uncadonego on 23/9/2018 at 12:17
And what is going on here is NOT that we just hope that it screws up his nomination. What is really going on here is that jkcerda and Vae and McConnell and the other "boys" don't really care one tiny bit if their nominee did this or not. It's dishonest to say she's lying because that's not what you really mean. You know damn well she's likely telling the truth. What you really mean is "I don't give a shit about the bitches feelings! I don't give a shit if he tried to force himself on her! Screw the bitch! She's trying to ruin a man!"
uncadonego on 23/9/2018 at 12:18
Quote Posted by Vae
No...in a free society, no one is expected to take a polygraph based on a spotty allegation from decades ago.
...and so your demand is both unreasonable and insubstantial.
If he's innocent, he should be demanding it! If he's innocent and he passed a polygraph, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
Judith on 23/9/2018 at 12:28
If anything is "brave and true", it's trying to rise above "so what, everybody does it", or "let the whole system go down in flames because all the previous governments did nothing for me". But it's very hard to get to this level of discussion with the duo (trio?) you have in this thread.
Vae on 23/9/2018 at 12:33
Quote Posted by uncadonego
And what is going on here is NOT that we just hope that it screws up his nomination.
It's good that you've revealed your true motivations for why you want Ford to testify.
Quote:
What is really going on here is that jkcerda and Vae and McConnell and the other "boys" don't really care one tiny bit if their nominee did this or not. It's dishonest to say she's lying because that's not what you really mean.
Keep going...I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Quote:
You know damn well she's likely telling the truth.
No, I don't...and neither do you...so stop imagining things that you don't know.
Quote:
What you really mean is "I don't give a shit about the bitches feelings! I don't give a shit if he tried to force himself on her! Screw the bitch! She's trying to ruin a man!"
Oh, I see what's going on here...You're really just a
man-hater...a
Misandrist, to be more precise.
No wonder why you're so imbalanced.
uncadonego on 23/9/2018 at 12:36
Judith,
So say something to raise the level of discussion, because I definitely can't get the other side to think this allegation matters. Go back the last few pages and read my links. How can people read them and not be persuaded even an inch?
Abysmal,
I'm not 100% sure you were meant as part of the "trio". She could have meant me, as in the argument going nowhere.....
I don't hate men Vae, I am a man.
uncadonego on 23/9/2018 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Abysmal
But if you think any human on Earth hasn't behaved badly or acted in self-interest ever in their lives (including both men who grope and/or lying women...if he really did something THAT bad though I'll happily concede) then I've got some oil to sell you.
All humans have behaved badly. Sexual assault is more than behaving badly. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.
And the point is it doesn't matter to Hatch, Grassley or McConnell. I don't hate men, but I despise men who have said the vote is going through before even hearing one word from her. They have plainly shown they also don't care one bit about sexual assault.
EDIT: I'm adding to this post to avoid another triple post.
QUESTION: Regardless of allegations, regardless of left right, or center, regardless of anything else.
No ya buts, no qualifiers, no questions of proof, just YES or NO.
Should someone who sexually assaulted someone at 17 be on SCOTUS.
YES or NO
Judith on 23/9/2018 at 12:57
Unca, that wasn't criticism towards you, that was more a poke towards Vae, whom I have on ignore list for a very good reason: he think's he's a village elder and doesn't see how easy it is to be a village idiot most of the time.
I don't think there is a good way to reason with such people, as they will use any tactic to either wank off on feeling better than everybody else or making the discussion annoying for everyone. I admire Renz for his patience, but I guess it's true that he doesn't have much choice, as the only alternative would be to have an echo chamber here.
That said it's interesting to observe this discussion as it kind of mirrors of what has happened in GB and what is currently happening e.g. in Poland. While the left is corrupted and it has a lot to answer for, even they kept most things under the table, and not even one of them though about turning the whole system upside down in every aspect of political life. Noone but the right when they got the mandate, who keep smashing everything in they way, with loud applause of their voters. It's weird that they don't expect that they too can become a target in their sights, if need arises. You know, "tyranny in democracy isn't that different from tyranny in other political systems", that kind of stuff.
nickie on 23/9/2018 at 12:58
I don't get what the problem is. Abysmal's not really saying anything new. And beating your head against the jk/Vae brick wall is a waste of time, unca. I agree that Hatch, Grassley and McConnell are behaving despicably.
I think it's absolutely believable that a person who has been subjected to the kind of attack that Ford alleges would carry on with life, receiving some therapy on occasion to try and deal with the effects, and many years later on seeing the attacker's face blazoned all over the news, would then start reliving the horror day after day after day. No one in their right mind would want that attacker to be continually in their face for a lifetime.
Starker on 23/9/2018 at 13:50
Quote Posted by Abysmal
But the appointment of another conservative, shifting the balance of the SCOTUS for your potential lifetime is likely a much deeper an graver concern of yours compared to this incident, is it not? Be brutally honest here.
I don't know... is it a concern of mine? The way I see it, this will likely also mean a lifetime of invigorated liberal activism and maybe some long due changes in the US. But, to be brutally honest, I don't really care about the SCOTUS. It has no relevance in my life and their decisions don't concern me in the slightest. It only matters in internal US politics. But for US citizens, it no doubt matters a great deal.
Also, I don't think it matters one bit even if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed. That only means they'll get another conservative picked from a list assembled by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. And you can be sure that every candidate on that list serves Republican interests in some way.
Draxil on 23/9/2018 at 14:17
Quote Posted by uncadonego
QUESTION: Regardless of allegations, regardless of left right, or center, regardless of anything else.
No ya buts, no qualifiers, no questions of proof, just YES or NO.
Should someone who sexually assaulted someone at 17 be on SCOTUS.
YES or NO
No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't be in
any public office.
Allegations of sexual assault shouldn't be enough to
keep someone out of office, either.
Now let me ask you a question: I was sexually assaulted by George W. Bush in February of 2000. It was in a public restroom in the downtown airport of Kanas City, Missouri, where then primary-candidate Bush was holding a rally. We were alone in a public restroom, and when walking up to the urinal next to me he slapped my ass and squeezed it, said "nice ass, champ." I was 17 going on 18, so I was a minor. I never told anyone. No one witnessed it, but I have a ticket stub that proves I was there, and his schedule is public information. Is this a credible accusation? Why or why not?
As for why not the polygraph? Here's Wikipedia:
Quote:
Even using the high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy, false positives do occur, and these people suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the
majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."[17] In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community".[18] In 2001, William Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, concluded that:
Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.[19]
Summarizing the consensus in psychological research, professor David W. Martin, PhD, from North Carolina State University, states that people have tried to use the polygraph for measuring human emotions, but there is simply no royal road to (measuring) human emotions.[20] Therefore, since one cannot reliably measure human emotions (especially when one has an interest in hiding his/her emotions), the idea of valid detection of truth or falsehood through measuring respiratory rate, blood volume, pulse rate and galvanic skin response is a mere pretense. Psychologists cannot ascertain what emotions one has,[21] with or without the use of polygraph.
Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies".[6][22][23] A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.[24]
