New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
Are you sure? Maybe you've just forgotten all the times you've been sexually assaulted.
Click to expand...

Damn those satanic child abuse cults and their leader, Barack Obama!

What a load. Nobody's denying that memory isn't imperfect.
Click to expand...

Obviously memories being imperfect means you should never ever ever rely on them. Except if the accused's last name is Clinton.

dudalb said:
I have to disagree. I have lost all faith in a male GOP senator doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

The GOP's female side hasn't been very stellar, either.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Linky?


Where exactly does she say this?
Click to expand...

There was a report that said in one of her counseling appointment notes she said 4 boys. She has always said two and believes the counselor erred mixing up 4 boys at the party with 2 boys in the room.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There was a report that said in one of her counseling appointment notes she said 4 boys. She has always said two and believes the counselor erred mixing up 4 boys at the party with 2 boys in the room.
Click to expand...
I didn't find anywhere where she said that there were no other girls besides herself. Or is this one of those biblical things where the females don't count?
 
The Big Dog said:
I did not see that question.
Click to expand...
No prob. Who hasn’t missed a post now and again?

It would appear that three of the four do not wish to testify under oath.

Ford wants to delay it.

The other two want to avoid being whipping boys for a pack of grandstanding senators.
Click to expand...
Well, what with the tendency for senators from both sides of the aisle to grandstand now and again, we can set that aside.

My concern is that anyone can issue a public statement, knowing there’s no potential downside apart from living with oneself should it be false. Making the same statement under oath, however, carries a significantly greater risk, not to mention adding weight to the denial or affirmation, surely a plus to the other party.

This is obvious, yes? Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
It can be a bad soundbite, but from the context the emphasis was more on the second part of the sentence, to "step up":



Linky.
Click to expand...

Men, let's collectively stand up and shake our clenched fists in indignation! Then we shall sing "we shall overcome" together. Something must be done!
 
MikeG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the guy that is absolutely convinced they know exactly what happened in Judea 2,000 years ago is attempting to gaslight many Americans into believing it is literally impossible to know what happened at an event in 1983.
 
Stacko said:
Are you saying the guy that is absolutely convinced they know exactly what happened in Judea 2,000 years ago is attempting to gaslight many Americans into believing it is literally impossible to know what happened at an event in 1983.
Click to expand...

The shocking thing? He is not saying anything like that.

Not remotely. He is calling all three boys drunks, and I have explained that each one categorically denied the assault

Thanks tho for posting that spectacular nonsense. May God bless you.
 
Last edited:
The ex classmate who allegedly said she heard about the attack has walked it ALL the way back:

"To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus for me. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject. Please don't contact me further."

What a freaking dope. Fortunately that moron from Hawaii who totally **** the bed today and everyone will soon forget this knucklehead
 
The Big Dog said:
The ex classmate who allegedly said she heard about the attack has walked it ALL the way back:

"To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus for me. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject. Please don't contact me further."

What a freaking dope. Fortunately that moron from Hawaii who totally **** the bed today and everyone will soon forget this knucklehead
Click to expand...

I wonder what she was expecting. Was she surprised at "the circus"? And does she expect it to go away just because she has requested privacy? I think she'll be disappointed.
 
Rereading her account of the incident, there are certain points that draw my attention about the surrounding memory of the situation.

She said she recalls a small family room where she and a handful of others drank beer together that night. She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated.
Click to expand...

Judge stood across the room, she said, and both boys were laughing “maniacally.
Click to expand...

First quote highlights something that is a problem in general for situations like this. Victims are doubted based on any possibility their sobriety in said situation might have influenced what happened or how they remembered it. The problem is that the alternative also rings hollow. One beer each? Sounds like the memory of an explanation of what happened a 15 year old would produce when telling her parents about it. Or an attorney would suggest.

The second option is a bigger issue. Not the coaching in general, but the fact that there is fear any level of intoxication negates the memory or takes part in the blame of an action that happened after. I hate that idea. But saying you were at a party and had 1 beer is like getting pulled over coming out of a bar and saying you had two. It admits the obvious (you were drinking) but minimizes it to something that didn't affect you. And it makes the statement less credible itself since it doesn't sound honest.

The maniacal laughing also sounds like an exaggerated memory of a teenager. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that she interpreted it that way. But it does seem like something stretched beyond an accurate portrayal of what was happening.(This is honestly personal bias. There is no situation in my life nor any story i've heard told to me that would describe a laugh in that way besides coming of age movies exaggerating a situation.)

Hopefully this is not taken as a rebuttal of her entire account. Just a general unease at certain portions of her description and how it would resonate with others.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well, we have reached the point where people are actually trying to defend this:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change.”

Oh well.
Click to expand...


Damn straight I'll defend it. She has a point.
 
Travis said:
Damn straight I'll defend it. She has a point.
Click to expand...

I'd remove "in this country" and defend it vigorously. She's absolutely right in this context.

And you MRAs can save your crocodile tears.
 
Babbylonian said:
No, they are not completely unreliable, and that's where your thesis goes completely off course. If our memories were "completely unreliable," then human civilization would not exist as it so obviously does.

There are simply things we're likely to remember clearly and things we're not.

I may not remember a clown in the background while I'm looking at a beautiful woman, but if that beautiful woman suddenly approaches me and asks permission to kiss me, I'm probably going to remember that kiss. If she tells me her name, I'm more likely to remember that, too, given the unusual circumstance and my emotional connections to the event.
Click to expand...

While I'm in no way defending Kavanaugh, you are wrong about this. I've not got time now, but I'll have a look after I've done the stuff I need to do today for a study that looked at people's memories about 9/11. By as little as a year later, up to 50% of the details of their stories had changed, including major details like where they were and who they were with.

All memory is unreliable, including major details of the events in question, and how traumatic or otherwise the event is is irrelevant to that. This is why eyewitness testimony is worth little, and corroborative testimony is important.

And that is why there should be a proper investigation. All that needs to happen for that to happen is for the White House to ask the FBI to do it. Trump claims that he won't do that because the FBI doesn't want to be involved. FBI spokespeople say that they're happy to be involved. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which one is telling the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom