New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Regnad Kcin said:
Hi, again.

Argument from incredulity. Do you know what it is? Have you heard of it? Do the terms “argument” or “incredulity” ring any bells?
Click to expand...


How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?

Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story. In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh. You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault. Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
 
crescent said:
Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong on the second point. The President said that the investigators had a fair bit of freedom, but that's being contradicted in statements made by Conway and in off-the-record communications to the press.

The scope of the investigation seems very limited indeed.
Click to expand...


As it should be IMHO. This is not Mueller 2.0

We all know this is a piece of fluff anyways. No one is going to change their votes here.
 
wasapi said:
In high school I went to a party where there were no adults. CZ, at one point pushed me in a dark room and pinned me to the bed. He was a big guy, a football star, and I had trouble breathing. Luck had it that another of the guy football players saw it and grabbed CZ off of me.


I bring it up because I could not even tell you the month it happened, whose home it was, who else where there. But I know what he did. So, I just did a search and located him on Facebook. He is a Trump supporter, misogynist, a bully, still. I'm pretty sure he has no memory, he was quite drunk.

I think I may need to message him.
Click to expand...

You might want to hold off on that. After all, he may be next in line for Supreme Court Justice.
 
River said:
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?

Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story. In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh. You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault. Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
Click to expand...

The only two people who claim the party and/or assault never happened are Kavanaugh and Judge...the two people accused of being involved in the assault.

(PJ Smyth and Leland Keyser) said they had no recollection of being at such a gathering. But they didn’t go so far as to say, “It didn’t happen.” In fact, one of them, Leland Ingham Keyser, a close friend of Ford’s, told the Washington Post she believes Ford’s allegation.
Click to expand...
(Fact Check.org)

Keyser was never said to be in Kavanaugh's social circle or to have "known him". Meeting someone at a party does not constitute knowing someone. How many people at parties have you actually met but have no memory of having met them...especially 36 years ago?
 
Lindsey Graham is demanding a full scale investigation into who leaked Ford's letter info. THIS he wants to investigate, but having the FBI investigate Ford's, Rivera's and Swetnick's claims? Not so much.

If he, the other GOP SJC members, and the WH narrowly limit the scope of the FBI's investigation to only a handful of people not including classmates regarding his drinking and his lying about things in his yearbook, then it will be a farce.
 
Party animal frat boy could not control his drinking in high school snd college. Cannot remember what he did when drunk. Gives whimpering speech, blames Democrats.

Conclusion: not supreme court material. Next candidate!!!!
 
River said:
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?
Click to expand...

As a starting point? Bad. As a conclusion from the questioning? Quite tenable.

River said:
Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story.
Click to expand...

1 witness. Mark Judge, who wasn't at all sober in the claim. Multiple other people who she claimed were at the impromptu small gathering, but weren't witnesses to what happened. It's true that that's not especially good as evidence. With that said, when it comes to the named people, they have publically stated that they don't remember the occasion in question. Kavanaugh dishonestly stated that they claimed that it didn't happen, which sure looks like a clear case of lying under oath. Blatantly and clearly lying under oath automatically makes one much less credible, normally.

River said:
In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

And the friend also said that she believed Ford, which really should have preemptively prevented you from invoking it as an attempt at an argument like that, if you care about truth.

River said:
You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault.
Click to expand...

When? Again, the public statements have been that they don't remember the occasion, which would hardly be a surprise in the actual circumstances described. That's not corroborating much of anything. Especially in cases like Mark Judge's case, where he was involved in what is claimed to have. Judge isn't especially credible in his refusal, though, when he claims to be shy about public speaking, given that he apparently had previously made it clear that he was available to speak publicly on demand on other things. That Kavanaugh seems to have outright lied about what they said, among other things, should be a matter of notable concern.

River said:
Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
Click to expand...

Personally, I find her to be immensely more credible than a guy who has pretty clearly and repeatedly lied under oath. Does that mean that she's being truthful? Not necessarily, but statistics and her actual words and actions back her up. As for believing Kavanaugh? I can believe that he's outraged, but his clear lies and dodges remove his credibility on the subject.

So, again, I'll repeat. As a starting point? It's terrible. As a conclusion from the questioning? Such a position is entirely reasonable.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Jeff Flake proves otherwise.
Click to expand...

Not yet, he hasn't. He has done something, though, which is worth recognizing.

Stacyhs said:
The only two people who claim the party and/or assault never happened are Kavanaugh and Judge...the two people accused of being involved in the assault.
Click to expand...

When did Judge claim that? He first claimed that he didn't remember the party in question. Later, we got "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," in the same letter where he claims to avoid public speaking, which is directly contradicted by Encounter Book's website, who published some of his work. This isn't particularly confidence inducing, especially when he is claimed to have also been very drunk and he's publicly been clear about how much of an extreme alcoholic he was.
 
Meadmaker said:
...
ETA: But the big mystery is why anyone thinks that the phrase "Have you boofed yet" constitutes evidence in a sexual assault investigation.
Click to expand...
That was evidence of a pattern of behavior: drinking heavily and preoccupied with sex. Now that may very well be quite normal for a lot of teenage boys, but Kav tried to portray himself as a choir boy: virgin, only drank occasional beers, vomited because he had a sensitive stomach rather that barfing because he frequently drank to excess.

Bogative said:
Yes, if it's an actual lie and not something that he forgot or misremembered.
Click to expand...
He lied about excessive drinking and what things in the yearbook meant. Yes they were actual lies.

Meadmaker said:
...

Now, let's pick another random date. Let's say, I don't know, September 11, 2001. Not random? Yeah, that's true. It isn't. Neither is the day that Ms. Ford (allegedly) was assaulted.
Click to expand...
Dates like 9/11 are repeated again and again by the news refreshing memories so they don't make a good analogy.

River said:
Funny how selective people are when it fits their narrative. Lets just all forget about what the accuser said about burned in memories. Lets forget all the inconsistencies involved, and just believe. Right?
Click to expand...
:confused: She remembers the event, not the date. It's not rocket science.

River said:
Ignore the facts, think of the feelings River! The FEELINGS!

Let me ask, do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
Click to expand...
My post wasn't about feelings, it was about facts. You got it wrong just like I predicted. As for the equal rights question, I have no idea how that is relevant to my post.

River said:
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
Click to expand...
I am sorry you don't get it, but there is no double standard here, except the double standard related to ignoring Ford.

dmaker said:
Really? Could you please explain how the senators questions could be perceived as making fun of an alcoholic? Kavanaughs pathetic distraction didn't even make sense.
Click to expand...
I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That was evidence of a pattern of behavior: drinking heavily and preoccupied with sex. Now that may very well be quite normal for a lot of teenage boys, but Kav tried to portray himself as a choir boy: virgin, only drank occasional beers, vomited because he had a sensitive stomach rather that barfing because he frequently drank to excess.

He lied about excessive drinking and what things in the yearbook meant. Yes they were actual lies.

Dates like 9/11 are repeated again and again by the news refreshing memories so they don't make a good analogy.

:confused: She remembers the event, not the date. It's not rocket science.

My post wasn't about feelings, it was about facts. You got it wrong just like I predicted. As for the equal rights question, I have no idea how that is relevant to my post.

I am sorry you don't get it, but there is no double standard here, except the double standard related to ignoring Ford.

I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
Click to expand...

Don't think you seem biased based on the evidence and witnesses presented concerning Fords allegations? (no prosecutor would touch it)

Do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
 
But NBC News and The New York Times reported on Saturday that in addition to those limitations, Republicans and the White House gave the FBI a list of just four witnesses to interview.

Investigators have also reportedly not been permitted to scour certain records that could be critical to ascertaining the credibility of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the first woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

...

The four witnesses the FBI has been permitted to question so far are Deborah Ramirez, Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, and PJ Smyth.
Click to expand...

Linky.

If they aren't even allowed to interview Ford (or even Kavanaugh?), that will strengthen the claim that the White House is forcing a sham investigation.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
Click to expand...

He was. How is asking if Brett is Bart O'Kavanaugh mocking Judge? Shortly after, however, BK accused the senator of sitting there and mocking him (BK). And again, neither Judge nor BK was being mocked in any perceivable way. BK just didn't like the questions.

There may be no further facts revealed around the sexual assault allegation. It will probably remain as unproven as it is right now. However, in my opinion BK's testimony under oath and his demonstration of partisan fueled rage should be enough to change minds.
 
River said:
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?
Click to expand...
That is not an argument from incredulity.

An argument from incredulity would be, "I can't think of any reason she would lie, therefore she must be telling the truth."


(That argument also gets in a bonus second named fallacy, which is the false dichotomy.)
 
dmaker said:
That's classy.
Click to expand...

Thanks. So is believing someone purely based on allegations, that were not corroborated by her named witnesses. (whos statements support the accused)

Two names.


Carolyn Bryant

Emmett Till
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom