Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _subgenius »

Chap wrote:
subgenius wrote:you have suddenly raised the bar for what must be considered as "significant possibility".


How, exactly?

Please be specific.

compare your first post on the Kavanaugh theread:
viewtopic.php?p=1145165#p1145165
to your first post on this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1151233#p1151233

the former clearly has an assumption that Dr Ford allegatuon is true as you immeduately go into apologetic mode...whereas here you ate immediately asking formire evidence, mode corroborating details, etc..

dude, you can't sidestep out of your obvious bias position - so just stop.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _EAllusion »

subgenius wrote:the former clearly has an assumption that Dr Ford allegatuon is true as you immeduately go into apologetic mode.


Well that's just a straight up lie. All that post is doing is pointing out an argument for why Ford's allegation is suspect is based on fallacious reasoning.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Res Ipsa »

And the second one is responding to Dog's headline, not the accusations.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Chap »

EAllusion wrote:
subgenius wrote:the former clearly has an assumption that Dr Ford allegatuon is true as you immeduately go into apologetic mode.


Well that's just a straight up lie. All that post is doing is pointing out an argument for why Ford's allegation is suspect is based on fallacious reasoning.


So it seems. DrC suggested that the lack of contextual detail in Ford's claims rendered them ipso facto implausible:


Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Gunnar wrote:why do we even need the allegations of Christine Ford to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court?


You mean allegations coupled with the following facts:

1) She doesn't know what party. You can't just say, "Yeah I was at a party and Kavanaugh piledrived my cervix into the ground because he had one too many red cups with his frat buddies."

2) She isn't sure about the time period. You can't just say, "Yeah it was probably a Christmas, or Halloween, or Cinco de Mayo party for sure."

3) If she's not sure when, where, and who was there, then it makes it really difficult to determine the veracity of these allegations.

4) She doesn't know who was at the party other than herself, Kavanaugh, and his buddy. :rolleyes:


I pointed out that this argument by DrC was not a strong one.


Chap wrote:
I am not very surprised after all these years that the details that would stick in somebody's head are mainly centred on which two guys tried to rape her at one of the various parties she attended, and how they went about it.

I can remember quite a few events (nice and nasty ones) from around that age very clearly indeed. But the precise dates? Who else was in the vicinity except for me and the persons immediately concerned in the events? Nah. Is that so surprising?


I don't assume that Ford's claims are true. I merely point out that their lack of contextual detail does not necessarily give grounds for concluding they are not true.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:
subgenius wrote:the former clearly has an assumption that Dr Ford allegatuon is true as you immeduately go into apologetic mode.


Well that's just a straight up lie. All that post is doing is pointing out an argument for why Ford's allegation is suspect is based on fallacious reasoning.

Nope.
There is an easily discernible difference in the 2 posts. Keep reading the Kavanaugh thread and notice if Chap ever asks or notes a similar desire for "more evidence", or if Chap ever "beleives" Dr Ford...which at this point, Chap has expressed that only knowing the accuser's name is the reasonable distinction between believable and unbelievable.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

These guys just got nipped playing their dumb gotcha game. They had to create some new, ridiculous standard that makes zero sense, especially so given the accuser lawyered up. Smh.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Chap »

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.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Chap »

Oh, and by the way: has Water Dog yet posted anything to justify the 'Wife-beating' part of the OP title?

If not, maybe he should delete that from the title?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _subgenius »

Chap wrote:Oh, and by the way: has Water Dog yet posted anything to justify the 'Wife-beating' part of the OP title?

If not, maybe he should delete that from the title?

Maybe, but KG has already lowered the bar, or burned the bar to ashes, for misleading and mischaracterizing thread titles.
But thanks for only policing the thread titles that have themes, views, and opinions that you have opposition to; pressuposition for; or a general disposition against the content therein.

but also note, that with Kavanaugh you guys jumped from a possible sexual misconduct to sexual assault to rape to gang-rape to drug induced gang rape cult in about 20 minutea.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

Post by _Chap »

subgenius wrote:
Chap wrote:Oh, and by the way: has Water Dog yet posted anything to justify the 'Wife-beating' part of the OP title?

If not, maybe he should delete that from the title?



... thanks for ... policing the thread titles


You're welcome.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply