And Baden, the US and the UK aren't in the same league. The UK is on par with Massechusettes maybe. — frank

Yeah, agree with that.

We've just established there's no statute of limitations in this case, and suggesting in any case that I was suggesting an equivalence in severity of crime between Nazi genocide and this sexual assault rather than merely pointing out the failure of your attempt at establishing a non-existent right not to be prosecuted when such a statute doesn't apply is something I should really spend considerable time mocking and berating you for, and only won't because I'm too lazy to move from my mobile to my laptop where typing is more convenient.

They both have plenty of motivation to lie. — Hanover

What's her motivation to lie? So she can have her life threatened and suffer harassment and mockery from the right-wing hate machine? As opposed to him avoiding having his career wet dream spill wastefully into his pyjamas. Hm, let me weigh those two up.

Why because I'm part of the elite? I was pretty much a middle class kid who went to public school (and public means government funded in the US, which I understand is oddly the opposite in the UK), we took exotic trips in our station wagon to the Georgia coast every year, and I don't remember any country clubs. But, whatever. I thought the Clarence Thomas lynching was just as bad, and yet he was hardly from an elite background. — Hanover

Please don't tell me your biography. It makes it look as if you think I care about you. Which is icky.

. I guess I could tell you that your only motivation in holding your position is because of your disdain of those elite country club kids who you looked upon with envy from your hovel as a child. — Hanover

Sorry, we didn't have country clubs in Ireland when I grew up. Only hovels.

As for the rest, I'm not calling for his prosecution but just pointing out he has no right not to be prosecuted. That's the law and so should it be.

Maybe you're right. I haven't looked into the statistics, but that it might not condemn him to the depths is not the issue so much as that it will, if so discerned, prevent him from attaining the heights. And rightly so.

Incidentally, it's kind of amusing the way Kavanaugh's supporters in general can't figure out whether to take the line of "He's a good man and would never do such a terrible thing" and "Hey, what's so terrible about jumping a girl, it's just fun and frolics" and very often tend to take both lines simultaneously.

Politics is horrible everywhere but American politics seems even more of a cess-pit than the UK or Ireland, for example, both in terms of politicians and their supporters. Particularly on the Republican side. Look at Mitch McConnell: When Roy Moore's accusers came forward, he famously said he believed them, but it seems that was only because he didn't like Moore, and was hoping he would step aside and a replacement candidate would be found, who was more electable. Now he does like Kavanaugh, so he says he'll "plough through" with the nomination no matter what. In other words, sexual assault means nothing to him except for the political consequences. You couldn't get away with that in the UK, you'd be slaughtered in the media. But in the US, everyone has their own media and it's just par for the course, apparently.

Yes, in this case. But charges were not pressed and the statute of limitation on this event has expired; the alleged perpetrator was drunk, and underage himself. — Bitter Crank

You've conceded the point that it is an alleged crime we're talking about. Whether the statute of limitations has passed now or not is irrelevant to that fact. As for charges, they were not pressed because like most sexual assaults (see statistics above) the victim was too afraid and/or ashamed and/or traumatized to report. Plus, being drunk is not a defence against sexual assault. Plus, being under 18 (he was 17) is not a defence against sexual assault.

If what is alleged to have happened did happen as described, I would still maintain that an adolescent should not be penalized for life. — Bitter Crank

Even adults convicted of low level criminal sexual crimes should not be subjected to life-crashing events, where some public services are rendered unavailable; where suitable work will be difficult or impossible to obtain; where housing may be very difficult to rent, where credit is ruined, and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I'm sure that's emotionally upsetting for them but so is being held down with a hand over your mouth while someone strips your clothes off. In some cases, you might be right that the punishment is too harsh, but you seem inordinately concerned with the abusers and markedly unconcerned about the victims. Why?

What is alleged to have happened to Ms. Ford should not have resulted in so much trauma that Mr. Kavanaugh should have forfeited an effective life. — Bitter Crank

Why? Try putting yourself in the mind of a fifteen-year-old girl who thinks she's being suffocated and raped. Is it so hard for you to imagine how that could result in serious continuing trauma? Really? And is it so hard for you to imagine that that outweighs the interests of the abuser who would suffer missing out on some opportunities. If it did happen, he chose to do it to her and to say she should have just shrugged it off is just to demonstrate either an inability to understand how the mind of adolescent females and vulnerable groups in general work, or just a lack of empathy for them, which is odd to me considering how much you seem to care for those who commit sexual crimes.

Just to add, if Kavanugh had fessed up, explained he was drunk, and has changed since then, and apologized to Ford in the right manner, I've said already maybe that should be the end of it. But he hasn't. So either he didn't do it at all, or he did do it and is lying and about to commit perjury which is a felony and punishable with jail time, and therefore is obviously disqualified. There's no middle ground now.

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.

That's clear anecdotally from what I've witnessed comparing the Al Franken case to this and the Roy Moore situation. Again, conservatives and Republicans are more OK with ignoring sexual assault accusations (and by extension with sexual assault) when it's their side doing it than Democrats are. But there is clearly some partisanship on both sides. And there shouldn't be any at all.

If that is really good enough evidence to consider firing someone, then I could get you or anyone else fired for anything at any time. — Questionall

An accusation on its own without any context isn't conclusive. No one has claimed it is. Each accusation has to be examined on its own merits, weighted thus, and preferably followed up with a proper examination. And Kavanaugh is not being threatened with firing, but simply not getting a promotion.

Yes she is accusing him of sexual assault, but not rape — Questionall

Nobody said she was accusing him of rape. It's attempted rape as I said. And the fact that it took you this long to figure out she is accusing him of sexual assault suggests you are too ignorant of the facts to be worthy of anything but bemused pity here.

you have no evidence. — Questionall

Eye-witness testimony is evidence. — Baden

Eye-witness testimony is evidence, — Questionall

You've just conceded the point. The rest is irrelevant.

No, that's not the way it works. Eye-witness testimony is evidence. It's amazing to me that you don't know that. Actually, no, I'm not all that amazed. Anyway, are you ready to get your facts straight on whether or not she is accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault? Is she or is she not?

you have no evidence or facts to argue with — Questionall

With regard to this, I gave you, for example, the evidence of her testimony to show you were wrong about what she was alleging (it's right there above). So, I ask you to please try to concentrate on what is happening here otherwise the conversation is likely to be unfruitful.

You fail continually to see the reality of the matter. — Questionall

Um no, you said something that showed you were completely clueless over the whole matter, and you got called out for it. Trying to pretend you didn't and it was I who got something wrong is just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You said this:

she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. — Questionall

Now, do you understand yet how completely and utterly wrong this is and how thinking it may have led you to all sorts of false conclusions? Let's try to clear that up first.

They have all so far said that they not only don't remember this happening, — Questionall

They don't remember it happening because they weren't in the room. There were no witnesses to the alleged crime except Mark Judge who was an accessory, and a very close friend of Kavanaugh, so obviously he has reason to deny it. And in fact, he refuses to testify under oath. Do you wonder why?

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” — Questionall

So what? Of course, his friends are going to say this. Even murderers can drag up character witnesses from amongst their circle of friends.

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43249/1/MPRA_paper_43249.pdf

"Sexual assault and rape are among the least reported crimes in the United States. This
paper hypothesizes that this reflects the psycho-social costs of reporting a rape or sexual assault,
which, in turn, reflect the stigma suffered by rape and sexual assault victims."

"Of the 1247 cases analyzed in this study, only 39.17% of them were reported to the police. "

"The degree to which rape and sexual assault exist within our society is masked by substantial under-reporting. In order to address this under-reporting, it is essential to understand the unique costs of reporting that the rape victim faces. As the analyses in this study confirm, rape and sexual assault victims consider the stigma that they are likely to suffer upon reporting. When these victims choose not to report, perpetrators go unscathed. Furthermore, the public remains uneducated on the prevalence and nature of the crime. Rather than merely encouraging victims of rape and sexual assault to report their victimization, policies and programs need to be instituted to debunk common misperceptions on the subject. "

"Furthermore, educating the public on the phenomenon of victim-blaming may stimulate individuals’
recognition of their own victim blaming tendencies."

So, if anyone wants a lesson in how sexual violence against women is minimized and dismissed, just read through this discussion.

On the milder end, we have @Hanover characterizing the victim as suffering from a "misdemeanour" (while leaving out the important detail of the attempt to remove her clothes) in opposition to the accused who is apparently being "lynched". The misdemeanour claim btw:

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. — Hanover

Being dubious: e.g.

"Sexual assault, which is defined as an individual touching another person for sexual gratification without that person’s consent, can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances of your case."

https://www.wksexcrimes.com/when-attempted-rape-is-not-a-violent-crime/

On the extreme end then we have @Bitter Crank and @Questionall who seem to think the sexual assault wasn't even an assault at all, but mere "misbehaviour".

Let me ask you this: If any of you had a 15-year-old daughter or a close relative who told you that an older boy had held her down, hand over mouth to the point where she feared she would suffocate, groped her and grinded his body against her, and then tried to pull her clothes off, and that she thought he was trying to rape her, would you just tell her to laugh it off and then do nothing about it? Would you be more worried about the reputation of the accused? And how would you feel about those more interested in protecting him than her?

These comments have tainted the process, and are sufficient reason to reject Kavanaugh. I could give Kavanaugh a chance only if he were to rebuke McConnell's and Trump's statements. A competent judge should advocate for open-minded evaluation of the full set of available facts. — Relativist

:up:

Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

I don't fully believe anyone, but in my judgment her telling the truth is the most likely scenario, and I gave reasons why. Reasons that nobody has questioned so far, incidentally. So, let's not get up on a cranky horse about the #metoo movement. That's not the issue here. If you want to ask me about my position on that, start a thread on it.

I've never been enthusiastic about people's sexual activities being weighed up for political and professional judgment. That's a very old-fashioned attitude now. — Bitter Crank

The issue is about criminal sexual activities, not all sexual activities. Sexual assault and attempted rape are criminal offenses. That's what he's being accused of. If he likes to wank off his pet dog in his spare time, that's fine by me. Couldn't care less.

How far back should we go to hold people accountable? There was underage drinking going on in that house. There are adults who were responsible for obtaining, making available, or not protecting the teenagers from alcohol. Are you in favor of leveling charges against them 35 years later? If not, why not? — Bitter Crank

No, because I don't care. Why would I? And you asking that question makes me wonder if you've been drinking, frankly. I mean do you think holding down a 15-year-old girl, groping her, and trying to rip her clothes off while holding your hand over her mouth is as insignificant as buying a drink for someone who is underage? What are you trying to say? And please put down your drink while you type your reply in case you spill it all over the keyboard.

[ Note: Blasey Ford comments moved here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4105/re-kavanaugh-and-ford/p1 ]

After reading what she described as happening you will find that she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. They fell on a bed together and she thought he was going to do something so she left the room. That is her version of the story. She said that she thought he was going to do something. Therefor she was never sexually abused. Nothing happened. — Questionall

You are making a fool of yourself now. The details of her allegations are all over the internet. For a concise summary see Wikipedia (or any number of other sources):

"On September 16, 2018, she publicly alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, in what she described as an attempted rape.

Kavanaugh, intoxicated, held her down on a bed with his body, grinding against and groping her, covering her mouth when she tried to scream and trying to pull her clothes off. She recounted escaping when the second boy jumped on them both and they all fell."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

That's her version and if true, that's sexual assault and a crime. Note that she not only accuses him of sexual assault but also of attempted rape.

I have been actively keeping up with the Kavanaugh investigation and such. — Questionall

Given your complete ignorance of the allegations, no, you obviously haven't. If you don't even know the basics, please stop fouling the place up with silliness like this.

To be more precise I would say that it's an extremely transparent accusation. No original report or investigation, a supposed crime from 35 years ago when the accused and the accuser were 17 years of age? How is that meant to reflect anything at all with respect to judge Kavanaugh?

The extraordinary thing about it is the tie in to adolescent sexual behavior. Everyone knows kids do extremely stupid things at that age, but to come out and say that in the current media-environment would be akin to an outright endorsement of rape-culture among adolescents. That is the trap. I admit it sounds a bit conspiratorial, but politics in these meaningless tidbits of media soundbites often is that way. — Existoic

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If he did, of course it says something about him. Not every adolescent is capable of jumping a girl, putting their hands over her mouth, and trying to rip their clothes off, drunk or not. It goes far beyond "stupid". At the same time, as I've already said, what absolutely disqualifies him, if it's true, is lying about it and being willing to lie under oath about it, which is a crime in itself.

So, the major possibilities appear to be:

1. She's lying (He didn't do it)
2. She's mistaken (He didn't do it)
3. She's not mistaken and telling the truth a) But he believes he didn't do it and isn't lying.
4. She's not mistaken and telling the truth b) He knows he did it and is lying.

1. Conspiracy theory angle. The fact is that she brought it up years ago with her therapist and she didn't want the information released. It was leaked against her wishes. For her to be lying you would need to concoct a fairly fantastical story involving a cadre of malicious actors.

2. Theoretically possible. But she says she's absolutely sure. The fact that she's a high functioning professional seems to mitigate against her being absolutely sure and still being delusional enough to be wrong about it. A psychological assessment might help with that. And one should be done in my view.

3. Mark Judge was allegedly there. So, if Kavanaugh did it and doesn't remember (blacked out), it's extremely unlikely his friend would have hid it from him.

4. There are no problems with this theory. It's very possible that a drunk young man would do this to a young woman (although I doubt it's as common as some Republicans seem to think). It's also highly likely that given the potential consequences of an admission, Kavanaugh would deny it.

Conclusion: Possibility 4, that he did it and he's lying, is the most likely scenario. Given that, further investigation should obviously be undertaken and he should not yet be confirmed until at least more is known in his favour.

I'm coming to the unfortunate conclusion that conservatives are just more OK with sexual assault than those on the other end of the political spectrum. Al Franken was quickly dumped by the Dems for much less serious allegations and rightly so. And I remember no sick jokes about his victims coming from progressives.

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He supposedly got on top of her and put his hand on her mouth, a serious violation if true, but not attempted rape, attempted murder, or attempted kidnapping or whatever else you need to justify a lynching. — Hanover

And allegedly tried to rip her clothes off. I suppose that was because he was just helping her to get changed, right? Why are you trying to minimize her negative experience and maximize his by hysterically referring to it as a "lynching". I don't know if you've noticed but the President and a significant portion of the Republican party are aiming their nooses at her not him. Plus, the idea that some privileged elite who has an accusation leveled at him is being treated worse than a 15-year-old who thought she was being raped is severely wrongheaded.

Prosecuting someone 35 years after a crime not only makes it a practical impossibilty (many witnesses are now unknown, evidence is lost, and memories have faded), but it seems a complete disregard for the rights of the accused. — Hanover

Does the accused suddenly have the right not to be prosecuted much later? Nazi war criminals were prosecuted long after the war. The only people that objected to that were Nazis.

Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges? — Hanover

See above. There is no right to get away with crimes just because you weren't caught quickly enough except in cases where statutes of limitations apply.

Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges? — Hanover

It's odd that it takes a potential prosecution of an elite conservative to bring out your concerns about a justice system that is highly weighed against the poor and unprivileged.

she didn't report the crime 36 years ago — Questionall

Why does that surprise you? Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes. Are you unaware of that? Does the idea that a sexually abused fifteen-your-old was too scared or ashamed to go to the authorities seem strange to you?

who otherwise seems like a great role model for everyone — Questionall

Absolutely not. He's already been demonstrated to have likely been dishonest in his Senate testimony, and his positions as a judge are highly objectionable to many. In any case, the operative word in your sentence is "seemed".

then we are all in danger of having our lives ruined. — Questionall

There's a small chance anyone could be falsely accused of a serious crime from a long time ago. You can't conclude from that that any particular accusation or even a significant number of such accusations are false. Instead, you need to look at all the circumstances you can that surround the case and make a considered judgement. Even better, have a proper investigation.

If I have no evidence except for my emotions and you still end up in jail, then any of you has the possibility to end up in jail for rape, murder, theft, etc. — Questionall

No. Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail.

This is likely the most ridiculous political event I have seen in my whole life. — Questionall

Your whole post is based on misunderstandings and obvious falsities, so it's unsurprising you come to a conclusion like this.

Your lack of empathy for the alleged victim is also notable. The fact is you can't know that she is lying or is even mistaken. But you give zero weight to that. It doesn't seem to matter to you that she could very well be a genuine victim of a sexual crime. A victim who is a now being threatened and harassed further. So your post says precisely nothing except "I don't care about the victims of sexual assault". If that's all you wanted to impart, you've successfully done so. If you wanted to add anything of substance to the conversation, on the other hand, you've failed utterly.

I admit I do have some concern that the "me too" movement is designing it's own demise. I've repeatedly heard Ford described as "the victim" based on nothing other than her claim, — Jake

Strictly speaking, she should be called the "alleged victim". But her claim, conspiracy theories aside, is credible, and people will choose their language based on that. Note that the other side insists on referring to Kavanaugh in positive terms despite the fact that there is a significant chance that he did this and is lying about it. It's nothing to be surprised about.

What matters more than what he did in high school is what he has done since about 1982, 36 years ago (Kavanaugh was born in '65). — Bitter Crank

If he had come out and admitted it and apologized in an appropriate manner, I might agree that it might not be disqualifying. But what he is doing now by, if it is true, is lying about it and putting his victim through further punishment, which absolutely is disqualifying.

Anyway, why is it so hard for people to admit the obvious: We don't know yet (and we may never know) but we have to weigh up the credibility of both sides and consider what they have to gain and lose. So far, what Blasey Ford has to gain (if she is lying) is nothing and what he has to lose is a lot. There's much more motivation for him to be lying than her.

The fact that the accusations play so neatly for team democratic makes me think the accusations are most likely unfounded...
It's an almost perfect play, and as such almost certainly the accusations aren't substantive. — Existoic

So, in 2013 when Barack Obama was President and Blasey Ford described the rape attempt to her therapist, do you think she knew this would play neatly for the Dems five years later? And when she told Dianne Feinstein not to release the information because she thought she wouldn't be believed and knew she would be attacked by the right (which is happening now) she secretly wanted someone to release it and knew they would? ...Do you think she believes that all the death threats and verbal abuse she's getting now are worth it as long as it "plays so neatly" for the Dems? Also, does the fact that multiple woman accused Roy Moore of sexual assault played so neatly for the Dems mean all of them were liars too?

What you're espousing, given the facts of this case, is, in essence, a conspiracy angle that's insulting to victims of sexual assault and essentially gives immunity to any sexually abusing politician (or powerful figure) on either side when it "plays" well for the other (as it generally does given the nature of politics). In other words, your conspiracy position "plays neatly" for politicians who are sexual abusers. What conclusion, using your own "cui bono" logic, should we draw from that?

Sincere condolences. :flower:

I'd have put all this in the banning thread if it had been open already, worth moving ...? — unenlightened

Dunno, but I did it anyway. :up:

I don't expect crowds to be thronging in protest at this one. I hope he finds somewhere where he is appropriately understood.

Banned @Zoneofnonbeing for his apparent inability to not think everyone who is not him is an idiot.

He made his disdain for us all clear to me by PM, so I released him from our misery.

[See below:]

I'll give you a hug, Tiff. *Hug* :hearts:

@Posty McPostface's evil plan has been laid bare. I'm impressed. I bet Tiff put him up to it.

I've seen this in documentaries concerning US prisons. Maybe it happens in other countries too. In any case, the underlying problem causing the violence is racism. So, a racist policy of segregation would not be a cure but a further symptom.

That's a relief. *Wipes sweat from brow*

Why did Socrates break up with his girlfriend?

He kept insisting on a Platonic relationship.

Er. I just made that up. :nerd:

:heart: :cheer:

Exactly! :sparkle:

I'd prefer wings, so I could fly like a bird.

I miss the community feel and the freedom to talk casually to others. Call me silly but I appreciate that human connection. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You still have that, Tiff. No-one is stopping you using the Shoutbox.

My counter counter proposal is to confine you to posting in the Shoutbox.