…this is an objectively false statement.
Not to a Twoofer. 
My interpretation of Keyser’s statements is that she has no recollection of being at such a gathering AND that she would never place herself in the situation that Ford described which was drinking beer with four older boys in a stranger’s house with no adult supervision.
It would be quite daring for many 15 year old girls to be drinking when it would have been clearly illegal as well as the sexual implications of being with older boys unsupervised. If I had a 15 yo daughter, I certainly would not allow her to be in that situation even in this day and age much less 35 years ago.
No, it’s a factual statement. Pretending otherwise because it doesn’t suit your biases is silly.
But, as I’ve said to others, if I’m wrong, provide even one piece of evidence that supports Ford’s claim. Because, as it stands, all the evidence - and there’s quite a bit of it, including Kavanaugh’s detailed calendars and the statements of several people Ford claimed would support her - that go against it. So, to the standard of preponderance of evidence - the standard accepted in court for non-criminal claims - it has been proven false.
…that maybe your interpretation, but that literally wasn’t what she actually said.
This tells us a lot about you: but it says nothing at all about the typical 15 year old girl.
Anybody got a mirror, real quick ?
So, what’s the evidence that supports Ford’s claim, then? Odd that no-one seems able to provide it, when the evidence that debunks it is so readily available.
…it is not a factual statement.
It has nothing to do with any biases you may think that I have. To think that it is is silly.
That isn’t how it works. The burden of proof for the statement “She may not be being malicious, but the fact that she’s still not withdrawn the accusation despite it being shown to be false makes that hard to believe” lies with you, not with me. The bit you have to prove is the bit you assert, which is that her claims have been “shown to be false.”
This is an objectively false statement.
LOL. We aren’t in a fucking court here. We are on a fucking message-board. In the actual courts there was no determination that this was “proven false” because courts tend not to do that sort of thing. Even by the standard of “preponderance of evidence.”
On these messageboards you haven’t demonstrated jack-shit. You’ve merely asserted her claims have been proven false, you haven’t demonstrated they’ve been proven false because you can’t do that because they haven’t been.
Either you are claiming that all the people that have provided strong evidence that the party Ms Ford described didn’t happen are lying, or you think that she was somehow assaulted by someone she’d never met at an event that didn’t happen. Both are ridiculous.
What evidence do you have that supports Ford’s claim? Because, until you present that, the claim that all the evidence opposes it stands.
There was no determination of anything in the courts because Ford has, still, not reported her claim to the authorities. As for standards of proof, what would you accept, if “all the evidence” isn’t enough for you?
Really, what all this shows is that you, and others, are unable to accept evidence. You belong in the same category as anti-vaxxers, birthers, or global warming sceptics. You have chosen the result you want, and are ignoring or twisting reality to suit your purposes.
Steophan, if you really believed “innocent until proven guilty,” you would not be saying Ford is lying. She has not been convicted in a court of law to have filed a false accusation.
All that has occurred is that investigators did not find proof of her story. It’s debatable if the investigation actually tried, but, even if it did, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This sort of thing is exactly why I point out that claiming 'innocent until proven guilty" about sexual assault is actually about blaming the accuser, and not actually a principle the person holds. I thank you, Steophan, for being so transparent about it.
There is no “strong evidence” the party in question didn’t happen. That’s just a ludicrous claim.
You start out AND finish with Kavanaugh’s innocence and Ford’s guilt despite the fact that one person here was caught lying, repeatedly, and it was not Ford.
I notice that none of you Kavanaugh defenders will address his lies and the mysterious clearing of his debts. Not one.
Yet you attack Ford.
Funny how “Innocent Till Proven Guilty” does not exist for her. To every last Kavanaugh defender, the only choices are: innocent (and none of you will admit that) or Evil Conspiring Harpy.
“Strong evidence” that the party didn’t happen? Where? The best you came up was people who couldn’t remember it.
Among the things Kavanaugh lied about was his knowledge of stolen material in 2003’s “Memogate” scandal. Under oath, he testified he had no knowledge of it. In fact, he emailed the thief at least twice and tried to set up a personal meeting so he, presumably, he could receive more.
So there you have it: another proven Republican liar, being defended by men who attack the woman for lying, when the very worst that’s accurate is that her accusation is unproven.
From now on when men act out this Trumpian charade of desperate reversal, I’m going to conclude that they know, in fact, that the man is indeed lying. If they argue that fear of being falsely accused by women is entirely reasonable because women are liars (or imply it) then I’m going to have to conclude that they themselves have a guilty conscience. It is malicious to say or imply that false rape accusations by women are so common as to be a common fear, when every last reputable study has found that that is not true.
Also: Eyes Wide Shut: Recent Second Circuit Concurrence Continues Debate on Conscious Avoidance Doctrine
The deliberate avoidance of knowledge is just as bad as openly lying. Kavanaugh’s defenders are liable for choosing lies.
So, still not one bit of evidence that she’s telling the truth, just more implications and bias. I’m not even slightly surprised.
You know all the evidence, you’re just ignoring it.
Ford’s “prior consistent statements” are, by all definitions legal and otherwise, evidence that she’s telling the truth.
Kavanaugh’s own calendar showing a party involving alcohol on 1 July 1982 is, by all definitions legal and otherwise, evidence that she’s telling the truth.
Mark Judge’s descriptions of Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school, which involved drinking at parties (despite Kavanaugh claiming he never did that) is, by all definitions legal and otherwise, evidence that she’s telling the truth.
This evidence exists. It is not proof, it is certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it does not exist in a vacuum where counter-evidence doesn’t exist, but it exists.
Your continued attempts to gaslight and claim that no evidence exists beside her testimony is pathetic. Words mean things. Get over it. You’re wrong.
Dr. Ford, dumbass.
…for no good reason.
But they can be shot for bad “reasons.”
I think you relate to these Dirty Harry types because you live off of instincts, which are usually fueled by fear. There’s nothing wrong about being fearful and being prepared to defend yourself, but there’s everything wrong with killing someone based on fears. When someone possesses deadly force, they have an even greater responsibility to show restraint. That’s what a lot of people who defended Zimmerman aren’t willing to acknowledge.
There’s not evidence that she’s knowingly telling falsehoods. Not remembering specific things in their exact sequence at specific times is normal; the fact that memories aren’t (and really can’t be) precise doesn’t invalidate the general substance of someone’s recollection.
If a rape victim recalls that the perpetrator was driving a blue minivan when in fact he was driving a black pickup SUV, and recalls that he was wearing a grey hoodie when in fact he was wearing a dark blue sweater, these would on their face be pretty significant discrepancies. And yet, none of those discrepancies would matter if investigators were to find a DNA match that corroborates her general description of the victim and the crime.
Obviously, we don’t have DNA evidence in this specific case, and we’re lacking other stronger forms of evidence that might either support or discount her claims. But lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence. It doesn’t mean someone is lying. Do you really want to suggest that rape victims should suffer if they have imperfect memories and no witnesses? Does that mean that a sexual assault never took place? Is truth that subjective and malleable to you?
Does Steophan cast a reflection in a mirror?
That’s why I won’t waste my time with cites, evidence, reasoned debate, or logic anymore.
It’s a damn waste of time.
I’ve found it more efficient to just bypass the preliminary garbage and cut right to the insults.