blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Still supports what I said.Do more research. From your own link.
Where's the science that says memories stay accurate over time?
Still supports what I said.Do more research. From your own link.
Now consider the motive for her actions, which have led directly to threats against her life and the lives of those in her family.The only part that really bothers me is that Many have the opinion that he is already guilty based on a very thin accusation. This is wrong.
For those that are of the mind that he is guilty based on what we know at this time, I hope that they get accused of sexual assault by a woman and have to go through this.
How could you possibly "know she is probably right" based on the thin evidence that is only her accusation.
Great goalpost position.Still supports what I said.
Where's the science that says memories stay accurate over time?
I know you don't want to but I suggest you read the links I posted. That will answer your question.Great goalpost position.
You understand if you're right about this specific detail it doesn't actually affect the reality of this situation and you're making lots of illogical leaps, right?
You are simply blind. Hearing about something contemporaneously is always suggestive of validity, but not proof of it. This is simply the logical result of the fact, say that a fireball passes over Kansas is more likely to validate one person’s claim to have seen it if others say the same thing. Your absurd cult behavior makes it impossible for you to understand the simplest logic.I don't think that "hearing about it contemporaneously" is valid as evidence.
Again, you don't address your own logical failures, just point to them with more emphasis.I know you don't want to but I suggest you read the links I posted. That will answer your question.
You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?Like this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/
Traumatic or not memories can change quite a bit over time.
Ooh! I know. It's because they have no idea how to treat women with respect!Republicans are also discussing trying to find female outside lawyer(s) to conduct the questioning for them because...you know. This assumes a hearing happens.
Moonie, I'm sorry you've been pushed back to this. I greatly appreciate your nuanced and compassionate takes on things.You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?
Ooh! I know. It's because they have no idea how to treat women with respect!
I have no logical failures. I believe her memory is faulty and I provided science to back up my opinion. Is that confusing for you?Again, you don't address your own logical failures, just point to them with more emphasis.
Not a great look.
Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?
Not confusing at all. You have a narrative to maintain and you'll fight will all of your ego-identity to preserve it, and reject all the evidence that would threaten it.I have no logical failures. I believe her memory is faulty and I provided science to back up my opinion. Is that confusing for you?
You keep saying statement (singular), as though that's the only thing we know about. Why is that?Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.
Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.
A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.
Hi rape apologists!
Here's a WAPO column that helpfully aggregates all your excuses for you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ome-interpersonal-verbs-conjugated-by-gender/
Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?
Is this a court?Did you ever hear the term "rumor mill" used. Just because you heard something from somebody means nothing. Neither in a court or as evidence that something happened.
There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:
From the Oxford Dictionary
Hearsay - Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
I didn't say you did. I just explained to you the reason for the investigation.
