[Tiste Simeon]

Cause, on 15 September 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

I imagine it will be very hard to abuse actually. Also if he did he would be smacked hard.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the administration to "smack hard" based on how often they've not done that so far...

[Tapper]

Tiste Simeon, on 15 September 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Cause, on 15 September 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

I imagine it will be very hard to abuse actually. Also if he did he would be smacked hard.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the administration to "smack hard" based on how often they've not done that so far...

The government would likely be sued if they abused it in such a blatant way.

[Slow Ben]

Tapper, on 16 September 2018 - 08:16 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 15 September 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Cause, on 15 September 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

I imagine it will be very hard to abuse actually. Also if he did he would be smacked hard.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the administration to "smack hard" based on how often they've not done that so far...

The government would likely be sued if they abused it in such a blatant way.

Well its a damn good thing we're going to have upstanding judges in the highest court in the land then.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

[HoosierDaddy]

I hate how pathetic Ds are now. The Republicans could give a lesser fuck about anything other than winning every. little. skirmish.

[worry]

*This isn't another response to BK saying he liked Brock, it just happens to be today's news about how despicable every last one of these admin creeps is. They would desecrate as many human lives as it took to please their dumbass boss. Which is, now that I think of it, one of the GOP's bedrock philosophies.

[worry]

Speaking of, in light of the woman who survived Brett Kavanaugh's rape attempt being forced to come forward to defend her word, how telling is this sentiment?:

[Aptorian]

I hate to be that guy but it's an alleged rape attempt.

It's a story that should be taken serious but also an allegation that needs supporting evidence to have merit in the present.

At this point it feels like the democrats are just desperately throwing anything and everyone at Kavenaugh hoping that something sticks.

I find the gambling issues have more weight as a weak point.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 16 September 2018 - 08:30 PM

[worry]

You don't hate to be that guy. Why say so?

[Aptorian]

Because Kavenaugh is innocent until proven guilty? Because the woman's recollection is very hazy because it happened 30 years ago? Because this could just be a made up story to prevent a controversial judge from being elected? Could the woman have a personal or political investment in, oh let's say ... abortion rights?

Who knows.

We've had this discussion before in the me too thread. Just because an accusation is made, does not mean you should skip right to concluding that the accused is actually at fault or guilty. It's okay to wait and see whether more info comes out.

None of us wants a shady judge to get elected but that doesn't mean you have to believe the man is capable of anything just because he's the GOP's pick.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 16 September 2018 - 08:53 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Not that much of a stretch though, just like it's not much of a stretch to believe that they'll be doing all they can to get rid of anything remotely evidential and doing their best to help him get away with it.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it.

[Aptorian]

Sure. But this is a guy who has been vetted numerous times before, right? And, as far as I know anyway, Kavanaugh doesn't have a record of sexual misconduct.

This was a private letter, leaked by the democrats. It's hard not to look at this as a political attack, rather than some appeal to the morals of the court.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 16 September 2018 - 09:19 PM

[worry]

That's the thing though. Every argument along that line reduces every accusation of sexual assault to he said she said and pretends that that's the neutral perspective until we get the smoking gun. But what evidence tells us is that the vast, vast, vast majority of accusers are telling the truth, even though the likelihood of perpetrators experiencing consequences are slim. And evidence also tells us that the majority of victims never make accusations in the first place. The pool of 'innocent' people being accused is infinitesimal.


So we have to regularly pretend that people make these accusations for motivations other than them being true, I guess? And what are those motivations? Where are the people who have benefited from duplicitously making these accusations? What other crime reports are even remotely close to being doubted in the same proportions?


Have you read her account of the assault and its aftermath? That it "derailed" her life for half a decade. That in at least two therapy sessions dating back to 2012 and 2013, she described the assault and it's corroborated in the therapist's notes from those sessions. That she sent the letter to two congresswomen months ago, right after the nomination, and they held back on the information at her request because she knew it was likely futile and she'd simply be revictimized and torn apart in public for nothing.


Where is your 'supporting evidence' for any of this?:

Quote

Because Kavenaugh is innocent until proven guilty? Because thw woman's recollection is very hazy because it happened 30 years ago? Because this could just be a made up story to prevent a controversial judge from being elected? Could the woman have a personal or political investment in, oh let's say ... abortion rights?

Looks to me like speculation based on nothing but protecting one man's reputation for some reason. Against all evidence we have about why women accuse men of sexual assault and what happens to the women in the fallout. I know you're not American, but Americans all remember what happened to Anita Hill. Ultimately, what you suggest is way, waaaaaaaaay deeper in the realm of fantasy than Ms. Ford's accusation, and the only reason we pretend it's the more responsible position is because men prefer it that way.

[Aptorian]

Damn, worry. You're saying that rape cases and social judgement needs only be based on the word of the accuser? What kind of presedence does that set? Not just for sexual assault but for the justice system in general!? What happens down that Timeline when we no longer require evidence?

I am well aware of the statistics on reported and prosecuted rape cases but statistics aren't evidence. Statistically black men in America are more likely to be involved in violent crime than for example white men. So should we just lock them up and shoot first? Statistically most men or women don't rape other citizens.

If there's a problem with getting women (or men)
to come forth about their assault and getting rape charges to stick, then that's a societal issues that needs to be improved but you don't just take the accusers words at face value. That's insane. I don't care if you're a man or a woman, such a situation should worry you.

This accusation comes in the wake of the nomination of a judge in an incredibly controversial period of politics in America. Leaked by the Democrats. This isn't speculation. This is suspicious. Doesn't matter whether the Democrats are the "good guys".

I don't care how gruesome the (vague) details of the woman's account is. Anybody could rehearse and design a good story, even a respected professor. Especially if you thought perjury was worth preventing Kavanaughs election.

Step back. Look at the facts. The only supporting evidence is a consultation with a therapist in which Kavanaugh is not mentioned. If the other guy in the room steps forward or if more women come forward with similar stories I'll believe there's reason to act.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 17 September 2018 - 05:29 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

The thing is Apt it's possible to take the victims word without making the offender a criminal. We do it all the time. In British policing if a woman comes forward and says she has been raped we take that as the case until it can be proven otherwise, either through lack of evidence, the court case not going through or any number of other things.

It doesn't always mean that the accused will get any kind of justice or even that they will get arrested (very dependent on the circumstances!) bit you can be sure we'll take the victim and take it very seriously.

In this case, Kavaunagh should really step back and say "I completely deny all accusations but I'm going to allow our justice system to work as prove me right, and as such I'll remove myself from the public eye until the investigation is complete." It'll never happen of course.

But to do otherwise is exactly why people are so afraid to come forward in the first place.

[Aptorian]

Okay, this I agree with. Like I said above, an accusation should be taken serious.

Of course it should be investigated but then I think the objections I've seen from the republicans also make sense. The Dems should have come forward with this earlier.

Now it looks like a delay tactic rather than a matter of ethical concern. Meanwhile this woman is going to have her life turned upside down by the media in the hopes of a hail mary.

[worry]

Brett Kavanaugh wasn't arrested and he's not on trial. So what I am saying is that the standard we hold courts to -- "innocent until proven guilty" -- isn't a balanced framework. Courts are ostensibly held to a very high standard -- as they should be -- because the consequence is a government putting a person inside a cage. That's not the standard -- especially given the vast ocean of evidence that suggests false accusations are rare -- that people should use when deciding to believe an accusation. It's not neutral, it's not objective, it's not remotely reasonable to start at 'he said / she said' and throw your hands up, because it is much much much more likely that she's telling the truth than that she isn't. So start there.

After that, of course, weigh what you know to be the case: her story isn't particularly vague imo, it hasn't changed over the years, and (just to be clear) the fact that Kavanaugh's name isn't in the notes is a matter of ethics on behalf of the therapist, not a matter of her not saying the name at the time. Her husband has stated (the 2012 session was couples therapy) that he recalls her naming Kavanaugh back then, not just in retrospect. I would also note that she took a polygraph test with an FBI agent and passed, which again wouldn't be admissible in court, but this isn't a court. On the other hand, Kavanaugh has perjured himself several times just during the past week, not to mention hearings of the past. We know, for a fact, that he is a liar even under oath.

While some Dems may have leaked it, they didn't exactly fish for it in the first place. She sent the letter of her own concern, and internally battled with its publication since. On the other hand, Kavanaugh produced a list *overnight* of 65 women dating back from high school in order to act as character recommendations. It means nothing to those who aren't already aiming to believe him, of course, but it's also kind of a weird thing to do in the first place and imo beggars belief that it really was gathered over one night. In what universe do you see a guy produce a "dozens of women I haven't assaulted" list he had handy and think -- yeah, that really clears up my suspicions?

Ultimately, though, I reject the notion all together that we shouldn't take her accusation at face value. She was there, she experienced it, she remembers the hand over her mouth when she tried to scream, and she described the event with all the eloquence and horror one could expect to hear. She's told her story, and it's either the truth or a lie. We already know that liars exist, and sometimes they lie about serious things. But this is one of those things people rarely lie about, especially in public against a powerful person they have little to no chance of affecting, especially when the outcome for themselves is going to be re-traumatizing from the attempted rape she survived, on top of the fresh hell of being raked over the coals by professional conservatives on every network and in every newspaper. So it's not 50/50. It's very, very, very unlikely that she is lying. You ask about the precedent of believing an accuser at face value as if the status quo isn't believing the denier at face value, even though -- as we've already both discussed several times over -- they're much more likely to be lying. So what precedent does your suspicion, your doubt, set? I guess none, since it's already the reality millions of women (and other victims) are already living.

[worry]

That might be tl;dr, but I'm not sure how not to be wordy about this, sorry.

[Aptorian]

Tl;dr is better than 140 letter tweets.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this statistics thing but you do make some good points about Kavanaugh. He does seem shady. But the emphasis for me us on the burden of proof.

Just because you're a liar doesn't make you a rapist. And the fact that he has a list of 65 women who say he never raped them (how crazy is that!) sounds weird but it's just the kind of preparation I'd expect from Americas political campaign managers. Be prepared for anything.

Does make you wonder though. Are there other women out there or were they aware of that letter the democrats had and prepared for an eventual release?

[Tiste Simeon]

I mean how does someone just decide to come up with a list of 65 women who say he's not raped them? Like why did they need it? I've never raped anyone so I guess I could give you a list of approx 3.5billion women who I've not raped...

[Silencer]

Tiste Simeon, on 17 September 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

I mean how does someone just decide to come up with a list of 65 women who say he's not raped them? Like why did they need it? I've never raped anyone so I guess I could give you a list of approx 3.5billion women who I've not raped...

I'll tell you how. It wasn't about rape originally. It was to offset the abortion thing. So I think it's an all purpose list of women who don't think he's an asshole more than anything.