heard her specifically mention Kavanaugh as being the one who assaulted her way before he was being considered for this post. — Baden

It doesn't matter how many people heard her discuss Kavanaugh's behavior. It wasn't criminal when it happened and being brought up 35 years later doesn't make it criminal now, either.

It doesn't matter how many people heard her discuss Kavanaugh's behavior. It wasn't criminal when it happened and being brought up 35 years later doesn't make it criminal now, either. — Bitter Crank

That's beside the point. If Ford is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh is lying to Congress and that's sufficient reason to deny his promotion.

IF you are against Kavanaugh being approved by the Senate, then welcome to the club of people who wish to see him rejected. The appropriate grounds for voting against Kavanaugh is the kind of judge he would probably make.

I don't care how many lie detector tests Ms. Ford takes. She can swear on a stack of Bibles that Kavanaugh was not nice to her. Kavanaugh can deny he was unkind to her till hell freezes over. It's irrelevant. EVEN IF she produced a video tape of these clumsy adolescents on a bed, it would still be irrelevant.

Everybody (bar none) misbehaves at times. Everybody (bar none) behaves unwisely at times. Everybody (bar none) has their own memory of what did or did not happen in the past. "His lies" depends on "her truth". No. I don't automatically believe what women say. Sorry. They have to have something more than to just allege men doing things that they didn't like. Even if it happened, it wasn't a crime then or now. And even if it did happen, it still doesn't determine what kind of man he is now, what kind of judge he is now, or what kind of judge he will be in the future.

"Everybody (bar none) misbehaves at times. Everybody (bar none) behaves unwisely at times. Everybody (bar none) has their own memory of what did or did not happen in the past. "His lies" depends on "her truth". No. I don't automatically believe what women say."

I'm not demanding you believe Ford at this point. I'm asking you to acknowledge that IF she is telling the truth then clearly Kavanaugh is lying, and IF Kavanaugh is lying, then he ought not to be confirmed.

This is not judging who is telling the truth. This is asking about principles, because principles keep getting blurred by people expressing their opinion about who is lying and who should be believed.

There are four complaints out there now. Only one of them is Ford's and the latest is from 1998. And I've said several times re Ford's accusation already that if he had owned up to it and apologized sincerely, my attitude would have been much more forgiving. But you refuse to listen to me and seem intent on repeating your prejudiced impression of what I'm saying instead of actually responding to my position. Having said that, the idea that what happened to Ford was just "juvenile sex play" is absurd. No-one is arguing that we should punish consensual sexual exploration among teens of the same age. But that wasn't the case there.

Its just like: it is too much to ask that a supreme court judge not have a sordid sexual past with allegations of sexual assault? Like it's 7 people. There's already one. Let's just not bump that up by another. Just, y'know, nominate someone else to the most important judicial spot? Boy's not going to jail. Just not getting a promotion. Jeez. The worst possible outcome for him here is that literally nothing will happnen.

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. — Baden

I didn't reject her or her claim. I specifically said she sucks as a witness, because she can bring nothing to the table but a claim.

My point is that Ford has now become the poster child for the metoo movement, due to the huge importance of this particular case. That's not good for either Ford or the metoo movement because she isn't standing on solid ground. If the other guy who was supposedly in the room would confirm her story that would change the situation dramatically.

But until something like that happens, the metoo movement is now being branded as "anybody can ruin someone's career just by making a claim with no evidence". That's not good for the metoo movement because it's going to taint all the claims to come in the future.

Think of this case as an important branding moment for the metoo movement. This case is going to heavily influence many people's relationship with that movement, and the players involved just aren't up to the challenge.

is too much to ask — StreetlightX

Unfortunately, it might well be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/rape-sexual-assault-ban-frats?CMP=fb_gu

I've made my position clear several times and it's that no unexamined, unanalyzed, decontextualized allegation in and of itself should be the basis for presumption of guilt about anything. What it is is the basis for suspicion. Then you put it context, investigate it and see if you can either dispel the suspicion or confirm the allegation, or at least come to a greater level of certainty as to its truthfulness. A very high level of certainty should be required for a criminal conviction, a lower burden for a civil suit, and for simply being denied a promotion (or equivalent) a lower level yet as the severity of punishment should be to some degree proportional to the level of certainty of guilt achieved (and there should be a critical cut-off point of probability where the allegation is dismissed outright and no negative consequences for the accused accrue. We're not there with this case). Now, that's my position. I'm not going to argue with you about your presumptions about #metoo as that's irrelevant to anything I've said.

and for simply being denied a promotion (or equivalent) a lower level yet — Baden

One might even be inclined to consider judgement based on the company one keeps...

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/09/20/a-flag-of-underwear-photo-from-kavanaughs-time-shows-dke-hijinks/

The good christian virgin must have come in for a bit of ribbing from his Frat-bros, eh?

I'm not going to argue with you about your presumptions about #metoo as that's irrelevant to anything I've said. — Baden

Or rather, inconvenient to what you've said.

This type of thing would be less damaging for Kavanaugh if he hadn't done the Fox News Interview where he painted himself as a paragon of purity in a way that's inconsistent with a stream of evidence now being brought forward. The chances of him not being a bare-faced liar even on that score are very slim and that in itself should be disqualifying for a judge.



I'm not part of the #metoo movement, and I don't know much about it or its official response (if there is one) to this ongoing story. Also, it's just a recognized principle around here that we address each other's arguments rather than just say things at each other.

The good christian virgin must have come in for a bit of ribbing from his Frat-bros, eh? — unenlightened

Exactly. It was a strategic mistake on his part to go full pure virgin on this one.

I'm not part of the #metoo movement, and I don't know much about it or its official response (if there is one) to this ongoing story. Also, it's just a recognized principle around here that we address each other's arguments rather than just say things at each other. — Baden

You've been busy positioning yourself as an avid supporter of the metoo movement, whatever you're going to say about that. That's the bottom line underneath all your many arguments. Your intentions are good, and I share your support of metoo. But, your analysis of what is good for the metoo movement is less than fully sophisticated.

You're fighting the he said / she said fight that is consuming everyone right now. My point is that it may not be helpful to the metoo movement to fight that fight unless it can be won in a convincing manner, and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The enormous scale of this situation is the problem. The Supreme Court is on the line, the midterms are on the line, the House of Rep and thus the Presidency are on the line. And, the claims being made are arriving at a very precise political moment. Nobody said anything about any of this for 35 years, until the exact moment at which the claims would have maximum political impact.

I'm not evaluating Ford's motivations, which I'm not in a position to know. I'm evaluating how all of this looks to the public at large. I'm evaluating the branding impact this event will have on the metoo movement. And whatever the reality of the situation may really be, it LOOKS very much like a political smear job.

Rightly or wrongly, justly or not, whatever the hard facts may actually be...

The metoo movement is now going to be heavily associated with political smear jobs and other agendas which have little to do with achieving justice for victims.

This situation could be radically changed for the better if hard evidence to support the claims could be delivered. Maybe that will happen, and I'd welcome that. If hard evidence could be put on the table then the perception would change to this situation really being about defending injured victims.

In case it matters, I'm a Bernie Sanders liberal geezer hippy commie pinko. :smile: I definitely don't want this guy on the court. I'm not defending the nominee, but the metoo movement.

You've been busy positioning yourself as an avid supporter of the metoo movement, whatever you're going to say about that. That's the bottom line underneath all your many arguments. Your intentions are good, and I share your support of metoo. But, your analysis of what is good for the metoo movement is less than fully sophisticated. — Jake

I don't need any movement to help me come to the conclusions I've come to. It's common sense to me.

Anyway, please quote me from this discussion the parts where:

1) I positioned myself as an avid supporter of the #metoo movement

and

2) I analyzed what is good for the #metoo movement.

Quotes only. And then I'll tell you what I meant by those quotes and what, if any, connection there is to what you said.

it LOOKS very much like a political smear job. — Jake

Do you see the irony here? You are criticizing those who think Kavanaugh looks guilty because you think they lack evidence other then the accusations. But you think you have the right to characterize these accusations as a political smear job on the basis that they "look" like that to you though you haven't produced one shred of evidence that they are. You see the problem? You need either to produce your evidence or be defeated by your own logic.

Do you see the irony here? — Baden

No, I don't, because there isn't any irony.

Let's say that I make a very public claim for which I have little evidence. Such an unsupported claim would undermine the credibility of any other claims that I might make. Right? That's what's happening to the metoo movement in this case.

As to all the other stuff, I surrender, you win.

I understand your general point, but it's not a particular claimant's fault there isn't much evidence to support them. And it's not unusual for assault victims to take a long time to summon up the courage to speak. Combine those two facts with only a presumption that the truth should be told and there is no wrong being done here. It might be an unfortunate side-effect of a particular claim being uncorroborated that it sediments a general impression of the unreliability of such claims. But the alternative is the injunction that victims should not speak the truth of what happened to them simply because they might not be believed, which is worse, as the absolute guarantee of not being believed is to not tell anyone in the first place.

So, I find your position self-contradictory from two perspectives:

1) You profess to be worried that sexual assault victims will be not be believed, but you discourage them to come forward except on certain conditions which would preclude many of them of having a chance of being believed.

2) You object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking, but you actively discredit Blasey Ford as being involved in a political smear job on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. You say it "looks" like a political smear job. OK, and Kavanaugh "looks" guilty. Where does that leave us?

little evidence. — Jake

Three separate accounts, two notorious fraternity memberships maybe doesn't add up to a conviction, but neither does it subtract down to an unsupported claim.

I understand your general point, but it's not a particular claimant's fault there isn't much evidence to support them. — Baden

I agree, and didn't claim that it was her fault. I'm making a TACTICAL argument, not a moral "who is to blame" argument.

1) You profess to be worried that sexual assault victims will be not be believed, but you discourage them to come forward except on certain conditions which would preclude many of them of having a chance of being believed. — Baden

Apologies, but you're not actually reading the posts you are so eager to reject. My point is that this is a huge, pivotal, hyper-public case so it's not in the interest of the metoo movement to fight this battle unless they have a good chance of a convincing win.

However, I readily agree that if Ford sees coming forward to be in her personal interest she is entirely within her rights to do so. What you seem determined to ignore is that after 35 years she's chosen to come forward at a very specific political moment, which is reasonably going to raise questions about her motivation. This may not be a problem for her, but it is a problem for metoo.

You object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking, — Baden

No, I did not say that.

but you actively discredit Blasey Ford as being involved in a political smear job on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. — Baden

No, I did not say that either.

You say it "looks" like a political smear job. OK, and Kavanaugh "looks" guilty. Where does that leave us? — Baden

Without a victory for metoo. Whatever happens in this case some very conservative person is going to be elevated to the supreme court, and the metoo movement is going to take a hit. The first outcome was inevitable, the later was not.

You object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking,
— Baden

No, I did not say that. — Jake

So, you don't object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking?

but you actively discredit Blasey Ford as being involved in a political smear job on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
— Baden

No, I did not say that either. — Jake

So, you don't believe Blasey Ford's accusations are part of a political smear job? Or you have evidence this is a political smear job?

Let's just get those two cleared up at least.

Three separate accounts, two notorious fraternity memberships maybe doesn't add up to a conviction, but neither does it subtract down to an unsupported claim. — unenlightened

If these claims were being leveled against me, a total nobody, they would have far more credibility because nobody is going to get rich, famous, or obtain political advantage by accusing me. Thus, all those agendas removed, a search for justice becomes the leading theory.

On the other hand, if the claimants had a chance of winning a billion dollars in a court settlement by accusing me, then their motives and credibility would be questioned far more closely because now there are other compelling agendas which MIGHT be motivating them to stretch or invent the truth.

That's the problem we face in this case. The stakes are control of the government of the world's most powerful nation, a stake far exceeding a billion dollars in scale.

The three women may have pure intentions. They may be telling the exact truth. But that's not how it's going to be perceived by a huge segment of the population, for pretty reasonable reasons.

A solution to this problem would be much more compelling evidence, such as for example, the 2nd man said to be in the rape room coming forward to confirm Ford's story. If that were to happen, my concerns are addressed, and the metoo movement's credibility protected.

So, you don't object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking? — Baden

We're talking past each other. You're intent on having a moral conversation, whereas I'm discussing tactical concerns.

Anyone is entirely free to believe Ford if they so choose, no complaint from here. My point is that the whole nation is focused on this case, and she appears not to be in a position to close the deal, and that doesn't help metoo.

So, you don't believe Blasey Ford's accusations are part of a political smear job? — Baden

I don't know what her motivation is, and neither do you. I'm NOT talking about that, but rather what the perception will be for large numbers of people. Those perceptions of smear job motivation are reasonable, given the highly precise timing of the claims. We're not going to be able to dismiss those perceptions by beating loudly on the moral superiority drum.

A solution to this problem would be much more compelling evidence, such as for example, the 2nd man said to be in the rape room coming forward to confirm Ford's story. — Jake

The 2nd man alleged to be in the room has already been identified. Do you know who he is? Do you know what his relationship to Kavanaugh is? Can you put those facts together to understand why, if the story is true, he probably wouldn't want to corroborate it? You give the impression of not knowing the basics of the case.

Those perceptions of smear job motivation are reasonable, given the highly precise timing of the claims. — Jake

No, they're not reasonable because they are based on an ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the history of the case. Do you know why that is? Or are you going to ask me to repeat the facts that strongly mitigate against Ford's major motivation being to politically smear Kavanaugh? Because I already outlined them.

Look @Jake, I'm not going to discuss this with you any further until you at least go and read Blasey Ford's letter outlining her allegations as we can't have a sensible conversation until you know what you're talking about.

If these claims were being leveled against me, a total nobody, they would have far more credibility because nobody is going to get rich, famous, or obtain political advantage by accusing me. Thus, all those agendas removed, a search for justice becomes the leading theory. — Jake

Yeah, but actually that's bollocks. Whistleblowers of all sorts nearly always pay a huge price, and the higher up the hierarchy their complaint is directed the more they are discredited penalised and so on. One typically becomes unemployable as soon as one makes this sort of complaint, and the success rate in terms of gaining any tangible advantage is minuscule.

But those death threats she's receiving are worth billions. And who wouldn't want to go into hiding?

Yeah, but actually that's bollocks. Whistleblowers of all sorts nearly always pay a huge price, and the higher up the hierarchy their complaint is directed the more they are discredited penalised and so on. One typically becomes unemployable as soon as one makes this sort of complaint, and the success rate in terms of gaining any tangible advantage is minuscule. — unenlightened

Um, this has nothing to do with the words of mine you are responding to, but uh, ok, thanks for sharing.

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further until you at least go and read Blasey Ford's letter outlining her allegations as we can't have a sensible conversation until you know what you're talking about. — Baden

Hey, how about this? Why not stick this whole idea you have that you know what's going on and I don't up your bum? :smile:

What's actually going on here is that I'm trying to fulfill my job as a poster on a philosophy forum, which I see as making a good faith attempt to add something to the conversation that's not already there.

The whole culture is all wound up right now in a near hysterical he said, she said morality melodrama, and some of us here, mentioning no names, are merely recycling the very same melodrama which is already being endlessly repeated on every media outlet.

What I'm attempting to do, however imperfectly, is to add another dimension to the conversation by exploring the tactical angle. Will this event serve the goals of the metoo movement, or will it prove to be an obstacle to those goals?

Baden seems intent that his own interests and abilities ABSOLUTELY MUST form the boundaries of appropriate conversation. He is free to make that case of course, but I respectfully decline to be limited in my analysis to what Baden understands and is interested in. If that's objectionable to any reader, the solution is simple, don't read my posts. I'm fine with that, no problem.