Your mama tells you she’s been raped.
You ask her what evidence she has.
Mom says, “My word.”
You say, “Mom, you should stop telling stories.”
Someone says your mama murdered 35 children. Their evidence is their word.
What’s your point?
I suspect that you would not answer like that to your mom. Would you?
right back at you. the person accusing your mother of murder doesn’t know when or where it happened and has no evidence to back up the claim. But people feel the need to believe the accusation because it sounded credible.
In the metaphysical sense sure. But that essentially applies to everything and anything. Do you think an apology is appropriate then, if he is innocent of the allegations?
He could apologize for being drinking too much, being immatures and “for anything I might have done to embarrass myself while blacked out”.
Indeed, when it comes to powerful and popular men, an understanding of how rape accusations against them tend to end for the victim, and the frequency of false positives vs. false negatives, in such cases an accusation should be considered very good evidence. Not enough to uphold a conviction in a court of law, perhaps, but enough that we all should pause before, y’know, putting the accused on the highest court in the country.
In reality, yeah, rape is hard enough to prove when it happens, let alone decades after the fact. Imagine Ford had accused Kavanaugh the same night - if his friend didn’t flip, there’s no chance of a conviction and little chance of the police even taking it seriously.
In criminal court, the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” is necessary. In practical, non-court situations, the reality of rape is such that a lower bar is entirely reasonable. We should “believe women”.
Personal story time. My ex was raped in high school. This is something that caused her untold suffering, and led to self-harm and severe depression. Of the five men involved, only one saw any consequences (he was expelled). It never went to the police. How could it? The cuts on her stomach weren’t hard evidence. Should I have claimed it never happened? Should I have rejected her testimony without better evidence?
there’s no indication he ever blacked out.
As for apologizing for drinking too much, that’s every college student who ever lived. On what planet do you see that happening?
It seems to me that this fit the classic profile of innocence too. If I was falsely accused of rape publicly, you bet I’d be furious, hateful towards the accuser, and if I have any good reason to suspect she has a specific motivition for acting like this, I would definitely make it know. In your first paragraph, you mentioned his lack of empathy, but I’m not sure why he should feel any empathy if he’s innocent. I sure wouldn’t show any empathy for a liar who publicly trash my reputation (and might send me to jail, but I believe that in this case statute of limitations would apply, no?). In fact, I feel that showing empathy (and what would he say, exactly : “I’m really sorry that you’re under the delusion of having been raped by me. Is there any way I can help you”?) would rather be suspicious because why would you feel empathy for someone accusing you if you don’t feel guilty?
How would you react in his place? What kind of reaction would you expect on his part if he was indeed falsely accused?
This is tantamount to admit that he did something wrong. This, in fact would make me suspect he’s guilty. Why would someone accused of rape feel the need to apologize about unrelated, minor and perfectly normal things (being immature) and things “he might have done” if he has a clear conscience? That would reek of guilt.
Seriously, would you feel any empathy if you were falsely accused of rape? A person make up a story to destroy your reputation and send you to jail for a long time, and you feel empathy for her? Why would you feel even a shred of empathy? If you’re innocent, you know she isn’t a victim. What could you possibly feel empathy for? Apart from a “father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing” kind of empathy if you’re some sort of saint, I really can’t see.
It makes absolutely no sense to state that this man should feel empathy for her, or should apologize, if he’s innocent. I can’t comprehend the reasonning of people who states so.
If she’s a liar, she deserves anything that he throws at her, and more.
The revelation was late enough (mid September) to jeopardize the confirmation of a new Justice before the midterms.
Also because Gorsuch was replacing Scalia. No real change in the status quo.
Kavanaugh was replacing the “swing vote” and his confirmation changed the balance of SCOTUS for a generation.
The stakes were incredibly high. There is no amount of partisanship in his past that would have derailed his confirmation. The Democrats were looking at a generation of conservative SCOTUS opinions. They were desperate and they threw the kitchen sink at him. So an uncorroborated accusation of sexual assault from 30+ years ago became their centerpiece and they probably lost some votes over it. But the fight was simply too important to shrug off as a lost cause.
I’m sure Ford’s kids believe her. To everyone else its just a story.
By that reasoning, or perhaps better to say, if one were to actually apply reasoning, Ford should have including in her statement wording to the effect she was sorry if her recollection was a false ‘recovered memory’ or if such an incident actually occurred but didn’t involve Kavanaugh. Which would be equally ridiculous as your suggestion.
Supposing both of them are really sure their version of the events (ie no such event, in Kavanaugh’s version) there is no reason for either of them to couch their statements in hypotheticals about the other being right or partly right. And we simply don’t and can’t know which if either or both of them actually know their claims are not true, or have some doubt deep down if they are entirely true.
Besides which, ‘I don’t recall that but if I did something to hurt you I’m sorry’ has become a too stereotypical form of pseudo-apology by accused people stopping one step short of admitting the obvious, corroborated by multiple credible accusations with evidence. With K that’s just really not true. Ford’s story could be true, in the details and that it was actually K not somebody else. I don’t know. But a long way from obviously true. You’re suggesting a rhetorical approach that perhaps in an ideal world would be employed only by innocent, empathetic people, but in our sad, down and dirty world has become standard for people who pretty obviously did it.
A real investigation could have confirmed other details of both Ford and Kavanaugh’s accounts and testimony (Ford’s account of seeing Judge at his supermarket job later, Kavanaugh’s drinking and possibly blackout habits, and much more). And there was plenty of time for a real investigation.
But the Republican leadership decided political concerns were more important than a real and thorough investigation.
What a ridiculous analogy.
Murder is a little different, isn’t it? First of all, murder by its nature must leave physical evidence that lasts in perpetuity; namely the lack of a human where there was one before.
So murder accusations need at least that piece of evidence.
Also, evidence of the sort that existed in the Ford case is helpful: proximity to the victims. Opportunity. Lack of contradictory evidence (such as, to follow your analogy, already explained causes of death).
Right - like no evidence that he’d never been in the location that she couldn’t recall. And absolutely no alibi for the unspecified date and time of this “event”.
Are speaking of the same Brett Kavanaugh?
It took me almost twenty thousand milliseconds to research but I finally tracked down a rebuttal to your peculiar claim. The obscure website where I found it is called “Wikipedia.”
“No amount of partisanship that would derail …” Got it. :rolleyes: