No, we’re not on the same page. Taking information off the internet that matches somebody you’re accusing of a crime is a corroboration of the internet.
The only assertions of Ford’s that need corroboration are the ones that establish that she was attacked, and that Kavanaugh was the one who attacked her. Those are the assertions for which there is no corroboration.
We already know that Kavanaugh was a student at a local prep school. That doesn’t need corroboration. It also does nothing to establish the truth, or otherwise, of her complaint.
Ford claims to have only had one beer on the occasion. Has that been corroborated? No, but who cares? That has nothing to do with whether or not her story is true.
It’s good enough for the purposes of this discussion.
There is no evidence tending to support the assertion that Ford was attacked, nor that Kavanaugh was the attacker. So your definition is fine, and Ford’s allegation is not corroborated.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought we were getting closer to a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated, but now I’m not so sure.
Do you think Dr. Ford looked up info on the internet, included it in her letter to Senator Feinstein, and in doing so corroborated the entire internet?
Could I trouble you to post the definition (preferably with a link) you are using for corroborated?
OK, we agree on the definition of corroborated.
Now… has Dr. Ford’s claim, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” been corroborated? I’m not asking if it needs to be corroborated or imbuing the corroboration or lack thereof with any additional meaning. I’m asking the straightforward question of whether or not additional evidence exists that tends to support this claim.
She hasn’t corroborated there was ever a party.
Lance:
Talk less, listen more. We understand you, maybe you need to listen.
CBF claims she was at a party with, and assaulted by, students with the following characteristics: Male, prep school, x years older.
Those details can only be corroborated, in context of her claims, if the assault did occur and the men she is identifying committed the assault.
Otherwise, she is issuing an observation of irrelevant factual statements: she is listing characteristics of those she accuses.
If, say, one claims that their car turns into cheese when the sun hits it, it is not corroboration to observe that the sun exists and has the following characteristics. It is not a corroborated claim, they are independent observations
This gets us no closer to a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated, and we can’t have a meaningful discussion on what is and what is not corroborated without one. I will discuss other claims of Ford’s that have been corroborated, including claims about the assault, once we have done so.
If we can’t get past this definition issue, and the case specific simplest non-trivial example, I don’t know how we can proceed. I’m a mathematician so this is how I roll. There is no point in giving you the many examples of Dr. Ford’s claims that have been corroborated if you do not understand the simplest one.
It’s bizarre that it’s like pulling teeth to get people to acknowledge the common everyday definition of corroborated and to recognize an extremely straightforward example of a corroborated claim.
It’s also weird that some of you feel this claim didn’t ‘need’ to be corroborated or whatever. It was a huge turning point in this story when every news organization covering this scrambled to, and succeeded in corroborating this claim. There’s a huge difference between Christine Blasey Ford and Judy Munro-Leighton. That huge difference is that many of Dr. Ford’s claims have been corroborated.
It’s mind numbing that you don’t understand that Ford’s claim she was at a party with 2 older boys from a nearby school doesn’t corroborate her claim. It doesn’t establish she was ever a party, the people she claims were there, or any activity at the party.
You seem to have problems understanding that since it can’t be proven false that doesn’t make it true. You then ignore the fact that the statement she made was something easily pulled off the internet.
You have clearly lost the thread of the conversation.
I am not suggesting that Dr. Ford’s claim that she was at a party with two older boys from a nearby school corroborates her claim that she was assaulted.
I am using Dr. Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh and Judge were a little bit older than her and went to school near her as an example of a corroborated claim to establish a mutually agreeable definition of the word corroborated.
It’s mystifying that you are conflating these two disparate ideas.
Since it doesn’t corroborate anything the answer is no.
Since it doesn’t corroborate anything the answer is no.
corroboration - evidence that confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation.
A mathematician?
Alright, we try your language.
We are discussing integers. 2+2<>5.
You are arguing that for sufficiently large values of 2 this is false.
We are discussing integers only. We keep reiterating that.
If this is not your intent, reconsider your arguments and how they are presented.
Or take this response:
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer entered a contest to design the largest sheep pen.
The engineer looked at his building materials, and built a square pen, as the most efficient use of resources.
The physicist disagreed, and demonstrated how a circle has the smallest circumference for the greatest surface area.
The mathematician shook his head, built the smallest fence he could manage, stepped inside, and declared “I define myself to be outside the fence.”
There are two ways to arrange Blasey Ford’s claims. One is more logically rigorous, because it breaks the claims down into the smallest number of independent facts and characteristics.
The efficient way- to those you are arguing with:
Christine Blasey Ford claims the following:
- She was sexually assaulted
- This occurred at a party when she was a sophomore
- The assaulters were Judge and Kavanaugh, who were older than her at the time and went to Georgetown Prep
You are breaking it down this way:
Christine Blasey Ford claims the following:
- She was sexually assaulted
- This occurred at a party where she was a sophomore
- The assaulters were two older boys
- The assaulters were at Georgetown Prep
- The assaulters were seniors
- The assaulters were Judge and Kavanaugh
Logically, claims 3-5 are contained within claim 6, because they’re part of the definition of Kavanaugh and Judge at that time. You might as well claim that her claim that it was two boys were involved is corroborated by her identifying TWO boys- Kavanaugh and Judge. It’s an irrelevancy. Therefore, they don’t corroborate anything.
EDIT: If you want a common definition of corroboration, find something she claimed. She’s not claiming that Kavanaugh and Judge went to Georgetown Prep, that’s public record. You can’t corroborate a non-assertion. She’s asserting they were the perpetrators.
I am not claiming that it is corroborating anything. I am claiming it is corroborated.
Does evidence exist that confirms or supports Dr. Ford’s statement, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school”? That’s the extremely straightforward question that you have been asked over and over in this thread. Can I trouble you to answer it? Don’t answer some other question that you’d rather answer. Answer this question if you can.
What question are you asking? You claim her statements do not corroborate anything and then say “something” is corroborated.
So now I’m going to have to ask you define assertion.
I thought, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” clearly satisfied any reasonable definition of assertion, but perhaps you’ll surprise me.
I am asking this question…
That is exactly one sentence and it ends in a question mark. That is the question I am asking.
Once again here is the relevant part of the post that started this mess…
Does the statement, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” contain details provided by Dr. Ford? Can those details be corroborated?
No, It does not corroborate her accusation. what part of that don’t you understand?
corroboration - evidence that confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation.
If it doesn’t support her claim then it does not corroborate it. Stating a public fact is not corroboration of a theory or finding.
Kavanaugh and Judge being in a particular school year is not an “allegation”, so doesn’t need corroborating. It’s a public fact. No details of Ford’s allegations have been corroborated, most likely because Kavanaugh didn’t attack her.
To answer the question in the thread title, someone like her is not supposed to prove their case, as the evidence to prove it does not exist.
You are really having quite a bit of trouble following this. I wish you luck.