Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Angrboda]

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.

What do you mean by contemporaneous here? Is Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation less corroborated because her statements to her therapist occurred years after the fact rather than that very same year? What exactly is your standard here? How soon after a sexual assault must a woman come forward in order to be taken seriously?

[John V]

What do you mean by contemporaneous here?

The sooner after the incident the better. If she had told friends shortly thereafter and they came forward, her account would be stronger. Someone posted on FB that the incident was well known in the school. That would make her case stronger, but it has since been retracted.

Is Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation less corroborated because her statements to her therapist occurred years after the fact rather than that very same year?

Of course. Memory generally gets worse over time.

What exactly is your standard here?  How soon after a sexual assault must a woman come forward in order to be taken seriously?

False dichotomy. It's an all facts and circumstances situation.

[Angrboda]

Is Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation less corroborated because her statements to her therapist occurred years after the fact rather than that very same year?

Of course. Memory generally gets worse over time.

Are you, in this particular case, inclined to believe that significant details of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection of events years later to her therapist are sufficiently delayed to introduce serious doubt that either: a) a sexual assault took place, or b) that sexual assault was committed by judge Kavanaugh?

Regardless, I think you would agree that her recounting the incident in therapy is stronger corroboration than her testimony alone at this date. How much do you doubt the veracity of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection at the time she told her therapist?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Of course. Memory generally gets worse over time.

Are you, in this particular case, inclined to believe that significant details of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection of events years later to her therapist are sufficiently delayed to introduce serious doubt that either: a) a sexual assault took place, or b) that sexual assault was committed by judge Kavanaugh?

Regardless, I think you would agree that her recounting the incident in therapy is stronger corroboration than her testimony alone at this date.  How much do you doubt the veracity of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection at the time she told her therapist?

What you and Joods don't seem to understand is that, Alpha, RR & I, are trying not to make this issue about Ford; but rather, about the shameless way in which the Democrats are exploiting her. We are not trying to malign her character but the attempt by Democrats to yet again besmirch the exceptional reputation of a clearly qualified man.

[Silver]

What you and Joods don't seem to understand is that, Alpha, RR & I, are trying not to make this issue about Ford; but rather, about the shameless way in which the Democrats are exploiting her. We are not trying to malign her character but the attempt by Democrats to yet again besmirch the exceptional reputation of a clearly qualified man.

Certainly, you jest.

[Angrboda]

Are you, in this particular case, inclined to believe that significant details of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection of events years later to her therapist are sufficiently delayed to introduce serious doubt that either: a) a sexual assault took place, or b) that sexual assault was committed by judge Kavanaugh?

Regardless, I think you would agree that her recounting the incident in therapy is stronger corroboration than her testimony alone at this date.  How much do you doubt the veracity of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection at the time she told her therapist?

What you and Joods don't seem to understand is that, Alpha, RR & I, are trying not to make this issue about Ford; but rather, about the shameless way in which the Democrats are exploiting her. We are not trying to malign her character but the attempt by Democrats to yet again besmirch the exceptional reputation of a clearly qualified man.

Bullshit. Any time you describe an accuser as committing unfounded slander then you have explicitly made it about the accuser.

And I'm still waiting on your explanation of what you mean by "unfounded slander," "slander," and "exploitation."

Additionally, now that you've claimed that Democrats have unfairly used the Anita Hill charge and the Blasey Ford charge to their advantage, I'd like you to be clear in how you think it is unfair.

Whether the Democrats exploited either Ms. Hill or Ms. Blasey Ford is a claim that you have not supported in any real way. You're just claiming it for its emotional impact.

And I'll thank you not to speak for RR or alpha. I'm sure they're quite capable of speaking for themselves if they support your opinion, especially as it has to do with Bork and Thomas.

If the allegations of Hill and Blasey Ford are true, then they aren't really "besmirching" anything except insofar as the accusation alone is itself damaging, but that can't be avoided, can it? So how is bringing these charges unfair or unethical? The only thing I can see is that they are inconvenient to a narrative about Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh that you want to push independent of whether the charges are true or not. If Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment, and Kavanaugh guilty of sexual assault, they deserve to have their reputations "besmirched." Or are you trying to imply that charges of sexual misconduct are by their nature damaging and should never be made? That seems to be where you're headed, even if you don't want to go there for obvious reasons. How are the charges of Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford unfair beyond the simple fact of any such charge being damaging?

[Divinity]

Ahh yes, exceptional men apparently sexually assault people.

See this is what I'm talking about. Shitty morals by shithead Christians. Abortion is a no-no. Porn is a no-no. Being gay is a no-no. But sexual assault? Well, you're an exceptional person!

As much as they hate gays, it's surprising they take Trump's cock so far down their throat that it's a surprise it hasn't come out their ass. Especially since their head's so far up their ass in the first place.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I think that the "Extraordinary Claims" mantra while it make for a catchy turn of phrase, has little or no epistemological foundation or basis.   It's little more than special pleading, without some justification for the difference in reasoning.  In your examples, you seem to be talking more about extending faith in certain circumstances, rather than others, not that their is more evidence for one over the other (which I think is normal and justifiable).  You mention two reasons for this here.   Trust in the one giving the account, and that the account is commonplace, so you are willing to take it for granted.  However, I don't think that another is bound to grant the same faith as you do.  

Further, I've yet to have a non-subjective definition given for what is "extraordinary"  either in regards to the claims or the evidence (actually, what constitutes extraordinary evidence is almost always pretty sketchy).  It makes what is evidence based mostly on prior knowledge or feelings.  Are you basing your decision on the evidence, or basing evidence on your a priori decision?

Also appealing to what people do, doesn't make it logical or consistent.  It seems like more reasoning, and less analogies may be a bit more useful here.

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.

So you seem to be saying, that testifying against persecution makes testimony stronger as evidence.  I would generally agree.   I think that you can look at if there are reasons to say a particular thing, or reasons not to.  It's not definite, but it can add or take away from a testimony.  There are other motivations that may considered as well.  

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?

He recalls no such event.   What more would you like him to add?   If there isn't a time and place, it would seem that there is little to question him on.

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.

There was some time, as the FBI handed the letter (not sure if it was still anonymous at this point) over to the White House as part of their background check after they finally received it.  They could have came forward after, and I'm sure they talked to people from his past, as part of the background check.

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?

They have delayed, and have offered to hear out the accuser.  I don't think that it is a reasonable precedent to delay everything, because of a eleventh hour accusation.  I think that this could encourage unfalsifiable claims, for just that purpose.


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.

[/quote]

I agree... you should talk to those who do not think that testimony is evidence and that only physical concrete evidence is valid.

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.

Why is it lip service, to give the accused, and others testimony equal weight?   To consider that they just may be innocent?  To consider that a person may be lying for personal or political gain?  Unlike other cases, there doesn't seem to be a pattern here to fall back on.   There are not many women coming forward, and many who paint an opposite picture.  I don't think that we look at the evidence from only one side.  And it this case, I think that it's going to be inconclusive.

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

I appreciate that.

[John V]

Are you, in this particular case, inclined to believe that significant details of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection of events years later to her therapist are sufficiently delayed to introduce serious doubt that either: a) a sexual assault took place, or b) that sexual assault was committed by judge Kavanaugh?

IMO, a sexual assault probably happened. My wife is more skeptical of that. She was assaulted as a teen, and she says all the details - where she was, who was there, when it happened, etc. - are burned into her memory.

Regarding whether it was Kavanaugh - yes, serious doubt. It wouldn't surprise me if Ford was assaulted, but by someone else.

Regardless, I think you would agree that her recounting the incident in therapy is stronger corroboration than her testimony alone at this date.

Sure. Like I said, all facts and circumstances. But, there are discrepancies between what she said then and now. They're not automatically disqualifying, but they're a factor.

[Angrboda]

I think that the "Extraordinary Claims" mantra while it make for a catchy turn of phrase, has little or no epistemological foundation or basis.   It's little more than special pleading, without some justification for the difference in reasoning. 

I think a firm foundation for it can be found in Bayes theorem, but it's far from obvious. If you want to re-open that thread, I'll do my best to explain.