LogFAQs > #909449501

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Sure I do. The guy who's claiming to be good enough to sit on the Supreme Court better be able to prove it.

No you clearly don't. This isn't the first thread where you didn't understand how burden of proof works.

True, except I absolutely do.

If the world worked the way you seem to think it does, Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already.

I also find this hilarious, given that the last time you got your panties in a bunch over burden of proof, you were arguing the exact opposite of what you're arguing here (specifically asking me to prove that something didn't happen and saying that the burden of proof was on me).

Pick a lane, bud.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Wow. You just don't get it darkknight109.

According to you, it's just a "job interview" so it's okay if he's seen as guilty by default.

I never said to assume him guilty by default. That being said, I also just posted a little ways up there eight pretty good reasons why his accuser is coming off as far more credible as him.

But yes, I stand by what I said - Kavanaugh isn't in any way entitled to this job and right now his accuser's (or, rather, his accusers') story is looking a lot more believable than his. Unless Kavanaugh and/or the FBI can provide additional information that casts doubt on Ford and her story, I don't for a minute think that he deserves to be confirmed.

GreenKnight127 posted...

And by needing to prove he is "good enough" to sit on the Supreme court, he needs to prove that he DIDN'T do something.

How can you NOT see how fucked up that is?

He can't prove a negative.

I'm not asking him to.

Here, let's play a little game. Yesterday I saw you on TV - you shot ten people in Tokyo in the middle of a subway station. I'm absolutely certain it was you.

You are now asked to disprove my allegation. Can you do it?

I'm guessing you could do so without much difficulty. You could get sworn statements from any family and co-workers you may have attesting to the fact you were not in Tokyo yesterday. You could ask me to supply a video clip of the TV show I saw that put you at the shooting (which I would be unable to do). You could point out that there was no shooting in a Tokyo subway station. Furthermore, you could point out there hasn't been a shooting attack in Japan with double digit casualties in the last 80 years and there's nothing in the news about such an attack having happened recently.

Now, you technically haven't disproved anything by the strictest possible definition. Maybe your co-workers are all lying to cover for you. Maybe the news just didn't report on the subway massacre for whatever reason. But any rational person would, after reading the contrasting facts, conclude that my story has too many holes in it to be believable and your defences are both reasonable and much more likely.

If you want me to believe that Kavanaugh is worthy of one of the most powerful positions in the world, you'll need to address those eight points I listed above.

His accuser and the investigative team needs to prove he did it first.

You're dancing around a pretty pertinent issue here, which is that Kavanaugh (and you, earlier in this thread) said that investigators shouldn't be involved. How can an investigation prove something if no investigators are called to conduct it?

The timing of all this was clearly just a character smear. Plain as day.

Interesting hypothesis. What's your basis for saying this? Keep in mind Ford told her therapist about this back in 2012.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!