subgenius wrote: ... Chap has expressed that only knowing the accuser's name is the reasonable distinction between believable and unbelievable.
Please quote a post where I said that
If you are thinking of this exchange:
subgenius wrote:Chap wrote:... previously the only "proof" you required was the allegation in-and-of-itself...
Chap wrote:Nope. i did not require criminal court standard proof with Kavanaugh - just enough plausibility to invoke the precautionary principle. I think Ford's (non-anonymous) testimony, and the testimony that accompanied it, probably passed that bar
That is all I require in the present case.
... then I did indeed feel, and still do, that Ford's testimony 'and the testimony that accompanied it' probably passed the bar of justifying the invocation of precautionary principle. I noted that it was non-anonymous, and I believe that it not being anonymous was probably a
necessary condition for it passing the bar.
I did not however say that being non-anonymous was a
sufficient condition for it passing the bar. In my view, it would not have been sufficient for a woman simply to stand in the street, and say "Hi! My name is Joan Doe, here is my ID, and Kavanaugh raped me."
[If the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions is not familiar to you, see
HERE.}
Ford did much more than that. She appeared in person before a Senate committee, testified under oath, and submitted to cross-examination. And as my post said, there was not only her testimony, but also ' the testimony that accompanied it', of which there was a considerable amount, including Kavanaugh's own rather revealing testimony.
The testimony we do have in the present case may well merit further investigation.
And it is possible that when more is known, it may pass the bar for Democrats to say 'We can't be sure that he did anything to anybody. But there seems enough possibility that he did for us to withdraw our support from him.'
I'm not sure that we are there yet, though.