New SCOTUS Judge

[The Big Dog]

Nobody is accusing them of anything. One of them wrote a book about it.

yeah, wrong, again.

 

[Dr. Keith]

yeah, wrong, again.

Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk

 

[The Big Dog]

Did it cross your mind that the now three people categorically denying it are simply telling the truth?

The drunks, you mean?

You have evidence that the latest witness she identified was a drunk?

You have evidence that the first two aren't?

Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk

Please try to follow along for once, you claim that no one is accusing them and that all three admitted it is blatantly false.

 

[MikeG]

yeah, wrong, again.

Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk

Yeah, wrong, again.

Classic, Dr Keith, just classic. You say X, TBD says no, you prove X. TBD apologises for his laughable error, but only in a parallel universe.

 

[ahhell]

Memories being imperfect does not equal memories being wrong. That's not a fundamental to anything, let alone skepticism.

It really is though. Our memories are completely unreliable, check out those links I posted earlier. It should teach us humility. The human evolution blog is especially relevant and has links to research on the matter.

In fact, converging evidence demonstrates that experiences of trauma, whether a single event (e.g., a sexual assault) or a sustained stressful experience that might involve multiple trauma types (e.g., war) are also vulnerable to memory distortion. In fact, traumatic memory distortion appears to follow a particular pattern: people tend to remember experiencing even more trauma than they really did. This usually translates into greater severity of Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms over time, as the remembered trauma “grows.”

To be fair, Big Dog is also wrong.

Did it ever cross your mind that she's simply telling the truth?

She almost certainly is telling the truth as she remembers it. That is almost certainly not really accurate. As I said before, they might both be telling the truth and they are probably both wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, wrong, again.

Classic, Dr Keith, just classic. You say X, TBD says no, you prove X. TBD apologises for his laughable error, but only in a parallel universe.

Yeah, you claimed three, that was one, and you caved on one, and I posted statements from BK's girlfriends denying that he was a heavy drinker.

You got two drunks (Judge and Ford) a single fictionalized tale about 1 (BK) and nothing on PJ.

Wrong again.

Interesting theory tho, in light of the heavy drinking culture, and the yawning gaps in her memory, it seems pretty clear that anyone drunk at the party was likely Ford

 

[MikeG]

Never mind.

 

[MikeG]

Do you think that my daughter mis-remembers being raped?

You've chosen to ignore this, ahhell. Why is that?

 

[The Big Dog]

You are a disingenuous interlocutor. You are conflating two different posters saying two different things. Dr Keith was saying nothing in support of what I said. I was simply laughing at you for dismissing Dr Keith's statement, and then having the evidence thrust at you showing you were 100% wrong in that dismissal. You then conflate the two, prattle on about something I conceded half an hour ago (the third person's drunkenness) and confirm that your debating technique is all about point scoring whilst completely ignoring logic and honesty.

HI! Dr. keith said no one was accusing them of anything. That was false.

You falsely accused all three of being drunks.

Under questioning, you walked that back and admitted you had zero evidence for your attack on PJ.

I rebutted the claims against BK which are based on a semi-fictional book.

I will however stipulate that Judge and Ford were heavy drinkers.

 

[ahhell]

You've chosen to ignore this, ahhell. Why is that?

Because I don't want to be an ass. But since you insist, you're daughter probably doesn't remember assault as it happened and the more time that passes the less she will remember correctly. Those in her life that she discusses the matter with will also change their memories about the event.


Listen, all I'm saying is that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford's memory is likely to be accurate after 30 years and its entirely plausible that she has a number of key details wrong, maybe even the perpertrator. I will add, since I was asked to provide a citation, that is actually very plausible that she remembers the event as being more traumatic than it was. One of the articles I posted suggests the research supports the notion that this is common for folks who suffer trauma.

 

[sylvan8798]

I will explain this again.

they are not saying that they don't remember, they said it didn't happen:

Your English must be different than mine.

Smyth: “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

"I have no knowledge of" does not equal "it didn't happen".

BK: “This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh said in the statement Monday. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making the accusation until she identified herself yesterday. I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.”

Judge: "more to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

"I never saw" also not equal to "it never happened".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I understand it, the vividness of memories has little bearing on their accuracy. [snip]...

You can keep going on and on with the false memory defense, all the while more corroboration is accumulating.

To be clear, I do not doubt that she was assaulted. I am merely saying that here memory of the event is not likely to be accurate and any particular detail could be wrong, including the perpetrator.

Convenient cherry picking there.

 

[sylvan8798]

So a high school "classmate" of the accuser said she heard about it at school for days afterwards.

thereby directly contradicting the accuser who said she did not tell anyone, and that it happened in the summer of 1982.

Now the "classmate" deleted her claim, and doesn't want to talk about it anymore because her claim "had its effect."

Presumably there were more than these 3 people at this alleged party. We don't seem to have details on what happened after she escaped from the purported assault, but it isn't unthinkable that other people saw her, upset and unkempt, emerge from the bedroom, or leaving the house. Wanting to go home, maybe crying. And the two boys emerge later, maybe laughing or muttering and calling her a slut. Kids aren't stupid, it's entirely possible that other kids at the party were putting the story together and whispering about it around their social circle/schools.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your English must be different than mine.

"I have no knowledge of" does not equal "it didn't happen".


"I never saw" also not equal to "it never happened".

Yeah it does.

Happy to walk you through it:

Claim: PJ, BK, Judge and I were at a party and he tried to take off my bathing suit, and judge saw it happen.
PJ: I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct
BK: never happened
Judge: I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes

Three unequivocal denials.

 

[dudalb]

If the gop pushes through a vote on Kavenaugh, the Democrats should, in my opinion not vote, just walk out.

 

[The Big Dog]

Presumably there were more than these 3 people at this alleged party. We don't seem to have details on what happened after she escaped from the purported assault, but it isn't unthinkable that other people saw her, upset and unkempt, emerge from the bedroom, or leaving the house. Wanting to go home, maybe crying. And the two boys emerge later, maybe laughing or muttering and calling her a slut. Kids aren't stupid, it's entirely possible that other kids at the party were putting the story together and whispering about it around their social circle/schools.

You got her statement, tell us where there is any support for that speculation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So a high school "classmate" of the accuser said she heard about it at school for days afterwards.

thereby directly contradicting the accuser who said she did not tell anyone, and that it happened in the summer of 1982.

Are you serious, it hasn't dawned on you it went around the school because the boys bragged?

Now the "classmate" deleted her claim, and doesn't want to talk about it anymore because her claim "had its effect."

Just a guess: Probably the effect of her being doxed, harassed, and threatened.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the gop pushes through a vote on Kavenaugh, the Democrats should, in my opinion not vote, just walk out.

No, they should keep working to get a few GOP Senators to flip. I suspect McConnell is not so certain he has the votes any more.

 

[ahhell]

You can keep going on and on with the false memory defense, all the while more corroboration is accumulating.

Corroboration of what? There's plenty of evidence supporting my contention that memory can not be trusted.

Convenient cherry picking there.

No cherry picking at all. Again, just reality. My memory of particular things in my life having happened are probably kind of true, I probably have very few outright false memories but I probably don't remember anything accurately. Lots of little and big details are almost certainly wrong with every event in my life. That is true of me, you, and everyone else.

I continue to be amazed at folks a skeptics forum denying the basic science of memory.

If the gop pushes through a vote on Kavenaugh, the Democrats should, in my opinion not vote, just walk out.

I'm not sure if that's ever a good idea. I think(not sure if this actually true in the Senate) that they'd still approve the nomination, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish that isn't still accomplished by just voting against him.

Edit to add: Skeptic Ginger is is probably right on that its probably a better move to try and flip a few GOP votes.

 

[dudalb]

No, they should keep working to get a few GOP Senators to flip. I suspect McConnell is not so certain he has the votes any more.

I have to disagree. I have lost all faith in a male GOP senator doing the right thing.