Someone named “Science Mike” posted the following on Twitter?
“I believe women.”
I wonder if he realizes that he just announced to the twitterverse that he places more confidence in someone’s gender, than in facts or truth.
One wonders if a trans man (ie man who thinks he’s a woman) qualifies for that automatic uncritical belief.
82 comments:
I don't get this. I suppose it's supposed to be some lame attempt to make up for all the women who were abused and then denied justice or belief in their claims. The response is idiocy. One doesn't simply believe every allegation just because the claim is expressed by a woman...or a man...or whomever. Even the idea that one should take allegations seriously requires something more than merely asserting that's the proper response. If a woman is a known liar, for instance, there is no claim she could make that I would take at face value. If a woman is previously unknown to me, the same holds true. That's not to say one blows off the person...but to believe as a matter of policy is unreasonable. It's a case by case thing at best.
sigh.
I hesitate to say anything, since you all just never seem to take a breath, listen dispassionately and see the wisdom of other people, but just for the record...
When I or others say, "I believe women..." the point is:
1. In cases of sexual harassment/assault/abuse/rape, women are thus oppressed ever day. Every woman has stories of oppression of one sort or the other. Or at least nearly every woman.
2. When a woman reports a sexual assault, it is ~95%+ of the time NOT a false accusation, it is real.
3. Thus, just looking at the odds right off the bat, in a he said/she said situation, the odds are, the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying, from a purely "odds are..." perspective.
4. It is not, however, saying that I believe women NO MATTER WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE comes up. It's just the basic decency of saying that if a woman makes an allegation of assault, that I will take it seriously and believe her until I have some reason not to.
It's about decency and reason.
Curious also about the women who think they are men. Are they included/excluded from belief?
On a nearly unrelated story, I saw a t-shirt the other day on a college student that read, "Raise boys and girls the same." I was trying to figure out how that would work. An obvious example, teach the girls to urinate standing up and tell the boys how to use tampons? I don't even ...
1. But that doesn’t speak in any way to the veracity of any specific accusation. Further, it actually gives credence to the possibility of false accusations to even the score.
2. Then each should be investigated as an individual incident. Our legal system is based on the premise of “innocence until proven guilty”, why would there be an exception for this?
3. We don’t decide guilt or innocence based on “odds are”.
4. That’s what everyone is saying. In the case of Ford, every witness she’s offered doesn’t support her claims and we have two others who claim they did what she’s accused Kavanaugh of.
But absolutely none of that addresses the specific claim being made (I believe women), you’ve simply offered reasons why the slogan doesn’t mean what it says.
Dan,
Call I do frequently read and pay attention to what you write, I’m not sure calling everything you write wisdom is accurate, but I do. You can tell this because I post your comments, responded to your comments, and answer your questions.
Call I would suggest that people, irrespective of their gender, deserve the presumption of believe until day as individuals forfeit that presumption through their actions. Human value, does not come from secondary characteristics, it comes from being created in the image of God. Therefore, elevating any group of people based on secondary characteristics seems problematic.
The problem we see in this current situation is that those on your side have taken the reasonable proposition that the accuser has the presumption of believe, and turned it into a presumption of guilt of the accused.
Stan,
In a world where we are bombarded with the insistence that gender is not binary, to now be bombarded with the insistence that in this one particular instance gender is binary seems to be inconsistent and self-serving.
But it's always self-serving...sometimes justified, I think most times not.
The concept of the presumption of innocence until guilt can be proved is more important as a personal conviction than a national or legal one. The latter two flows from the first. If we each of us don't hold that philosophy as a rather sacred trust, then the innocent are always at risk. No stats, real or feminist distortions, matter. No probability makes any difference. We can choose to take such allegations seriously...and I believe we ought...but that's not the same as belief as a default position, particularly as that means negative judgement for the accused before he even knows he's been accused. Again, if you choose to believe the accuser as a default position, you've just presumed the accused is guilty. That's un-American and, I'll insist, it's also unChristian.
I agree. One of the bedrocks of our legal system is the presumption of innocence, that the state is required to prove that the accused is guilty. Even with this, we still see way to many innocent people convicted. (Note, I heard the incredibly compelling story of a rape victim who intentionally tried to remember her attacker, and her testimony convicted the wrong guy. I'll try to find a link and post it.) However, approaching the accuser with a presumption of belief, don't require a presumption of guilt for the accused. I agree that to presume anyone guilty is both un American as well as contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
The counter argument is that this isn't a criminal proceeding and therefore the standards isn't as high. Which, on it's face, is absurd.
But, this whole thing isn't about truth or justice. It's about stopping Trump, protecting abortion, and trying to win the mid term elections. If it takes trashing the reputation of one guy to do than, then the left will gladly do just that.
This is a little personal to me, I know a young man who was faced with false accusations and it cost him dearly. So, I do have some sympathy for those who are wrongly accused.
As an aside, it's interesting that none of these accusations came up in previous confirmation hearings. It's almost like they don't care if he's one the Federal Bench, just on SCOTUS.
No doubt in my mind, and concedes tge reality that I presume the left us guilty of such behavior, though I at least have their history to support the presumption.
I would also affirm that I don’t dismiss the natural propensity to believe one person over another for any number of reasons. But one MUST suspend one's own propensity and CONSIOUSLY CHOOSE to presume the accused is innocent, while taking the accuser seriously.
I agree. What we have now is a situation where the truth of the situation is less important than the narrative and agenda.
The female prosecutor (sepecializing in these sorts of crimes) has made it clear that there is not enough actual evidence to even open a criminal investigation.
I’m confused, shouldn’t we believe her because “We believe women.”? Do we believe Juanita Broaderick?
Re " not enough evidence to open a criminal investigation..."
1. Do you realize that, for the most part, no one is talking about opening a criminal investigation?
2. Do you agree with the reasonable principle that one has a higher bar to prosecute someone for a crime than there is to turn down an applicant for a job?
Imagine there is a man accused of molesting children and the evidence against him is pretty strong. He goes to trial and is acquitted on a technicality. He was found not guilty. Nonetheless, while there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of a crime or there was a mistrial, nonetheless, he seemed to be guilty. While you could not prove it, you suspect that he was guilty.
You are the director of a daycare. This man applies for a job. In spite of the reality of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," do you hire the man for the job if he is otherwise qualified?
I say that only a dangerous idiot would hire such a person for the job. Not because he was merely accused, but because you thought it was reasonably likely that he might be guilty of the charges. I can guarantee that the board of the daycare would fire you for neglect if you hired that person.
The principle that analogy establishes is that there's a different criteria for hiring someone than for sending them to jail. This is just a reasonable moral principle. Do you agree with this principle?
Newsflash! The private attorney hired by the DFL to investigate the charges against Keith Ellison didn’t find any wrongdoing. Clearly we need an immediate FBI investigation, if not if the FBI then perhaps the BCA.
Believe women? Only if their suffering can be exploited to move a leftist narrative along. Otherwise, why care what the woman says? I'm pretty sure that's how the Dems play it.
Apparently repeating verbatim the local news lead in a sarcastic way doesn’t translate well.
But seriously did anyone expect the DFL hired attorney to teach any other conclusion, I suspect it’s more about dragging it out past the election. Because the new AG is going to investigate himself.
1. The bar to open an investigation/get a warrant is pretty low. The point is that there isn’t even enough evidence to meet the lowest standard in an investigation.
2. I do agree. But right now there is virtually zero evidence that would preclude either outcome.
That is a new level in bad analogies even for you. In the real world there isn’t enough evidence against Kavanaugh to begin a criminal investigation, let alone file charges, or make it to court to be overturned on a technicality.
In the case of your horrible analogy, clearly you wouldn’t hire someone charged with multiple crimes against children. But, again, there’s virtually zero evidence.
No one is arguing that. No one even claimed that. You’re arguing against a position that hasn’t been advanced. Of course I agree with the principle.
But there’s not enough evidence to deny him the job at this point.
Accusations don’t equal evidence.
Indeed, there is "no evidence..." IF you presume that this very credible woman is lying. But SHE IS EVIDENCE. Her testimony IS evidence.
She is credible, she lived in his circles (despite what he claims, wrongly), she identified his drinking to excess (which he denied, but it appears wrongly) and she identified people who were at a party (which his calendar appears to validate).
There is evidence IF you don't dismiss it all.
The question is, why would you dismiss it?
On the other hand, even if this turned out to be a false claim (and it doesn't appear to be one), Kavanaugh's performance was breathtakingly bad. He lied/made false claims in a stupidly obvious manner repeatedly. He dodged questions repeatedly. (Thanks, by the way, for answering that question... you're the first of several conservatives I've asked who have answered it in the only rational way possible... or even, at all).
Now, YOU may hold the opinion that Ford was not as compelling in her testimony as Kavanaugh was. YOU may hold the opinion that Kavanaugh came across as credible, in spite of the obvious lies and anger (which reminds many experts of exactly how abusers respond in such circumstances)... but you can't say there is no evidence.
Re: accusations don't equal evidence...
I'm no legal expert, but I think if there were a murder and there were an eyewitness who saw the murder and he accused the person he saw of being the murderer, that would be evidence in a court of law. How am I wrong?
While she and her testimony are evidence, it is unsupported, uncorroborated, unprovable, inconsistent, and fragmentary. She is clearly missed spoken, whether or not those are intentional lies, or mistakes, I don’t know.
It doesn’t help your cause, that you and others like you are predisposed to believe her no matter how incredible or inconsistent or uncorroborated her accusations are.
Yet, eyewitnesses testimony is not always the most credible or accurate testimony. It’s frequently wrong (I just heard a heartbreaking story of a woman who got an innocent man convicted based on her eyewitness testimony)
It’s hard to take you seriously on this because you’re being driven by partisan goals, not by the evidence.
I saw a great piece yesterday that talked about how this entire conversation is driven by feelings and emotions, not facts and evidence.
I do want to thank you for demonstrating the (at least in your case) accuracy of my prediction.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that Kavanaugh should necessarily be confirmed or even that he is the best possible nominee. Personally, I think Trump should have nominated Barrett. It’s clear to me, that this level of attack, obstruction, and vitriol, was going to happen no matter who was nominated. Given that, I would say it makes sense to nominate someone who is more conservative rather than less conservative. Further, the optics of this sort of attack and character assassination on a woman would have been much more negative.
That said, I still find the process that the DFL is engaging in, to be repugnant. I also find Ford and the rest to be less that credible.
Finally, it’s interesting that the side of the political spectrum that advocates and excuses anger and violence in the face of injustice is claiming that Cavanagh is angry response to what he contends are false accusations is somehow disqualifying. Clearly he should sit there quietly and passively in front of his wife and his children while people make all sorts of uncorroborated accusations against him on TV in front of the entire country. Let’s be honest Dan, you’ve gotten much more angry than Kavanaugh on blogs for much less. Or are you suggesting that conservatives art entitled to righteous indignation when they believe they are falsely accused?
I do agree however that answering questions is a good thing.
I don’t dismiss anything, but nothing you’ve offered has been corroborated or verified by outside sources.
I’m no legal expert either, but I’ve been involved in litigation enough to know that trials are supposed to be decided on proof, not feelings.
This isn’t a court proceeding, but it should still be decided by evidence, not feelings or “belief”.
Indeed, way way way too many conservatives are emotionally flipping out right now. Saying things like, "our sons and husbands and fathers will never be safe again! Oh my oh my oh my!"
Kavanaugh himself, was a train wreck of emotions. Ford appeared calm cool and collected, she seemed reasonable. She gave data where there was data to be given, and she said that she couldn't remember on points she couldn't remember. And the points she couldn't remember, we're believable that she couldn't remember after all this time.
Kavanaugh appeared to be just making up stuff as he was going... To hear him tell it, he was a boy scout who liked beer. He liked being a lot. He liked beer. He like to drink beer. He liked beer, you like beer?
...Really, aside from the allegations, given just his performance in his testimony I find him unstable and most likely a liar of great proportion. I mean it's just not credible all his beer drinking games he mentioned... It's not credible to expect people to believe him that this is what he really thought.
So yes, I agree that there's been way too much hyperventilating emotional response from conservatives. And certainly there has been heated anger from liberals, the given the reality that young women have this history of not being believed about sexual assault and given the appears to be happening again here now, anger is an appropriate emotion to exhibit if one is concerned about morality and justice.
Since I know people who have been tarred with false allegations of this sort, I am well aware of what can happen when false accusations are brought against innocent people.
Four paragraphs and not one single solitary fact, that condemns Kavanaugh or supports Ford. Not one.
Of course it’s completely rational to destroy a mans reputation because he (legally) drank beer as a young man. Heaven forbid, he liked beer. Obama smoked/sold weed (which was a crime at the time), but that’s OK with y’all. Seriously, if drinking (ir using drugs) as a youth is disqualifying, I guess you’d have to disqualify a lot of folks. Two senators drunkenly assaulting a waitress didn’t get this much attention.
But thank you for making my point. He “appeared”, you “find”, he’s “most likely”, all of which are subjective and emotion driven. Fortified by a dose of hatred for Trump and conservatives.
Your final paragraph simply reveals your partisan bias, the fact that you choose to ignore those on your side and only blame the other. The fact that you’re completely silent on Ellison, whose accuser is,a) a woman who therefore must be believed, b) much more credible with contemporaneous third party evidence, and c) a moron.
You mistake the fact that you “believe” something for that “belief” being true.
Even though you haven’t directly answered the question I’ve asked, you’ve clearly answered it indirectly.
Finally “heated anger” from liberals is a good and wonderful thing, righteous indignation at being falsely accused is a bad thing, just more of the usual double standard.
But thank you once more for demonstrating my point so well.
Some questions.
Never mind they won’t get answered.
Ok two questions.
1. Do you agree that it’s appropriate to oppose Kavanaugh by “any means necessary”, including lying?
2. Would you support Amy Barrett if she was nominated in Kavanaugh’s place?
I’m really sorry, I accidentally hit delete instead of publish. Large fingers, small screen.
Hopefully you can replace the comments.
If it makes you feel better, it’s not just you.
Your questions...
1. No. I am not opposed to Kavanaugh's appointment in and of itself. Of course, I would prefer that the Republicans follow their own president, and wait until after the election since it was so important last two years ago. But they're Hypocrites disgusting people so I don't really expect that of the conservatives in Congress, although they should if they had any kind of rational or moral consistency. But to answer your question, no people shouldn't lie about Kavanaugh.
2. I know nothing about Derek. So I would have to hear more about her. If she's qualified, I would not oppose her nomination.
Question for you... If Kavanaugh lied to Congress, and you very well. He was under age in high-school when he drank, but that he lied about it... Or if he admitted that he knew he was lying about the various games mentioned... That he didn't want to answer in any way to give any support to Ford... Would you support him being held accountable for lying to Congress?
Another question...
If it turned out that Kavanaugh did Shepard down put his mouth hand over mouth and try to remove clothing because he was drunk and out of control, and given that he is subsequently lied about it, if that were true would you support him not being nominated? Or would you write it all off as juvenile hijinx?
The righteous anger from liberals is simply that... We think he's lying, we think she's credible and we know that women are assaulted on a daily basis and that men get away with it on a daily basis precisely because there is no hard proof to catch him.
Nonetheless it's not fake or irrational or anything but righteous anger. I'm sure you can agree, everyone should be angry about sexual assaults.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh's anger could be anger because of being falsely accused. But this is also the same behavior that abusers demonstrate when they've been caught and accused... They lash out they get hyper emotional. Much as Kavanaugh has.
So those in the abuse and assault Fields recognize this Behavior as problematic.
I had a post on my Facebook page recently about how men who've been falsely accused should we Act such instances...
They should begin by stating clearly and strongly that women should be believed... That they should be taken seriously and the situation is investigated. You should state that you are sure and sorry that something has happened to this woman.
After making all that clear then you could say something like but in this case yeah, a mistake has been made. So let's investigate. Let's get to the bottom of this and find who actually did the crime.
The problem with acting all overly emotional and lashing out is that it makes you look guilty, not innocent. So, even if you are angry and it was a false charge you should not act emotional in public.
If it helps, you can keep in mind the very real serious problem sexual assault that happens vastly more often then false charges do.
1. I guess the the difference between a presidential election year and a midterm election year escapes you. But by all means let’s label “conservatives” as “Hypocrites, disgusting people”, it’s clear that your partisan goggles are posing problems for you.
2. As a theoretical proposition that’s sort of reassuring in an equivocal sort of way.
If Kavansugh lies, and it was proven, I’d jump on the bandwagon to move on from him with no reservations. Of course, the drinking age was 18 back in the day, so I wouldn’t be so dogmatic. If anyone involved in this lied to Congress, falsely accused anyone else, or violated the law they should be held accountable. I’m guessing you probably won’t say the same about Ford.
I’m not willing to say that I am prepared to hold anyone’s drunken youthful indiscretions against them decades later. Especially without balancing that one instance against the rest of his/her life.
Of course, if he lied about it in the hearings he should go for that reason alone. I agree that perjury should disqualify people from high office, especially perjury about sexual assault.
Here's a conservative saying what I'm saying... Ford seems credible and Kavanaugh not so much...
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/571936/
One last question.
If the FBI report doesn’t come up with evidence that (by the preponderance of the evidence) that demonstrates that Kavanaugh did not do any of the things he’s been accused of, would you drop your opposition?
And that’s exactly my point. Y’all are making final judgments about a person based on “seems”. That’s pretty a pretty subjective standard.
Of course, the fact that I’ve seen all sorts of liberals who don’t agree with you means nothing to you.
Again, my point, let’s decide this on facts and evidence not feelings and emotions.
Crap,did it again. It’s not personal, just hitting the wrong button.
It seems like the gist of your comment was that the character assisination, vitriol, and threats in the left are all “righteous anger”, while Kabanaugh defending his character isn’t.
Again with the double standard.
No. On every point that you respond to what I said you are not getting the gist of my point. But I tried. And again, I'm not even sure you're real person so there's that.
The problem you have is that you’ve committed to the position that Ford is right, no matter what. Her “mistakes”, inconsistencies, and lack of memory somehow become proof that she’s right. When you start from that position you can’t even imagine the possibility that she’s wrong in anything.
But, if she’s wrong, then (just like you) Kavanaugh’s anger at being slandered with false accusations is certainly righteous.
Unless of course, you’re arguing that Kavanaugh should be trashed because some guy somewhere abused a woman and “history”.
If you’d like, I’ll pull your “righteous anger” quotes and compare them to Kavanaugh.
Ahhh, the smokescreen to cover the retreat begins.
Predictable.
I'm committed to the truth and justice. If it turned out that Ford was lying, I would castigate her and any enablers she has.
That you look at my committment to truth and think it's an alliance, somehow, to Ford only shows your partisan blinders.
Dan,
I completely understand your points.
1. You believe her.
2. This is somehow related to years of unreported abuse.
3. Conservatives are “Hypocrites, disgusting people”.
4. You find the “mistakes”, inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and significant lapses to be evidence that she’s credible.
It’s pretty simple, I just read what you write.
Perhaps it’s your unhesitatingly, unqualified support for how you “feel she’s believable”, that’s getting in the way. Or it could be your assumptions about Kabanaugh and conservatives.
The fact that it took you this long to admit that’d you’d turn in her if she was lying says plenty.
I guess the two guys who said they did it don’t get believed, or aren’t credible.
It’s interesting, I’ve yet to argue for Kavsnagh in any way except that he gets a fair, impartial hearing.
The closest I’ve come to defending him is pointing out the problems of those who hate him, and to hope that he gets the same standards applied to him as she.
Fair, impartial, fact based investigation.
This is funny. You say you perfectly understand what I say and explain how you perfectly understand what I'm saying and you get it wrong. You're just wrong, Craig.
2. It is not because of years of unreported abuse... Whatever that means. It is because her testimony has been credible and corroborated. On the other hand Kavanaugh has been Shifty, combative, hyper-emotional, abusive, mlincluded lies or false claims, and generally appeared out of control and unreliable. His own calendar is a corroboration of some of her points. His own behavior is corroboration for some Four Points. In short, given everything that we know about the two and the circumstances, I find her more believable and credible because of the data surrounding what she has said as compared to the data surrounding what Kavanaugh has said.
And I never said that conservatives are hypocrites and disgusting people. Perhaps you should just read my words rather than interpret phone because you always get it wrong. Or at least nearly always.
2. You are the one who keeps bringing up the history of women not being believed as justification for this. Also, maybe you’ve missed the fact that none of her witnesses corrabetate her story, she’s contradicted her “lie detector” testimony at least twice. If you find that compelling...
For some reason my phone won’t let me copy paste your exact words, I took a screen shot (to be safe) and will quote you later.
Don’t you think it might be a bit presumptuous for you to lecture men who have been falsely accused on how they should behave?
No. I think it's presumptuous, given the horrifying rate that men abuse and molest and harass women, that people in general would jump to condemn women when they bring forth allegations without airtight proof.
Look, of course it is horrible to be falsely accused if you are an innocent man. The point I'm making is that it is a rare thing. 1% 2% 3% something like that.
Whereas abuse and molestation of women is nearly Universal. 95% versus 5%. I'm talking about worrying more about the large problem and less about the small, very rare problem.
Also, for men who have been falsely accused, it is in their best interest to try to present themselves in a way where they do not seem to be like lying sniveling whining abusers, the way that Kavanaugh presented himself, for instance.
If Kavanaugh wants to be believed, he should want to behave in a less abusive and less suspicious manner. So, I'm not lecturing people who have been falsely accused, I'm giving sound, rational, cool-headed advice for those who've been falsely accused so that they can come out acquitted and at the same time not add to our very very real problems of abused women.
Do you actually have evidence of your claims or are you just making assumptions and putting them out there as if no one should challenge them.
Who who is advocating “airtight proof”? Shouldn’t women (really humans in general) be expected to prove their allegations of criminal activity? What is it about women that gives them more inherent credibility than men? Is it in any way appropriate to judge one individual human being based on the actions and behavior of others?
Shouldn't women prove their allegations of criminal activity?
No. Victims of robbery assault rape murder... They don't prove their own allegations. They assert them and it's up for the police and others to investigate them and prove them. Surely you don't mean victims of crime should be put in the position of having to prove their crime as well? Unfortunately, all too often, that is exactly the position women find themselves in when they've been abused or assaulted. Prove it and will believe it. Which returns to the point of this post.
And, in the case of an unprovable crime... That is, you saw someone commit a murder but they immediately disposed of the body and evidence and you have no way of proving that they did the crime... the witness or victim has the opportunity and responsibility to point it out nonetheless.
If our president for instance, were a serial killer and someone knew about it - they'd seen the bodies, they witnessed the crimes - but they had no way of proving it, would you not want them to come forward with the allegation, nonetheless? Good God, I hope so.
No, noone should be forced to prove their allegations on their own, but the allegations should be proven, not assumed to be true.
In your bizarre hypothetical the eyewitness testimony would be one facet of the investigation. It’s not assumed to be true and that the accused is guilty. The point is that in an investigation, the initial report is the starting place for the investigation, not the end.
But, I’m confused, you say that “prove it and we’ll believe it” is problematic, but “we believe you without proof” is equally problematic.
Earlier you made a remark about people “getting away with things because there wasn’t evidence” (or words to that effect), but that’s the bedrock principle of our legal system. The shorthand version is “Presumed innocent until proven guilty”. It why people talk about how it’s better that “guilty people go free, than one innocent person convicted”. Our entire criminal justice system is based on the state being able to prove the charges against the individual. Surely you aren’t advocating that the accused must prove their innocence? Good God, I hope not.
I’m not sure, but I’m thinking that regular use of cocain as an adult might cause me to not support someone for a high government office. But that’s just me.
Yes. That's just you. Only conservatives, not even all of them, are worried about drug use while in college or High School.
Again I don't have a problem that Kavanaugh drank to excess in high school and college. I do care about lying Under oath Congress especially in the context of him appearing to try to cover up how naughty he actually was.
With Obama, there was no cover-up. He openly described what he did. People by and large just didn't care, and I think rightly so.
You keep saying Kabsnaugh was “lying under oath”, I’d be interested to see the proof of those lies.
It seems as though you are saying that “lying under oath” would disqualify someone from high public office, is that what you’re suggesting?
So, engaging in extended, persistent breaking of the law as a young adult isn’t a problem for you, that’s good to know that you don’t care about supporting admitted lawbreakers.
That’s helpful to know.
Just saw the lefter from Ford’s former boyfriend about her teaching people to beat “lie detectors”.
Look away, nothing to see here.
Isn’t it possible that this FBI investigation just might demonstrate that Ford isn’t/hasn’t been honest about significant things.
Of course Booker and Dan are already laying the groundwork to shift to something else to derail Kavanaugh.
I, along with I'm pretty sure the majority of the US, disagree with drug laws as they exist today. So yeah breaking a bad law where no one is hurt, I don't care about that. Not in the least. I would also be profoundly glad to break any laws like harboring refugees because they're considered illegal for having cross the border. That is a stupid law, and the moral law. And given the right circumstances, I certainly would not cooperate with that law or even break it if it came down to it. As we no doubt agree, bad laws ought not be obeyed if they cause harm to people.
So, if you're saying that we should Bay every law even if it's a bad law oh, well then you and I disagree.
As to the false claims that Kavanaugh made under oath, he certainly was breaking the law in his underage drinking, contrary to what he claimed. So that's an easy one. The drinking age where he lived was 21, not 18. He also almost certainly lied about the sex games that he called drinking games. He misrepresented himself is the problem,. He portrayed himself as a Boy Scout who just happen to like beer. He likes Beer a Lot. You like beer, right? He likes beer. Clearly, he had a rowdy getting drunk side.
Now I and most people do not care about that in so far as it goes. But because the question is about whether he blacked out or over drink or got belligerent when he was drunk... All of these questions get to the heart of the sexual assault claim. That he misrepresented himself, then, becomes a much more serious lie.
Are you unaware of these and other false claims he made?
Kavanaugh:
“My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends... The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school."
The drinking age was raised to 21 in Maryland when Kavanaugh was still 17, and it was 20 in Connecticut when he entered Yale.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/02/brett-kavanaugh-alcohol-two-dueling-narratives/?utm_term=.925e522ae37b
More questionable claims/false claims/lies...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd
So the fact that you disagree with cocain being illegal makes it ok to break that law. That’s good to know.
If those accusations are true, it could be a concern.
Of course, we still have the double standard problem.
I'm not alone in thinking the war on drugs is stupid policy.
"Two Out of Three Americans Think People Shouldn’t Be Prosecuted for Possession of Drugs Such as Cocaine and Heroin;
63% Support Moving Away from Mandatory Minimums;
54% Support Marijuana Legalization"
http://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms-americans-ready-end-war-drugs
Beyond that, Obama was clear and open about his drug use. No one cared. Well, that's not true. Religious zealots like you cared (although I doubt you'd care if it were a republican). But by and large, no one cared. You're just in the minority on this one.
And again, I wonder, don't YOU agree that we should stand opposed to bad laws? That we be prepared to break those bad laws if they're causing harm (or support those who break those laws if they're causing harm)?
But, true to the Trump/Kavanaugh/Modern Conservative road to disambiguation and dodging, you didn't answer that question.
Indeed, the lady prosecutor said there wasn't enough for a civil trial, which requires even less.
Dan's analogy states that "the evidence against him is pretty strong". But that's not at all the case here. There's no evidence at all aside from the accusation.
This is absurd. Are you actually suggesting that people falsely accused are typically cool, calm and collected...particularly when the accusation is so heinous?
First, Ford's original letter suggested hijinks and she eliminated or altered the events for the hearing (likely under advisement by Dems or counsel) without which sexual assault is more questionable.
Second, now YOU'RE lying or ignorant of the facts. The "precedent" was set by Dems who spoke against nominating in the final year of a president's term during campaign season, not before a midterm election. Either or both Kagan and/or Sotomayor were nominated and confirmed prior to a midterm election, so no hypocrisy here except by Dems.
It only makes them look guilty to partisan hacks. You just stated that abusers ALSO get emotional in their denials, thus making the angle worthless. Michelle Malkin did a two-part piece on a cop wrongly accused who clearly got emotional in the face of the false accusation. Your "experts" can't use emotional response as "typical" of abusers and thus legitimate reason to indict an accused person if the wrongly accused get emotional as well. This line of argumaent is fallacious and deceitful.
Your heading off topic. We’re not discussing whether or not laws against frequent, adult, use if cocaine is disqualifying in a candidate for high government office.
I’d argue that it raises questions about character and judgement which would give me pause. You clearly don’t care about drug use and the implications.
Of course, we’re still left with the questions.
1. Does lying under oath automatically disqualify one from any high public office?
2. If the accuser lies under oath, doesn’t that damage their credibility?
Yet if folx get emotional and throw big chunks of concrete at police, that’s given a pass. Or tearing up pro Kabanaugh signs on a university campus, also cool. This notion that, in this one specific type of situation, there is only one possible, acceptable way to respond is absurd. To take that further and say that responding any way other than the “right” way is evidence of guilt is beyond absurd.
“Democratic Senator Cory Booker admitted in a press conference on Tuesday that his belief that Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with whether he is "innocent or guilty." The very fact that his name has been sullied by uncorroborated allegations and that he displayed anger at being accused without evidence and pushed back against the politically motivated handling of the allegations by Democrat senators, Booker argued, "ultimately" disqualifies Kavanaugh from a lifetime appointment to the "sacred institution."”
At least Booker is honest.
"[U]ltimately, not whether he's innocent or guilty, this is not a trial," said Booker, "but ultimately have enough questions been raised that we should not move on to another candidate”
If only the “enough questions have been raised” standard applied consistently.
I finally had time to quote Dan's actual words
"We think he's lying, we think she's credible and we know that women are assaulted on a daily basis and that men get away with it on a daily basis precisely because there is no hard proof to catch him."
"I would prefer that the Republicans follow their own president, and wait until after the election since it was so important last two years ago. But they're Hypocrites disgusting people so I don't really expect that of the conservatives in Congress..."
I guess he really didn't call all "conservatives" "Hypocrites and disgusting people", just all the conservatives "in congress". It's still quite the broad brush, generalization, but...
I'd like to drill down on some of the claims made.
"Nonetheless it's not fake or irrational or anything but righteous anger..."
In this case, he appears to be claiming that all of the "anger" on the left is not "fake", but in fact "righteous". Clearly this begs for proof. It also raises the question about what sort of behavior is inappropriate for "righteous" anger.
"We think he's lying, we think she's credible..."
Yet, neither of things things is the issue. The issue is "Did the actions Ford alleges actually happen in real life?" Neither of these two speaks to the real question. It's simply and expression of biased opinion.
"...we know that women are assaulted on a daily basis...".
A statement that sounds like a statistic, yet isn't supported be evidence. It also broadens the category to "assault", instead of "sexual assault", presumably to add "weight" to the argument from numbers.
"...men get away with it on a daily basis precisely because there is no hard proof to catch him."
Unfortunately, our pesky legal system demands that we don't convict people without proof.
Unfortunately, we still don't have answers to the following questions.
What is it that makes women more innately reliable and believable than men?
Is a woman with a penis given the same presumption of belief as a woman with a vagina?
In a society that can't define what a woman is, who decides who to believe?
How is it that this notion of "belief" is the only thing about women and men that is binary?
If a woman accuses a man of rape, and later is proven wrong by DNA, do we believe her or science?
"Only conservatives, not even all of them, are worried about drug use while in college or High School. "
It's sad that only conservatives worry about students indulging in drugs while in school...or even during those years when one is school aged...given the harm, potential or otherwise. But it's nice to see Dan acknowledge that conservatives are those who still cling to notions of higher character and good behavior.
"With Obama, there was no cover-up. He openly described what he did. People by and large just didn't care, and I think rightly so."
Well, Democrats by and large just didn't care. You've already acknowledged that it's only conservatives who care about drug use among kids. Worse, is that in this case, this dude admitted he was indulging in illegal substances in college, as opposed to merely being accused of sexual assault by someone thirty-six years later. And of course, Kavanaugh denied or covered up nothing.
"So, if you're saying that we should Bay every law even if it's a bad law oh, well then you and I disagree."
The disagreement is in who gets to decide which law is "bad" and which isn't. A Christian doesn't get to ignore the law after rationalizing doing so as you do with immigration law. By doing so, one does indeed harm society and the culture. Your definition of "harm" is always subjective and self-serving. A good citizen and Christian works to change law seen as "bad".
"The drinking age where he lived was 21, not 18."
But by the quote YOU used to back up his "lie" under oath, he stated:
"The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school."
Why didn't you use a quote of him saying he was legal if that's the lie you claim he was making? Though I watched the entire hearings, I'd have to review the transcripts to find where he said he was legal. But it seems to me he was only describing the times. An area with a low legal drinking age would mean that those below the drinking age would have more access, as older kids could buy the beer. When I was in high school, there was a chick amongst my circle of friends who never got carded in the liquor stores. Those with brothers/sisters 21 or older would often buy the beer. Just sayin'.
"He misrepresented himself is the problem,. He portrayed himself as a Boy Scout who just happen to like beer."
Hey, Dan. This ain't Scripture, but it stands as just another one of your deceitful reinterpretations. He's being portrayed by some ditsy broads as a serial sex offender. He's describing himself as a normal kid who drank beer.
"I'm not alone in thinking the war on drugs is stupid policy."
1821 people surveyed four years ago is unpersuasive. I like this one better.
"Beyond that, Obama was clear and open about his drug use. No one cared. Well, that's not true. Religious zealots like you cared (although I doubt you'd care if it were a republican). But by and large, no one cared. You're just in the minority on this one."
Of course we'd care if it was a Republican. Party doesn't matter. But that's not to say that it would matter if it was the only flaw discovered about a candidate. In Obama's case, it was one of dozens (That's "dozens", as in plural). If you were just a little zealous for the faith, you'd actually be a Christian instead of someone who just pretends to be for show. Your "being in the minority" crack once again affirms that morality to you is a matter of consensus. Real Christians don't think that way.
"And again, I wonder, don't YOU agree that we should stand opposed to bad laws?"
I'm no angel, but as a professing Christian I absolutely do not encourage or enable breaking the law. We have no laws in this country that are overtly harmful to anyone. The laws YOU break and encouraging others to break are not overtly harmful. It's the breaking of the laws you oppose that leads to harm to those you idiotically think you're defending.
“Kavanaugh was angry, vindictive, and hostile during his testimony about Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegations of attempted rape. We fully believe a man this belligerent and entitled is capable of sexual assault.”
This is what passes for logic in the anti-Kavanaugh world.
Just the fact that he’s theoretically capable of sexual assault is disqualifying. Of course, by this standard, ever human who’s ever gotten angry is “capable of sexual assault”. Really, pretty much ever human who’s ever lived past the age of 12 is “capable of sexual assault”.
It's nothing short of willful public lying by angry feminists. They don't believe any such thing. They believe they're about to lose the right to murder their own children.
Just imagine how "angry, vindictive and hostile" these angry, vindictive and hostile shrews would be if they actually had to respond to murder charges after aborting their unborn. We already know it would be an "angry, vindictive and hostile" response to say the least, for daring to call their "reproductive right" what it really is. What's more, they've demonstrated they're more than merely capable of literally destroying another human life.
Dan, Again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your comment. Please consider re-posting it at your convenience.
It seems strange to me, that people are counting Cavanaugh‘s anger as a negative, even though it was specific, it was controlled, and it was limited. Yet the same people are encouraging and applauding all sorts of angry responses. The double standard continues to gain strength.
That's a very good point. Though Dan claims to love irony, I wouldn't be surprised if it's lost on him.
Apparently Susan Collins has made it clear that the responses on the anti-Kavanaugh forces and their tactics are the reason she chose to vote to confirm him. Or, to put it another way, the tactics failed to achieve the result intended, in fact that achieved the opposite of the intended result.
I believe Susan Collins.
Nice job liberals. Is it possible that y'all just lost yourselves the hope of taking control of either house of congress in the midterms? It'll be interesting to see how much support Beto continued to have after his run in with the FEC.
“Who’s going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh.”
Stay classy liberals.
The behavior of the left has been getting worse and worse, and more and more blatant, over the past couple of decades, and Trump's elections has intensified it. I've seen attempts to insist that the right-wing violence is far worse, but the term is so loosely applied by the left to where they need to be applied, that the phrase "right-wing extremism" has very little truth to it.
Someone on facebook posted a story about some alleged right-winger having been arrested for making threats against Dem senators because of their behavior in the Kavanaugh hearings. I responded by pointing out that this dude who posted the story has NEVER posted any of the many stories that have come out regarding left-wing violence, from something low level as harassing people trying to eat, to shooting people playing softball. Nothing...as if none of it ever happened. But this one anomaly, assuming it's even a right-wing guy, is somehow supposed to be representative? It's like Dan not posting about anything Dem presidents/politicians have done while feigning outrage about every fart emanating from Trump. And though he feigned outrage at my saying so, it's as if he believes his own are angelic.
I guess the young man in Seneca Valley will be so happy to know that men have nothing to worry about and that women (who we must believe without question) will be punished for making false accusations.
Did you know that uncorroborated allegations by one person is corroboration of another person's allegation? I did not know that!
Apparently just making an allegation is now corroborating evidence of the allegation.
Apparently now actual witnesses in the room who deny the sexual assault allegation isn’t enough for the leftist regime at UCSB.
Apparently the “corraberating witness” to the gang rape allegations says Avenetti put words in her mouth. I guess as the allegations unravel we won’t hear much about it.
Post a Comment