Poll of the Day > Making sexual harassment claims that are over 30 years old.

(+) Yeah! (+)

GreenKnight127 posted...

OrangeDawn posted...

lmao telling victims of rape, aka victims, to stop having a victim mentality. You're a fucking joke

ALLEGED victims.

Jesus Christ, do none of you see the true point of this conversation!?!?! Or are you just here to virtue signal!?!

These are all ALLEGATIONS!!! Being distributed by the media as FACT!!! It's all about the dangerous (and sexist) perspective of men being seen as GUILTY before proven INNOCENT!!!

The death of Due Process.

Wake the hell up.

Why does due process apply here when no one is being charged with anything?
---

OrangeDawn posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

OrangeDawn posted...

lmao telling victims of rape, aka victims, to stop having a victim mentality. You're a fucking joke

ALLEGED victims.

Jesus Christ, do none of you see the true point of this conversation!?!?! Or are you just here to virtue signal!?!

These are all ALLEGATIONS!!! Being distributed by the media as FACT!!! It's all about the dangerous (and sexist) perspective of men being seen as GUILTY before proven INNOCENT!!!

The death of Due Process.

Wake the hell up.

Why does due process apply here when no one is being charged with anything?

It's the slope we are slipping down.

While there might not be any official charges made to Kavanaugh yet, the principle is the same: He is being seen as guilty before proven innocent. The media is riding this out with misleading headlines and they are loving every second of it. It is no longer an issue between the investigative bodies and people with the need-to-know. No. The WORLD has become involved now. And that is very problematic.

"There can't be smoke without a fire"

It's scary as hell. And it's something that effects ALL men in today's world. Many of us are just fortunate enough to not be super famous or in the public eye right now.

But I GUARANTEE you, if any of you guys were to become a famous musician, actor, or politician at some point? Just watch. The exgirlfriends will be coming out of the woodwork with stories to ruin you. Even if they are baseless.

And the media will be giving you a shit-eating grin the whole time. Eager to watch you fall. Anticipating it. Hoping for it.
---

Ah, so you have no argument since your only defense is "slippery slope" aka a fallacy. I think someone else has already explained this to you in either this topic or another one though so I won't waste my breath on someone who isn't willing to listen.
---

OrangeDawn posted...

Ah, so you have no argument since your only defense is "slippery slope" aka a fallacy. I think someone else has already explained this to you in either this topic or another one though so I won't waste my breath on someone who isn't willing to listen.

Because I told you the principle applies to all men being seen as guilty before proven innocent and the media's (confirmed) slanderous ways have killed Due Process....is somehow me not having an argument?

Yes. Don't waste your breath. You clearly lack logic and are incapable of talking about serious subjects like this. Bye.
---

"you clearly lack logic" says the person whose argument rests on a logical fallacy. I'm dying lol
---

This is why I'm swearing off women. If I date or even interact with one on anything but a purely professional level it can come back to bite me in the butt and have people accuse me of being a rapist and all that even without evidence. Better to just not even bother than risk having my career and livelihood destroyed due to gender politics and some nasty woman who sees an opening to take down an opponent.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

It is no longer an issue between the investigative bodies and people with the need-to-know. No. The WORLD has become involved now. And that is very problematic.

This isn't some random Joe off the street. This isn't even random celebrity who, while famous, doesn't really hold real power over our daily lives. No, this is a guy who is being selected for a very powerful position that affects the entire country. We all need to know.

Unbridled9 posted...

This is why I'm swearing off women. If I date or even interact with one on anything but a purely professional level it can come back to bite me in the butt and have people accuse me of being a rapist and all that even without evidence. Better to just not even bother than risk having my career and livelihood destroyed due to gender politics and some nasty woman who sees an opening to take down an opponent.

You sound exactly like the kind of guy who women should stay away from.
---

thedeerzord posted...

darkknight109 posted...

...aaaaand a second woman has now come forward and claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both first years in university.

Proof?

Proof that someone's come forward? That's easy!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kavanaugh+Second+Accuser

Or do you mean proof that Kavanaugh did it? I don't personally have any, and it's not my job to find any. Fortunately, we have a bunch of people whose job it is to do just that. Somebody really should get them involved at this point.

See, here's the thing - I don't necessarily believe these women. I don't disbelieve them either, but I'm the sort of guy who would like to see the full set of facts before making the call one way or another. But I have figured out something over the years, which is that in a "he-said-she-said" dispute, the party that's pushing harder for more information and a more comprehensive investigation is more likely to be telling the truth; if a party is fighting against those things, that's a big red flag in my eye. After all, sound judgement is founded on good information and right now Kavanaugh and the Republicans are lining up foursquare against gathering more information to render judgement. That's not proof of anything, but it does immediately make me think that they're the party that's trying to hide something.

Revelation34 posted...

You mean that investigative party that will find absolutely nothing because it is something they would never be able to "prove" other than making up "evidence"?

You say that, but I've already posted numerous times in this thread exactly what the FBI could and should be looking into that would either bolster (if not outright confirm) or contradict the claims made against Kavanaugh.

Here's the problem - you, among other posters in this thread, are looking at this entire situation almost perfectly backwards. This isn't a criminal case and Kavanaugh isn't on trial. He has no constitutional right to a Supreme Court nomination, whereas a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to his freedom unless convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

What this is is a job application. Kavanaugh is, in essence, applying for a new job with lifetime tenure and an extreme level of power and responsibility. He is entitled to an assumption of innocence, but only to a point; if credible allegations arise against him, the burden is on him to disprove those allegations to the satisfaction of his interviewers and the people he represents (and as I write this, The Guardian has indicated that they have heard from a third woman who is planning on coming forward with allegations against Kavanaugh - the judge's job to clear the cloud of doubt hanging over him is getting more difficult seemingly by the hour). Certainly, if I was applying for a job and someone said "Hey, we checked your references and your past employer said you had a habit of stealing office supplies", I would not be saying "I was never charged with or convicted of anything" - I'd be telling them exactly why the allegations were spurious (maybe I had a terrible boss and we parted on bad terms or something) and trying to find proof to bolster my claims (like other employees who went through the same thing).

I will say this - if I was in Kavanaugh's shoes and women were coming forward to accuse me of acts I did not commit, there would be no one screaming louder for an FBI investigation than me. Because even if their claims were flimsy, I would want all doubt erased as to my good character. The fact that Kavanaugh is not stridently requesting a thorough, in-depth investigation speaks volumes.
---

OrangeDawn posted...

"you clearly lack logic" says the person whose argument rests on a logical fallacy. I'm dying lol

I won't waste my breath

M'kay ;)
---

darkknight109 posted...

What this is is a job application. Kavanaugh is, in essence, applying for a new job with lifetime tenure and an extreme level of power and responsibility. He is entitled to an assumption of innocence, but only to a point; if credible allegations arise against him, the burden is on him to disprove those allegations to the satisfaction of his interviewers and the people he represents.

I totally see where you are coming from, and I appreciate you wording much better than other people on this thread have.

However, there is still something very....instinctively?...wrong with that kind of logic that many people are starting to subscribe to:

The impossible task of needing to prove a negative.

So he is entitled to an assumption of innocence, to a point.....but the burden still falls onto him to prove that he didn't do something?

I mean...that kinda contradicts itself, doesn't it?

How about the accuser and/or investigators prove he did something first, before squealing to the media about it? Just seems more....honest. Otherwise that's a case of pure slander.

And the whole idea of proving a negative is what Liberals have relied on for years when debating people. They accuse someone of being racist or sexist (with absolutely no evidence of the person being either) just to dismiss their arguments. And the person immediately needs to go on defense to somehow prove they AREN'T racist or sexist.

How does one, exactly, prove they aren't racist or sexist? "I have black friends." "I love my wife."....just makes you look like an idiot. You can have people vouch for you, sure. But it's pathetic that you even need to be put into that position now just because some little asshat accused you of being racist or sexist.

It's the ACCUSER'S job to PROVE you are racist or sexist first.

Strange world we live in.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

There are thousands, if not millions of men who's reputation and lives are ruined due to false rape accusations made by gold-digging/vengeful whores.

Ignoring your charming characterization of potential rape victims as "vengeful whores" (and TC wonders why women don't like coming forward when they've been attacked...), there are roughly 250,000 rape or attempted rape allegations made across the globe in a given year, the overwhelming majority of which are reports of actual crimes, so your numbers are a ridiculous overexaggeration.

The_tall_midget posted...

Feminism is a terminal phase cancer that is weaponizing women and destroying society even further.

So your solution is to tell women who've been raped to just shut-up and stay silent? I thought you guys were the "tough-on-crime" type. Or is that only true if the victim is a man?

The_tall_midget posted...

Europe is becoming a feminist shit hole and look how quickly it is going down the toilet.

lol

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We all make mistakes, but everyone else lives with it, learns, and moves on.

So, just out of curiosity, who long ago does a rape have to have occurred for it to be one of those "youthful mistakes" you're talking about here that should just be swept under the rug?

GreenKnight127 posted...

Don't let a guy do something inappropriate with you, and then wait three DECADES until you see him running for Congress on TV....and then you get all upset that his life turned out to be successful and you just want to make him pay.

a) You do understand Kavanaugh isn't running for congress, right? This is the second time you've had to be corrected on that.
b) Pretty sure the women aren't so much upset that these guys were successful as they are upset that they were raped by them. I mean, I'm kind of assuming here, but I think that would probably be the more pertinent concern in my mind.

GreenKnight127 posted...

ALLEGED victims.

Jesus Christ, do none of you see the true point of this conversation!?!?! Or are you just here to virtue signal!?!

These are all ALLEGATIONS!!! Being distributed by the media as FACT!!! It's all about the dangerous (and sexist) perspective of men being seen as GUILTY before proven INNOCENT!!!

The death of Due Process.

1) I haven't seen any media report this as "fact" - they report the allegations as allegations, which is what they are. Someone (now multiple someones) has come forward with some very serious accusations against Kavanaugh that need to be taken seriously. The proper next step is investigating those allegations and determining whether there is any evidence or testimony substantiating them or whether the allegations are contradicted by available evidence.
2) If you want those allegations to stop getting so much airtime and weight, you should be 100% behind an investigation, because that is our best bet at sorting this out. This, again, is where so many people are getting tripped up. An investigation isn't about proving Brett Kavanaugh guilty, it's about bringing the truth to light - if Kavanaugh really is innocent, he has absolutely nothing to worry about, because the investigation will back up his version of events.
3) "Due Process" is for criminal trials; this is not a criminal trial. Brett Kavanaugh is not being charged with anything, nor are any of his constitutional rights being infringed upon.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

So he is entitled to an assumption of innocence, to a point.....but the burden still falls onto him to prove that he didn't do something?

I mean...that kinda contradicts itself, doesn't it?

Not at all. Again, if you are accused of something in a job interview, it's not your potential employer who has to prove beyond all doubt that it happened; it's your job to prove to them that it didn't.

Plus, "prove" isn't really the correct term here. Yes, Kavanaugh will never be able to prove, beyond any doubt, that the allegations against him are untrue. However, if a thorough investigation turns up absolutely zero witnesses or corroborating evidence and fails to in any way corroborate the accuser's version of events, that will satisfy most impartial people - including those evaluating him in the senate - that the allegations are likely false and the chance of them being true is small enough to be discounted.

If I was responsible for hiring the CEO of a major corporation and someone phoned me with an allegation that "this guy started a fight with me at a party last September" and, when confronted, the CEO was able to say "I know that guy, he's hated my guts for a long time because I'm a huge, vocal supporter of Net Neutrality and he hates it. Here's an e-mail log of things that he sent to me, oh, and I was out of town at the time, which some friends I was visiting will attest to" - that doesn't completely disprove the allegations but, unless some additional evidence comes forward, it would be enough to satisfy me that said allegation was probably spurious.

In this particular case, we can do one better because we have the FBI and lying to the FBI is a crime. If, in my hypothetical, the FBI could haul the accuser into a room and say "OK, we want you to make your allegation on record, oh and by the way we're stopping by the club you said this party was at and will be pulling security footage to confirm that you and the accused were there that night" and all of a sudden the guy doesn't want to make the accusation anymore, that more or less settles it.
---

This is worse than when conservatives freaked about Obamas birth certificate.
---

KrissVector posted...

This is worse than when conservatives freaked about Obamas birth certificate.

In what way?
---

darkknight109 posted...

If you are accused of something in a job interview, it's not your potential employer who has to prove beyond all doubt that it happened; it's your job to prove to them that it didn't.

So my question would be: Why is your potential employer accusing you of anything at all? What is their basis for the accusation in the first place? Some woman said something happened 35 years ago? Okay. If you are going to listen to her, will you listen to me when I say "nothing happened"? Because it sounds like her words have more merit than mine by default. And before there's even been a formal investigation, will there now be media headlines claiming I am a rapist? That's fantastic. *eye roll*

If a thorough investigation turns up absolutely zero witnesses or corroborating evidence and fails to in any way corroborate the accuser's version of events, that will satisfy most impartial people

I kinda doubt that. Once blood is in the water, all manner of bottom-dwellers and hermit eels come out of the darkness to feed.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

So my question would be: Why is your potential employer accusing you of anything at all? What is their basis for the accusation in the first place?

Because someone brought the accusation forward.

In this hypothetical, maybe they checked your references and something came up. Or maybe someone works there who used to work with you and said something to the person in charge of hiring. Or maybe they Googled your name and saw something online that raised questions.

How the allegation comes up really isn't all that important - once the issue has been raised, it has to be addressed, and that is even more pertinent when we're talking about someone being nominated for a lifetime position, who is almost completely immune to being fired and who will exercise authority over some 300 million people.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Some woman said something happened 35 years ago? Okay. If you are going to listen to her, will you listen to me when I say "nothing happened"? Because it sounds like her words have more merit than mine by default.

If "nothing happened, pinkie swear" is your best defence, I may not wholly believe the allegations but I'd probably err on the side of caution and see if there isn't a candidate out there who hasn't been accused of something that could come back to haunt me and my company.

On the other hand, if you can say, "I absolutely would never do something like that. Here's a list of references you can contact from the time the allegations were made, here's the number for security at the building, you have my permission to dig into my records as much as you want. I can assure you that these allegations are completely false," I would be more inclined to believe you, especially if I start digging further and find nothing that supports the allegations.

On the other hand, if your best defence is, "I was never charged with anything and you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened," I am almost immediately going to throw your resume in the trash because nothing about those words is reassuring in the slightest, regardless of the merit of the accusation.

GreenKnight127 posted...

And before there's even been a formal investigation, will there now be media headlines claiming I am a rapist?

An ALLEGED rapist. You were very clear about that distinction with the ALLEGED victims, so the same standard should apply here, no?

GreenKnight127 posted...

I kinda doubt that. Once blood is in the water, all manner of bottom-dwellers and hermit eels come out of the darkness to feed.

Sure, but you don't have to convince those people. Yeah, some people are stubborn assholes who refuse to see sense. The conservative version of that was the birther morons who insisted Obama was born in Africa, because there's no way a black American could ever become president.

Again, the burden of proof - on either side - is not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; you just need to dispel the doubt, to a reasonable degree, that the accusations have merit. If you cannot... well, I think there are plenty of other talented jurists out there who could take Mr. Kavanaugh's place who don't have sexual abuse allegations hanging over their heads; after all, both parties have - with only a few exceptions - managed that in the past.

And don't give me that "#MeToo makes women too powerful!" bullshit - if that were true and women were secretly trying to lie to undermine justices they don't like, Neil M. Gorsuch would have gone through the exact same thing; he got through his entire confirmation with nary a whisper of sexual misconduct, presumably because he has never tried to rape anyone.
---

Golden Road posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

This is why I'm swearing off women. If I date or even interact with one on anything but a purely professional level it can come back to bite me in the butt and have people accuse me of being a rapist and all that even without evidence. Better to just not even bother than risk having my career and livelihood destroyed due to gender politics and some nasty woman who sees an opening to take down an opponent.

You sound exactly like the kind of guy who women should stay away from.

*shrug* Sure. Go ahead. Women go their way and I'll go mine. I'll focus on my career and livelihood and do my best to handle things like that without involving a woman.
---

Am I the only one who thought that Ed Whelan made a good point about how it could've been somebody else who assaulted Christine Blasey Ford? Obviously that's not proof that Brett Kavanaugh wasn't the guy, but it does show that you can't assume that everything a crime victim says is correct, especially if it's dark and everyone's drinking.

https://mashable.com/article/ed-whelan-uses-zillow-kavanaugh-innocence-conspiracy-theory

Anybody who waits decades to make sexual harassment claims, I'm going to automatically think they're full of shit.
---

Mead posted...

The best thing to do is just let investigators do their job quickly and efficiently. Mob speculation does nothing.

As if that ever stopped the feminists and sjw's before.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Mead posted...

The best thing to do is just let investigators do their job quickly and efficiently. Mob speculation does nothing.

As if that ever stopped the feminists and sjw's before.

Are those the only groups that think rape is bad?
---

Mead posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

Mead posted...

The best thing to do is just let investigators do their job quickly and efficiently. Mob speculation does nothing.

As if that ever stopped the feminists and sjw's before.

Are those the only groups that think rape is bad?

They're the only ones who think rape doesn't need to be investigated.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mead posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

Mead posted...

The best thing to do is just let investigators do their job quickly and efficiently. Mob speculation does nothing.

As if that ever stopped the feminists and sjw's before.

Are those the only groups that think rape is bad?

They're the only ones who think rape doesn't need to be investigated.

I guess by that definition the Republicans are all feminists and SJWs and the Democrats are not.
---

Apropos of nothing in particular, for everyone who is insisting that Kavanaugh is being done dirty and these allegations are unfounded, I've put together a list of reasons why Ford is - at least to my eye - currently coming across as much more believable than Kavanaugh on the subject of these allegations.

1) In general, accusations are true far more often than they are fabricated. If I told you "Person A accused Person B of sexually assaulting them while Person B insisted nothing happened" and told you nothing else about the situation or either person, then asked you to bet on whether the allegations were true or not, smart money would be on Person A's version of events by an enormous margin.

2) Ford has been talking about this for long before Kavanaugh's name came up for the Supreme Court, discussing this with her personal therapist six years ago, as evinced by the therapist's notes. This strongly suggests that this was not a story concocted for political gain.

3) In addition, details of Ford's story don't make sense for a fabrication. For instance, she puts Mark Judge in the room with her and Kavanaugh - why would she do that if she made it up? If the story was a fabrication, that would put two people's word against her one. If I was in her shoes and I was going to put *anyone* in this story in the room with me, it would be someone loyal to me who could back up my version of events; Judge is a friend of Kavanaugh's and is a reasonably well-known conservative to boot.

4) She voluntarily took a lie detector test (and passed) and has been strident in her calls for an FBI investigation. Again, these are not the actions of someone who has made up a story - people generally want less oversight of their lies, not more, because if this story is a fabrication the FBI could easily turn up holes in the story that would exonerate Kavanaugh.

5) By contrast, Kavanaugh's conduct during this whole thing has not been encouraging. In spite of the fact that he is being - according to his claims - falsely accused, he has, to the best of my knowledge, not spoken in support of an independent investigation even once. If *I* was being falsely accused, I'd certainly want my name cleared as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

6) Mark Judge hasn't been helping his friend's case either. He gave a terse statement that nothing happened and he didn't want to talk about it, then immediately went into hiding to escape the media firestorm that followed. Now, in complete fairness to Judge, having the media hounding you is not a pleasant experience, so I can at least partially understand that reaction, but at the same time a good friend of yours is being accused of some pretty serious stuff, with you being placed as a witness. Certainly if my friend was falsely being accused of something and I was being labelled as a witness, I would immediately and repeatedly declare his innocence. There's an excellent question to be asked here, and few people have bothered doing it - if Mark Judge is telling the truth and nothing really did happen, why doesn't he want to talk about it further?
---

7) Kavanaugh, when given the opportunity to defend himself, gave a view of his adolescence that was, to put it politely, a touch inconsistent with other people's recollections of it. In his interview with Fox this morning, he basically painted himself as a virgin until he was in his 20s, who was too busy with church and school to bother much with parties and girls.

Here's the exact quote from the interview:

I went to an all-boys Catholic high school, a Jesuit high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship, friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools.

And yes, there were parties, and the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school. I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but thats not what were talking about.

Sounds downright wholesome - not a whisper of his own participation and certainly no hints of illegal, underage drinking. Too much churching going on for that. This despite the fact that many of Kavanaugh's classmates - even his friends - described him as a nice guy, but a hard partier who frequently got hammered when the drinks were flowing and turned mean when he did. And this despite the fact that, in 2014, Kavanaugh himself gave a speech to the Yale Law School Federalist Society that included some anecdotes of his own heavy drinking.

Now, partying hard in college is not a crime, and Kavanaugh easily could have helped his own case here by basically saying "Yes, I used to party in college. Yes, I got drunk from time to time. I was young and careless and yes, I did some things I'm not proud of. I made mistakes, as all young people tend to do at that age. But I've grown since then and I'm not the same foolish young man I was. My experiences, rough and tumble though they may have been, helped shape me into something better. I have learned from them and grown into what I hope is a much wiser man." That, at least, would be an accurate characterization of what went on. He could still deny the accusations while admitting he had a habit of partying in high school and university; but to try and paint himself like a straight-laced golden-boy through and through instantly tells me he's lying and, by extension, makes me doubt his honesty on some of the far more serious questions he's being asked.

8) There is now a second accuser (which the Republicans knew about for over a week - not coincidentally, right around the time they started pushing hard deadlines to try and get Kavanaugh confirmed quickly, presumably before the accusation got out) and rumblings of a third. One allegation could potentially be chalked up to someone lying (though, based on the above points it's not looking good), but multiple, unreleated women coming forward to allege similar treatment? For them all to be lying is much, much more of a stretch (I can't even recall a case where numerous, unreleated allegations against someone for sexual crimes were found to all be fabrications).

Nothing is proven yet, of course, but given the circumstances I certainly wouldn't be hiring Kavanaugh if he was applying to work at my business...
---

darkknight109 posted...

You say that, but I've already posted numerous times in this thread exactly what the FBI could and should be looking into that would either bolster (if not outright confirm) or contradict the claims made against Kavanaugh.

Here's the problem - you, among other posters in this thread, are looking at this entire situation almost perfectly backwards. This isn't a criminal case and Kavanaugh isn't on trial. He has no constitutional right to a Supreme Court nomination, whereas a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to his freedom unless convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

What this is is a job application. Kavanaugh is, in essence, applying for a new job with lifetime tenure and an extreme level of power and responsibility. He is entitled to an assumption of innocence, but only to a point; if credible allegations arise against him, the burden is on him to disprove those allegations to the satisfaction of his interviewers and the people he represents (and as I write this, The Guardian has indicated that they have heard from a third woman who is planning on coming forward with allegations against Kavanaugh - the judge's job to clear the cloud of doubt hanging over him is getting more difficult seemingly by the hour). Certainly, if I was applying for a job and someone said "Hey, we checked your references and your past employer said you had a habit of stealing office supplies", I would not be saying "I was never charged with or convicted of anything" - I'd be telling them exactly why the allegations were spurious (maybe I had a terrible boss and we parted on bad terms or something) and trying to find proof to bolster my claims (like other employees who went through the same thing).

I will say this - if I was in Kavanaugh's shoes and women were coming forward to accuse me of acts I did not commit, there would be no one screaming louder for an FBI investigation than me. Because even if their claims were flimsy, I would want all doubt erased as to my good character. The fact that Kavanaugh is not stridently requesting a thorough, in-depth investigation speaks volumes.

That's never how burden of proof works. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a claim.
---

Revelation34 posted...

That's never how burden of proof works. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a claim.

It's not (if I were to claim, for instance, that pink dragons don't exist, people would not have to assume that pink dragons do exist until I proved otherwise), but if you want to think of it that way, Kavanaugh is the one making a claim here. He is claiming that he is the best man available to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and it is up to him to prove that, including dispelling any doubts about his temperament and ability to render sound judgement.
---

darkknight109 posted...

It's not (if I were to claim, for instance, that pink dragons don't exist, people would not have to assume that pink dragons do exist until I proved otherwise), but if you want to think of it that way, Kavanaugh is the one making a claim here. He is claiming that he is the best man available to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and it is up to him to prove that, including dispelling any doubts about his temperament and ability to render sound judgement.

Nope it is.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That's never how burden of proof works. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a claim.

It's not (if I were to claim, for instance, that pink dragons don't exist, people would not have to assume that pink dragons do exist until I proved otherwise), but if you want to think of it that way, Kavanaugh is the one making a claim here. He is claiming that he is the best man available to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and it is up to him to prove that, including dispelling any doubts about his temperament and ability to render sound judgement.

But your example is you making a negative claim.

We've been over this.

You can't prove a negative.

It is never someone's job to prove they DIDN'T do something. It is the accuser and/or investigative team to prove that the person DID do something.

Otherwise that's the assumption of guilt I was talking about, which was the whole point of this thread.

The rules are changing. And our shitty society IS, sadly, getting to the point where all men are seen as guilty until proven innocent, among many other negative claims.

According to a growing number of idiots (with a lot of promotion from the mainstream media), all men are seen as sexist, racist, and homophobic until they can prove otherwise.

It is a truly volatile time to be a man in America.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nope it is.

Alright, well, you're the one who believes in pink dragons, I guess...

GreenKnight127 posted...

But your example is you making a negative claim.

We've been over this.

You can't prove a negative.

Sure, and I've already addressed this - Kavanaugh doesn't have to "prove" beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't do what he's accused of, because that standard isn't in play here. He just has to satisfy the senators tasked with confirming him (and the people they represent) that he is fit for the Supreme Court and that the accusations against him have no merit.

Again, you can look at it like I've phrased it elsewhere in this thread - Kavanaugh isn't on trial, he is applying for a job. *He* is staking a claim here, and that claim is "I am fit to serve on the Supreme Court". He must prove that claim, and that may involve addressing counter-claims with his own testimony and/or evidence.

GreenKnight127 posted...

It is the accuser and/or investigative team to prove that the person DID do something.

Which is exactly why people are asking for the FBI to get involved - so that they can gather facts and help verify what did or did not happen.

The fact that Republicans and Kavanaugh himself don't seem to want that to happen is concerning, to say the least.

(As a sidebar, the accuser is seldom ever tasked with proving the veracity of their accusations; that's for an independent party, typically an investigator, to handle. Evidence gathered by an accuser is usually seen as inadmissible because of their significant conflict of interest. This is exactly why cops aren't allowed to investigate allegations against other cops and a special taskforce handles it instead).

GreenKnight127 posted...

The rules are changing. And our shitty society IS, sadly, getting to the point where all men are seen as guilty until proven innocent, among many other negative claims.

According to a growing number of idiots (with a lot of promotion from the mainstream media), all men are seen as sexist, racist, and homophobic until they can prove otherwise.

It is a truly volatile time to be a man in America.

Just gonna say, I'm a man, straight as an arrow and white as the arctic snow and I can safely say I've never been accused of - or even felt like I was being seen as - sexist, racist, or homophobic in any capacity. Just be nice to people - it's worked for me.

Also, for what it's worth, Kavanaugh isn't being accused of being sexist, he's being accused of sexual assault. There's a big, big difference between those two things.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Alright, well, you're the one who believes in pink dragons, I guess...

You just don't understand how burden of proof works.
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Alright, well, you're the one who believes in pink dragons, I guess...

You just don't understand how burden of proof works.

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

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.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Alright, well, you're the one who believes in pink dragons, I guess...

You just don't understand how burden of proof works.

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

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.

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

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

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.
---

darkknight109 posted...

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.

You made a claim and didn't back it up. The person who makes the original claim is the one who has burden of proof.
---

Revelation34 posted...

You made a claim and didn't back it up. The person who makes the original claim is the one who has burden of proof.

And Kavanaugh made the original claim that he's fit for the Supreme Court. Also, TC was the first one who made the claim that these accusations were bogus, so by your (incorrect) logic, the burden of proof for Kavanaugh to be innocent rests with him.

Checkmate.
---

darkknight109 posted...

And Kavanaugh made the original claim that he's fit for the Supreme Court. Also, TC was the first one who made the claim that these accusations were bogus, so by your (incorrect) logic, the burden of proof for Kavanaugh to be innocent rests with him.

Checkmate.

Oh you're trolling.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Oh you're trolling.

Are you saying Kavanaugh hasn't said he's fit for the Supreme Court? Because that's what a bunch of senators were asking him about prior to this allegation coming forward.
---

It does seem like he got drunk a lot in the past, so it is disturbing that he's not just saying that he did and can't remember everything he did back then, but that that was a long time ago.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/kavanaughs-college-classmates-out-him-as-sloppy-drunk.html

He also seems to have written some "unseemly" things on his high school yearbook page. Well, they probably wouldn't be that bad if he apologized and said he was a different person back then. They do, however, make it not out of the question that he assaulted that girl.

https://twitter.com/BCAppelbaum/status/1044381216357711873

(The rest of the thread has more information.)

And we're up to three accusers now.

I'm also curious about something, which I brought up above but will ask again. For those of you convinced that these accusations are all lies and slander, why did Gorsuch never face this? He was, if anything, an even more controversial pick, selected to fill the seat stolen from Merrick Garland, and the Democrats and their base were much more riled up at the time. Yet not a whisper of a sexual assault allegation.

By contrast, Kavanaugh's confirmation was actually fairly subdued up until the sex assault allegations came to light. The Democrats were pushing against it, but it was pretty much accepted that he was getting confirmed and it was expected that he would even pick up some red state Democrat votes.

Gorsuch was running in the same environment of awareness around sexual assault, so if women are deliberately and maliciously ruining men's lives with false accusations, as some people in this thread are claiming, it's astounding to me that none of them thought to target Gorsuch.

Or could it be that maybe - just maybe - these allegations against Kavanaugh have some merit to them?
---

Blighboy posted...

Nobody really distributes these allegations as fact. They distribute them as allegations. You should probably read the articles better.

Reading is difficult for some users, ok?
---

darkknight109 posted...

And we're up to three accusers now.

I'm also curious about something, which I brought up above but will ask again. For those of you convinced that these accusations are all lies and slander, why did Gorsuch never face this? He was, if anything, an even more controversial pick, selected to fill the seat stolen from Merrick Garland, and the Democrats and their base were much more riled up at the time. Yet not a whisper of a sexual assault allegation.

By contrast, Kavanaugh's confirmation was actually fairly subdued up until the sex assault allegations came to light. The Democrats were pushing against it, but it was pretty much accepted that he was getting confirmed and it was expected that he would even pick up some red state Democrat votes.

Gorsuch was running in the same environment of awareness around sexual assault, so if women are deliberately and maliciously ruining men's lives with false accusations, as some people in this thread are claiming, it's astounding to me that none of them thought to target Gorsuch.

Or could it be that maybe - just maybe - these allegations against Kavanaugh have some merit to them?

Wasnt Gorsuch sworn in before #metoo kicked off?

If so, there is your answer.
---

darkknight109 posted...

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?

Here's the problem with your "little game":

1.) Did you decide to make this claim against me while I am in the process of becoming a member of the Supreme Court? Because, if so, fuck you.

2.) Is the media going to run with headlines saying I'm the "Alleged Subway Slayer" because they have their own political agendas that need met?

Because, while it might not be difficult to prove something as extreme as me being in Tokyo and murdering people in 2018 where there would be countless witness testimony and surveillance footage to prove me innocent within hours of you making your ridiculous claim against me, the principle of the matter is that you are doing it as a character smear and nothing more. And the media is rolling with it, because outrage culture #MeToo #TokyoLivesMatter #VirtueSignal

I'm pretty sure you are just trolling at this point because you are, almost suspiciously, going out of your way to defend accusations of guilt before proof of innocence.

Burden of proof, bud. Learn what it is and how it works.
---

darkknight109 posted...

And we're up to three accusers now.

Well yeah. There's blood in the water. All the bottom-feeders and hermit eels are going to come out to feed.

When high profile cases like this happen, when women come forward they become national heroes. Even if it's all bullshit.
---

KrissVector posted...

Wasnt Gorsuch sworn in before #metoo kicked off?

If so, there is your answer.

That doesn't make sense, though. Trump was accused by 13 women during the 2016 election, well before #MeToo was a thing, and people were saying those allegations were spurious too. Same story with Tim Murphy and Anthony Weiner. Roy Moore had his day in the spotlight less than a month after the hashtag started to trend, but before the movement gained much steam.

Moreover, there are plenty of vulnerable, highly visible Republicans up for election that could make or break the Republican Party's grip on the senate (Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, and Dean Heller, for instance) yet, strangely, there's no allegations against them, despite the fact that #MeToo is apparently this unstoppable juggernaut of man-crushing power and all a woman need do is ask to dethrone a man from his seat of power.

GreenKnight127 posted...

1.) Did you decide to make this claim against me while I am in the process of becoming a member of the Supreme Court? Because, if so, fuck you.

You know, it's awfully hard to hold a conversation with you if you skip over my questions and pick one single part of my post to respond to.

Anyways, does this matter? Whether I make it when you are applying for a high profile position or not, the accusation is still spurious and easily disproven.

Also, since you're being picky about diction in this topic, I'll point out that Kavanaugh isn't "in the process of becoming a member of the Supreme Court" - he's being vetted to see if that process should be undertaken in the first place. This is exactly the time and place when the senate is supposed to be investigating these sorts of allegations so they don't accidentally put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Which would be bad.

GreenKnight127 posted...

the principle of the matter is that you are doing it as a character smear and nothing more

Of course. And that's shitty. You, naturally, would be super-eager to disprove me in order to fight the media rage-machine you are saying has lined up against you. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't shrug your shoulders and give up in the face of such a nakedly false accusation, right?

GreenKnight127 posted...

I'm pretty sure you are just trolling at this point because you are, almost suspiciously, going out of your way to defend accusations of guilt before proof of innocence.

You and Revvy up there can cling to that one "burden-of-proof" phrase in the hope it'll save your argument, but trying to simplify it down to those three words isn't going to help you for several reasons:

1) Given that Kavanaugh is not on trial here and is, instead, being vetted for a new job, the threshold for "proof" is much lower than it would be during criminal proceedings. Kavanaugh's accusers do not need to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that their stories are accurate; if their allegations, on a balance of probability, seem more believable than Kavanaugh's that is sufficient reason to deep-six the nomination, and the burden then shifts to Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. Is I run a daycare centre and you're applying to work there and your background check shows that you've been investigated several times for pedophilia, I'm not hiring you even if you've never been formally charged or convicted of anything. True, you may very well be innocent... but the risk of what will happen to me and my business if you're not (to say nothing of the children in my care) is too great for me to take.

When we're talking about someone whose decisions will affect the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people, a fairly high standard of care is in order

*continued*
---

2) You talk about burden of proof, but don't seem all that interested in it yourself. I asked you after your last post what your basis was for calling these accusations "character smears" (a phrase you repeated in this post, in addition to calling these potential rape victims "bottom-feeders and hermit eels" in the next post), but you declined to respond.

This is your allegation, shouldn't you post some proof of it?

3) On that note, I think we can safely put the "character smear/naked political ploy" allegation to bed. Ford raised this years ago with her therapist and has produced sworn affidavits that she discussed this with multiple people years before Kavanaugh was up for a Supreme Court nomination.

4) I posted this earlier in the topic, but it bears repeating - I have not arrived at a final decision on whether or not the events ascribed to Kavanaugh took place as his accusers allege, and nor should anyone else until the full facts are known. I don't necessarily believe the women, but I don't disbelieve them either. Their allegations are serious enough to warrant further investigation to determine their veracity, which is what the senate and the FBI should be doing.

I will say that the evidence arrayed against Kavanaugh looks far more convincing than what he's mustered as a defence. If neither side produces anything more on the matter, I'd say it's far more likely that Kavanaugh is guilty than innocent (see posts 124 and 125 for my reasoning on that); that's not proof and it wouldn't be enough for me to vote him guilty if he was being charged with this and I was on the jury, but if I was in the senate it would absolutely be enough to vote against his nomination.

But just to disprove your little quip about assuming guilt over innocence, I will say that I'm not yet convinced by the third accuser. Her accusation is a much more serious allegation, to which I would expect additional corroboration in order to take it seriously (if Kavanaugh ran a "rape gang", I find it highly doubtful that absolutely no one else is coming forward to back up that story). Certainly if she was the only one accusing Kavanaugh (and assuming she's unable to produce anything else corroborating her account), I wouldn't see an issue with moving forward on the nomination.

GreenKnight127 posted...

going out of your way to defend accusations of guilt before proof of innocence

Haven't you spent most of the last few posts blathering on about how innocence can't be proved? What happened, did I change your mind?
---

#metoo absolutely plays a role and you are delusional if you think the #poundmetoo witch hunt isnt a stain on our society for everyone from men to actual sex abuse victims.

Here is the difference between your examples and Bretts situation. Those had grounding and credence, Bretts has nothing but psychotic pro-human killing females trying to get him out.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ICX5LYchc" data-time="
---