Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Joods]

I am not making anything up. I went off your post and your words. Anyone can see it for themselves. And you still can't even admit that you have no issues with men waiting decades Vs women. Because that is exactly what your post implies

[RoadRunner79]

I am not making anything up. I went off your post and your words. Anyone can see it for themselves. And you still can't even admit that you have no issues with men waiting decades Vs women. Because that is exactly what your post implies

Nope! I wasn’t referencing that or making any comments that the word of men is different than that of a women. As I said you missed the point.

---

Perhaps you should read all of the post, before flying off into a tizzy.

[Amarok]

I am not making anything up. I went off your post and your words. Anyone can see it for themselves. And you still can't even admit that you have no issues with men waiting decades Vs women. Because that is exactly what your post implies

So standard Road

[Joods]

Nope!  I wasn’t  referencing that or making any comments that the word of men is different than that of a women. As I said you missed the point.

---

Perhaps you should read all of the post, before flying off into a tizzy.

Here is your entire post (#9 in this thread): 

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Emphasis mine. 

You are speaking directly about Christine Ford, the woman who has come out and said what Kavanaugh did to her 40 years ago. That is largely in keeping with the point of this thread topic. It is about Kavanaugh and his accuser.

Clearly YOU have an issue with this particular woman coming out decades after an incident and saying something. If you didn't, you wouldn't have felt compelled to preface that paragraph with "And all of the sudden". You aren't in her corner. You aren't saying she was right to come out. You say nothing of the sort. Your paragraph above does NOT in any way show any sort of support for the claim she's making. In fact, you're really complaining about what she did. 

The part I bolded is misogynistic in its very nature because for a number of posts now, I have made comparisons about how evidently, to some people it's this horrible thing for a woman to come out and talk about sexual abuse from decades ago. but when hundreds of men come forward with claims of sexual abuse by priests, which is also decades old, those same people bitching about Kavanaugh's accuser, are okay with taking the men's claims at face value. You refuse to address this. You don't dare say the same thing about the men that you said about Kavanaugh's accuser. Instead, you try to strawman and blameshift your way out of it by saying that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying and I see right through it. 

Was your first post in this thread about those men? Of course not. I brought it up as a comparison because you were essentially shaming this woman for how long it took her to speak up. You refuse to acknowledge any of that. So clearly, you have double standards. Your silence on the matter of the men waiting decades until they reported, speaks volumes. 

And your continued refusal to at least read what I've said about such comparison, leads me to believe that you strongly support those men and the lengthy amount of time it took for them to step forward and say something but to hell with Kavanaugh's accuser. She's a woman and she should have reported it right away because she must have some sort of agenda to have waited until now. That is the narrative that you are speaking of, amirite? I like how you didn't give an explanation of what that narrative was. Gave yourself plenty of room to back peddle in case someone caught you shaming this woman.

[John V]

Nope!  I wasn’t  referencing that or making any comments that the word of men is different than that of a women. As I said you missed the point.

---

Perhaps you should read all of the post, before flying off into a tizzy.

Here is your entire post (#9 in this thread): 

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Emphasis mine. 

You are speaking directly about Christine Ford, the woman who has come out and said what Kavanaugh did to her 40 years ago. That is largely in keeping with the point of this thread topic. It is about Kavanaugh and his accuser.

No, at that point to his knowledge the accuser hadn't come forth. You bolded it yourself.

Clearly YOU have an issue with this particular woman coming out decades after an incident and saying something.

Looks more like he had an issue with a Senator putting forth anonymous hearsay, as he said.

If you didn't, you wouldn't have felt compelled to preface that paragraph with "And all of the sudden".

As Feinstein kept it secret all through the vetting process, it was indeed all of a sudden. It was obviously held back for political purposes.

You aren't in her corner. You aren't saying she was right to come out. You say nothing of the sort. Your paragraph above does NOT in any way show any sort of support for the claim she's making. In fact, you're really complaining about what she did.

Anonymous hearsay doesn't have a corner.

The part I bolded is misogynistic in its very nature because for a number of posts now, I have made comparisons about how evidently, to some people it's this horrible thing for a woman to come out and talk about sexual abuse from decades ago. but when hundreds of men come forward with claims of sexual abuse by priests, which is also decades old, those same people bitching about Kavanaugh's accuser, are okay with taking the men's claims at face value. You refuse to address this. You don't dare say the same thing about the men that you said about Kavanaugh's accuser. Instead, you try to strawman and blameshift your way out of it by saying that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying and I see right through it.

Most people take accusations from multiple sources more seriously than a single charge. It would seem unusual to me that a man would commit a sexual assault, get away with it, and then never do it again. Usually such people feel empowered to continue to do so. When people come out with a #metoo charge against a particular person, it's usually followed by similar charges from several others who have no apparent reason to collude. We don't have that with Kavanaugh at this point. 

Was your first post in this thread about those men? Of course not. I brought it up as a comparison because you were essentially shaming this woman for how long it took her to speak up. You refuse to acknowledge any of that. So clearly, you have double standards. Your silence on the matter of the men waiting decades until they reported, speaks volumes.

In these cases, the testimony is stronger evidence if it was reported to others contemporaneously. You know that. It's not shaming to note that this accusation is weaker because it's old and hadn't been contemporaneously reported.

He's right, you're really reading in a lot that isn't there.

[RoadRunner79]

amirite? I like how you didn't give an explanation of what that narrative was. Gave yourself plenty of room to back peddle in case someone caught you shaming this woman.

Nope... still wrong; probably because you don't listen, and just keep calling me a liar. Which is also related, to why I don't feel the need to engage with these arguments of your imagination. You keep presuming to add things that I didn't say, and then act like i'm dishonest when reality doesn't match what is only in your head. Actually, with your need to keep making this a woman vs man thing, is starting to feel a bit sexist.

[Aroura]

Not to defend RR, but the way I read that post of his was more a dig at how we, as atheists, don't take personal testimony of God as evidence but take this personal testimony of this woman as evidence, than as a dig at Ford.  It was a dig at atheists.  Wrongly, he's misrepresenting the entire argument over personal testimony, but that's besides the point.

Not that I think he's being reasonable on the issue, just saying what I read into that comment.

As far as RR reply that Joods is making it a woman vs man thing, you have to be able to get into someone else's headspace to understand what is happening in this conversation.  Not just between RR and joods, but on a national level.

It has become apparent that, in fact, people who make sesual assault claims are far more likely to be punished in some way (not legally, but by society at large), than the person they are accusing.  It so happens that most victims are women.  It also so happens that most people getting away with assault are men.  It also so happens that some people, more than you might realize, have personal experience of being abused by a man, and might become more emotionally invested in a story of a women getting death threats for making an accusation, while the man who might indeed be an attempted rapist, becomes a Supreme Court Justice.

Brock Turner was caught in the act of violating a woman. There was no doubt of his guilt.  Still, there was more concern shown for ruining his life with punishment for his crime than there was for the life he had damaged by committing the crime.

I know many folks don't believe in micro-aggressions, but if someone has been injured, or is close to someone who has, or has simply repeatedly watched victims get the shaft while known assaulters walk away nearly unscathed, then every word you say in even mild defense or dismissal of the people or culture that leads to that harmful behavior will hurt that person.

Yeah, you might get an unwarranted amount of anger because you are a man.  That is because you are using very careful waffling language, instead of outright condemning the behavior.  Note that no one is attacking the males in the thread that outright condemning, only those that are hemming and hawing, and therefore supporting rape culture.

I probably shouldn't be in this thread, but I felt that there is a certain disregard for the sheer volume of this behavior, and how that affects people's responses to it.

[RoadRunner79]

Not to defend RR, but the way I read that post of his was more a dig at how we, as atheists, don't take personal testimony of God as evidence but take this personal testimony of this woman as evidence, than as a dig at Ford.  It was a dig at atheists.  Wrongly, he's misrepresenting the entire argument over personal testimony, but that's besides the point.

Not that I think he's being reasonable on the issue, just saying what I read into that comment.

As far as RR reply that Joods is making it a woman vs man thing, you have to be able to get into someone else's headspace to understand what is happening in this conversation.  Not just between RR and joods, but on a national level.

It has become apparent that, in fact, people who make sesual assault claims are far more likely to be punished in some way (not legally, but by society at large), than the person they are accusing.  It so happens that most victims are women.  It also so happens that most people getting away with assault are men.  It also so happens that some people, more than you might realize, have personal experience of being abused by a man, and might become more emotionally invested in a story of a women getting death threats for making an accusation, while the man who might indeed be an attempted rapist, becomes a Supreme Court Justice.

Brock Turner was caught in the act of violating a woman. There was no doubt of his guilt.  Still, there was more concern shown for ruining his life with punishment for his crime than there was for the life he had damaged by committing the crime.

I know many folks don't believe in micro-aggressions, but if someone has been injured, or is close to someone who has, or has simply repeatedly watched victims get the shaft while known assaulters walk away nearly unscathed, then every word you say in even mild defense or dismissal of the people or culture that leads to that harmful behavior will hurt that person.

Yeah, you might get an unwarranted amount of anger because you are a man.  That is because you are using very careful waffling language, instead of outright condemning the behavior.  Note that no one is attacking the males in the thread that outright condemning, only those that are hemming and hawing, and therefore supporting rape culture.

I probably shouldn't be in this thread, but I felt that there is a certain disregard for the sheer volume of this behavior, and how that affects people's responses to it.

I have condemned those who are shaming the woman, based on little information.   I condemn those who instantly dismiss her as lying.  I think that she should be given opportunity to be heard, if she desires, and feel safe doing so.   I also think that for the one accused should be afforded the same.  Due process, and innocent until proven guilty seem to be legal terms apt to the situation.  I have said similar and nothing otherwise.  I don't think that this woman should be getting death threats, nor do I think that Kavenaugh and his family should either.  It's possible that she is telling the truth, it's possible that she has mistaken some things, and it is possible that the accused is telling the truth as well and is being railroaded for political purposes.  And I'm mostly waffeling, because when corrected, the poster just twists my words more, interjects their own narrative, and calls me a liar.  Under such circumstances, I don't feel compelled to add more for them to dismiss and distort.

How do you think that I am misrepresenting the arguments over personal testimony?  It seems that many do not consider testimony as evidence, in any circumstance.   If that is true, then this particular case is over before it began.  Is testimony evidence?   Is it only evidence when it supports what you want or already believe?  In any case, if one is consistent in their reasoning the same would apply here.... right?

[Angrboda]

You seem to read a lot in to my posts, Jor. My stance hasn't 'moderated'. It is the same as before. The Democratic politicians have in the past and are now exploiting these allegations of sexual misconduct to slander Republican nominees.  I do not care what motivated Hill or Ford. I clearly said, with respect to Ford, I believe that she probably believes her story.

What does the phrase "unfounded slander" mean to you? I know what the common usage means. If it means something other than false allegations then say so. And if you're not saying the allegations are false, in what way is having them heard and investigated "exploitation" ? What do you mean by slander? If I have misunderstood you, then explain your real meaning. Otherwise you're just doubling down on politically motivated allegations. You claim that Ms. Blasey Ford "believes her story." That's a rather odd way of saying that you don't know whether her story is true or not. If you don't know whether her story is true or not, what do you mean by calling it unfounded slander? If you don't believe that either Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford's charges are false, then I'm asking you to retract your claim that they were unfounded slander. In that case, the only point you're making is that the timing of the allegations was inconvenient. And I'll remind you that the committee knew Ms. Hill's allegations a month before they did anything. So, ultimately, what you mean by "exploitation" is that Ms. Hill's charges were not convenient for Thomas' nomination simply because of their content. If so, how is that not judging something based upon your narrow self interest as a conservative? So you can walk back the "exploitation" claim as well. Otherwise, you're just confirming everything that I said.

I'll tell you what I see, Neo, and you can either confirm or deny it. I see you using emotionally loaded words as propaganda to undermine the accusations leveled against Thomas and Kavanaugh, and then trying to claim innocence when you are called on it. If not, then simply retract your claim and substitute that you thought that charges concerning past actions of these men was inconvenient for their nomination, or words to that effect. Otherwise you're the one guilty of making unsupported allegations, and doing so, attempting to undermine their accusers, simply out of a politically motivated desire.

ex·ploi·ta·tion, noun

1. the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

[Aroura]

Not to defend RR, but the way I read that post of his was more a dig at how we, as atheists, don't take personal testimony of God as evidence but take this personal testimony of this woman as evidence, than as a dig at Ford.  It was a dig at atheists.  Wrongly, he's misrepresenting the entire argument over personal testimony, but that's besides the point.

Not that I think he's being reasonable on the issue, just saying what I read into that comment.

As far as RR reply that Joods is making it a woman vs man thing, you have to be able to get into someone else's headspace to understand what is happening in this conversation.  Not just between RR and joods, but on a national level.

It has become apparent that, in fact, people who make sesual assault claims are far more likely to be punished in some way (not legally, but by society at large), than the person they are accusing.  It so happens that most victims are women.  It also so happens that most people getting away with assault are men.  It also so happens that some people, more than you might realize, have personal experience of being abused by a man, and might become more emotionally invested in a story of a women getting death threats for making an accusation, while the man who might indeed be an attempted rapist, becomes a Supreme Court Justice.

Brock Turner was caught in the act of violating a woman. There was no doubt of his guilt.  Still, there was more concern shown for ruining his life with punishment for his crime than there was for the life he had damaged by committing the crime.

I know many folks don't believe in micro-aggressions, but if someone has been injured, or is close to someone who has, or has simply repeatedly watched victims get the shaft while known assaulters walk away nearly unscathed, then every word you say in even mild defense or dismissal of the people or culture that leads to that harmful behavior will hurt that person.

Yeah, you might get an unwarranted amount of anger because you are a man.  That is because you are using very careful waffling language, instead of outright condemning the behavior.  Note that no one is attacking the males in the thread that outright condemning, only those that are hemming and hawing, and therefore supporting rape culture.

I probably shouldn't be in this thread, but I felt that there is a certain disregard for the sheer volume of this behavior, and how that affects people's responses to it.

I have condemned those who are shaming the woman, based on little information.   I condemn those who instantly dismiss her as lying.  I think that she should be given opportunity to be heard, if she desires, and feel safe doing so.   I also think that for the one accused should be afforded the same.  Due process, and innocent until proven guilty seem to be legal terms apt to the situation.  I have said similar and nothing otherwise.  I don't think that this woman should be getting death threats, nor do I think that Kavenaugh and his family should either.  It's possible that she is telling the truth, it's possible that she has mistaken some things, and it is possible that the accused is telling the truth as well and is being railroaded for political purposes.  And I'm mostly waffeling, because when corrected, the poster just twists my words more, interjects their own narrative, and calls me a liar.  Under such circumstances, I don't feel compelled to add more for them to dismiss and distort.

How do you think that I am misrepresenting the arguments over personal testimony?  It seems that many do not consider testimony as evidence, in any circumstance.   If that is true, then this particular case is over before it began.  Is testimony evidence?   Is it only evidence when it supports what you want or already believe?  In any case, if one is consistent in their reasoning the same would apply here.... right?

It is evidence when there is supporting evidence, including circumstantial.

There is also a distinction between what a court of law will accept, what a scientist would accept, and what a laymen would accept. To act as if they are all the same, or as if an argument against one is an argument against all, isn't fair or honest. Extraordinary claims.... You know this already.

For instance, if my friend says her husband bought her a necklace for their anniversary, I would take her word for it without demanding the necklace as proof because I know that she is generally honest, that she likes jewelry, that her husband has given her similar gifts in the past, etc.

If I had a friend that had a habit of telling tall tales that then told me her husband bought her an Elephant, I would have every reason to doubt.

If a perfect stranger tells me the same story with a necklace, it's still a pretty common story, so I'd likely still accept it. It also has little consequence of I'm wrong. A Stranger tells me the same story about an elephant, that's pretty extraordinary, so I'm going to have serious doubts without seeing some back up evidence.

In this particular instance, we weight what we know. Just like always. What we know is a professional woman with everything to lose by going public, has told this story before not just to family but to a therapist years ago, and exhibits other behavior that actually supports her story. She began as an anonymous accuser, also very common, and only came out publicly when her attacker might attain one of the highest and most influential offices in the entire world, and she was pressured into it.

Victims of sexual crimes usually don't come forward right away, this is well documented human behavior. The cry of "why didn't she come forward earlier" is both ignorant and victim blaming.
She is willing to testify to the FBI, and has actually requested to do so. She's passed a lie detector test, which I admit can be fooled, but it isn't completely meaningless when taken with everything else.

The man Ford claims was in the room denies the event, but is unwilling to talk to the FBI. Why?

Why did Kavanaugh have a statement of female high school credentials prepared? Why can the vast majority of those woman not be reached? There have been other character statement against Kavanaugh as well as those supporting him.

After waiting this long to appoint someone, why the sudden rush? Why not go through a hearing? It's a pretty important job. Shouldn't we be pretty sure he's not a rapist?

It's hard to prove most crimes. It's nearly impossible to prove sexual assault even if it's freshly committed. Even when the person is caught red handed, they often get off freely while the victims life is ruined. Asking for proof in this case is unreasonable. We have to determine what is most probable.

Saying you have condemned certain behaviors then, which I acknowledge you indeed have done in this thread, comes across as mere lip service when followed with equal weight that this "might be politically motivated".

The evidence is far more than just one person's testimony. Equating it to that is below you, RR.

I think you are reasonable and that you don't actually support or even dismiss this sort of terrible behaviour on purpose. Also that you do tend to realize most of this, but feel politically guilted into adding the bit about possible political motivation. Is it possible? Sure, lots of things are, but given what we know, is it possible enough to even mention it when that mention invalidates a probable sexual assault?

I would say No.

I will let you give your own answer and not put words in your mouth.