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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. The assertion is that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ms. Ford.
No. No evidence exists that tends to support the assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ms. Ford.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
Deborah Ramirez’s testimony is evidence that exists that tends to support the assertion.
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.