Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:13 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Sure thing buddy. I'm glad someone finally asked.

Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.

That right there is direct evidence that tend to supports an assertion. Textbook corroboration.
You need a better textbook.
  #452  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:16 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I will not discuss corroboration with you until you explain this post that you made.
He's repeatedly explained it, not that it needs explaining as it's a perfectly clear sentence.

It's abundantly clear that you simply do not know what "corroborate" means, and your failure to understand that sentence is casued by that lack of knowledge.
  #453  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:53 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You need a better textbook.
This post demonstrates a stunning lack of rigor. Bone will, without a doubt, be disappointed in you. You're not even trying to refute the point.

Please try harder.
  #454  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:57 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
He's repeatedly explained it, not that it needs explaining as it's a perfectly clear sentence.
It is a perfectly clear sentence, and it is clearly nonsense. That's why I'm wondering what he actually meant to say.

He said taking information off the internet corroborates the internet. That's not how corroboration works. There's no assertion and no evidence that tends to support that assertion. I am honestly wondering what he means by this sentence.
  #455  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:44 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This post demonstrates a stunning lack of rigor. Bone will, without a doubt, be disappointed in you. You're not even trying to refute the point.

Please try harder.
You are fundamentally wrong in your understanding of what corroboration is, and what evidence is. Your arguments are all based on these false premises, and are therefore worthless. That you fail to understand Magiver's statement that all that is corroborated in the example he gave is the existence of the internet is proof that you are wrong about these things.

So, if your textbook tells you that you are right about these things, you need a better textbook.
  #456  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:10 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You are fundamentally wrong in your understanding of what corroboration is, and what evidence is. Your arguments are all based on these false premises, and are therefore worthless. That you fail to understand Magiver's statement that all that is corroborated in the example he gave is the existence of the internet is proof that you are wrong about these things.

So, if your textbook tells you that you are right about these things, you need a better textbook.
Your the second poster to shoehorn the 'existence' into Magiver's post. I'm not sure that's what he meant and he's not saying.

Then we have this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
What elements of corroboration do you think are missing from this? Please be specific.
  #457  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:12 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I that what he means? I'm not sure and he's not telling.
It was self explanatory and other people have no problem understanding it.

Ford's accusation of being fondled by Kavanaugh is not supported by saying kavanaugh went to a private school in her area. It's a meaningless point for her to make. All her statement supports is the existence of public information on the internet. It does not link Kavanaugh to any of her story.

When other people understand something and you don't then it falls on you to explain your confusion.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #458  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:17 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
What elements of corroboration do you think are missing from this? Please be specific.
proof any of it occurred.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 12-05-2018 at 06:17 PM.
  #459  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:18 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Ford's accusation of being fondled by Kavanaugh is not supported by saying kavanaugh went to a private school in her area. It's a meaningless point for her to make. All her statement supports is the existence of public information on the internet. It does not link Kavanaugh to any of her story.
You seem to be implying that I am claiming that Ford's statement corroborate other statements made by Ford. I am not.

I am claiming that there are statements made by Dr. Ford that are corroborated by other evidence.

For example, Deborah Ramirez's testimony is direct evidence that corroborates assertions made by Dr. Ford.
  #460  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:20 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
proof any of it occurred.
Proof is not an element of corroboration. Therefore proof cannot be the element of corroboration missing from...

"Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa."
  #461  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:53 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
For example, Deborah Ramirez's testimony is direct evidence that corroborates assertions made by Dr. Ford.
No it's not. There is no evidence to the validity of either assertion.

there is no evidence that kavanaugh was ever at a party with Ford.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #462  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:26 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Testimony is a form of evidence.
  #463  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:10 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Your the second poster to shoehorn the 'existence' into Magiver's post. I'm not sure that's what he meant and he's not saying.
Ah, so that meaning is corroborated then.

Quote:
What elements of corroboration do you think are missing from this? Please be specific.
Any actual evidence that either event occurred, and any connection between the two alleged events. There could be a million unconnected, unsupported allegations and there would be no corroboration.

You don't know what corroboration is, and should stop talking about it, as you are embarrassing yourself.
  #464  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:16 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You seem to be implying that I am claiming that Ford's statement corroborate other statements made by Ford. I am not.
You have repeatedly claimed that, you started off claiming that the fact that Kavanaugh and Judge were a year or two older than her corroborates her story.

Quote:
I am claiming that there are statements made by Dr. Ford that are corroborated by other evidence.

For example, Deborah Ramirez's testimony is direct evidence that corroborates assertions made by Dr. Ford.
Your example is false. It does not, it tells us exactly nothing about Ford's allegation.

Person A claims I went to the shop on Monday. Person B claims I went to the shop last Thursday. Neither claim supports, or contradicts the other - they are entirely independent. Even proof to any level that you care to name that I went to the shop on Thursday says nothing about where I went on Monday. They are independent events, just like these alleged crimes are.

And yes, this applies to Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton, or any other serial abuser you care to name, just as much as it applies to Kavanaugh, or you, or anyone else not shown to be an abuser at all. There's a reason that other crimes can#t be brought up at trial.
  #465  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:09 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You have repeatedly claimed that, you started off claiming that the fact that Kavanaugh and Judge were a year or two older than her corroborates her story.
I have never claimed that. Not once.
  #466  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:15 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I have never claimed that. Not once.
Then Ford's allegation is uncorroborated.

So is Rodriguez', and so is Swetnick, all for the same reasons. None of the witnesses to all these allegations back up the allegation. Rodriguez, in fact, doesn't even back up her own allegation - she claims she was too drunk to remember clearly.

Regards,
Shodan
  #467  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:39 AM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post

"Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa."
I realize that this is not concrete proof of anything, but in regards to Ms. Ramirez, I just thought that it would be worth adding to the overall discussion.

For the past several years, I have served as the organizer of a mutual support group/tequilla appreciation society for gentlemen who indecently exposed themselves to Hispanic co-eds at college keg parties throughout Connecticut during the 1980's, and Brett Kavanaugh has only attended two meetings in total, the second of which he left after only 45 minutes or so, and as he was walking out he was said to have been overheard muttering to himself, "Aww, hell, I don't even know if I really belong here or not..."

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 12-06-2018 at 10:41 AM.
  #468  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:23 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then Ford's allegation is uncorroborated.
Non sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Rodriguez, in fact, doesn't even back up her own allegation - she claims she was too drunk to remember clearly.
Rodriguez? Try harder.
  #469  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:25 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is false.
You are mistaken.
  #470  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:47 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Sure thing buddy. I'm glad someone finally asked.

Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.

That right there is direct evidence that tend to supports an assertion. Textbook corroboration.
Who corroborated Ramirez's story? Or do you accept any un-corroborated story as corroboration of Ford's claim?
  #471  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:01 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I forgot to add.

Throughout this thread I have been insisting on a very high level of rigor. Probably to he point of appearing somewhat tiresome to the average poster.

I was insistent on nailing down the precise definitions definitions of terms. Others were extremely reluctant to do so.

I carefully apply those definitions to each of my claims and demonstrate that I have done so. When I ask others to do so you flat out refuse.

I wanted to go point by corroborated point through Dr. Ford's claims. Others wanted to skip to end.

I may lack a lot of things. Rigor isn't one of them.
You also forgot to add that you seem to have painted yourself into a corner, and that you don't seem to be able to talk your way out of it. Maybe you should finish your "point by corroborated point" gambit again. That was fun.
  #472  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:17 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Who corroborated Ramirez's story? Or do you accept any un-corroborated story as corroboration of Ford's claim?
Are these real questions? We have two pieces of direct evidence that tend to support each other. That is corroboration.
  #473  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:12 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
We have two pieces of direct evidence that tend to support each other.
No, we don't. Why do you keep making this false claim?
  #474  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:34 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, we don't. Why do you keep making this false claim?
We have Dr. Ford's testimony that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. That is direct evidence.

We have Deborah Ramirez's testimony that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. That is direct evidence.

Those two pieces of evidence attribute the same type of behavior to the the same individual. Thus they tend to support each other.

That is rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration.
  #475  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:53 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Those are claims- allegations- not evidence.

That's what they're attempting to prove.

Multiple accusations *can* serve as corroboration; on their own they're extremely weak. That's part of why MO is a thing: Independent claims that are not informed of each other but accuse the same perpetrator and reveal the same MO are fairly strong correlation because there's no possibility of cross-contamination or borrowing details.

The issue can be demonstrated by the Kavanaugh hearings, actually. Did you hear about the man who claimed some woman in his family was raped by Kavanaugh on I think his boat- that he confessed he made to fabricate evidence? Or the woman who claimed she wrote a letter that Judge and Kavanaugh raped her in the back of a car; in both cases after the initial allegation was made public, and admitted she made it up because she wanted attention? Grassley is requesting FBI action and legal action in both cases.

Ramirez claims that someone that may have been Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. That's a different pathology than attempted sexual assault.

In short, for those claims to be considered corroborated, they need to each individually stand on their own to some degree. And they don't.
  #476  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:13 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
Those are claims- allegations- not evidence.
Testimony is evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
In short, for those claims to be considered corroborated, they need to each individually stand on their own to some degree. And they don't.
Is this something you just made up?

I went to great lengths to establish the definition of corroborated for this discussion...

An assertion is corroborated if there is other evidence that tends to support it.

Not...

An assertion that stands on its own is corroborated if there is other evidence that stands on its own that tends to support it.

We're well past the point in the discussion where you can slip in a much more restrictive definition of corroborated unnoticed.
  #477  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:32 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Are these real questions? We have two pieces of direct evidence that tend to support each other. That is corroboration.
No, you have two pieces of allegedly direct evident that tends to support each other. You still need corroboration for Ramirez's claim, just as you still need corroboration of Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh.
  #478  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:43 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
No, you have two pieces of allegedly direct evident that tends to support each other.
Allegedly? Testimony is unquestionably direct evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You still need corroboration for Ramirez's claim, just as you still need corroboration of Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh.
I need anything. Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
  #479  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:55 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Oops. That was supposed to be...

I don't need anything. Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
  #480  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:59 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Oops. That was supposed to be...

I don't need anything. Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
Would you also say that a claim from any person that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them is corroborated by the fact that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted Andrea Constand - the victim for which he was convicted?

Last edited by Bone; 12-06-2018 at 06:00 PM.
  #481  
Old 12-06-2018, 06:10 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Oops. That was supposed to be...

I don't need anything. Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
You need evidence that any of it is true. Making a statement is not evidence that the statement is true. It's just a statement.

example: If I say you sexually molested my dog and somebody else says you molested their dog then according to your logic those statements corroborate each other.

Those two statements can be corroborated by my vet who says the dog is peeing because it's traumatized. Another corroboration by your logic.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 12-06-2018 at 06:13 PM.
  #482  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:34 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Would you also say that a claim from any person that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them is corroborated by the fact that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted Andrea Constand - the victim for which he was convicted?
I'm not really interested in discussing Bill Cosby.

Fortunately, you're in luck. I have given you the tools to answer this question on your own. You just have to answer the following extremely straightforward questions...

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?

If the answers are yes and yes, then you have a corroborated assertion.

Rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration makes it super easy to answer the question you posted. Give it a go and let us know how it turns out.
  #483  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:37 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You need evidence that any of it is true. Making a statement is not evidence that the statement is true. It's just a statement.

example: If I say you sexually molested my dog and somebody else says you molested their dog then according to your logic those statements corroborate each other.

Those two statements can be corroborated by my vet who says the dog is peeing because it's traumatized. Another corroboration by your logic.
Here's how you can handle a hypothetical like you have just posted.

Ask yourself the following extremely straightforward questions...

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?

If the answers are yes and yes, then you have a corroborated assertion.

Rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration makes it super easy to address the hypothetical you posted. Give it a go and let us know how it turns out.
  #484  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:59 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Here's how you can handle a hypothetical like you have just posted.

Ask yourself the following extremely straightforward questions...

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?

If the answers are yes and yes, then you have a corroborated assertion.

Rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration makes it super easy to address the hypothetical you posted. Give it a go and let us know how it turns out.
my example mirrored Fords. and no, there is no evidence that supports her accusation. Other accusations without evidence to support them have no basis in fact.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #485  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:06 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
my example mirrored Fords. and no, there is no evidence that supports her accusation. Other accusations without evidence to support them have no basis in fact.
What are the answers to the extremely straightforward questions I suggested with respect to your hypothetical?

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?
  #486  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:29 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'm not really interested in discussing Bill Cosby.

Fortunately, you're in luck. I have given you the tools to answer this question on your own. You just have to answer the following extremely straightforward questions...

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?

If the answers are yes and yes, then you have a corroborated assertion.

Rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration makes it super easy to answer the question you posted. Give it a go and let us know how it turns out.
I've concluded that your position is wholly devoid of merit beyond fodder for amusement. It is enhanced by the fact that you seem completely serious.

You do seem set on this path of digging in so I expect more material going forward. I would consider the fact that even though most strident "believe all women" people are radio silent on your corroboration gambit before breaking the first rule of holes, but that's just me.
  #487  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:32 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
What are the answers to the extremely straightforward questions I suggested with respect to your hypothetical?

Is there an assertion?

Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?
Yes, I made an assertion. If another person makes it then according to you that's evidence backing up the assertion.

You can't seem to understand basic logic. If you don't have proof of a statement then it has no validity. Other statements without proof have no validity and thus do not corroborate the first statement.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #488  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:38 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I've concluded that your position is wholly devoid of merit beyond fodder for amusement. It is enhanced by the fact that you seem completely serious.

You do seem set on this path of digging in so I expect more material going forward. I would consider the fact that even though most strident "believe all women" people are radio silent on your corroboration gambit before breaking the first rule of holes, but that's just me.
Your unwillingness to discuss a hypothetical that you introduced to the thread reminds me of Mitch McConnell filibustering his own proposal. If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you bring it up?
  #489  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:49 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, I made an assertion. If another person makes it then according to you that's evidence backing up the assertion.

You can't seem to understand basic logic. If you don't have proof of a statement then it has no validity. Other statements without proof have no validity and thus do not corroborate the first statement.
For like the billionth time, there is no proof required for an assertion to be corroborated.

Corroborated is a much weaker characterization of the truth value of an assertion than proved. The only thing needed for an assertion to be corroborated is other evidence that tends to support that assertion. It is an extremely low bar to clear. Corroboration does not require proof.
  #490  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:09 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
For like the billionth time, there is no proof required for an assertion to be corroborated.
for infinity+1 times, you're wrong and that is never going to change.

: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain.

making a statement without evidence to back it up is NOT corroboration. It's a baseless statement.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #491  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:34 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
for infinity+1 times, you're wrong and that is never going to change.

: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain.

making a statement without evidence to back it up is NOT corroboration. It's a baseless statement.
Unbelievable.

Supported by evidence. Those are your words. Not supported by proof. Evidence.

Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh was a couple years older than her and went to high school near her is supported by evidence. Evidence in the form of, but not limited to, yearbooks.

Dr. Ford's assertion that she attended a gathering where Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were drunk is supported by evidence. Evidence in the form of, but not limited to, a giant pile of evidence that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk at a lot of gatherings.

Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her is supported by evidence. Evidence in the form of, but not limited to, Deborah Ramirez's testimony that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her.

Many, many of Dr. Ford's assertions are supported by evidence.
  #492  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:17 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Those two pieces of evidence attribute the same type of behavior to the the same individual. Thus they tend to support each other.
And there's your logical mistake. They do not support each other at all. Get a better textbook.

I gave an example earlier, that you failed to respond to.

Person A claims I went to the shop on Monday. Person B claims I went to the shop last Thursday. Neither claim supports, or contradicts the other - they are entirely independent. Even proof to any level that you care to name that I went to the shop on Thursday says nothing about where I went on Monday. They are independent events, just like these alleged crimes are.

Please explain how this differs from any other claims.
  #493  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:24 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Corroborated is a much weaker characterization of the truth value of an assertion than proved. The only thing needed for an assertion to be corroborated is other evidence that tends to support that assertion. It is an extremely low bar to clear. Corroboration does not require proof.
And yet, that bar is not cleared in Ford's case, or my shopping hypothetical, or the dog molesting hypothetical, or the situation where an as yet unknown person accuses Bill Cosby of rape. That he raped other people doesn't make it any more likely that he raped a specific individual, without evidence that that person was ever in the same room as him.

You do not understand what evidence is, what corroboration is, and what proof is - and the various standards of proof.
  #494  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:27 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Person A claims I went to the shop on Monday. Person B claims I went to the shop last Thursday. Neither claim supports, or contradicts the other - they are entirely independent. Even proof to any level that you care to name that I went to the shop on Thursday says nothing about where I went on Monday. They are independent events, just like these alleged crimes are.
Person B's claim is not entirely independent of person A's claim. Both claims support each other in asserting that you go to that particular shop.
  #495  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:37 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Person A says they saw you at the Dairy Queen at Maple and Main in Lombard, Illinois in June or July of 2014.

Person B says they saw you at the Dairy Queen at Maple and Main in Lombard, Illinois in August of 2015.

Person A's account absolutely corroborates person B's account and vice versa. It's fairly weak corroboration, but in both cases they are asserting that you frequent that establishment.

Neither comes anywhere near proving the other, but that is miles away from the point.
  #496  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:59 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Both claims support each other in asserting that you go to that particular shop.
The claim is not that I go to that particular shop, it was that I was there on a specific day. You are, still, confusing "consistent with" and "corroborates". The claim that I was at the shop on Tuesday is consistent with the claim that I was there on Thursday, nothing more. It tells us nothing about the likelihood that I was there on Thursday - exactly the same as a claim that I was not there on Tuesday would.

If person A and person B both claim to have seen me there on Thursday, that corroborates the claim that I was there on Thursday, unless and until one or both claims are shown to be untrue. But that's not what's happened with Ford's allegations - no one has provided any evidence to support her claims that there was a party in the time period she claims attended by her and Kavanaugh. So, even if Kavanaugh was proven to have asaulted women every other day of his life, there's still no corroboration of Ford's claim.
  #497  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:16 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Is there an assertion?
Yes. The assertion is that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ms. Ford.
Quote:
Does evidence exist that tends to support that assertion?
No. No evidence exists that tends to support the assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ms. Ford.

Regards,
Shodan
  #498  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:18 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The claim is not that I go to that particular shop, it was that I was there on a specific day. You are, still, confusing "consistent with" and "corroborates". The claim that I was at the shop on Tuesday is consistent with the claim that I was there on Thursday, nothing more. It tells us nothing about the likelihood that I was there on Thursday - exactly the same as a claim that I was not there on Tuesday would.

If person A and person B both claim to have seen me there on Thursday, that corroborates the claim that I was there on Thursday, unless and until one or both claims are shown to be untrue. But that's not what's happened with Ford's allegations - no one has provided any evidence to support her claims that there was a party in the time period she claims attended by her and Kavanaugh. So, even if Kavanaugh was proven to have asaulted women every other day of his life, there's still no corroboration of Ford's claim.
I am not confusing "corroborates" with anything. I am very carefully rigorously adhering to a the precise definition of the word.

You, on the other hand, are confusing "corroborates" with some other word that requires specificity of day of week. That's pretty weird.
  #499  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:03 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No. No evidence exists that tends to support the assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ms. Ford.
Deborah Ramirez's testimony is evidence that exists that tends to support the assertion.
  #500  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:20 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The claim is not that I go to that particular shop, it was that I was there on a specific day. You are, still, confusing "consistent with" and "corroborates". The claim that I was at the shop on Tuesday is consistent with the claim that I was there on Thursday, nothing more. It tells us nothing about the likelihood that I was there on Thursday - exactly the same as a claim that I was not there on Tuesday would.

If person A and person B both claim to have seen me there on Thursday, that corroborates the claim that I was there on Thursday, unless and until one or both claims are shown to be untrue. But that's not what's happened with Ford's allegations - no one has provided any evidence to support her claims that there was a party in the time period she claims attended by her and Kavanaugh. So, even if Kavanaugh was proven to have asaulted women every other day of his life, there's still no corroboration of Ford's claim.
More on this.

The definition is...

An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that tends to support it.

The definition is not...

An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that matches it in every detail especially the day of the week.

Two pieces of evidence that both state that a particular individual engaged in a certain type of behavior both corroborate the assertion that that individual engages in that type of behavior. They corroborate each other, and it is not necessary for the events to describe to have happened at the same time or place.

To use a Magiver example form upthread if two people say they saw you fuck a dog you have corroboration. It makes it worse, not better, if they are talking about two different dogs.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017