "like" that described by Ford was a lie. How the hell is that a "straman?" It's what he's arguing. And, it's ludicrous on its face, of course, because Kavanaugh, both before, during and after the Senate testimony described himself as attending parties and get togethers and drinking beer, etc. He never denied gathering with friends to drink and party. He denied being at one like Ford described.

And, it's not "butthurt." It's that you're falling into a habit of certain other persons who post here, to be nasty and make these discussions a combination of pissing contests and namecalling. It's stupid and sad, and you're better than that, I'm sure.

It detracts from your argument, too, because it's a distraction - when you make it about your opponent and instead of acknowledging a different opinion you attack the opponent's character, it suggests a weakness in your argument. And that weakness is obvious. I didn't lie, nor did I mischaracterize in any way the author's allegation as to Kavanaugh's alleged lie. I explained howe the author is wrong, yes, but nothing you wrote suggests I mischaracterized or strawmanned the author.

Yeah, my argument's so weak you hid it in a spoiler, and didn't reference it.

Oh, for the love of god. I spoilered the rather lengthy exchange because that seems to be the practice now for really lengthy exchanges - instead of repeating them, I've seen them spoilered.

I've been quite clear here - you said I "strawmanned" the writer in the article. I most certainly did not, nor did you explain how I did.

Why not just address that one point the author made? He said Kavanaugh lied when he said he was not at a party like that described by Ford. To the author, that was a clear lie, because Kavanaugh had gone to other parties and small gatherings and to the author the July 1 gathering was "like" the one Ford described.

Do you - honestly - honestly - believe Kavanaugh lied there? That he said that statement and in the next breath talked about going to parties with friends - but, he was trying to say that he never went to any small gather of 4-6 people at a house, ever? That's what the author is saying. And, that's not a straw man.

Your post sets out and quotes the article - and indeed what I said the author is claiming is dead on accurate - the author is claiming that the lie Kavanaugh told is about being at a party like that described by Ford. Which the author says is "Okay, so this was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar." And, the author points out several times where Kavanaugh noted that he did go to small high school gatherings.

The author interprets the sentence "I never attended a gathering like the one Ford describes in her allegation." You point out that the author provided "physical evidence" that it wasn't true, because there on his calendar is a July 1 gathering (with other people in attendance, at night (not during the day) and in a different location), and you and he say see, there is evidence he's lying, because that July 1 event is "like" the gathering he denied being at. That's exactly what I said his allegation was -- I did not strawman him.

Well, I see why you hid both of our posts in the spoiler. The author pointed out two discrepancies, which I documented in my post, with the full context of the article for all to see, and you didn't in yours.

Dude - recall, I said we would take them one by one. This was one alleged discrepancy.

Now you're cherry-picking quotes from the two arguments to defend one Robinson didn't make, an obvious strawman. Other than that, all you offer here are disingenuously supported assertions that don't hold up to scrutiny.

No - stop -- the ONLY point I've been addressing right now is the express statement in the article where the author says that Kavanaugh "lied" when he said that he did not go to parties "like" the one Ford described.

That's not a strawman, is it? Do you need me to quote the article again?

I'm not addressing the next alleged lie or discrepancy. I'm taking them one by one. Focus.

Now, let's look at Kavanaugh's statement:

No, I'm not interested in changing the subject.You're just trying to distract from your pitiful argument. If you wish to continue that discussion, you are welcome to do so.

It's not changing the subject. In this exchange, I addressed the allegation that Kavanaugh lied when he said that he did not attend a party like the one Ford described.

As part of that discussion, I linked to and quoted from Kavanaugh's actual, literal - express - testimony - the words he spoke. And, you are suggesting that is "trying to distract?" Look - looking at what he actually said is key to determining whether what he said was false, isn't it?

Temper, temper, mon Capitaine. "Nuh Uh, no I didn't!" and repeating yourself ad nauseam isn't your best argument, especially when I pointed out how you did. I linked it so you don't have to find that spoiler you left out of this post.

Funny how you hid a post that says,"Let's look at what you're trying to hide." Your rhetoric isn't very effective, but at least it's amusing.

[Sean Hayden]

You're still not getting me.

She has presented zero evidence that I'm aware of. We only have her word. Her word isn't good enough. I don't even have to be skeptical.

Now, what you're doing is attempting to discredit her, and you're making all kinds of claims that don't hold up to scrutiny ie she should remember particular details and if she doesn't then that's a tick in the evidence against column. But it's not.

It is when it comes to every other crime allegation. Whenever anyone is accused of a crime, the story is weaker, the less the accuser can say about the crime. You can't just say "John Smith punched me," and then expect the story to be persuasive if you can't supply any other details.

I think I've shown that I'm able to erase every tick you want to put in the evidence against column with a plausible counter.

Well, i don't think so. How do you counter the fact that her "put in the second door" story was just false? She said she told the psychologist the story when she and her husband were wrangling about putting in a second front door - she said she needed an escape route, because of the trauma of being assaulted when she was 15. Howevever, that door was put in several years earlier, in order to accommodate strangers renting out part of her house.

She's sure Leland Keyser was at the party. Leland has no recollection of it, and flat out said she never met Kavanaugh, ever. Is there really a plausible explanation for that? Maybe there wasn't a party?

Others have pointed out that you haven't even tried this with Kavanaugh. Do you think it would be possible?

Go ahead and try it. But, he's not the one making the allegation. He's saying "I wasn't there." Go ahead and poke holes.

But somehow you already know it's not good enough.

So, what can we do? I think we can do an investigation in the hopes of finding evidence. We also have to be prepared to live with uncertainty. Where does that leave us with Kavanaugh? --doesn't matter anymore eh?

We always live with uncertainty. The alternative is tyranny and unthinkable oppression - as the notion that reason and logic would be thrown out the door leads to a bad situation. If someone makes a truth claim, it has been pretty normal practice to suggest that the person making the truth claim has the burden of demonstrating it in a verifiable sense. That is, we don't take people's word for stuff.

As you said, in this case, we have zero corroborative evidence. We don't even have a second voice saying "I was there and she's telling the truth." So what can be done with that? Well, we can examine the story itself for problems which exist even if we base the analysis just on the claimant's own words. Where the story contradicts itself, as this one does, it becomes impossible even to verify her claims.

Even if you don't believe I have, you can imagine how it is possible.

Have you honestly never had the awkward experience of having someone deny something you know to be true? Why is her friend's memory suddenly so persuasive? It wouldn't be because it helps to confirm what you'd like to be true would it? --I don't seriously want you to answer that-- As for the door issue, I believe I read where she claims a mistake was made in note-taking. But even if I misread that, I can provide another plausible counter.

I'm still curious to know why you don't think it's important for you to apply the same reasoning to Kavanaugh. I know why I don't want to, I just gave the reasons why above. But it should be very important to you, don't you think?

Finally, it may be impossible to verify her claims, but it isn't necessarily impossible, and certainly not just because she's unsure of some details and not others. You just have a story which needs sorting. You have to investigate. Or not.

[Tero]

Susan Collin naive and gullible. Or else Trump made a nice retirement fund for her someplace in the Bahamas

In her Senate floor speech on Friday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) resolutely defended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh both on his judicial philosophies and against sexual assault allegations, sounding no different than ring-wing GOP senators like Orrin Hatch of Utah or John Cornyn of Texas.
Blasey Ford and the others who alleged sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh. Despite his clear and repeated lies, Collins lauded Kavanaugh’s “forceful” testimony to the committee denying all of the accusations.

Even after that, some in the Beltway media over the weekend were still locked in time, describing Collins, as they always have, as a “moderate.” One New York Times reporter actually characterized her speech as “reasoned [and] carefully researched.”

But these descriptions were fewer and far between compared to the past. And in Maine, where it matters, a Portland Press Herald editorial called the speech anything but reasoned and careful, clearly identifying what was either naivete or political spin:

Even in areas where experts in the field raised warnings, Collins put her judgment ahead of theirs... Only Collins appears to believe that Kavanaugh considered Roe v. Wade “settled law” or that he was deeply committed to preserving precedent, something legal scholars say is inconsistent with the way the Supreme Court works. It makes precedent when it wants to, and it takes only five votes to do it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/susan-collin ... 46261.html

[Svartalf]

Kavanaugh said he's not named to be a party's shill and that he was put on Scotus to be impartial... double liar, pants on fire.

[Brian Peacock]

As soon as he started a session by accusing Democrats of ruining his life he disqualified himself on partiality grounds, in my view. The alignment of rhetoric with the GOP doesn't help his claim to neutrality either.

[Sean Hayden]

He flat out used Fox talking points. Now we have a propaganda machine working in unison across all three branches.

Whatever, people are going to continue to act like this isn't a new development, business as usual, it'll turn around after the elections. --no, it's really not

[Forty Two]

"We just can't let a guy who's that emotional get so much power," she said. "That's why all men literally need to DIE!"

As police attempted to drag her away, she freed herself and produced a cobbled-together thermal detonator, which she chucked at police as she continued her rant about Kavanaugh's temperament.

https://babylonbee.com/news/kavanaugh-d ... reme-court