Do you have a point? I don't care to semantics.

No.

You just answered your own question, but is TPF a place?

'Where's the referent in the sentence, "I like this place."'

It is the specific place that the speaker of the sentence has in mind, and has presumably referenced in another way.

Consider how we form abstractions in our mind: it entails a partial consideration of actual objects - contemplating one or more of their properties.

Square objects in the world have squareness (and other properties, including spatio-temporal locations). "Square" has no real world referrent, so squares do not exist in the world.

If God exists, there is a real world referrent for the abstracted properties of God-ness.

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.

The House of Representatives, not the Senate, votes for impeachment. It only takes a simple majority - so yes, this could occur. But impeachment is analogous to indictment, it does not remove someone from office. It moves to the Senate for the decision to remove. That takes a 2/3 majority vote, so it would require 67 Senators to vote to remove him from office. So it's probably not going to happen.

This Wikipedia article on the impeachment of Bill Clinton makes the process clear.

That would have been perceived as moving the goalposts. Nevertheless, the perception that he may have lied provides justification to vote against him - for those so inclined.

"I don't get the point of not believed without corroborating evidence - what are the correct actions that should be taken when with non-corroborated allegations ??? "
Kavanaugh's name has been dragged through the mud a bit, but he's compensated if he gets the job he wanted. Ford's name has also been dragged through the mud by Trump, Trump Jr, and many of their supporters. She must not be treated as a liar, because what she said is possibly true - and the possibility she is stating facts must not be dismissed. She should be shown respect for having the courage to come forward. Senators voting for Kavanaugh should express sentiments to this effect. Kudos to those who condemned Trump's comments.

Collateral damage: victims of abuse are discouraged from coming forward because they will not be believed without corroborating evidence.

It's ironic that a Kavanaugh win may fire up Democrats for the midterms, while a loss may fire up Republicans.

Mark Dice (who I'm not particularly a fan of but who has made some good points at times) has here demonstrated how accepting atheistic premises will lead people to accepting incest as okay.

However, the matter is very basic.

There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

How does one prove incest is wrong using objective moral values (OMVs)?

It seems wrong, but I can point to biological risks and the related possibility our instinctive feelings are a product of evolution. Surely it's such feelings (irrespective of their source) that are the basis our moral judgment. So how does one account for these moral feelings under the premise OMVs exist, and how does one show this account more likely to be true than the alternative?

And who finds his comments inappropriate other than those who were already his opponents? — Hanover

That partisan lens works both ways: who's defending the partisan rant?

I can understand his reaction to a false accusation (if it IS false) most of us would react similarly. However most of us aren't candidates for the Supreme Court. It was a missed opportunity for him to demonstrate how a judge should evaluate evidence and respect the alleged victim.

Kavanaugh did not dispute Ford's claim of an assault. He only disputed that it was him. He should have built on this and the impossibility of proving a negative. The politics on both sides of this are completely irrelevant to the charge- in a courtroom, a judge wouldn't allow it to be presented because it appeals to prejudice.

His reputation is already shredded" — frank

So is Ford's, and all she did was speak what she believes to be true. Worst case for her, she is misremembering who did it. Worst case for Kavanaugh is that he did it and lied about it.

Kavanaugh may very well be innocent of the assaullt, but he is guilty of defending this innocence with a partisan rant.

IMO, the best outcome will be to vote him down, but with each "no" vote accompanied wirh a justification that acknowledges that we should not assume his guilt, and every "yes" vote noting we should not assume she's lying.

Trump just doesn't care. — Marchesk

I think much of his reaction is due to this hitting home. Imagine if every woman he ever behaved inappropriately with came forward. He wants accusers to be considered liars until proven truthful.

I agree. What makes me sadder is that so many people are perfectly fine with his behaviour. Rewatching the video of Trump ridiculing Ford, I was focussed on the women sitting behind him, smiling and laughing as he made these comments.

There have always been crackpots, but none has ever been this popular.

That may indeed be portion of the motivation, but if you set partisan motivation aside - there's still good objective reason to extend the investigation: Ford presented a credible allegation.Credible allegations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. Alleged victims shouldn't be treated as liars until proven to be telling the truth.

If no corroborating evidence is uncovered, which seems likely, the evidence is equivocal. Kavanauh is not proven innocent and he's not proven guilty. Senators are free to decide what standard to apply. If it were me, I wouldn't approve him because there's a good chance he actually assaulted her and lied about it. On the other hand, were I on a jury evaluating a criminal charge against Kavanaugh I would acquit because I have a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

I'm going to set aside political motivation. I see two legitimate reasons: 1) the belief that no relevant new evidence existed. 2) further enquiry was a rabbit hole - one lead would lead to more, but none could ever support or refute the charge.

This is worse:

"Trump went on stage at a rally in Mississippi Tuesday, mimicking Ford’s Senate testimony and attacking her for gaps in her memory.

“I don’t know. I don’t know. What neighborhood was it? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it — I don’t know. But I had one beer, that’s the only thing I remember,” Trump said in his impression of Ford’s testimony.

In August, (pro-choice) Collins met with Kavanaugh about Roe v Wade, and was satisfied with his assurance that he would "respect" the prior precedent. That ambiguous statement seemed to be enough for her, at the time. I wonder if his questionable performance last week will alter her perspective.

A month ago, I thought there was a 90% chance he'd be confirmed. Now I think it's even money.

Those are historical reasons. Consider that exchanging gold for other stuff sets each thing's value relative to gold, which then establishes their relative value to each other. Values fluctuate due to supply/demand.

" What makes paper bills valuable? "
Inertia and social convention. It was originally a proxy for gold (and one could ask, what makes gold valuable?), but this evolved over time, and the link was eventually severed. Inertia took over, but it remains a social convention.

The other question is : what is its value? It's value is labor: work-hours. So its subjective to how much you make.

This seems significant. Kavanaugh allegedly contacted friends to solicit support against the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, and he did this prior to the appearance of the New Yorker article. In his testimony last week, Kavanaugh said he first learned of the charge from that article.

I agree 100%. Worst case, he's an innocent man wrongly accused who is unfairly denied a job. Sad from his perspective, but lots of qualified, deserving people fail to get the job they want. This can be said about a lot of SCOTUS candidates, I expect.

I agree with almost everything you said, but disagree that Kavanaugh is necessarily being hypocritical about polygraph tests. IMO, this article makes a good case:

"Brett Kavanaugh was asked during yesterday’s hearing if he would take a polygraph test. He replied that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to, but noted that polygraphs are inadmissible in federal court because they are “unreliable. That fact is not in dispute...”

His court opinion merely, "affirmed that “polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.”

You never identified any problems, you just ignored them. — Proto

False. Look back a couple pages. I commented on each of your items. You responded, "The main point she seemed false for me." So it was you who ignored what I said, and your comment is consistent with my assertion that you listed rationalizations, not factors that led you to a conclusion.

I say Ford made long air trips just for pleasure, but when invited to the Senate hearings she refused to travel claiming she was afraid of air trips. My conclusion: she is a liar, you conclusion: she is brave.

I said no such thing. I just pointed out that people with fear of flying often fly, and pointed you to an article that discusses this. She was reluctant to fly; she preferred not to. This doesn't imply she would never fly. Further, it's false to characterize it as a "refusal" to fly.

Ford named three witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. My conclusion: she is a liar, your conclusion: she has poor memory.

I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that no one remembers every gathering they ever attended. Failure of 3 people to recall a vaguely described gathering, 30 years earlier, that had no personal significance to them is not surprising. Had one or more of them remembered, it would constitute corroborating evidence, but an absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying.

Ford failed to answer the question about payment for polygraph test. Is that realistic that a person is not aware of someone having paid for the services the person obtained? My conclusion: in no way, Ford is a liar. Your conclusion?

She didn't "fail to answer," she just didn't know the answer. The answer turned out to be that her lawyer paid for it - it had been their recommendation to have it performed. I expect the lawyers will pass along the cost to her.

Ford has never mentioned Kavanaug's name in any official documents including sessions with her therapist for more than 30 years . My conclusion: she is a liar.

False premise to assume victims of abuse actually discuss it. Speaking out is atypical.

Finally, For what have all these lies been made?
My answer: Ford benefited becoming a national celebrity. My conjecture: She is a Russian agent who is well paid for and

This is not evidence of lying, it is pure speculation that rationalizes the assumption she lied. Your conjecture is fantasy - there being zero reason to think she's a Russian agent.

While it is possible she lied, your stated case for concluding this doesn't hold water.

I don't want to get ugly, but my issue with Proto is that he gave a list of reasons he believed Ford was lying. At least two people (Dfpolis and I) identified problems with each point, and this made no difference. Without refuting our rebuttals, it should at least weaken his belief. So his list doesn't actually seem to be factors that led to his belief, rather they seem like post-hoc rationalization of his (irrational?) belief.

Is it a mistake to take epistemology, and justification of belief, too seriously when it comes to politics? Or maybe I should just accept that some people are clairvoyant.

when the options for traditional reasoning are all used up we have to move on and try something else, or we will be paralyzed — lupac

We all do what we need to do to survive (and avoid paralysis), and I'm not judging anyone for doing that. But by that same token, I do what I do - and that is to seek truth, in the way I know how.

The thing I think is ridiculous is the notion that we can choose our beliefs based on the potential for benefitting, rather than based on our usual methods for evaluating the truth of propositions.

Ok, what I was saying was delaying the confirmation passed the midterms, would allow the midterms to be a defacto referendum on abortion - which they believe (I think rightly so) they win on.

It will be a referendum on Trump, and the Trumpublican party.

"we should at least be theists based around Pascal's wager and leave “what kind of theists” for another conversation."
To cover more bases, you should also accept Jesus Christ as your persona! savior (to meet Protestant conditions for etenal reward), and you should refrain from committing mortal sins, which Catholics believe sends you to hell. The latter also works for Islamic teaching as well.

To be on the safe side, I'd sacrifice lambs and offerings to the gods of Olympus, as well. Maybe also mutter, "Hare Krishna..." .

Were there time (were time made... assholes) for more comprehensive analysis she'd probably have her claims vindicated. — fdrake

Her claims are already vindicated by her credible testimony. Has any Senator accused her of lying? Even Trump didn't do that after her testimony (although he did BEFORE the testimony). Kavanaugh has even said that he's not questioning that she had been assaulted, he just denies being the one. (rank and file folks calling her a liar just reflect on their own partisanship, not on a careful evaluation of evidence).

So the only outstanding question is: is she correctly remembering who did it? There was only one other person in the room: Judge. He will deny it, and that won't really tip the scales toward Kavanaugh, because (if guilty) he's not going to admit it.

It would be helpful if someone remembered being at a gathering at a house that included both Ford and Kavanaugh, but that seems unlikely since all the named people have said they have no recollection. If it happened, this implies it was not a big, memorable event - maybe just a few folks went to someone's house to use their swimming pool (Ford says she was wearing a swimsuit), somebody brought beers, and ...you know, drunk boys will be drunk boys (paraphrasing some prior excuses that have been made).

Did Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of "devil's triangle" and "boofing."

Has anyone corroborated his definitions, by checking with other contemporaneous attendees of his prep school? (I expect his friends will back him up, so we'd need to hear from people who weren't in his circle).

1. It is common for people with fear of flying to fly (see: this)

2. No one remembers every gathering they ever attended, not if there's a number of them of similar inconsequence to them. All we know is that the gathering was small, not a big party, and it may have involved swimming.

3.No one remembers every detail of significant events, but we do remember the most impactful parts. I remember an altercation I had with a kid when I was 10 - he was bigger and stronger, and pinned me to the ground. I remember no details other than who it was, roughly where we were, and most strongly: the panic I felt due to being unable to move.

4. Are you alleging, without evidence, that she was paid to make up the story? Dismiss the polygraph as evidence, if you like, but then it's just less evidence she telling the truth, not evidence she's lying.

5. Being a psychologist doesn't prepare you for an acting performance. Did she seem insincere, or did project vulnerability and fear?

6. Benefitted? She originially wanted to remain anonymous.

Personally, I am convinced she is not lying - that she experienced the assault she described. I am a bit less confident that it was Kavanaugh.

Good catch, and I concede that as long as there are no universe-variables whose variability is continuous, then you're right.

Indisputable evidence of a clear violation of laws of nature would work. e.g.: regrowing a leg that had beem amputated.

Absolutely, Dems should nominate a woman.

Because there is no guarantee it would take that long. All you have is their word. — yatagarasu

It's being done, and with a 1 week deadline.

From the perspective of political theater, Republicans look stupid for repeatedly saying they couldn't make the FBI do an investigation. Technically, they can't order it - but obviously they could ask the White House to order it, as they are doing.

From the perspective of looking for truth, this is a good outcome. It remains to be seen if there's more evidence to be had.

I hope they bring in Mark Judge. I understand he's a recovering alcoholic. If he's in a 12-step program and taking it seriously, step 8 is a pretty big deal: "Make a list of all persons we had harmed, and be willing to make amends to them all". This could either result in his spilling the beans (if Kavanaugh and he are guilty), or in if they're innocent it could result in some compelling testimony from him if he expresses his commitment to this.

Infinite time doesn't necessarily ensure repeating. Assume repeated big bangs but the initial energy level at the beginning of inflation can be any real number between two boundaries. There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. The probability of starting with exactly the same number twice is zero.

If that's not obvious, consider that sequence of universes (from this day forward) has a 1:1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers - so it has a cardinality of aleph0, while the set of possible energy levels is 1:1 with the set of real numbers, which has cardinality aleph1.

4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times.

That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds.