ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 14th September 2018, 05:04 AM   #441
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,866
Protip: Find a way to bring up Hillary.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 09:22 AM   #442
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Except that doesn't in any way change what I said nor the validity of it.
It speaks to the relevance of that post. The complaint about Kavanaugh's statement on birth control is based on a lie. Do you dispute this?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 09:50 AM   #443
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
That wouldn't prompt an FBI referral.
You're right. I mean, maybe if he had arranged for an illegal abortion but it was legal everywhere by then - I even remember the standard price, $300. Thankfully never a decision I had to make.

Something he wrote?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 10:14 AM   #444
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,333
Straws grasped
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 10:47 AM   #445
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
You're right. I mean, maybe if he had arranged for an illegal abortion but it was legal everywhere by then - I even remember the standard price, $300. Thankfully never a decision I had to make.

Something he wrote?
Maybe not a crime, but if he paid to help someone exercise a right that he wants to take away from everyone, it's certainly a political issue, and won't help him with his base either.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 10:48 AM   #446
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Sen. Leahy says Kavanaugh lied at previous hearings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...?noredirect=on
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 10:56 AM   #447
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,768
Although a lot of people assume conservative justices can't wait to overturn Roe v. Wade, I'm not sure that's correct.

I think it's possible that pro-lifers suspect that if abortions become much harder to obtain, that will affect poor women more - poor women who are more likely to be minorities. That could accelerate the demographic changes that already unsettle some Trump supporters.

Kavanaugh's stance on protecting sitting presidents from prosecution is more concerning IMO. I suspect that is Trump's real litmus test, not Kavanaugh's views on abortion.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 11:06 AM   #448
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sen. Leahy says Kavanaugh lied at previous hearings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...?noredirect=on
I can't see this until I clear history. Another article I read indicated that the breadth of the committee's questions gives Kavanaugh an out. IMO senators do tend to ask wordy, multi-part questions that give nominees some cover. I will try to read the WaPo article.

ETA: I was thinking specifically of Al Franken's questioning of Sessions during Session's confirmation hearings. Listening to it again, I do think Sessions lied when he said he hadn't had any contact with Russians. But he didn't answer Frank's actual question at all, which was a bit rambling and basically asked what Sessions would do if he became aware of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. There is just a tiny bit of ambiguity, though. All Sessions had to say that he wasn't aware of close contact, but he then answered a completely different question. Inaccurately, as it turns out; but it's not clear he actually understood the question until he realizes that he's just blurted out a falsehood that he could easily have avoided. Again IMO of course.

Last edited by Minoosh; 14th September 2018 at 11:17 AM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 11:07 AM   #449
dudalb
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,025
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
On a Friday night forty years ago in the backseat of a friends car, high school student Brett Kavanaugh made his move, he tried to go from first base to second base.

Been there, done that!
Would you feel the same way if it was a Liberal Democrat.
I doubt it.......
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 12:11 PM   #450
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Would you feel the same way if it was a Liberal Democrat.

Provided he had his fingers crossed when he told her "Honest, I'll still respect you in the morning," then everything is copacetic.

Last edited by Slings and Arrows; 14th September 2018 at 12:21 PM.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 12:35 PM   #451
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,216
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Would you feel the same way if it was a Liberal Democrat.
I doubt it.......
Can’t speak for others but I would not consider this to be important regardless of party.
Of course we don’t really know the full allegations and if they are backed up.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 12:38 PM   #452
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,500
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I can't see this until I clear history. Another article I read indicated that the breadth of the committee's questions gives Kavanaugh an out. IMO senators do tend to ask wordy, multi-part questions that give nominees some cover. I will try to read the WaPo article.

ETA: I was thinking specifically of Al Franken's questioning of Sessions during Session's confirmation hearings. Listening to it again, I do think Sessions lied when he said he hadn't had any contact with Russians. But he didn't answer Frank's actual question at all, which was a bit rambling and basically asked what Sessions would do if he became aware of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. There is just a tiny bit of ambiguity, though. All Sessions had to say that he wasn't aware of close contact, but he then answered a completely different question. Inaccurately, as it turns out; but it's not clear he actually understood the question until he realizes that he's just blurted out a falsehood that he could easily have avoided. Again IMO of course.
I read the article using incognito mode. IMO the instances described could be better understood via a specific and detailed refutation by putting things on a time line and detailing who said what, when.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 01:49 PM   #453
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,035
We have gotten to a point we could see coming as technology made it much easier to dredge up the past. Now, we are digging into the high school history of a 53 year old man. The day is coming, very soon, when high school photos, stories, and behavior of people who run for president will all be debated and discussed. It's not a positive change.


Oh, well. Here we are. I, and I suspect most people, really don't care what Kavanaugh did as a seventeen year old. I don't want interviews with his classmates. I don't want to know what really happened at that party. Seventeen year olds are not nominated to the Supreme Court, and whatever that kid may have done at seventeen really doesn't have anything to do with who he is today.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 03:36 PM   #454
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It speaks to the relevance of that post.
No, it really doesn't. You know how this works; this is a skeptics forum. Calling out stupendously fallacious reasoning presented as an argument is relevant.

Quote:
The complaint about Kavanaugh's statement on birth control is based on a lie. Do you dispute this?
I've said nothing about that.

Do you dispute that accusing person of action A does not mean you are not accusing them of action B? That was what I was addressing in my post. Slings and Arrows did not argue in that post that the accusation was wrong because it was not true; they argued that if they accuse Kavanaugh of saying contraceptives are abortion inducing then they can't be accusing him of opposing the Mueller investigation. Your subsequent points doen't make that reasoning valid, regardless of if either of those accusations are accurate. Hell, it wouldn't even matter if either of those accusations were not being made at all. The reasoning is still staggering wrong.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 03:45 PM   #455
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
We have gotten to a point we could see coming as technology made it much easier to dredge up the past. Now, we are digging into the high school history of a 53 year old man. The day is coming, very soon, when high school photos, stories, and behavior of people who run for president will all be debated and discussed. It's not a positive change.


Oh, well. Here we are. I, and I suspect most people, really don't care what Kavanaugh did as a seventeen year old. I don't want interviews with his classmates. I don't want to know what really happened at that party. Seventeen year olds are not nominated to the Supreme Court, and whatever that kid may have done at seventeen really doesn't have anything to do with who he is today.
Society will adapt. Someone's nude shots or sexting being leaked will be almost entirely irrelevant to anyone my age and younger, as it should be.

However, depending on what happened, and what happened after that, I could care, perhaps deeply. I don't like the concept of 'ruined forever' and it's practically impossible to hold any group to the standard of having never done something stupid or embarrassing. I'm even for forgiveness for major transgressions.

IF the person made amends, improved, and otherwise 'served their time'. If they 'got away with it', didn't make amends with the wronged party, and just pretended it never happened, if bad enough, I would say it's completely fair to hold that against the person, especially for a position such as SCOTUS.

I'll build a hypothetical example: Let's say Kavanaugh raped a girl then insisted she get an abortion. He made no amends, and trashed the girl to all. If there is substantive evidence of it, I wouldn't give a Canadian long tonne of damns that he was 17 and has been 'clean' ever since. That would be disqualifying for me, and I would hope any moral person.

As always, context and details matter. (I am not holding my breath on this one though.)
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 04:43 PM   #456
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,500
Amazing how the sex allegation gets all the attention, and not the memogate, etc. from Sen. Leahy. If I were him I'd be pissed at the other allegations stealing the attention away.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 07:33 PM   #457
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,035
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Society will adapt. Someone's nude shots or sexting being leaked will be almost entirely irrelevant to anyone my age and younger, as it should be.

When it comes to embarrassing behavior, we've already adapted, as witnessed by the last presidential election. We have also already had a nude model elected to the senate. (Scott Brown) However, if the behavior was more than embarrassing, i.e. if it could be considered illegal or unethical, I think we will see anything and everything dredged up.

The biggest problem with that is that most of us have some sort of "borderline" behavior. I had a ton of underage drinking, and although I was never arrested, I sometimes drove a car when drunk. (For the youngsters in the audience, times really have changed. It was possible for an underage driver to get pulled over by a policeman, be drunk, and be told to go home. For the record, I think the modern approach to drinking and driving as a vast improvement, but my seventeen year old self took advantage of the much less strict enforcement, and lesser penalties even if caught and prosecuted.) If I run for Senate some day (not going to happen) will someone dredge up that?


Well, probably not. But wait. There are certain conversations that could conceivably have been taped, and I used the N-word. I wasn't even a teenager. I bet it happened as late as, let's say, 25 years old. Oh, noes!


Will every single thing we've ever done be considered relevant to running for office?

Quote:
However, depending on what happened, and what happened after that, I could care, perhaps deeply. I don't like the concept of 'ruined forever' and it's practically impossible to hold any group to the standard of having never done something stupid or embarrassing. I'm even for forgiveness for major transgressions.

IF the person made amends, improved, and otherwise 'served their time'. If they 'got away with it', didn't make amends with the wronged party, and just pretended it never happened, if bad enough, I would say it's completely fair to hold that against the person, especially for a position such as SCOTUS.

I'll build a hypothetical example: Let's say Kavanaugh raped a girl then insisted she get an abortion. He made no amends, and trashed the girl to all. If there is substantive evidence of it, I wouldn't give a Canadian long tonne of damns that he was 17 and has been 'clean' ever since. That would be disqualifying for me, and I would hope any moral person.

No, for me, I just wouldn't care, at least not much. It wouldn't be the thing I base the judgement on, unless perhaps it was really, really close to the borderline anyway. i.e. I was going to vote for candidate A, but then I heard about some really bad behavior when he was 17. I can't see myself changing to candidate B because of that unless I was pretty undecided in the first place.

It sees to me that in your hypothetical, one person was caught at 17, punished, publicly repented in the face of social pressure, and went on to lead a decent life afterwards while a second person got away with it, never did anything like it again, probably regretted it but because it never went public no one ever knew about it, but then it was put into public view 30 years later, and we should hold it against him, but not against the one who got caught at 17? No, I'm not seeing it.

If we were to discover that Kavanaugh actually raped someone at 17, maybe it would influence me, a little. In the situation that exists right now with judge Kavanaugh, if we were to discover that he did that, it would influence me, only because he denied it today. If we were to subsequently discover that, well, yes, it did happen, then that would mean he is lying today, and we would be judging him on his behavior today, not when he was 17.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:02 PM   #458
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
Protip: Find a way to bring up Hillary.

Hillary's getting stale and tired. The Democratic party needs a fresh new face, and it appears they found one:
“I think he’s the most deplorable, the most despicable human being I’ve ever encountered. After we impeach Trump, we’ll go after Mike Pence. We’ll get him.”
-- Maxine Waters (Sept 6, 2018)
Although, the word "deplorable" does sound vaguely familiar.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:51 PM   #459
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....
Oh, well. Here we are. I, and I suspect most people, really don't care what Kavanaugh did as a seventeen year old. I don't want interviews with his classmates. I don't want to know what really happened at that party. Seventeen year olds are not nominated to the Supreme Court, and whatever that kid may have done at seventeen really doesn't have anything to do with who he is today.
We mostly don't want to know, except if the truth might have changed the course of his life or hers. The allegation is that he and a buddy attempted to assault a teenage girl at a party. Suppose, for the sake of argument, she had complained at the time. Suppose the police had investigated and determined that there were no grounds for prosecution. There would still be a police report. Suppose the school had disciplined him. That might have kept him out of Yale. If he had gone to a less prestigious college, would he have gotten into Yale Law? Without that credential, would he have gotten coveted clerkships with distinguished federal judges? Would he be a federal judge today?

And what about her? Did she drop out of school? Transfer? Get bad grades in her senior year that kept her out of a top-rank college?

It's easy to say it doesn't matter now, but we can all imagine moments when our lives changed direction -- or could have, or should have. This guy might have been getting a free pass for 30 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/u...on-letter.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ts-in-congress

Last edited by Bob001; 14th September 2018 at 09:03 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:57 PM   #460
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Amazing how the sex allegation gets all the attention, and not the memogate, etc. from Sen. Leahy. If I were him I'd be pissed at the other allegations stealing the attention away.
"Memogate" depends to some degree on proving that he really knew what he claims not to have known. But we can all understand allegations of a crime.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 01:28 AM   #461
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,191
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Hillary's getting stale and tired. The Democratic party needs a fresh new face, and it appears they found one:
“I think he’s the most deplorable, the most despicable human being I’ve ever encountered. After we impeach Trump, we’ll go after Mike Pence. We’ll get him.”
-- Maxine Waters (Sept 6, 2018)
Although, the word "deplorable" does sound vaguely familiar.
Wrong thread. This has nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 05:53 AM   #462
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No, it really doesn't. You know how this works; this is a skeptics forum. Calling out stupendously fallacious reasoning presented as an argument is relevant.
You’re focusing on what was basically a joke in order to avoid the actual substance of the post. Fantastic skepticism there, tyr. You’ve done us all proud.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:35 AM   #463
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When it comes to embarrassing behavior, we've already adapted, as witnessed by the last presidential election. We have also already had a nude model elected to the senate. (Scott Brown) However, if the behavior was more than embarrassing, i.e. if it could be considered illegal or unethical, I think we will see anything and everything dredged up.

The biggest problem with that is that most of us have some sort of "borderline" behavior. I had a ton of underage drinking, and although I was never arrested, I sometimes drove a car when drunk. (For the youngsters in the audience, times really have changed. It was possible for an underage driver to get pulled over by a policeman, be drunk, and be told to go home. For the record, I think the modern approach to drinking and driving as a vast improvement, but my seventeen year old self took advantage of the much less strict enforcement, and lesser penalties even if caught and prosecuted.) If I run for Senate some day (not going to happen) will someone dredge up that?


Well, probably not. But wait. There are certain conversations that could conceivably have been taped, and I used the N-word. I wasn't even a teenager. I bet it happened as late as, let's say, 25 years old. Oh, noes!


Will every single thing we've ever done be considered relevant to running for office?
I have no idea why you're railing against a hypothetical pillorying when there are so many real life examples of people who have engaged in even worst behavior and still achieving office. Bush had addiction problems. Obama did pot. Byrd was a member of the KKK!

They all acknowledge and owned up to their mistakes...




Quote:
No, for me, I just wouldn't care, at least not much. It wouldn't be the thing I base the judgement on, unless perhaps it was really, really close to the borderline anyway. i.e. I was going to vote for candidate A, but then I heard about some really bad behavior when he was 17. I can't see myself changing to candidate B because of that unless I was pretty undecided in the first place.

It sees to me that in your hypothetical, one person was caught at 17, punished, publicly repented in the face of social pressure, and went on to lead a decent life afterwards while a second person got away with it, never did anything like it again, probably regretted it but because it never went public no one ever knew about it, but then it was put into public view 30 years later, and we should hold it against him, but not against the one who got caught at 17? No, I'm not seeing it.

If we were to discover that Kavanaugh actually raped someone at 17, maybe it would influence me, a little. In the situation that exists right now with judge Kavanaugh, if we were to discover that he did that, it would influence me, only because he denied it today. If we were to subsequently discover that, well, yes, it did happen, then that would mean he is lying today, and we would be judging him on his behavior today, not when he was 17.
I take personal responsibility a little more seriously. You take comfort in believing the repentant might just have been going through the motions and the silent actually 'regrets' it, while I take that just lacking evidence.

You cannot forgive the unrepentant. You cannot make amends for behavior denied. You cannot learn and grow without owning your own mistakes, and that includes acknowledging them.

(Again, I'm not holding my breath that anything will or should come of this specific case.)
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:40 AM   #464
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Amazing how the sex allegation gets all the attention, and not the memogate, etc. from Sen. Leahy. If I were him I'd be pissed at the other allegations stealing the attention away.
I actually think the perjury, especially regarding the stolen documents, policy creation, and nominations, is much more serious than any other issues raised including ideology. The memogate one is completely damning. Either he knowingly used stolen materials, or he's to stupid to know the information was obviously stolen.

But trying to get Trump Republicans to discuss that or even answer that perjury on judicial issues should be disqualifying is next to impossible. Case in point...

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You’re focusing on what was basically a joke in order to avoid the actual substance of the post. Fantastic skepticism there, tyr. You’ve done us all proud.
I would be proud if it were at all difficult to get you to argue against your own behavior. All I have to do is a Zigg impression with flipped sides, and you come out swinging against your own tactics. It's impressive in a way.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 10:42 AM   #465
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,666
Quote:
The friend who is said to have participated, Mark Judge, also denied the episode ever happened.

“I never saw anything like what was described,” he said in an interview after being informed that he was named in the letter.

Further, he said, it did not match Mr. Kavanaugh’s character: “It is not who he is.” He said that the two were around each other constantly in high school, and recalled him as a “brilliant student,” who was very into sports, and was not “into anything crazy or illegal.”

Mr. Judge, an author, filmmaker and journalist who has written for the conservative Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard, said that the students were raised in Catholic homes and taught that the kind of behavior as described in the letter would not be tolerated. “Something like that would stick out,” he said, “which is why I don’t think it would happen.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/u...on-letter.html

Because indoctrination with catholic teachings and dogmas is a foolproof way to inoculate someone against them attempting rape or otherwise committing any crime at all.

More importantly: if they were ever to do anything illegal or otherwise disreputable then of course they would "stick out" and they wouldn't be able to pass as good Catholic, which Kavanaugh is.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 15th September 2018 at 10:43 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 02:24 PM   #466
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I would be proud if it were at all difficult to get you to argue against your own behavior. All I have to do is a Zigg impression with flipped sides, and you come out swinging against your own tactics. It's impressive in a way.
Your post hoc rationalizations are bull **** since you went off the rails in response to a post that wasn't even mine.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 02:52 PM   #467
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your post hoc rationalizations are bull **** since you went off the rails in response to a post that wasn't even mine.
Nope. My response to Slings and Arrows was not in your style, and was not 'off the rails'. Do you really think the reasoning they presented was valid? It was not. If you think that's 'off the rails', well, please do tell everyone. I won't stop you.

And you cut out an important bit from my last post there again, which shows you're doing what I did in an even MORE extreme form BEFORE I did; avoiding salient questions. I have to get my impersonation better, I was not dishonest enough. Instead of saying I wasn't saying anything about the truth of the accusation, I should have just snipped that part of your post when I replied.

Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable? I'll answer your question if you answer mine. I did ask first.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 02:56 PM   #468
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,682
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/u...on-letter.html

Because indoctrination with catholic teachings and dogmas is a foolproof way to inoculate someone against them attempting rape or otherwise committing any crime at all.

More importantly: if they were ever to do anything illegal or otherwise disreputable then of course they would "stick out" and they wouldn't be able to pass as good Catholic, which Kavanaugh is.
Funny story about Mark:

Quote:
In his opening statement at his confirmation hearing this month, Kavanaugh referenced his time at the Catholic institution with great reverence: “The motto of my Jesuit high school was ‘Men for others.’*  I’ve tried to live that creed.”

But the school Judge has described in his books is a very different sort of place. In his 2005 book, God and Man at Georgetown Prep, which is now out of print, Judge apparently paints the school as overrun with gay priests who promote a form of liberalism that wrecks Catholic education. He also describes an institution where alcoholism was rampant, a theme he detailed in his 1997 addiction memoir, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.

That book chronicles Judge’s time as a teenage alcoholic. Like many works of the genre, it devotes a lot of ink to the kinds of debauchery that leads to AA and recovery. While there’s nothing in the book that resembles the incident reportedly described in the private letter given to the FBI, Judge says his own black-out drinking while he and Kavanaugh were Georgetown Prep students “reached the point where once I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated.”

He describes, for instance, what happened after a night of heavy drinking with friends at a Georgetown bar. “The next thing I knew, I was lying on a bathroom floor. I was curled up in the fetal position with saliva running out of the side of my mouth,” Judge writes, explaining that he had inexplicably woken up inside a nearby Four Seasons Hotel. He writes that he called his mom for help getting home. “I must have come over here and passed out,” he tells her.

The amount of drinking Judge describes himself undertaking might suggest that his memory of those days may not be entirely reliable.

In Judge’s telling, Georgetown Prep students were forced to do community service, not because of the school’s commitment to the poor, but as a way to try to curtail late-night drinking and Sunday morning hangovers. Judge and his buddies spent a lot of time in the book trying to get laid, but that’s nothing unusual for a story about high school boys.

Judge has changed the names of many of the people in the book to protect their privacy, and he renames Georgetown Prep as “Loyola Prep.” But Kavanaugh seems to make a cameo.
Linky.

There's a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" that makes a cameo in the book being describes as puking in someone's car and passing out after a party.

I don't think its relevant to anything, but I enjoy hearing tales from "Catholic" institutions.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 05:17 PM   #469
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,136
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Funny story about Mark:



Linky.

There's a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" that makes a cameo in the book being describes as puking in someone's car and passing out after a party.

I don't think its relevant to anything, but I enjoy hearing tales from "Catholic" institutions.
So you are saying ALL Catholics are homosexual alcoholics?
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 06:12 PM   #470
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,432
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So you are saying ALL Catholics are homosexual alcoholics?
Wow, that is particularily spectacular rule of so.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 06:22 PM   #471
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Nope. My response to Slings and Arrows was not in your style, and was not 'off the rails'.
It was definitely off the rails. You attacked what was basically a joke while avoiding the actual substance of the post.

Quote:
And you cut out an important bit from my last post there again, which shows you're doing what I did in an even MORE extreme form BEFORE I did; avoiding salient questions.
There's nothing salient about it. Everyone, including the poster you replied to, knows that there can be more than one objectionable thing about someone. You're trying to create an issue out of something that simply isn't one, in order to avoid talking about something that's embarrassing for your side.

Quote:
I have to get my impersonation better, I was not dishonest enough.
You are always dishonest. tyr. You don't have to try, it comes naturally to you. You consistently argue in bad faith, as you are admitting to here.

Quote:
Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven?
We weren't talking about perjury. We were talking about this absurd claim that Kavanaugh was making a dog whistle about birth control.

Quote:
Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?
Sure, it's always possible that someone I don't know every single thing about has some terrible secret. But so the hell what? Nothing on offer comes close to disqualifying, especially this alleged dog whistle.

Quote:
I'll answer your question if you answer mine. I did ask first.
If you want to go in order of when they were asked, it's now your turn, since I answered your first question. Hell, I even threw in a few bonus ones.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:00 PM   #472
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It was definitely off the rails. You attacked what was basically a joke while avoiding the actual substance of the post.
There wasn't any actual substance of that post. It reported the accusations but the only 'substance' in that post was the 'reasoning' I mocked. Anything else is you projecting a justification onto (much like all the Trump-translators letting us know what he really meant).


Quote:
There's nothing salient about it. Everyone, including the poster you replied to, knows that there can be more than one objectionable thing about someone. You're trying to create an issue out of something that simply isn't one, in order to avoid talking about something that's embarrassing for your side.
Slings and Arrows has made no indication that they know that. Their only response was to accuse me of having a dog in the fight; an ad hom if it actually completed the implication and argued I was therefore wrong. Far be it from Trump Republicans to actually make a fully formed argument though.

You're the one making this an issue. The reasoning I mocked is moronic, but you can't leave it at that. Attacking what you imagine my motivation to be doesn't make me wrong.



Quote:
You are always dishonest. tyr. You don't have to try, it comes naturally to you. You consistently argue in bad faith, as you are admitting to here.
I consistently get you to expose your bad-faith, as you continue to exhibit in this very post. Trump Republicans love projection though.


Quote:
We weren't talking about perjury. We were talking about this absurd claim that Kavanaugh was making a dog whistle about birth control.
Oh yes we were talking about perjury when you (and theprestige) decided not to answer a simple, very salient, question more than a week ago.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Your objection to them doing their job because it helps them politically to do their job is very telling.

If it is provable that he committed perjury during his previous confirmation, would you support him still?
And you here, in this very post, dishonestly dodge answering the question again by pretending it wasn't on topic, the EXACT behavior I reflected back at you and you subsequently called 'bad faith'. So was I acting in bad faith by not giving a meaningful answer before to the 'dog whistle' question, meaning you are also acting in bad faith here, or not?

You, by your own standards, are dishonest. I have no idea if you had to work hard at it or if it comes naturally, and frankly I don't care. It wouldn't be worth engaging with you at all if you didn't represent the 'thinking' Trump Republican.

Quote:
Sure, it's always possible that someone I don't know every single thing about has some terrible secret. But so the hell what? Nothing on offer comes close to disqualifying, especially this alleged dog whistle.



If you want to go in order of when they were asked, it's now your turn, since I answered your first question. Hell, I even threw in a few bonus ones.

You did no such thing as answering the first question. Your bad faith will not be rewarded.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:12 PM   #473
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Oh yes we were talking about perjury when you (and theprestige) decided not to answer a simple, very salient, question more than a week ago.
Bwahahahahaha! That's what you're referring to? Jeeze, tyr, give it a rest. Hell, I can't remember if I even saw your question, and I sure as hell don't remember it anymore if I ever did. I figured you were being more sensible than that, and were referring to this question:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Do you dispute that accusing person of action A does not mean you are not accusing them of action B?
And that question I did answer. But I can't answer a question I don't know, and I'm certainly not going to go digging for whatever the hell you're referring to from that long ago.

Quote:
And you here, in this very post, dishonestly dodge answering the question again by pretending it wasn't on topic
There's nothing dishonest about it. The topic for this little exchange was about the alleged dog whistle, not perjury. That topic ended a while ago.

Quote:
So was I acting in bad faith by not giving a meaningful answer before to the 'dog whistle' question, meaning you are also acting in bad faith here, or not?
No, tyr. First off, again, how the hell am I supposed to know you've got a bur up your ass about a week-old question? That's irrational and obsessive.

Second, no, your fundamental dishonesty isn't due to refusing to answer a question. It's that you put forth arguments that you don't even believe, because you think you can prove some sort of bull **** point by doing so.

Quote:
You, by your own standards, are dishonest.
You keep claiming this, but it's always been projection.

Quote:
You did no such thing as answering the first question. Your bad faith will not be rewarded.
You say that like your answering my question is some sort of reward. I got news for you: it isn't. You don't actually grace us with your presence and wisdom.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:16 PM   #474
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,604
Amazing. You still didn't even try to answer.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 07:24 PM   #475
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Amazing. You still didn't even try to answer.
Answer what, tyr? You referred to some question from a week ago, but I have no idea what that question is, and I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for it. Ask again, if you care that much.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 11:14 AM   #476
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Author Of Brett Kavanaugh Letter Breaks Silence

The woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in a confidential letter to members of Congress has come forward to tell her story.

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, told The Washington Post that she feared Kavanaugh “might inadvertently kill” her while holding her down and groping her while they were both in high school around 1982.

Kavanugh has denied any wrongdoing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b04d32ebf979c3 (Sept 16, 2018)

Hey Brett, you should have kept your promise: "I'll give you a call. Maybe we can do this again sometime."

It really pisses them off when you don't come back for more.

Last edited by Slings and Arrows; 16th September 2018 at 11:16 AM.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 11:26 AM   #477
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Link above is based on this WP story.
Quote:
Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.ed04c5ccef1d

She says she told her husband and a therapist about it years ago.

Last edited by Bob001; 16th September 2018 at 11:28 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 11:27 AM   #478
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Hey Brett, you should have kept your promise: "I'll give you a call. Maybe we can do this again sometime."

It really pisses them off when you don't come back for more.
You think attempted rape is funny?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 11:55 AM   #479
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You think attempted rape is funny?

"Risky Business" and "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" were funny. But Christine Blasey Ford getting groped by a teenager? Yawn!
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 12:03 PM   #480
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
"Risky Business" and "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" were funny. But Christine Blasey Ford getting groped by a teenager? Yawn!
She describes quite a bit more than a grope. If you don't get that, you're part of the problem.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.