Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

After everything we've learned about her these past several days, I'm not even willing to give her the benefit of doubt.

[seer]

I am SOOOOO glad you liberals did not write the constitution. Our justice system would have been nothing but a Kanagroo court like the Salem Witch Trials.

Lindsey Graham had a good idea, maybe we should dunk Kavanaugh and see if he floats or not.

[Sparko]

Who was raped here? And if there is not a bit of credible evidence against someone should we just say, well since I don't like the man who nominated him so he needs to be destroyed anyways regardless of guilt or innocence?

You know, if the situation was reversed and this happened to an Obama nominee, PM and the others would be screaming from the rooftops that their guy was being railroaded and can't be thought of as guilty without evidence. Their objections and cries of justice ring hollow to me. Justice demands innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Sparko]

Democrats are furious that the FBI couldn't find anything on Kavanaugh. Now they're accusing them of a cover-up.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ham-whitewash/

Well that was going to be their reaction to anything that did not convict Kavanaugh. It was just a delaying tactic to begin with and now that the delay is over, they are desperate to create more delay, by claiming the investigation was no good and they need to do more.

But hopefully the investigation did convince any fence-sitters to get enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh. The Democrats got what they asked for, and as predicted it was not what they wanted.

[Sparko]

If I was a rapist I, like any other rapist, would deserve being publicly accused of my crime by my victim, proof or no proof, and being shunned by society. Why are you so defensive of hypothetical rapists and so dismissive of hypothetical rape victims? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Because if you are NOT a rapist and were accused of rape and they believed the woman, your life would be over.

That is why we need evidence to convict someone, not accusations.

[Sparko]

Only if people are already predisposed to be skeptical of rape accusations, in which case the problem is the prevalence of rape apologists, not false accusations.

You seem to think that women don't lie about such things. They do. Especially in today's climate of liberals always believing the accuser.

I posted this earlier:

----
Woman who made false rape claim gets 1 year in jail

[rogue06]

So was I. But I never attacked a woman.

So was I and neither did I. In fact, a few years after High School, at a New Year's party that one of my good friends was hosting, his sister's (who was there) bff came over pissed because she caught her boyfriend kissing & groping another girl. She proceeded to get real drunk and threw herself at me and then shortly after passed out on the floor. The host and I carried her into the spare bedroom (while she mumbled somethings about what she wanted to do) and immediately left her there, closing the door as his sister kept an eye on it to make sure nobody tried to sneak in and take advantage of her.

Now, don't get me wrong. I was always attracted to her. She has these beautiful big green eyes and a real nice figure. But I just wasn't going to exploit the situation.

Later, I found out she was only pretending to be that drunk and was pissed at me for not having revenge sex (against her boyfriend) with her. She would hardly even talk to me afterwards in spite of my explaining that I wasn't going to have sex with a girl who was passed out.

[rogue06]

You seem to think that women don't lie about such things. They do. Especially in today's climate of liberals always believing the accuser.

I posted this earlier:

----
Woman who made false rape claim gets 1 year in jail

I think the Duke Lacrosse team incident and the Rolling Stone magazine article (A Rape on Campus) about a rape at the at the University of Virginia's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity -- both of which were shown to have been fabricated -- has demonstrated such things do happen and how lives can quickly be ruined as a result.

BTW: One year in jail. How many decades were those she falsely accused facing?

[rogue06]

Because if you are NOT a rapist and were accused of rape and they believed the woman, your life would be over.

That is why we need evidence to convict someone, not accusations.

PM's declaration that "Accusations are evidence" reminds me a lot of Jorge and his steadfast belief that his merely proclaiming that the earth is but a few thousand years old counts as evidence that it is true, and his merely repeating it counts as it being substantiated.

[Sparko]

I think the Duke Lacrosse team incident and the Rolling Stone magazine article (A Rape on Campus) about a rape at the at the University of Virginia's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity -- both of which were shown to have been fabricated -- has demonstrated such things do happen and how lives can quickly be ruined as a result.

People always say, Why would a woman subject herself to such shame and ridicule by saying she was raped if it didn't happen. Well this isn't the 1950's. Nobody shames rape victims today. They believe them, and have empathy for them and don't think the rape was her fault. So there is no real social rejection to making a false accusation today. Quite the contrary. They get support and sympathy. Which some women seek out by making false accusations.

[Bill the Cat]

People always say, Why would a woman subject herself to such shame and ridicule by saying she was raped if it didn't happen. Well this isn't the 1950's. Nobody shames rape victims today. They believe them, and have empathy for them and don't think the rape was her fault. So there is no real social rejection to making a false accusation today. Quite the contrary. They get support and sympathy. Which some women seek out by making false accusations.

Don't forget a million in GoFundMe...

[Mountain Man]

Well that was going to be their reaction to anything that did not convict Kavanaugh. It was just a delaying tactic to begin with and now that the delay is over, they are desperate to create more delay, by claiming the investigation was no good and they need to do more.

But hopefully the investigation did convince any fence-sitters to get enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh. The Democrats got what they asked for, and as predicted it was not what they wanted.

What they wanted was another "special prosecutor" like Mueller who would subject Kavanaugh to an endless investigation with the intent of destroying him and anybody associated with him.

[Mountain Man]

PM's declaration that "Accusations are evidence" reminds me a lot of Jorge and his steadfast belief that his merely proclaiming that the earth is but a few thousand years old counts as evidence that it is true, and his merely repeating it counts as it being substantiated.

As I mentioned earlier, if accusations count as evidence then so do denials.

[Sparko]

What they wanted was another "special prosecutor" like Mueller who would subject Kavanaugh to an endless investigation with the intent of destroying him and anybody associated with him.

Which is what I said before the investigation even began...

They are hoping for another never-ending Mueller type investigation.

[oxmixmudd]

So was I. But I never attacked a woman. In fact I was a virgin throughout high school just like Kavanaugh claims he was.

The point was not to assert he WAS guilty, but to point out that his adult reputation does not protect him from suspicion because his college activities are consistent with the sort of person that is more likely to have found themselves lacking self control and acting out of character. Do you understand the difference between the two? I ask because the point you are making here would imply you do not.

Sure. And there is every possibility it did NOT happen and Ford is lying or mistaken about it. That is WHY the burden is hers to bear, not his.

There is not 'every' possibility. It is a possibility. lying would have a much lower probability than mistaken based on the facts as we know them.

After high school I stopped drinking and going to parties, pretty much. Now I might have a drink a couple of times a year. But I still never accosted a woman in high school or after.

And that is great, but it has no bearing on the point I was making, as noted above.

Statistics and What If's and Possibilities are not evidence Jim. Unless there is evidence the accusation should be dismissed.

We agree - unfortunately you don't seem to be able to understand the point I'm actually making. I attribute that to your own preconceived notions of my position or what I might be trying to say that blind you from being able to understand the words I have actually written.

The reason we even have the principal of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to prevent innocent people of being convicted of crimes they did not commit, even if it means some guilty people might go free. That principal was so important to our founding fathers that they put it in the constitution.

Absolutely, and nothing I've said is contrary to that. Perhaps you should re-read my post with that in mind rather than with whatever other 'glasses' you had on at the time?

So yes there is a possibility that Kavanaugh did this and he is the liar, but as it stands the only one who has had anything they said denied or outright refuted is Ford. Every witness has said they don't remember or it didn't happen. And she did not report it at the time. Therefore the only thing we can conclude is that Kavanaugh is innocent because there is not enough evidence to convict him.

No, what we can conclude is that we can't legally prove guilt and there is not enough corroboration of the accusation even to support a trial, which means he must be presumed innocent legally. There is a very important difference there. Legal innocence is not always innocence (remember OJ?). In fact, as regards sexual assault, legal innocence does not even mean the accused is more likely than not to be innocent - statistically.

But the reality is, AFAIK, most of my posts on this issue have focused on those that have made absolute (and typically disparaging or denigrating) assertions about the guilt of Ford in terms of lying or conspiracy to destroy Kavanaugh, or those that have made absolute assertions regarding the innocence of Kavanaugh. I have not made any assertions about their guilt or innocence beyond we can't know and what the probabilities are. Additionally I have also pointed out why it is unfair to judge Ford for not reporting it when it happened. A good deal of the reason for that rests on how we tend to assume the women was mostly to blame when statistically is turns out most of the time it's the man who is to blame (in cases where the accusation is about an actual assault) and the hostility towards the victim that creates. IOW, we (the men typically in charge) allow our personal fears to create an environment that typically makes the victim of sexual assault a victim of open hostility if she tries to report it and doesn't have an iron-clad case.*

Your reply then simply misses the mark. You appear to be rebutting points I did not make, and not understanding the points I did make.


Jim

*To point that fact out does not imply it is an easy problem to solve.