Okay, we cannot question Ford’s correctness. She is correct. She knows what was in his mind.
Knowing that to be true, why wouldn’t you put Kavanaugh in jail? That seems like a contradiction to me to know the factual situation - that he’s an unconvicted rapist who forcibly inserted his dick into a woman, against her will - and yet you would not put him in jail?
If I knew that, with such certainty, I would put him in jail. You’re telling me that you would not. What is your logic for that choice?
You forgot to criticize her for not fighting hard enough so he would know she wasn’t into it.
Now who is putting words in peoples mouths?
I never said he raped her. I would say that he most likely attempted to rape her or at least sexually assault her, but was unable to due to his drunkeness and his inability to get past the one piece bathing suit.
I wouldn’t put him in prison because I believe in due process, and this case is decades old based on he said/she said evidence that would be unlikely to get a conviction. But the defense wouldn’t be that Ford misunderstood an innocent situation, it would be that Ford had insufficient proof that the incident even took place.
If someone points a gun at me and asks for my wallet, I am enough of a mind reader to be able to conclude that he intends to steal my money. If a woman has a man push her onto the bed grinds against me and attempts to take off her clothes despite her screaming protests she is enough of a mind reader to be able to conclude that his intentions are of a sexual nature.
Incidentally, if, when you push a woman down onto a bed grind against her and attempt to remove her clothes, if she screams and tries to push you off then you should be enough of a mind reader to know that your advances are not welcome.
ETA: However the converse is not true. If she doesn’t do this you are not enough of a mind reader to conclude that your advances are welcomed.
Sure looked like it to me.
Hey now! He might just be asking you for a loan while at the same time showing you his cool new gun.
What was in his mind is not relevant. The relevant issue is whether she is accurately describing what happened. If Kavenaugh did what Ford described, then he committed sexual assault. Period.
You want to argue that maybe she misremembered certain facts? That would be a completely different argument–one we could disagree on. But if you think Kavenaugh pushed her onto her bed and started grinding on her while she was telling him to stop, then he committed sexual assault.
Because, no matter how certain I am, my certainty is not enough for a criminal conviction. The legal system is deliberately biased towards the accused. It is designed to err on the side of letting guilty people go free.
As such, conviction (let alone jail time) is a very lousy standard to use when determining truth. It is common in sexual assault cases that no one reported the issue at the time, and the legal system has issues proving crimes that happened a long time ago.
I don’t think your point is “no conviction means it didn’t happen.” But that is a common argument. I would stay well clear of anything resembling it.
All that said, I’m not (in this post) saying that Kavenaugh definitely committed sexual assault. I am saying that, if Ford’s description is correct, then he committed sexual assault. We do not need to try and figure out what a drunk teen was thinking.
Did someone claim this? Are you being honest?
Do they still use hodaddy? I was called a hodaddy in 8th grade, because I parted my hair on the wrong (i.e. non-surfer) side.
I believe that this whole discussion stems from me saying that he was never accused of rape and saying that he ran his hands over her in an undesirable way (I forget the exact phrasing). You seem to be concurring?
I’ve been told that this is not a he said/she said deal. We know that Ford is correct. He’s a sexual miscreant and anyone who says that the evidence is insufficient to make such a determination is clearly in the wheelhouse of Big Rape?
Let’s say that the statute of limitations has been extended. You’re serving on the jury. The lawyers have successfully rooted out everyone that’s biased in any way and, to the best that you can tell, everyone’s a reasonable and knowledgeable person who understands the world.
At least one person refrains from choosing to convict. Is that person just being a reasonable and honest person about the quality of the evidence? Or are they a secret member of Big Rape, and they just outed themselves?
What the hell did that even mean?
You argue a lot through imagination, analogy, and hypotheticals. And you’re really bad at it. Your hypotheticals are at best opaque, and at worst obnoxious. Maybe use fewer analogies and hypotheticals?
A criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A civil court requires preponderance of evidence
A job interview requires whatever the fuck you want it to require.
Where does “sexual miscreant” lie on this? Because I can see a person thinking there isn’t enough proof for the first, but that there’s plenty of proof for the second, and anyone ignoring this claim for the third (in order to be fair to the man) is in the pocket of Big Rape.
Thank you, Left_Hand! That was very much called for.
Fucking Dinsdale rears his ugliness again in my Jon Stewart thread in CS. Several of us were discussing Stewart’s highly emotional, heartfelt tribute to his dog who had passed away the previous day (at the end of last Monday’s show, Feb 26). It was a mutt that they adopted from a no-kill animal shelter of which they are patrons; the poor guy got hit by a car and lost a front leg, but continued to live a happy life and bring joy to the Stewart family for more than 11 years.
Stewart’s emotional tribute brought some of us to tears. Fucking Dinsdale had this to say:
Well, you impress me as a callous inhuman jackass completely devoid of empathy. Which should already have been clear from your idiotic and mercenary views on health care. Fuck right off.
No, your words were
(bolding mine)
To which I responded that he did a heck of a lot more than just grabbing her and holding her down, pointing out that his sexual intentions were clear even if he wasn’t able to carry them out, and that Ford claimed that she thought he was trying to rape her.
Now the proper response would be to either apologize for using such neutral language to describe sexual assault, or to just slink off letting my correction stand without comment. But no, you decided to argue that actions described really might not have been sexual in nature, and then claim that unless I wanted Kavenough put in jail right now without trial I shouldn’t say that such behavior was disqualifying, and that I could only conclude that his various acts (repeated multiple times) indicated sexual intention if I were psychic. That is what got you invited here.
If you are willing to assert that if Ford was not lying about what happened to her then Kavenaugh did attempt to sexually assault her (or did actually sexually assault her I’m not sure about the legal definition of this), and that it wasn’t just an innocent joke or accident, then I will agree that he didn’t actually manage to complete the rape and that there is no point in prosecuting him on attempted rape charges at this late date, much less throwing him in prison without trial.
At that point we will be in agreement, and I will withdraw the pitting.
Analogies and hypotheticals are how you avoid capriciousness. A true thing should be true regardless of situation.
It’s why I’m a Republican and opposed to Trump, don’t believe the majority of the nonsense about the Mexican border, etc. I don’t believe in ignoring basic logic, in favor of my own personal preferences, in favor of keeping in with my peers, or for any other nonsense reason. True is true, false is false, and things that we can’t be confident about are just things that we can’t be confident about. Being confident on things that are up in the air is a fool’s game.
And, likewise, using hypotheticals is how you break people out of dishonest viewpoints. Assuming ill-intent and working desperately to find that intent, rather than just engaging honestly in the discussion, is how you stay inside the dishonest viewpoint.
Hey, Iove me some good analogies, and my gut instinct is to use one to try help clarify my reasoning, (see for example the mugging example I used above). I actually probably over use them to the point that the become cliched, and in using them you always run the risk of derailing your argument in to an exchange about the difference’s between the actual set of events and the analogy you are using.
Be that as it may however, your Penny analogy in this post far from elucidating the situation just left me confused and bewildered as to what you were trying to say and what it had to do with the discussion at hand. My impression was that what you basically wanted to say was
“Answer the question! Should he be put in jail! Yes or no!”
but it was really unclear.
What is the actually technical definition of sociopath? Asking for a friend.
Great idea! Have you tried it?
We’ll start with an easy one. Is your statement
honest or true?
Can we all stop saying “Big Rape”? It’s disgusting.