So you have tailored your own unique definition of the word corroborated specifically to exclude a class statements that you believe are corroborated and I’m the one who’s weaseling?
“Neither”, “unknowable” or “can’t meaningfully be answered” are all valid answers to the question of whether a particular statement is corroborated. If the statement in it’s totality is “They were both visibly drunk”, then the assertion cannot meaningfully be corroborated, as the statement contains too little information.
It’s not the definition of “corroboration” that’s being misunderstood by anyone here. It’s you that seems to think that it’s either relevant or meaningful to categorise every statement as “corroborated” or “uncorroborated”.
No. Read what I said again and you’ll see that I’ve done the exact opposite, I’ve done so to prevent weaseling. Why would you describe a proven statement as “corroborated”? It’s obviously not for clarity, it’s obviously a rhetorical device, so what point are you trying to make?
I believe that you are trying to claim that, because some of Ford’s statements are true, and therefore technically corroborated, that her allegations as a whole are to a degree corroborated. That is wrong, logically, both in the general case that proof of one part of a statement doesn’t independently corroborate any other part, and in the specific, as the proven parts are more general than the disputed ones.
Put simply, that Kavanaugh was seen drunk at some point is a general statement, and tells us nothing about whether he was drunk at a specific point. It works the other way round though, that he was seen drunk at one point proves that he has been seen drunk as a general statement. It seems you don’t understand how logic works (in the technical sense, this isn’t an attack on your intellect, just an observation that your knowledge is lacking).
First, you literally tried to rewrite the definition of corroborated to suit your needs a post or two ago. This demonstrates the need for a mutually agreeable definition of the term.
Second, meaningful or relevant are not elements of determining if a statement is corroborated. For any particular statement either evidence exists that tends to support it or no such evidence exists.
Evidence exists that tends to support Dr. Ford’s assertion that she attended a gathering where Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk. That evidence comes in the form of the mountain of evidence that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk together at many gatherings.
It doesn’t prove that such a gathering occurred, but it does tend to support it.
False. There exist statements (for example, “they were visibly drunk” without further details) where it is meaningless to say whether evidence supports it or not. You seem to think corroborated/uncorroborated is a binary that applies to all statements, when it isnt.
You are wrong here. That evidence does no such thing. It tells us nothing about whether they were drunk at any given time or place, it doesn’t make it more or less likely. Once again, you need to learn the difference between “consistent” and “corroborate”. The irony of you going on about definitions while refusing to acknowledge that one is not unnoticed.
More importantly, though, is that there’s no evidence to corroborate that the gathering ever happened. Even if we had evidence that Judge and Kavanugh were drunk constantly in the time period mentioned, Ford’s allegations would not be corroborated by that evidence.
The evidence is not required to tell us anything about a given time and place or make anything more or less likely in order to corroborate an assertion. There is no time and place requirement in the definition of corroborate. There is no more or less likely requirement.
The evidence tends to support the assertion. That is what is required for evidence to corroborate an assertion.
Neither? Then what *was *it? We have to know in order to define what standards apply, don’t we?
It was political grandstanding by the Democrats to try to stall until after the midterms, and the standard was “anything that will bring that about is fine”.
Regards,
Shodan
It was a Senate hearing. One in which it was shown pretty clearly that Kavanaugh is temperamentally unsuited to be a judge, and that he did not assault Ford. The constant focus on the false accusation detracted from the very real problems with Kavanaugh as a judge.
As for what standards we apply, the nature of the hearing doesn’t really affect that. The Senate, as I understand it, can apply whatever standards it chooses, and they don’t have to be either public or consistent. Personally, I think that as it’s not a criminal issue, then balance of probabilities/preponderance of evidence should be the standard used, which is why I say Kavanaugh did not assault Ford.
You’re such a good psychic boy, aren’t you? Good psychic boy! You are such a special little psychic boy! Who’s a good psychic boy? You are!
AKA a job interview. But in either case, the rules of criminal procedure are not really applicable, are they?
Yes to the first, Cite? to the second.
Of course it does. You don’t apply criminal law standards to a job interview.
We The People don’t have to accept either. The Court of Public Opinion, which includes you, gets to decide for itself if someone is worthy of a responsible position.
That conclusion does not follow the evidence.
AKA The Garland Doctrine? :dubious:
Everything has boundaries. I have no problem with the temperament of Kavanaugh. Only a sociopath would be emotionless to a false allegation of sexual assault. Perhaps that should be the new litmus test for every new nomination? A psychological test where a false allegation is made to see how the nominee reacts.
No, that’s a different standard. The standard for Garland was the Senate acting in accord with its own rules and the Constitution, and the standard for Kavanaugh was the Democrats lying, engaging in character assassination, unfounded accusations, hysteria, and violations of confidentiality.
Only indirectly. If the public thinks Kavanaugh shouldn’t be on the Court, then they would vote in a Senate where a majority or super majority is going to impeach and remove him. If the public did think that, one would expect that the Dems would pick up seats in the Senate in the midterms.
If your suggestion is that Supreme Court Justices should be directly elected, then you need a rather large supermajority to amend the Constitution.
But until that happens, then We the People do have to accept. That’s how it works in a republic.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve suggested that the rules of civil procedure would be appropriate.
The party Ford described didn’t happen, according to the majority of witnesses.
Already addresses.
No, you could change it easily over the next few years by voting in Senators that will change the rules and impeach Kavanaugh. How’s that working out so far?
I disagree. The balance of evidence shows that the events Ford described never happened. It’s not even a he said/she said case, it’s a she said/everyone else said one. Believing Ford’s claims are true at this point is wilful denial of the evidence.
You rein that in, Andy. Do anything like that and you won’t enjoy the outcome.
You left out a couple of nots. :rolleyes:
Your assertion of unfoundedness is unfounded, as is your claim of lying. Your claims of character assassination and hysteria are based on those unfounded claims, and your claim of violation of confidentiality is ridiculous in view of your handwaving away the claim of a rape attempt. But other than that, though …
That could still happen. We The People now have subpoena power and can investigate the background that your faction tried so hard to hide.
But not in a democracy.
Only in a legal proceeding. Next?
There were other boys who tightened the circle of bro-hood around him, yes. You can choose to believe them instead if it relieves your worries.
We do agree that support for his denials depends on his party affiliation rather than respect for our institutions and basic decency.
Kinda makes you wonder why she brought it up, then. What’s your theory?
No, I’ve suggested that it’s a reasonable standard fro determining truth or falsehood generally. I think you’d need exceptional circumstances to do otherwise than weigh the evidence and accept that what is most likely is true.
Also her best friend from the time, who was not a boy nor a bro.
Basic decency would be believing someone when the evidence supports what they claim, rather than considering them guilty of sexual assault despite there being no support, and plenty of rebuttal, for that claim. Party affiliation seems to be what determines whether people think he’s fit to be a judge for other reasons.
Hopefully no one who believes he’s guilty based on the evidence made public will ever be on a jury, or even a hiring panel for a job. They have shown themselves incapable of reason.
“Theory” would be a stretch, as there’s not really enough information out there to tell, and unless she’s ever investigated for the falsehoods, for example if Kavanaugh sued her, it will likely stay that way. My guess, and it’s nothing more than that, is some sort of mistaken identity. Less probable, but also possible, is that he did in fact assault her but in very different circumstances to those she describes, but there’s no hint of evidence of that.
The only other possibilities is that she’s exactly right, and everyone else is mistaken or lying, or that she’s lying to discredit him. There’s no reason to believe the former, as it means arbitrarily throwing out witnessess, and the latter is pretty much ludicrous.
I do think that the release of the allegations was deliberately done, against Ford’s wishes, to discredit him. That she didn’t want that to happen strongly suggests that she’s not intentionally lying.
People are afraid to speak.
From the Senate Report: My bolding.
(Oct. 3, Oct. 5): REDACTED said that her family is familiar with the Blasey family as both were members of the Columbia Country Club. She told the Committee she was in contact with several individuals who knew Dr. Ford from high school and who have information regarding** her drinking and partying**, but none are willing to come forward and identify themselves I don’t want to put myself out there.” **REDACTED ** said, “I wish I could say all of the things I know, but I don’t want to put myself out there."