Biden for President?

[wareyin]

Employers are examining the risk of partnership. We're examining whether a specific claim is true. Reputation can tell us about risk. It can't tell us whether a claim is true.

Who said it could tell us whether a claim was true? Does a documented history of fraud tell an employer that a prospective employee will definitely defraud this employer? Of course not, just as a documented history of fraud, deceit and lies can't tell you definitely that this time a person is not telling you the truth.

I brought up Jacob Wohl already. He has a documented history of making false sexual assault claims. Do you not take that history into account when he makes another claim? If not, why not?

 

[Stacyhs]

Employers are examining the risk of partnership. We're examining whether a specific claim is true.Reputation can tell us about risk. It can't tell us whether a claim is true.

But it can be a damn good indicator.

Weinstein's reputation as a sexual harasser/assaulter existed long before there was any actual evidence of it provided.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, you keep telling us that a person's lengthy and substantial history of lying shouldn't affect how we assess if s/he's a liar or not.

We're not trying to assess if she's a liar or not. We're trying to assess if a specific claim is true. You're committing a textbook ad hom fallacy.

 

[theprestige]

But it can be a damn good indicator.

No, actually, it can't.

Weinstein's reputation as a sexual harasser/assaulter existed long before there was any actual evidence of it provided.

And yet each and every person who accused him still had to come up with actual evidence, not just his reputation, to prove their claim.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Credibility always is part of determining if a claim is sincere or not. You might not like it, but it's how reality works. Evidence, of course, is much more valuable than credibility, but that doesn't mean credibility has no worth.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, you keep telling us that a person's lengthy and substantial history of lying shouldn't affect how we assess if s/he's a liar or not.

We're not trying to assess if she's a liar or not. We're trying to assess if a specific claim is true. You're committing a textbook ad hom fallacy.

Yes, we are assessing whether she's a liar or not because we're assessing her credibility on telling the truth. You just think a person's credibility doesn't or shouldn't play a part in whether she may be lying or not.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But it can be a damn good indicator.

No, actually, it can't.

Yes, it most certainly can be. Reputations are not earned out of the clear blue sky; they are earned from behavior.

Quote:Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Weinstein's reputation as a sexual harasser/assaulter existed long before there was any actual evidence of it provided.

And yet each and every person who accused him still had to come up with actual evidence, not just his reputation, to prove their claim.

False. There was no physical evidence or witnesses to prove their claims. But testimony from the women described what happened to them. It basically boiled down to whom the jury believed: the women or Weinstein.

The final verdict in the Weinstein case was technically split; the jury convicted on the primary rape charges but not on the sexual predation charges. But it would be a mistake to think that this means the jury rejected the evidence of Weinstein’s past conduct altogether. Even if the jury wasn’t fully convinced that there was evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the other rapes, the overall weight of the evidence may well have strengthened the credibility of the primary victims.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...tein-rape-verdict-half-conviction-is-full-win

"Credibility and reliability of the government's witnesses is obviously an essential consideration for any good prosecutor," says Greenberg Traurig's Mathew S. Rosengart, himself a former prosecutor.

There is a reason the defense attacks the credibility of the accuser: because it matters.

 

[Bubba]

Posted by Bubba View Post
Back when the media was far less corrupt than today....Biden was exposed for lying and plagerizing by ABC, PBS, CBS, NBC, (.Sam Donaldson, Connie Chung, David Gergen etc.) and others.


Why support a known plagerizering liar?


Who remembers this footage?

That's already been addressed.

I see.

Did you debunk the reports that Biden plagiarized, and lied about his education ?

Please elaborate if youd be so kind.

 

[xjx388]

No, he's pointing out that xjx388's desire to ignore that type of evidence is counter to how employers operate.

I’m an employee and I don’t operate that way. I look at the record. In the case of a diverted bad check, there would be no record to see. I don’t call up her old employer and dig for gossip. I don’t scan Facebook for signs she might be unreliable.

I look at what is actually there.

In Reade’s case, there’s nothing there. Why do we need to tear her down? Why isn’t it enough that there is no evidence?

 

[Stacyhs]

I see did you debunk the reports that Biden plagiarized, and lied about his education ?

Nope. I said that was a big mistake on his part and he shouldn't have done it. He was wrong.

Now, see how that's done? I don't have the need to defend him no matter what. But, if you want to play the game of Biden lies vs. Trump lies we certainly can. But I don't think you really want to do that. Do you?

 

[xjx388]

Whether you think we should or not doesn't matter. The fact is that people DO consider a person's reputation for honesty when assessing their credibility and they do so for a very good reason: People have a pattern of behavior that they do not tend to deviate from. Thus the saying that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

This is rather surprising. It seems that we should be looking at a woman’s reputation. That discrediting her because “she’s a liar,” “she’s a party girl,” “she sleeps around,” etc is not only acceptable, but necessary.

We should certainly listen to her but if she proves to be unreliable -because she’s a prostitute, she has been convicted of theft (heck, someone alleges she stole something), she has a history of manipulating people- these are all good reasons to discredit her.

And here I thought we were supposed to be trying to be better than this.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Why isn’t it enough that there is no evidence?

That's the trillion dollar question.

 

[xjx388]

Just to put a cap on this (because I think I’ve made my point):

In the end, I can’t hold this allegation against Biden. Why? Because there’s no evidence, not because Reade is a bad person.

I think this onslaught of personal attacks on Reade has almost completely undermined #metoo and the lessons society was supposed to be learning.

The message remains clear to me, at least: it’s not about who the woman is, what she does, or what kind of person she is. It’s not even about the man and what kind of pattern he has or if he has a reputation for this kind of thing. It’s all about acknowledging that this kind of thing happens all the time, by and to people you wouldn’t expect. We should listen to women and their experiences, even if we aren’t going to condemn every accused man because there simply isn’t enough evidence to do so.

 

[Stacyhs]

It doesn't matter if there's no evidence. It's enough that he's been accused with no proof that he didn't do it.
Because, you know, there's no smoke without fire.

 

[Bubba]

Nope. I said that was a big mistake on his part and he shouldn't have done it. He was wrong.

Now, see how that's done? I don't have the need to defend him no matter what. But, if you want to play the game of Biden lies vs. Trump lies we certainly can. But I don't think you really want to do that. Do you?

Goodness Gracious no. Never.

Why would I? Your admission was just dandy

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends on the man and what he gets out of it. Some men just harass women but never progress to physical assaults. Some men prefer a quick assault to a more complicated time consuming affair.

None of this is consistent with Biden.

Are you still unsure?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly. I find it shocking that anyone would try and compare Reade's allegations to 'casual sex'. Casual sex is consensual, assault is not.

Did you highlight this part for A reason?

there is no evidence that Biden behaved that way, and plenty that he didn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no proof of the assault. It's quite believable that Biden made some advances with the object being casual sex. Males back 30 years ago made these moves routinely, I saw them often. You would have got in trouble for touching genitalia even then, but men would grab women in two places quite often.

I have no idea how old you are, I'm just reporting observations 30-50 years back. I never said I approved it or practiced it.

Biden touched Reed, that's for sure. Where did he touch her?

Wiki: In April 2019, Reade came forward with an allegation that in 1993 Joe Biden touched her in a way that made her “feel uncomfortable” during his time as a Senator for Delaware.[3] In March of 2020, she revealed that the allegation was instead a case of sexual assault.[4]

Where's your evidence other than it was common with males? Are you seriously saying "all males"?

Look at the PBS piece.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is rather surprising. It seems that we should be looking at a woman’s reputation. That discrediting her because “she’s a liar,” “she’s a party girl,” “she sleeps around,” etc is not only acceptable, but necessary.

We should certainly listen to her but if she proves to be unreliable -because she’s a prostitute, she has been convicted of theft (heck, someone alleges she stole something), she has a history of manipulating people- these are all good reasons to discredit her.

And here I thought we were supposed to be trying to be better than this.

Who in this thread did the highlighted? You are conflating the old arguments made against women who were raped. No one here said any of those old stereotypical things to discredit Reade.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Who in this thread did the highlighted? You are conflating the old arguments made against women who were raped. No one here said any of those old stereotypical things to discredit Reade.

Only the best and newest arguments are being made against women who were raped here.

 

[wareyin]

I’m an employee and I don’t operate that way. I look at the record. In the case of a diverted bad check, there would be no record to see. I don’t call up her old employer and dig for gossip. I don’t scan Facebook for signs she might be unreliable.

I look at what is actually there.

In Reade’s case, there’s nothing there. Why do we need to tear her down? Why isn’t it enough that there is no evidence?

You are claiming that as an employer you do not contact the previous employers of your prospective employee? Your organization does no background check whatsoever on a prospective employee? You just take what they write on their resume/application (whatever your process is) as gospel? Ok, sure, I'm not going to accuse you of lying to try to make a point. But that's not common.

And we've already been over why one has to examine credibility if there is no evidence. Over and over, with examples from law, society, and personal lives. But you claim to also make no attempt to determine how credible anyone is when they tell you they didn't break your weed-eater it was already broken, or when they need to borrow money, etc.

If you never asses credibility as an employer, when lending your goods or money, or when attempting to determine something when you have no direct evidence either way, then I doubt anyone will be able to convince you that credibility matters. I'd venture that if you are telling the truth, you're being ripped off a lot and likely have people working for you who are not qualified to do their jobs. I believe you're in the medical field, so I certainly hope having unqualified people working for you hasn't caused a catastrophe yet.