(October 13, 2018 at 10:59 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 2:29 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: From a purely political perspective, there is no correlation between the personal virtue and effective governance. This has been proven time and time again throughout history and around the world. It does not figure into my calculus of who should hold political power.

From a purely moral perspective, truly wicked people are sometimes capable of reformation and even who have depraved histories can potentially be forgiven and trusted again by showing contrition and seeking restoration. Again, this has been proven time and time again throughout history and around the world.

That said, IF it could be shown that Kavaugh had indeed sexually assaulted Ford, then his denial would indeed be disqualifying, not because of what he did 40 years ago; but rather, because of a current lack of contriteness. As it stands however his guilt has not even been remotely demonstrated. We have only competing claims.

Lol, it's funny how the left and right Willy nilly switch positions on this depending on circumstances. When Clinton was being impeached morality was super important to the right and the left made your exact same argument. Now it's switched and whenever the next Democrat in power has imperft morality it switches back.

---

(October 13, 2018 at 10:59 am)Joods Wrote: I think it's the connotation, or the take away that is the issue. I believe people are taking what she said to mean that if you don't report, then it didn't happen.

If that was her intent, then she's wrong on so many levels.

Right. But I don't know what she means really. Her English isn't that good. You could read into it lots of things. Personally I'd be surprised if that was her intent. Unsurprisingly divinity read into it the most negative way possible.

I was going to mention that English isn't her first language but thought better of it. She's definitely her own woman, Melania, is and has taken a stand against her husband more than once.

(October 13, 2018 at 11:05 am)Joods Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 10:59 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Lol, it's funny how the left and right Willy nilly switch positions on this depending on circumstances. When Clinton was being impeached morality was super important to the right and the left made your exact same argument. Now it's switched and whenever the next Democrat in power has imperft morality it switches back.

---

Right. But I don't know what she means really. Her English isn't that good. You could read into it lots of things. Personally I'd be surprised if that was her intent. Unsurprisingly divinity read into it the most negative way possible.

I was going to mention that English isn't her first language but thought better of it. She's definitely her own woman, Melania, is and has taken a stand against her husband more than once.

Because on the inside she's probably grossed out by him. Just likes his 💰💰💰💰💰

(October 13, 2018 at 10:56 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm late to the thread, but I don't really see what's controversial about what she said. I mean, are we to start throwing people in jail without evidence? Since when did Atheists become so anti-evidence.

1) She urged people not to report to authorities if they don't have evidence. That's very different than throwing someone in jail. 
2) She's the FLOTUS, in a position of large influence, and underreporting of sexual assault is a huge problem. This directive isn't helping.
3) Sexual assaults quite often have almost no evidence, or no evidence at all. 
4) I am unsure how that makes atheists "anti" evidence.

(October 13, 2018 at 3:58 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 10:56 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm late to the thread, but I don't really see what's controversial about what she said. I mean, are we to start throwing people in jail without evidence? Since when did Atheists become so anti-evidence.

1) She urged people not to report to authorities if they don't have evidence. That's very different than throwing someone in jail. 
2) She's the FLOTUS, in a position of large influence, and underreporting of sexual assault is a huge problem. This directive isn't helping.
3) Sexual assaults quite often have almost no evidence, or no evidence at all. 
4) I am unsure how that makes atheists "anti" evidence.

I don't think 1 is accurate. Not based on the article linked. It's just what the thread title says. After that the rest of the points fall apart.
I'm not sure that 3 is accurate. 
People saying that 'we don't need evidence, we'll just believe what women say.' Seems to be to be the opposite of what I've been told as an Atheist for years, which places a lot of weight on evidence and little on testimonial evidence.

3 is accurate. There is quite often a lack of physical evidence in sexual assault. If you don't think so, why?

(October 14, 2018 at 2:59 pm)Mermaid Wrote: 3 is accurate. There is quite often a lack of physical evidence in sexual assault. If you don't think so, why?

It's a claim being made that requires some sort of statistical evidence. I know, hard to do since the majority of sexual assaults in the US go unreported. But unless there's something that can be looked at to determine if this claim can be asserted as a fact, then this will be a point of contention.

(October 14, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 14, 2018 at 2:59 pm)Mermaid Wrote: 3 is accurate. There is quite often a lack of physical evidence in sexual assault. If you don't think so, why?

It's a claim being made that requires some sort of statistical evidence. I know, hard to do since the majority of sexual assaults in the US go unreported. But unless there's something that can be looked at to determine if this claim can be asserted as a fact, then this will be a point of contention.

I guess I don't see this as refutable, it's just the nature of the crime. What evidence would Christine Ford have come up with if she reported it right away other than her account or those of witnesses? Witnesses are also very rare.
I reported my own rape right away. They did a rape kit on me, and although that kit was never tested that I know of, there was no physical evidence of sexual assault. Evidence that I'd had intercourse? Maybe. But raped?

(October 14, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(October 14, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Joods Wrote: It's a claim being made that requires some sort of statistical evidence. I know, hard to do since the majority of sexual assaults in the US go unreported. But unless there's something that can be looked at to determine if this claim can be asserted as a fact, then this will be a point of contention.

I guess I don't see this as refutable, it's just the nature of the crime. What evidence would Christine Ford have come up with if she reported it right away other than her account or those of witnesses? Witnesses are also very rare.
I reported my own rape right away. They did a rape kit on me, and although that kit was never tested that I know of, there was no physical evidence of sexual assault. Evidence that I'd had intercourse? Maybe. But raped?

Rape isn't the only thing that can leave evidence. 

I'd rather not get into specifics here, but I think anyone can figure it out that hairs and body fluids can be left behind in a number of circumstances. Not all contact with genitals has to be other genitals in order to leave behind evidence.

(October 14, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 14, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I guess I don't see this as refutable, it's just the nature of the crime. What evidence would Christine Ford have come up with if she reported it right away other than her account or those of witnesses? Witnesses are also very rare.
I reported my own rape right away. They did a rape kit on me, and although that kit was never tested that I know of, there was no physical evidence of sexual assault. Evidence that I'd had intercourse? Maybe. But raped?

Rape isn't the only thing that can leave evidence. 

I'd rather not get into specifics here, but I think anyone can figure it out that hairs and body fluids can be left behind in a number of circumstances. Not all contact with genitals has to be other genitals in order to leave behind evidence.

Hairs and body fluids are very often not left behind. I don't think we disagree on this and I don't mean to sound argumentative, I just feel that this is a very important concept.
Women are often not believed without "proof". And even then.

(October 14, 2018 at 4:16 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(October 14, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Joods Wrote: Rape isn't the only thing that can leave evidence. 

I'd rather not get into specifics here, but I think anyone can figure it out that hairs and body fluids can be left behind in a number of circumstances. Not all contact with genitals has to be other genitals in order to leave behind evidence.

Hairs and body fluids are very often not left behind.

That's a claim. Not a fact. Unless you have numbers to back this up, this will continue to be a point of contention here.