Kavanaugh hearing

[Cunt]

Someone suggested that when there are riots, support for Republicans in the US increases.

If true, the whole show creating riots would not help the left.

[Tero]

What good is an election year with an asshole as president without riots? Get with the program! Do your own riot!

[laklak]

This is, like, literally the end of the world. Nubile young women will be forced to have babies from old white men, and only old white men will be able to vote. They'll sell Mexicans at the grocery store, and you can hunt blacks and half-breeds from your truck. You can even spotlight them and bait them with fried chicken and crack. They'll rename FEMA to "Fuck Every Muslim in the Ass".

[laklak]

This is delicious (but I knew it was going to be). The Ringling Museum, which is just down the street from me, has their flags at HALF-MAST.



I really should call the local Fox station, send a crew out to interview the director (who is a state employee). Imagine the lulz.


ETA goddamnit, there's a reason. It's National Fallen Firefighter's Memorial Day.

Shit.

[Cunt]

Well NOW you are an asshole.

Since you are an asshole anyway, what about trolling the Fox news station into doing just that? Imagine the lulz.

[laklak]

I know, they'd be out there, breathlessly, Live at 5. Fuck the firefighters, we got SNOWFLAKES.

[Scot Dutchy]

[Forty Two]

/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?

[Forty Two]

”There’s holes in her story! She can’t name who drove her home and her best friend was not at the party! Just she and 3 guys!”
Politico
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... med-878748

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....

[Forty Two]

This is, like, literally the end of the world. Nubile young women will be forced to have babies from old white men, and only old white men will be able to vote. They'll sell Mexicans at the grocery store, and you can hunt blacks and half-breeds from your truck. You can even spotlight them and bait them with fried chicken and crack. They'll rename FEMA to "Fuck Every Muslim in the Ass".

Well, yeah, something like that, since Republicans are worse than Nazis, as we all know. Democrats, being only marginally better than Republicans, are almost, but not, quite, Nazis - they come in third. Libertarians are worse than Black Bloc Anarcho Communists.

Everyone gather at the capitol building and join in a group primal scream. Once back home, go around the neighborhood and make sure that no person who isn't progressive leftist sleep or eat in peace. And, tell their kids that their parents are evil.

[Sean Hayden]

How many times had she been to the house? If it was just for that party it would be exceedingly difficult for her to remember:

where it was
its layout
whose it was

She may have some idea of who took her and who brought her home, but when you can't be certain it's probably best to say you don't remember.

What she's unlikely to forget is who attempted to rape her.

You're kind of shit at giving the other side a fair hearing 42.

[Forty Two]

How many times had she been to the house? If it was just for that party it would be exceedingly difficult for her to remember:

where it was
its layout
whose it was

I doubt that. She said this experience was massively traumatic, and that it was with her ever since. And, she ran out of the house onto the street, miles from home, and is sure she was driven home. It seems to me that if I was assaulted at a house and ran out of there in front of my friends without a word, none of them came out to see what was wrong, and they left me walking down the street to go find a way to call my ride - and I eventually found a phone and got a ride (or someone happened by, perhaps) -- that event and its location would be fairly sure to stick in my head.

She may have some idea of who took her and who brought her home, but when you can't be certain it's probably best to say you don't remember.

Or you could say "I'm not certain..." And, if she thinks it might have been person X, then we could ask person X. They might remember the time they picked up a scared and shaken 15 year old who ran out of a party early.... or, maybe that person's assessment of Dr. Ford's demeanor and recollection of what she said at the time, wouldn't quite match the story Dr. Ford is telling. Who knows?

What she's unlikely to forget is who attempted to rape her.

You're kind of shit at giving the other side a fair hearing 42.

Look, it's natural to have memory lapses over time. The thing is - if this is any crime - not reported for 36 years - aren't we going to ask what the complainant remembers? If it's a guy getting beat up by another guy - and he says "that beating was bad - and it traumatized me for decades -- and I know it was John Smith who punched my lights out." And, we would respond - did you tell anyone? Complainant says no. When did it happen? Maybe mid-80s -- no early 80s -- probably 1982. Where did it happen? Somebody's house I was driven to. Who drove you? Don't remember. Where was the house? Here ____. No... wait... over here - thereabouts. How did you get home? I can't remember - someone drove me.

So, John Smith 36 years ago beat the shit out of you, at a time you're shaky about, in a place you don't remember, with people who don't remember the event, and your best friend who you say was there says she never met a John Smith and doesn't remember going to any such party, and you say you ran out of there after being beaten and left without a word - and rode home with someone you don't remember - and nobody ever asked you what happened and you never told a soul about it.... for 3 decades?

Yes.

It may be understandable that time and embarrassment/trauma makes memories shaky and people react to them differently -- but, even understanding that, wouldn't we be skeptical of such a claim? Or, would we believe the victim and say that the lapses in memory, inconsistencies and vagueness is actually part of the reason we believe the complainant?

[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. 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.

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

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?

[Tero]

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?

[Brian Peacock]

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. 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.

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

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?

The project to belittle and discredit Ms Ford is necessary to avoid acknowledging the possibility that she was assaulted by Mr Kavanaugh. If one admits that her allegations might be true then one would have to admit that Mr Kavanaugh was less than honest to the senate committee, which would mean admitting that one was ok with the possibility of a compromised sitting supreme court judge. This entire project is an exercise dedicated to bad faith justifications for an unsecured certainty. It's basically an act of faith,