But they've already got RBG.....
Advertisement
by Fartsniffage » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:51 pm
by Tahar Joblis » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Valrifell wrote:Proctopeo wrote:An important thing to note here: human memory is fallible. Over time, especially if you remember it frequently, details drift away from reality until the original event is more or less completely lost. So we definitely should be highly skeptical; 36 years spells bad news for important things such as "accuracy" and "truth".
I don't think an assault is exactly something you can forget as easily as what happened in any other date. People, you know, tend to remember traumatic experiences.
Widom & Morris 1997 wrote:For example, Herman and Schatzow (1987) reported "severe memory deficits" for abuse in 28% of their clinical sample of women in group therapy for incest survivors, although the majority of their clients (74%) were also able to obtain independent corroboration of the sexual assault experience. Briere and Conte (1993) found that 59% of 450 women and men in treatment for sexual abuse reported that at some point prior to age 18 they had forgotten the sexual abuse they suffered during childhood. Using a prospective design, Williams (1994) found that a large proportion of women (38%) with documented histories of sexual victimization in childhood who were followed up approximately 17 years later did not recall the abuse.
by Hakons » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:47 pm
by Proctopeo » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:05 pm
Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
by Uiiop » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:05 pm
Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
by Major-Tom » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:08 pm
Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
by Proctopeo » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:18 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.
And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.
I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."
Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.
by Kash Island » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:23 pm
by Hakons » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:26 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.
And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.
I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."
Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.
by Tarsonis » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:27 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Greed and Death wrote:I encourage all NSGers (Especially American ones) to listen o Judge Kavenaugh's confirmation hearing.
It is being broadcast live here https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1?adkey=bn
They are scheduled to go into the evening.
My opinion thus far it looks like he will be confirmed as he has handled himself well. It will also go tomorrow.
He'll be confirmed because there's a Republican majority in the Senate. Donald Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and Kavanaugh would still be confirmed.
by Galloism » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:37 pm
Uiiop wrote:Hakons wrote:The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.
This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?
Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.
by Major-Tom » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:41 pm
Proctopeo wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.
And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.
I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."
Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.
You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however
by Uiiop » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:42 pm
Galloism wrote:Uiiop wrote:Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.
Honestly, the denial could be just as legit as the original accusation.
Our memory really does stink. We invent details and such, and the more you recall a memory, the further it drifts from the original. Every time we recall it, we change it.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
Kavanaugh and hisidiotsfriends legit shoved a teenage girl and locked her in a bedroom.
Over time, Kavanaugh has forgotten this part, only remembering the party itself. So he denies, and pass a lie detector because he truly believes it. As his sense of self does not include locking up innocent people, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.
Meanwhile, his accuser has remembered additional details that didn’t happen - namely the forcing down, etc. She can pass a lie detector because she truly believes this happened. Her sense of self (again, hypothetically) includes the eternal victimhood that society constantly tells her. Since her sense of self is one of victimhood, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.
The interesting part of this is they’re both telling the truth from their perspective, while neither one is telling in the truth in reality (in the cosmic truth sense).
And here’s the funny part: none of this is purposeful or deliberate. We can’t not edit our memories when we access them.
This is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. But it’s supremely plausible.
And, perhaps more importantly, how does a memory from over 30 years ago stop the presses while the fact Kavanaugh believes in nearly unchecked executive power doesn’t even slow them down?
by Kash Island » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:43 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Proctopeo wrote:You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however
I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain. I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain. The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.
And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.
But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.
Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.
by Telconi » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:44 pm
Galloism wrote:Uiiop wrote:Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.
Honestly, the denial could be just as legit as the original accusation.
Our memory really does stink. We invent details and such, and the more you recall a memory, the further it drifts from the original. Every time we recall it, we change it.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
Kavanaugh and hisidiotsfriends legit shoved a teenage girl and locked her in a bedroom.
Over time, Kavanaugh has forgotten this part, only remembering the party itself. So he denies, and pass a lie detector because he truly believes it. As his sense of self does not include locking up innocent people, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.
Meanwhile, his accuser has remembered additional details that didn’t happen - namely the forcing down, etc. She can pass a lie detector because she truly believes this happened. Her sense of self (again, hypothetically) includes the eternal victimhood that society constantly tells her. Since her sense of self is one of victimhood, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.
The interesting part of this is they’re both telling the truth from their perspective, while neither one is telling in the truth in reality (in the cosmic truth sense).
And here’s the funny part: none of this is purposeful or deliberate. We can’t not edit our memories when we access them.
This is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. But it’s supremely plausible.
And, perhaps more importantly, how does a memory from over 30 years ago stop the presses while the fact Kavanaugh believes in nearly unchecked executive power doesn’t even slow them down?
by Uiiop » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:45 pm
Kash Island wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain. I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain. The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.
And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.
But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.
Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.
at the bolded
look at the confirmation hearing and everything that has been happening, multiple arrested/taken out for disturbance and the Democrats constantly hammering him with very leading questions.
then ALL OF A SUDDEN(even though apparently they have had this information for what? 3 MONTHS?!) NOW....NOW is the time to bring it up...right before he becomes judge.....how...convinient...
by Galloism » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:47 pm
Telconi wrote:
Because people get hard-ons for executive power when their boy is in the hot seat. However, sexual assault is a much more uniform wrong.
by Kash Island » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:47 pm
Uiiop wrote:Kash Island wrote:
at the bolded
look at the confirmation hearing and everything that has been happening, multiple arrested/taken out for disturbance and the Democrats constantly hammering him with very leading questions.
then ALL OF A SUDDEN(even though apparently they have had this information for what? 3 MONTHS?!) NOW....NOW is the time to bring it up...right before he becomes judge.....how...convinient...
Opportunistic timing on others and the accuser being sincere aren't mutually exclusive.
by Telconi » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:48 pm
Galloism wrote:Telconi wrote:
Because people get hard-ons for executive power when their boy is in the hot seat. However, sexual assault is a much more uniform wrong.
*grumbles a lot*
The president is supposed to be chief administrator. He should be about as interesting as a factory foreman or office manager.
by Uiiop » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:50 pm
by Proctopeo » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:52 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Proctopeo wrote:You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however
I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain.
I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain.
The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.
And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.
But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.
Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.
by Kash Island » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:53 pm
by Galloism » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:53 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cheblonsk, Emotional Support Crocodile, Greater Aswal, James_xenoland, Magnoliids, The Two Jerseys
Advertisement