And therein lies your problem citing any corroboration of Ford’s story.
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.
No, they don’t corroborate each other as neither have any factual basis.
Even if Ramirez could prove her accusation it doesn’t back up Ford’s accusation. It would be like saying you ran over someone’s dog therefor all accusations of a dog being run over can be attributed to you.
I will not discuss corroboration with you until you explain this post that you made.
There is evidence that such a gathering occurred: Dr. Ford’s testimony.
There is evidence that corroborates Dr. Ford’s assertion that such a gathering occurred: all the evidence that Kavanaugh and Judge went to many such gatherings.
An extremely straightforward example of corroboration. An assertion and other evidence that tends to support that that assertion.
Wow you are doing the whole, ‘my post is my cite’ thing. Ford asserts through testimony that a certain gathering occurred. Are you sure you want to say that her testimony corroborates her own assertion?
Because the idea that Kavanaugh may have gone to similar gatherings had nothing to do with whether he may have attended a specific one.
The level of rigor being applied here is very poor.
This also seems incredibly straightforward. If info is publicly available then using that info doesn’t offer anything insightful. It hardly corroborates anything because it’s not any indication of specific circumstances. But given it would be pulled from the internet the one thing we can spend is that the internet exists. Yay.
I am in no way saying that my post is my cite.
I am in no way saying that her testimony corroborates her own assertion.
She says she was at a party with Kavanaugh and Judge. There is a lot of evidence from many other sources that Kavanaugh and Judge were at a lot of parties.
We have an assertion and we have other evidence that tends to support that assertion.
I that what he means? I’m not sure and he’s not telling.
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 need a better textbook.
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.
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.
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.
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…
What elements of corroboration do you think are missing from this? Please be specific.
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.
proof any of it occurred.
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.
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.”