Trump just tweeted: "The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Acquisitions the likes of which have never been seen before!"

Is an "Acquisition" somewhat of a cross between an inquisition and an accusation? — Pierre-Normand

I do do that sort of thing myself sometimes. It's a lot funnier when he does it though. :D

Senate minority leader Schumer said back in January he would "use everything he's got" to stop the confirmation. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation? — Hanover

No, because that isn't what he meant. For example, if I say, "I'll do everything I can to stop you beating me in our game of tennis next week" and then you get mysteriously murdered, it doesn't mean I killed you to prevent you winning. It's just a figure of speech. Getting involved in a conspiracy like that would destroy his career and the likely outcome would be just another conservative nominee. More to lose than gain.

but I don't know what it would entail other than what we already know — Hanover

The fact that you can't comprehend how the FBI or local investigators could possibly uncover any more facts in this case is irrelevant. If you're interested in the facts of any alleged crime or in justice for either party then you do an investigation. You don't throw your hands up and say because you have no idea how professional investigators uncover facts that maybe they shouldn't bother trying. There just is no other option in terms of getting closer to the truth.

This is such nonsense. — Hanover

Really? So now you're claiming you're not ignorant of the facts? Then why did you say this:

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? — Hanover

When Ford's claim is this:

"Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help."

Yes, I overstated the number of people who were supposedly in the vicinity of the alleged event, — Hanover

And why did you overstate it? Why did you say this:

Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? — Hanover

When this is what Blasey Ford said:

"The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others."

So apart from Kavanaugh and Judge who were in the room, your crowd filling the party was two people.

"At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

https://obrag.org/2018/09/transcript-of-letter-prof-christine-blasey-ford-sent-to-senator-feinstein-accusing-judge-kavanaugh-of-attempted-rape/

So where did the party filled with "sociopaths" idea come from? Where did your idea that there is anything implausible at all about her leaving the party without the other two people (who were probably drunk and were talking with Kavanaugh and Judge when she left) seeing her or noticing something wrong?

An alleged attempted rape occurred in the close proximity of a handful of people, yet despite what I would assume to be a violent event (assuming, as I've never been witness to such an atrocity) there were no witnesses to it occurring or of the aftermath. — Hanover

The claim is that an alleged rape attempt occurred in a locked bedroom upstairs where music was being deliberately played to drown out any sounds. And there were only two other people in the house, who were downstairs.

If you had actually bothered to read the transcript, I guessed you never would have written that post. So, I charitably presumed you were just ignorant of the facts rather than trying to unfairly discredit the story.

The simplest and most straightforward explanation to all this is that Kavanaugh was a bad kid and is lying about it now to save his chance to get his dream job.

The most complicated and convoluted explanation to this is that it's a big conspiracy theory with Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez (and other as yet unnamed accusers) collaborating with Dems to take down a conservative nominee (even though his replacement is likely to be just another conservative nominee).

And there are plenty of other possibilities in between.

How to distinguish? Investigate. Why don't the Republicans want to investigate? Because they know, like all of us, that the simplest and most straightforward explanation usually turns out to be the true one.

We're all ignorant of the facts — Hanover

Do you support a proper investigation then to get at the facts?

Yes, eye-witness testimony is problematic. But again, look at the details of the case. This was someone she knew and went to the same school with. She identified a close friend of his as being in the room, and that person is Kavanaugh's close friend, and a pattern of behaviour with regard to both of them has been identified that supports the plausibility of the "drunken party" situation. With regard to confabulations, that's why I suggested earlier a full investigation including a psychological assessment of Ford should be done. The way to get to the facts is to look for them. The Republicans don't want to do that. Therein lies the problem.

Calling it a conspiracy theory makes it sound like politics doesn't involve attempts to smear people or dig up skeletons to prevent them from taking office. — Marchesk

Of course, it does. But the circumstances surrounding the information's release mitigate against Ford being involved in a conspiracy to "take down" Kavanaugh.

And how it's been dealt in this thread doesn't change my sense that the accusation is being used politically. How do you think the Senate vote will go? Democrats against, Republicans for? — Marchesk

I agree it's being used politically. But that's not necessarily the victim's fault. And that's where we need to disentangle things and be careful how we approach the issue. Anyway, I think in the end one or two Republicans will vote no.

Then why are you arguing on the basis of things that weren't said? You expect us to respond to your false version of Blasey Ford's claims? If you are trying to discredit her claims, you need to be accurate about what she is actually claiming, obviously.

This question doesn't make sense to me as being rhetorical:

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? — Marchesk

There's a factual answer to it. What is your point? If your rhetorical point is the conspiracy theory angle, that's been dealt with several times already in this thread.

You're wasting everyone's time here if you don't even know for sure what age he was when this happened or the circumstances surrounding how the accusations were released and the background to that. All the information is available both on this thread and on Google.

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? Isn't this accusation from decades ago when he was 17? — Marchesk

Go and research what happened. And you'll find the answers. Or maybe read the thread.

It's a pity that you still haven't even researched what happened and are making your comments, like other supporters of Kavanaugh here, on the basis of an ignorance of the facts.

As the mod of philosophy forum, and a normally sensible commentator, you should be able to realize that if we accept claims without evidence... — Jake

But I've said several times already we should analyze all claims in context. The claim itself is evidence of wrongdoing though it's not on its own, conclusive evidence. Other evidence, corroborating evidence, should obviously be looked for. Which is why I think the fairest thing is to have a delay while some investigation be carried out as it was in the case of Anita Hill. I've never taken anything other than the view here that we should neither immediately accept nor immediately reject any claim. I did mention the fact that the vast majority of claims turn out to be true to illustrate how the 50/50 he said/she said perception is misleading. That should be a consideration in any judgement.

She should be respected as a person (unless it can be proven she's lying). But after that, she sucks as a witness, and is basically wasting our time. — Jake

But then you go to the other extreme and simply reject her out of hand even before she has a chance to tell her story. Why should she bother in that case?

Not to mention on this page alone:

Better though to look at the context carefully and make a considered judgment. — Baden

I already said every accusation has to be taken in context — Baden

Again, just read. It's that easy.

Jake, you need to go read the details of the case before commenting. She told her therapist she was assaulted before any of the recent political events. Plus, she asked Feinstein that the information remain confidential.

because I am claiming to be a victim, without any evidence at all, and thus everything I'm saying surely must be true. — Jake

But, of course, I never claimed that. So, OK, this is actually the third time I've posted the below. Can you please read it carefully and try to understand that I am saying any accusation should be analysed in context. Also, please do not jump into threads without reading them. If you want to argue with me, you need to know what my position is.

Just want to reemphasize that of the four scenarios I outlined, I only proposed, with reasons, the one that she is telling the truth and he is lying as the most likely. Any fair observer should recognize the possibility of the others, and analyze them in context. What should be dismissed out of hand though are absurdities like Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault; or that what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done does not qualify as a sexual assault; or that what he did no matter how it's considered legally was really nothing serious, that is was just misbehavior and so on. — Baden

This is very silly. I already said every accusation has to be taken in context. And the context of this accusation is you trying and failing miserably to say anything intelligent. Besides, I can prove I wasn't in America at that time, and you're definitely not my type. :)

If anybody can be declared a victim simply by making a claim, eventually none of the claims will be seen as credible. — Jake

No, if you bully the 95% of claimants who are statistically found to be telling the truth by unreasonably doubting them then not only will more of the public unreasonably think they are liars, but they will be less likely to come forward, and that will encourage more crimes against them.

But if she wishes to use her personal experience to comment upon public policy — Jake

What comments did she make about public policy?

No police report, no public statements about her experience until the very last minute of a highly charged political decision 35 years after the alleged crime etc. — Jake

The information was leaked by a third party so her insertion into politics at this particular moment was not of her doing. Please familiarise yourself with the details of the case before commenting.

Whether she is a victim or not we can wish her well, — Jake

No, what we do with victims, if she is one, is provide them justice.

http://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049

"The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%."

This basic fact combined with the credibility of Blasey Ford's background, previous conversations with therapist, and request for confidentiality are why I tend to believe her. The idea that it's just 50/50 he said/she said is absurd. You actually could just believe every accusation and be right 95% of the time. Better though to look at the context carefully and make a considered judgment. And with every new accusation the chances of this being a conspiracy of lies fades into absolute insignificance. This is why it's so wrong-headed to continue to bat for the accused over the victim or to pretend there's some kind of equivalency of probability there.

Edit: + http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077801210387747

This paper gives a 5.9% false reporting rate for the US.

You're getting more pissy than usual and you're taking it too personally. — Hanover

I apologize if I gave that impression by the way with any of my comments. I'm trying to be objective too, believe it or not. I'll use more emojis or something. :rage: (Maybe not that one... )

This is a true difference of opinion about what justice demands and no one here thinks that sexual abuse is any way acceptable. — Hanover

You don't, but some others seem to think a certain level of it is acceptable or at least no big deal. That attitude needs to be pushed back against.

The solution is a proper investigation.

But what about what you're doing to him? Why does he not receive any empathy? Explain that. It is just very possible he's done nothing wrong? Why do you discount that possibly and where do you arrive at such certainty that he's a lying sack of shit? The most I can say is that he's innocent until proven guilty, and he's not been shown to me to be guilty. Might Ford be telling the truth? Sure, but I don't know that, and I can hardly prudently act on something I don't know. — Hanover

I'd said several times before this that I only thought it was likely Ford was telling the truth. So, given I said this:

Just want to reemphasize that of the four scenarios I outlined, I only proposed, with reasons, the one that she is telling the truth and he is lying as the most likely. Any fair observer should recognize the possibility of the others, and analyze them in context. — Baden

...you are arguing from false premises here.

After you said the above, I've responded to the second allegation by saying I am willing to make the solid judgment now that Ford is telling the truth. The third allegation concerning drugs and gang rape I make no judgment on yet. But if you are interested in the truth, why haven't you been calling for a delay and further investigation? You say he hasn't been proven guilty but apparently have been supporting the moves of Republicans to confirm him before there is any chance he could be proven guilty. There should be a proper investigation now into these claims and let's find out the truth. If truth is what you're interested in, you should support that.

I really don't see any way Flake or Collins (and maybe Murkowski) will vote for Kavanaugh with these new accusations out there (the rest won't care but they don't have the numbers). So either they drop him now, or move on with a very delayed process, which will end in failure anyway.

This is a whole new level. Kavanaugh and Judge feeding women, who were then gang-raped by men, drugs. If this is true (and it really is just an "if" for now, it's too big not to require further evidence), he should definitely be prosecuted.

That said, BC is a shithead. — frank

Let's not go down the flaming route, any of us. Let this be one highly charged subject where we don't start to call each other nasty names. Amen.

you (you being a very big plural here, not the singular referring to Moderator Baden) automatically assume grave harm was done. Maybe it wasn't. — Bitter Crank

From my point of view, I've said I'd reserve full judgement, but thought it was likely he was guilty, but with a second allegation now, I find the chances of this all being made up too fantastical and believe the women. At some point, you have to make a judgment.

He's toast.

Y'all just ignoring this second allegation that I just posted? — Maw

First I heard of it. When did this come up? Didn't see it on the news last night.

That was a joke, doofuses.

Nope, you don't know me. You really don't. I believe in forgiveness and salvation in the sense that I think that people really can change who they are and become something much greater, and I find it profoundly inhumane to discard human beings to fulfill some personal goal. People are never to be treated as a means to an end. — Hanover

Unless they are victims of sexual assault who get in the way of Republicans plans to turn the Supreme Court conservative. But, of course, you really don't care about that at all, this is all about your principles and your quest for objective sainthood. Look, I accept you're not completely cynical and you're generally a good guy (and I totally resent you making me say that and will exact revenge later) but you are not going to convince me you are not at least somewhat biased here. Which is fine. I've seen a lot worse in this discussion.

Feinstein withheld the allegations until it could have the greatest impact. — Hanover

A conservative-peddled conspiracy theory. Ford told Feinstein to keep the allegations secret and she did. She did not release them. They were leaked. While it's quite possible the conspiracy theory is true and this was all part of Feinstein's evil plan, repeating it as undisputed fact further undermines your claims of objectivity. Why not give Feinstein as much benefit of the doubt as Kavanaugh? The answer is obvious.

Don't make me say something rude to you BC. I like you too much. Read my posts about assessing credibility, and look at the circumstances surrounding Ford's allegation, her respectable position and so on. If this was some random person who just came out with this, it would be a lot less credible.

You are wrong actually. This is a truly a big issue for me. I see all this as a system for allowing people to be thrown away and discarded. It's inhumane in a very real way. — Hanover

No, what's inhumane is what your team is doing to Blasey Ford, a very credible victim of sexual assault. Kavanaugh will almost certainly keep his old job and avoid jail, which is more than he deserves if he is guilty, and on the slim chance he's not, he will still be rich and privileged and supported as a martyr by conservatives everywhere. Yet you continue to ignore Blasey Ford, the victim's interests in favour of his And why? Because you always unapologetically support your team Hanover, so the idea that you're being objective here and would have made all these posts defending Kavanaugh if he were a lefty is just absurd. I'm almost even insulted that you would think I would think so highly of you as to believe that.

Christ, cry me a river. I even said "they" so you wouldn't think I was talking about you.

My approach here is universal. Whether you're accused of child abuse, sexual abuse, drunk driving, or jay walking, you're innocent until proven guilty. I know that's a wild notion. If you want to take all the sexual abusers and throw them under the jail, I'll be there with you first thing in the morning with my shovel, but I sorta need to know the folks we're throwing under there actually did what we think we did. — Hanover

That's a crock of laughable horseshit. Franken wasn't convicted and you supported him being dumped for a start. But of course he wasn't a conservative. Plus, suppose someone wanting to be a principle at the local school was credibly accused of sexual assault and it wasn't yet proven. Just ignore it? Vote the guy in? This is kids stuff, H. This is not about your principles, it's about your team.

What? I thought you were in favour of them showing some class. Anyway, it's not a court of law. He's not in danger of going to jail on the basis of this, so the charge doesn't have to be proved, it just has to be credible enough to make it too risky to allow him on the highest court in the land. You know that already though being a law-talking dude an' all. But let's be real, if he was a lefty, you wouldn't be making these points, so it's not about the merits of how he's being treated but the fact that he's a conservative that's key for you. Am I wrong?

We all have the same empathy as you for those who were actually sexually abused — Hanover

This is probably the most naive thing you've ever written. Forget about me though, I'm only empathy normal. There are plenty out there with more empathy for the sexually abused than me who would rip some of the posters here new arseholes for the crass and insensitive way they talk about these victims. No, the idea that we all care equally is frankly nuts.

I don't want to nitpick either as I think it was right to dump Frankenstein (predictive text error but I think I'll just leave it), and I have nothing positive to say about his behaviour, I condemn it fully. But they were not almost indistinguishable in the sense that Franken's victims did not think they were going to be suffocated or raped and none were fifteen years old. But whatever, I have no sympathy for this kind of thing on either side.

the Democrats removed him honorably, whereas the Republicans refuse to show any class. — Hanover

Yes, why (presuming Ford testifies convincingly) not just move on to the next candidate and push through in the lame duck? We all know that's what they're going to do anyway if Kavanaugh goes down. Why discredit themselves?

Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

What seems to be under appreciated is that the #metoo movement, a very just cause, is threatened by sloppy standards and a rush to jump on a politically correct bandwagon. — Jake

You don't get to use #metoo to discredit my arguments. Period. If you want to address my points, do so. If you want to criticise #metoo, do it in a discussion about #metoo. And standing up for victims of sexual abuse, especially child victims, has nothing to do with political correctness either. It's what's known as common decency.

Crime victims need to keep in my mind that, however difficult it may be, they have a civic responsibility to report crimes to the police because failing to do so puts other people at risk. If they fail to fulfill that responsibility, their credibility is naturally going to take a hit, and maybe it should. — Jake

She was fifteen, and most likely very scared and traumatised. But let's blame her rather than criticise the abuser. Again, all your post demonstrates is a lack of empathy for the victims of these crimes. It does zero in terms of analysis.

I think that's true to a degree, but in this case the partisan split seems more explanatory of the likelihood of a given actor rushing to Ford's defence. Wish that wasn't the case but...

I agree with that, and particularly that punishment should be proportionate. I read of one ridiculous case where a woman was given 20 years for forcing a male minor to touch her breast (partly because she wouldn't plea bargain). Kavanaugh, on the other hand, spent most of his life getting off scot-free (if he did it) and missing out on his promotion would not be an unduly harsh case of societal Karma.

GET BACK INTO YOUR HOVELS, IRISH SWINE! — Bitter Crank

We have grown fat and can no longer fit in them. We all live in country clubs now, surrounded by cigar smoke and sexist jokes.

There seem to be quite a few gradations of assault. Stepping (not stomping) on my foot and beating me senseless are both assault and battery but hardly the same thing. Fondling a breast without permission is an assault, but it isn't equivalent to rape. Acting as if one were trying to execute intercourse (except that both parties are clothed) isn't the same as the flesh/flesh contact and penetration of rape. — Bitter Crank

Sure, and this case is neither the most innocent nor the most severe. It's bad enough to be of note though and should not be dismissed as insignificant.

Franken was denounced for something a good deal less than assault. "Misconduct?" I don't think it was misconduct -- but it certainly wasn't a crime either. — Bitter Crank

And even given that, note that the Dems did not attack the victims and let Franken go. We may disagree over whether he should have been let go, but the difference in attitude is striking.

The thought experiment is only intended to provoke a little empathy for the victim. This woman is not a political player and asked for none of this, and she is being treated as if she is and did. But to your point, suffering a sexual assault is worse than suffering an accusation of sexual assault. I would be considerably angrier at someone who sexually assaulted my daughter than someone who falsely accused my son of sexual assault.