RE: Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.
September 21, 2018 at 8:51 am
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2018 at 8:57 am by Aroura.)
(September 21, 2018 at 8:12 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:It is evidence when there is supporting evidence, including circumstantial.(September 21, 2018 at 7:47 am)Aroura Wrote: 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?
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.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead