Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Stacyhs]

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

Based on what exactly? Many experts on sexual assault have called her testimony credible.

It's also quite possible that Kav believes what he's saying regarding his drinking since he may not remember a lot of what he did while drunk. It's also possible that all those classmates who have come forward describing his heavy drinking and aggressive behavior while drunk could be lying too. It's possible they are all part of a years long Democrat conspiracy to 'get' Kavanaugh.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay the "Evil man-hating woman" character doesn't really fit this story.

I never said anything about man hating. Nothing in my argument requires or even implies that.

 

[Lambchops]

You are arguing with a poster who spent an extensive period of time claiming he had proof Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist and refusing to provide a shred of evidence. It's futile.

Oh. That must have been fun.

 

[Ziggurat]

Based on what exactly?

I already went through that in this very thread.

 

[Stacyhs]

I already went through that in this very thread.

Can you please tell me what post #? I'm checking in while making dinner.

 

[Belz...]

And you typed that instead of... nothing. Your point?

He doesn't have a point. He's just playing tag with Zig, helping out the latter's unreasonable request for evidence when the two threads on this topic are chock full of it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is no basis for comparison. The GOP has demonstrably and categorically abandoned just about every value they have ever laid claim to. (They might have missed a couple, but I can't think of what they might be.)

They haven't even bothered to pretend otherwise. They now seem to think it is some sort of virtue.

As false equivalencies go, your assertion is a whopper.

And this is why "Our only standard is 'better than the other side' and we consider the 'other side' to be inhuman trash" is such a bad philosophy. Anything that isn't pure tribalism is a "false equivalency."

But this has hijacked this thread, nebulously topic-ed as it maybe, enough.

And to be 100% open I don't mean that as a way to get the last word in. You're not wrong in that walking the line between "Fair and balanced" and "False equivalency" is not easy. I disagree with you, but there certainly is nuance and POV differences to legit be discussed here.

Again all of this goes away if you just don't have sides but apparently that is literally impossible for people to get onboard with so I'm gonna have to try some way to speak everyone else's language.

But this probably needs its own thread.

 

[Belz...]

Taking down Kavanaugh. Possibly making money like Anita Hill did.

How, by writing a book? She's not getting a dime from Kavanaugh.

Becoming a liberal hero.

That's crazy talk.

You just tried to heckle an argument other people were having.

This is a public discussion forum. He's allowed to chime in, and his point stands: you made an assertion without evidence, he said that you're wrong without evidence. You're even.

 

[Belz...]

Based on what exactly? Many experts on sexual assault have called her testimony credible.

Yeah but experts are wrong sometimes, so that justifies laymen making up their own uninformed minds about it.

In any case, this is a diversion. The allegations are now irrelevant. Kavanaugh has made them so in his unhinged defense. Had he taken the high ground, it might have just fizzled out.

Oh. That must have been fun.

Oh, don't get me started on that. Zig hates it when I bring it up.

 

[quadraginta]

You say that like you know he committed perjury. But you don’t actually know that.

Do you believe that Kavanaugh never suffered from any sort of memory impairment at all from excessive alcohol consumption during his high school years?

Because his testimonial denial of that was pretty unequivocal. Even in the face of the sort of extreme pedantry that conservatives like to engage in when defending the indefensible. No twisting of his series of short and categorical "No"s to Mitchell's questions can accomplish that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Premature to ask. We don't know how this ends. At the very least we have to see whether Kavanaugh gets to the court, and what happens in mid term elections.

 

[fishbob]

. . .
Ford isn't remotely credible and is only getting attention because of the Democrats . . . .

Zig.
Zig, Zig, Zig, Zig, Zig.

Partisanship over humanity is pretty embarrassing to watch.

 

[Ziggurat]

How, by writing a book?

That's how Hill made $1 million. Plus speaking fees, that can also be quite lucrative.

That's crazy talk.

Is it? Hill is a liberal hero.

This is a public discussion forum. He's allowed to chime in

Sure, which is one reason why I wouldn't report that post. But his chiming in was still pointless and contributes nothing, and I'm allowed to point that out.

and his point stands: you made an assertion without evidence, he said that you're wrong without evidence. You're even.

That's not actually how discussion works. Not everything people say needs a citation. If someone makes a claim that you don't believe and you want a citation, then you ask for one. If you think it's simply false, then you should offer a counter-claim or reasoning, not just a nay-saying. So no, his point does not stand, we aren't even, and you're not actually being honest about any of this.

 

[Lurch]

And the clear answer is no, there is not enough here. There's nothing here other than completely unsubstantiated accusations.

And ponder for a moment what that means for future nominations if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify a candidate. What incentives do you think that puts in place? How do you think people will respond to such an incentive structure?

The lesson to learn...

Why are the allegations unsubstantiated, and significant questions unanswered?

In good measure because the Rs demanded a hearing:
- Without extending the FBI background check!
- Without hearing from other witnesses!
- Without having any documentation admitted!

They plowed ahead at speed in order to *ignore* anything that may that be corroborative of Ford. They *set up* the hearing specifically so that no clarification could attend. The *aim* was to keep it to a he said/she said situation.

 

[Lambchops]

That's how Hill made $1 million. Plus speaking fees, that can also be quite lucrative.



Is it? Hill is a liberal hero.



Sure, which is one reason why I wouldn't report that post. But his chiming in was still pointless and contributes nothing, and I'm allowed to point that out.



That's not actually how discussion works. Not everything people say needs a citation. If someone makes a claim that you don't believe and you want a citation, then you ask for one. If you think it's simply false, then you should offer a counter-claim or reasoning, not just a nay-saying. So no, his point does not stand, we aren't even, and you're not actually being honest about any of this.

Yes, we are even.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you believe that Kavanaugh never suffered from any sort of memory impairment at all from excessive alcohol consumption during his high school years?

Because his testimonial denial of that was pretty unequivocal. Even in the face of the sort of extreme pedantry that conservatives like to engage in when defending the indefensible. No twisting of his series of short and categorical "No"s to Mitchell's questions can accomplish that.

Being blackout drunk is different than "any sort of memory impairment at all". It doesn't mean that your memories are a little fuzzier, a little less clear. It means that you have NO memories from a certain period.

I've been drunk a number of times. I've been blackout drunk only once. The distinction is quite dramatic. There was absolutely no ambiguity about it for me. Lots of people get drunk, repeatedly, without ever becoming blackout drunk.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony on that point. No evidence has been offered to contradict his testimony on that point.

 

[Ziggurat]

The lesson to learn...

Why are the allegations unsubstantiated, and significant questions unanswered?

In good measure because the Rs demanded a hearing:
- Without extending the FBI background check!
- Without hearing from other witnesses!
- Without having any documentation admitted!

What documentation do you imagine exists regarding Ford's accusations? As for extending the background check, blame Feinstein. She could have brought this up at the beginning of the process. Why should she be rewarded for this supremely unethical behavior with further delays? And what exactly do you imagine the FBI can discover? There's nothing to go on.

Oh, and they HAVE heard from every other alleged witness. All of them deny any knowledge of any such events. I say "alleged witness" because there cannot be any witnesses if it didn't happen.

 

[Belz...]

That's how Hill made $1 million. Plus speaking fees, that can also be quite lucrative.

Indeed.

Is it? Hill is a liberal hero.

Is she? How do you define "liberal hero", then?

Sure, which is one reason why I wouldn't report that post.

Why would you report that post, though?

That's not actually how discussion works. Not everything people say needs a citation. If someone makes a claim that you don't believe and you want a citation, then you ask for one. If you think it's simply false, then you should offer a counter-claim or reasoning, not just a nay-saying.

No, you can just ask for evidence or point out flippantly that the person has none. That's how discussion works, quite often.

 

[acbytesla]

What statement do you think was perjury?

Which statement do you think wasn't?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is she? How do you define "liberal hero", then?

Lots of people look up to her, admire her, seek out her counsel. Is this honestly a mystery to you?

Why would you report that post, though?

I wouldn't report that post. I might report other posts for violations of the membership agreement, but I never suggested that post did, nor would I report a post that I did not feel violated the membership agreement.

No, you can just ask for evidence or point out flippantly that the person has none. That's how discussion works, quite often.

Evidence?