#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 88 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15066868
The Mariner wrote:The fact that you're going to such lengths to avoid answering my question makes it clear that you're afraid to because you know I'm right.


I've been very clear that your question is stupid and irrelevant. And that it is a desperate attempt to reframe the Kavanaugh nomination into a criminal prosecution rather than a discussion on the qualifications of the drunken rapey man.
#15066878
Was Kavanaugh the only choice they had for SCOTUS, because he sure was a shitty one to have. Were the only choice him or the child rapist, Roy Moore? :?:

Why was a drunk who cries on the stand and then wants vengeance still qualified for such a prestigious position, is what @SpecialOlympian is asking.
#15066899
Godstud wrote:Was Kavanaugh the only choice they had for SCOTUS, because he sure was a shitty one to have. Were the only choice him or the child rapist, Roy Moore? :?:

Why was a drunk who cries on the stand and then wants vengeance still qualified for such a prestigious position, is what @SpecialOlympian is asking.


SpecialOlympian insists on referring to Kavanaugh as a rapist, so that's part of the discussion. There's no basis for that, though.

Whether or not Kavanaugh was the only candidate doesn't matter. He also wasn't drunk on the stand, so can we stop with that?
#15066901
SpecialOlympian wrote:I've been very clear that your question is stupid and irrelevant. And that it is a desperate attempt to reframe the Kavanaugh nomination into a criminal prosecution rather than a discussion on the qualifications of the drunken rapey man.


What's stupid is that you want the unsupported accusations of a woman who remained silent for almost 40 years to be believed and accepted for no other reason than she made unsupported accusations.

And that it is a desperate attempt to reframe the Kavanaugh nomination into a criminal prosecution rather than a discussion on the qualifications of the drunken rapey man.


I'm not trying to reframe anything. But just because it's not a criminal prosecution doesn't mean we dispense with logic and reason. Hey, if Kavanaugh did it, let's nail his scumbag ass to the wall. But you simply can't do that solely on the basis of one person's accusation. That's wrong on every level.
#15066939
Pants-of-dog wrote:While Ford may not have provided enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh, her story was plausible and there is no reason to not believe her.


Fixed that for you.

It's not that she didn't provide enough evidence, she didn't provide any evidence.

Her story, initially, seemed as though it could've been plausible. But it began to unravel when she was unable to recall the date of the party, where the party was held, when it was held, etc. The very people she said would corroborate her story had no idea what she was talking about.

There was not a single reason to believe her.
#15066942
The Mariner wrote:Fixed that for you.

It's not that she didn't provide enough evidence, she didn't provide any evidence.


No.

Her own testimony is evidence.

Her story, initially, seemed as though it could've been plausible. But it began to unravel when she was unable to recall the date of the party, where the party was held, when it was held, etc. The very people she said would corroborate her story had no idea what she was talking about.

There was not a single reason to believe her.


A lack of precision when it comes to a distant memory of a traumatic experience is completely normal. In fact, because of the way the brain records trauma, it would me more unbelievable if she did remember things with precision and clarity.

So again, despite the lack of evidence, her story is plausible, and it is impossible to know if Kavanaugh is actually innocent or not.
#15066950
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Her own testimony is evidence.


And it was very weak evidence at that.

How could you possibly find her testimony the least bit compelling? Are you the type of person who believes something just because someone says it? You find it compelling because you're a liberal and he's a conservative, and no other reason.

A lack of precision when it comes to a distant memory of a traumatic experience is completely normal. In fact, because of the way the brain records trauma, it would me more unbelievable if she did remember things with precision and clarity.


This is just fascinating.

Insane, but fascinating.

There was no "lack of precision", there was a complete absence of it. Ford's "eyewitnesses" actually corroborated Kavanaugh's testimony more than they did Ford's. Why shouldn't they be believed?

So again, despite the lack of evidence, her story is plausible, and it is impossible to know if Kavanaugh is actually innocent or not.


And, when there's no compelling evidence to say one way or another, he must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Tie goes to the runner and all that.

Referring to him here as a rapist is libel. He's not, and there's never been anything more than a drunken party slut's testimony that says he is.
#15066951
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Her own testimony is evidence.

A lack of precision when it comes to a distant memory of a traumatic experience is completely normal. In fact, because of the way the brain records trauma, it would me more unbelievable if she did remember things with precision and clarity.

So again, despite the lack of evidence, her story is plausible, and it is impossible to know if Kavanaugh is actually innocent or not.


No it wouldn't.

Abuse victims usually remember every little minute detail of the incident that caused their PTSD, unless concussion or some other complication occurs.

Because the funny thing about a traumatic experience is that they often lead to the victim reliving the situation over and over again in their mind and remembering every little detail and dreaming as to how they could have avoided it.

Here's what a real victim confessing her abuse publically looks like:


Remembers every little detail. Even remembered every detail of the meeting with her Religious authorities where she attempted to raise the issue of her abuse, because that was also traumatic.

(I have watched this video several times, it is a very inspiring story so I'm posting it here, Jewish Community Watch is a good organisation).

Blasey-Ford was not believable, or the event was not significant enough to cause PTSD for her, or whatever PTSD she had is just gone.

Juanita Brodrick is easy to believe because it's obvious the abuse Bill dished out caused lifelong PTSD and lasting psychological damage. She remembers every detail of the incident vividly.

Just like McGowan, Judd and every other Weinstein accuser remembers every single detail. That example of Melissa Benoist, she remembers every minute detail of her domestic abuse BECAUSE she is suffering PTSD from it.
#15066953
Godstud wrote:Oh, sorry, yes he was only blubbering, and talking about how he loved beer, while on the stand. :roll: So dignified. Just what a Republican wants from a Supreme Court Justice.


If I remember correctly, he was being questioned about beer. Yes I looked it up and it was a line of questioning led by presidential candidate Sen Amy Klobuchar who apparently had a loser alcoholic father.

Kavanaugh gets combative with Democratic senator over questions about drinking

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday combatively responded to questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar about his drinking habits.

Klobuchar has written extensively about her father's alcoholism, including in her 2015 memoir and in a 2010 profile with Elle magazine.

"He had two DWIs when I was in junior high and it was on the front page of the paper," she told Elle. "Some kid used a key and carved drunk on my locker."

She also recalled that after she watched her father struggle to put a diaper on her younger sister, a young Klobuchar wrote this note to her mother: "I think something's rong (sic). Can you please check when you get home? I didn't want to hurt his feels."


So this stupid wahman was projecting her own daddy issues onto Kavanuagh.

She was comparing Kavanuagh's alleged high school and college binge drinking which some might consider to be a right of passage among young men, with her own loser father's alcohol issues he had when he was trying to raise his children, which is generally frowned upon by society.

Kavanaugh's senate hearing might as well have been considered as some kind of weird psychotherapy session for Ford and Klobuchar that the nation was allowed to watch.
#15066973
Pants-of-dog wrote:A lack of precision when it comes to a distant memory of a traumatic experience is completely normal. In fact, because of the way the brain records trauma, it would me more unbelievable if she did remember things with precision and clarity.


In truth, the exact opposite is the case, especially with rape victims. They remember things like the smell of cologne or the stench of body odor. They recall accents and breath, be it good or bad. They remember whether or not their assailants hands were rough or soft, manicured or not. They remember things that you would never expect them to.

Blasey-Ford's testimony was unbelievable from the start, and it only got worse the more she testified.
#15066980
I thought that when he was still crying and angrily asking the senators about their drinking he really demonstrated the kind of gravitas he would bring to the storied institution of the SCOTUS. Also the way he would just randomly say, "I like beer" while sobbing. Before Kavanagh I had never wondered if having a catchphrase could add to the position, but now I think every SCOTUS nominee should have one. And heck if "I like beer *sob*" isn't catchy.

Also I guess it's wrong to presume the known problem drinker was drunk simply because he was crying and screaming "I like beer." That's something sober people do too.
#15066986
The Mariner wrote:And it was very weak evidence at that.


In a sense, yes. But still evidence.

However, everything she said was quite plausible.

....you're a liberal ...


No, I am far more radical than that.

This is just fascinating.

Insane, but fascinating.

There was no "lack of precision", there was a complete absence of it. Ford's "eyewitnesses" actually corroborated Kavanaugh's testimony more than they did Ford's. Why shouldn't they be believed?


You are not addressing my point.

Again, a lack of precision by the target of a sexual assault does not make her testimony implausible.

And, when there's no compelling evidence to say one way or another, he must be given the benefit of the doubt.


No. That only makes sense in a court of law judging a crime.

If you are objectuvely analyzing a situation to determine what happened, it makes no sense to make that assumption.

----------------

colliric wrote:No it wouldn't.

Abuse victims usually remember every little minute detail of the incident that caused their PTSD, unless concussion or some other complication occurs.

Because the funny thing about a traumatic experience is that they often lead to the victim reliving the situation over and over again in their mind and remembering every little detail and dreaming as to how they could have avoided it.

Here's what a real victim confessing her abuse publically looks like:


Remembers every little detail. Even remembered every detail of the meeting with her Religious authorities where she attempted to raise the issue of her abuse, because that was also traumatic.

(I have watched this video several times, it is a very inspiring story so I'm posting it here, Jewish Community Watch is a good organisation).

Blasey-Ford was not believable, or the event was not significant enough to cause PTSD for her, or whatever PTSD she had is just gone.

Juanita Brodrick is easy to believe because it's obvious the abuse Bill dished out caused lifelong PTSD and lasting psychological damage. She remembers every detail of the incident vividly.

Just like McGowan, Judd and every other Weinstein accuser remembers every single detail. That example of Melissa Benoist, she remembers every minute detail of her domestic abuse BECAUSE she is suffering PTSD from it.


Indy wrote:In truth, the exact opposite is the case, especially with rape victims. They remember things like the smell of cologne or the stench of body odor. They recall accents and breath, be it good or bad. They remember whether or not their assailants hands were rough or soft, manicured or not. They remember things that you would never expect them to.

Blasey-Ford's testimony was unbelievable from the start, and it only got worse the more she testified.


While some people who have been through trauma can remember everything in detail, many cannot.

Some people experience memory loss, some remember only fragments, some remember some things clearly while forgetting other things.

I think you are taking a single manifestation of PTSD and applying it to everyone who has suffered trauma. While I understand the logic, it is reductionist as it does not show the true variety of psychological reactions to trauma.
#15067019
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That only makes sense in a court of law judging a crime.


If it makes sense in a court of law then it makes sense. The question then becomes whether or not it's necessary to determine guilt.

If you are objectuvely analyzing a situation to determine what happened, it makes no sense to make that assumption.


How is it objective to determine, based on her own horribly flawed testimony, that she was telling the truth?

That's not looking at anything objuctively [sic].
#15067044
The Mariner wrote:If it makes sense in a court of law then it makes sense. The question then becomes whether or not it's necessary to determine guilt.


No.

The presumption of innocence is used to defned individuals from government overreach. It is not a logical law.

How is it objective to determine, based on her own horribly flawed testimony, that she was telling the truth?

That's not looking at anything objuctively [sic].


You got confused. We are still looking at whether the presumption of innocence makes sense outside of a courtroom.

Let us imagine something.

Abe and Bea are in a locked room with the Carat diamond. Suddenly, the lights go out, and when the lights come back on, the C diamond is gone!

Obviously, A and B are both suspects. A says B did it, B says A did it.

Both cases go to trial and A gets acquitted because there is a reasonable doubt that B did it.

B gets acquitted because there is a reasonable doubt that A did it.

Now, by your logic, the CD was never actually stolen. But we know it was.

Using real logic, we know that one of them stole it but that we have no evidence to make a clear decision about what happened.

To relate this back to Kavanaugh, we do not have enough evidence to determine his guilt, but we also do not have enough evidence to determine that he did not sexually assault anyone.
#15067047
It is worth noting that OJ Simpson got convicted of in a Civil court, but not a Criminal court. They, like the trial that Kavanaugh was involved in, have different levels of necessary evidence.

O.J. Simpson was NOT guilty of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman as judged by criminal court jury. Yet a civil court jury held him legally responsible for their deaths. A lower burden of proof was needed, as was the case with Kavanaugh, where the only penalty was him not being appointed on the SCOTUS.
  • 1
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]