I absolutely agree that a life should not be ruined by an uncorroborated allegation. The debate about whether or not Kavanaugh should have been approved is moot now. But of continuing relevance is how Ford is treated, and how other alleged victims are treated.

Judge Ford independently of Kavanaugh. We shouldn't treat accusers as liars until proven to be telling the truth. Credible accusations should be given the benefit of the doubt. If we don't, we're giving carte blanche to future abusers to do what they will, with the expectation they will get away with it if it's just the victims word against his.

Judge Kavanaugh has just been confirmed by the Senate and should be taking his seat on the Supreme Court on Tuesday, after the Columbus day holiday.

Your hypocrisy objection is a tiresome ad hom. Assuming I rushed to judgment with Weinstein but not with Kavanaugh, that'd make me wrong with Weinstein and not with Kavanaugh.

The claim is not that you rushed to judgement on Weinstein but that you made a sensible and uncontroversial judgement (along with just about everyone else) for which conviction in a court of law was not a prerequisite. As Un pointed out, suspicion is enough to justify caution, and the greater the suspicion, the more justified the caution, with cautionary measures justifiably including removal from a position of power or prevention of the attainment of one. Conservative bloviating re Kavanaugh notwithstanding, that's a simple common-sense approach that should be applied to political appointments in a bipartisan manner.

(That doesn't necessarily mean Kavanaugh shouldn't have ultimately got the position, but that the arguments against his being reconsidered for it were often partisan distractions.)

I absolutely agree that a life should not be ruined by an uncorroborated allegation. — Relativist

This seems an odd sentiment to me. Suspicious characters get arrested, locked up, remanded in custody, sometimes for months, and then eventually maybe prosecuted and maybe not. It happens all the time, and if it didn't we wouldn't have much of a justice system. These things 'ruin lives', they cause break-ups, affect children, destroy reputations, and generally fuck people about big time. Some of them are innocent. Having the police search your property is a scary humiliating public event. The neighbours always blame you, your friends look at you sideways. And the papers aways publish that photo of you hungover and half dressed. The process of corroborating allegations ruins lives.

I get the feeling though, that it is only certain lives, well dressed, educated, affluent, important lives that should not be ruined. And the price of not ruining these lives with intrusive investigations is (amongst other things) that sexual predators in positions of influence get away with it over and over again, and other lives, less influential lives but many more lives get ruined instead. And everyone knows that, so I wonder why I bother to mention it. And I thought the Catholic Church was corrupt. I believe in justice, and there is no justice.

If only conservatives cared about uncorroborated allegations that affect and ruin the lives of disenfranchised minorities as they did about Kavanaugh, then the USA would look very different. And extend that to other repugnant issues, such as healthcare, student loans, that deeply affect lives. But conservatives only really give a shit about a very particular group of Americans.

There's certainly an odd false association of money and status with good character as if those things have any necessary connection at all.

But conservatives only really give a shit about a very particular group of Americans. — Maw

And this is what's really important to me (speaking of minorities). Whoever you are, you'll likely find that applying the principle of presumed innocence is easy in some cases and hard in others.

Note when it's hard. That's when its most important to apply it. Why the Europeans on this board don't understand that, I dont know. I could speculate.

Why Hanover doesn't get it: that's something else. He's Jewish. If anybody should understand it, he should. Yet he's already assumed Kavanaugh's guilt and moved on to defending him on the basis that he was under age.

Twas ever thus. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/oct/05/artemisia-gentileshi-painter-beyond-caravaggio?CMP=fb_gu

If the money keeps disappearing from a till only you have access to on your shift, there's unlikely to be a presumption of innocence until you're convicted in a court of law, but much more likely to be a firing that no-one except you will object to. The presumption of innocence applies to criminal penalties not to how we deal with people in terms of hirings, promotions and firings where we apply common-sense probabilities. Again, this is not to argue that Kavanaugh was guilty, but that the (mostly) conservative presumption of innocence spiel re him is just a convenient distraction that is not applied by them in analogous non-partisan contexts.

Yea, you're wrong.

Are you capable of addressing any of my arguments and explaining why you think I'm wrong?

My phone is dying and I'm about to travel. Later.

If the money keeps disappearing from a till only you have access to on your shift, there's unlikely to be a presumption of innocence until you're convicted in a court of law, but much more likely to be a firing that no-one except you will object to. — Baden

If I'm innocent, this scenario describes injustice. I'm not asking you to agree or understand. I'm informing you that in my society, though it may happen, it's considered to be wrong.

The presumption of innocence applies to criminal penalties not to how we deal with people in terms of hirings, promotions and firings where we apply common-sense probabilities. — Baden

I struggle to understand how you could imagine justice has no meaning outside a courtroom. Again, I'm informing you that in my society, which has a history of prejudiced hiring, promoting, and firing in accordance with what was deemed common-sense probability, an unwarranted assumption of guilt is contrary to basic principles.

Again, this is not to argue that Kavanaugh was guilty, but that the (mostly) conservative presumption of innocence spiel re him is just a convenient distraction that is not applied by them in analogous non-partisan contexts. — Baden

If someone applies or doesn't apply the principle in keeping with strategy, that person is basically unprincipled. You won't learn much about a society's values by focusing on people like that.

If I'm innocent, this scenario describes injustice. — frank

Obviously. And if you're found guilty in a court of something you didn't do, that's an injustice too.

I'm informing you that in my society, though it may happen, it's considered to be wrong. — frank

And I'm informing you that that's an absurd claim. Again, Harvey Weinstein. Who thought it was wrong when he was fired and not presumed innocent? Almost no-one, and rightly so. Of course, if he's innocent, that's unjust, but the huge weight of likelihood of his guilt makes doing nothing the unjust course of action.

I struggle to understand how you could imagine justice has no meaning outside a courtroom. — frank

Strawman. I obviously don't think that. In fact, I think justice has little meaning in a courtroom in a country where the judges are often political partisans as many are in the US.

And I'm informing you that that's an absurd claim. Again, Harvey Weinstein. Who thought it was wrong when he was fired and not presumed innocent? Almost no-one, and rightly so. Of course, if he's innocent, that's unjust, but the huge weight of likelihood of his guilt makes doing nothing the unjust course of action. — Baden

Among those who spoke out about the rash of career destructions of which Weinstein was the model was Margaret Atwood. She spoke on behalf of the principle of assumed innocence.

The people we're talking about were not fired based on the principle that doing nothing is unjust. They were each fired to protect brands. Charlie Rose was fired to protect CBS's brand. Kevin Spacey was fired to protect Netflix and so on. In other words, they were fired because of the power of the mob. Somehow you drew out of this the principle that it's ok to destroy people and ask questions later (if at all).

Again, a strawman. I don't believe careers should always be ended because of accusations and certainly not without questions being asked. I've stressed that already several times in this thread. Now try dealing with what I actually said instead of pinning your projections on me.

Explain your point again. It seemed to me that you pointed to the development of an American mob as proof that Americans approve of mob behavior.

Where did I say anything about a "mob"? Quote me.

I've said what I had to say.
Continue with your mangled comprehension of the world. It's not my problem.

You and me are a mob. It means two or more people who disagree with received wisdom.

Most Americans approve of Weinstein's firing because of the very high probability he is a sexual abuser/rapist. That's just a fact. And if you can't quote me to support your argument, then yes, you are done.



I think in this case it simply refers to two or more people who disagree with frank.

Weinstein is a cause célèbre, and so is Kavanaugh. But the thing is, very ordinary people are fairly routinely fired because of accusations which are not investigated, because the company brand (and the convenience of the management) are more important than the life of the individual worker. It's enshrined in the law of "employment at will" which is in place in most states. What it means is that you can be hired or fired at will (if there is no governing contract covering the individual).

Rules of evidence are, of course, irrelevant for employees facing firing under employment at will. If the boss says you offended a customer, or annoyed a client, or combed your hair the wrong way, or whatever, doesn't matter. You're fired, end of story.

Employees almost never have recourse, no matter how damaging the firing is.

Sure. That's due to property rights, not Baden's bizarre principle that it's more just to fire accused people than it is to keep them. That's ridiculous.

Lol property rights = ability to fire people for no reason. ok

You either quote where I said that or stop saying I said things I didn't say.

but the huge weight of likelihood of his guilt makes doing nothing the unjust course of action. — Baden

Is there some reason you can't read your own posts?

In the case where there is a huge weight of likelihood of guilt, especially in a case of sexual assault, the accused should be removed from a position where he or she can repeat the abuse.

But I did not say without qualification or context:

that it's more just to fire accused people than it is to keep them. — frank

And in fact I made that clear when I said:

I don't believe careers should always be ended because of accusations and certainly not without questions being asked. I've stressed that already several times in this thread. — Baden

Do you understand yet frank?

In the case where there is a huge weight of likelihood of guilt, especially in a case of sexual assault, the accused should be removed from a position where he or she can repeat the abuse. — Baden

Precautionary suspension. We're back to Kavanaugh trying to rape the lawyers who come before the Supreme Court. Good grief.

Do you understand yet frank? — Baden

I'm getting there. What I've found out about you is pure third world.