Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about! The law and the constitution states that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty.

Brett Kavanaugh may not be guilty of sexually assaulting Ford, and it may never be clear what happenend between the two of them, but he is FAR FROM INNOCENT.

Did you even watch the confirmation hearings? Brett Kavanaugh cried and sobbed his way through the entire thing. Emotional instability is not the hallmark of a person who is relied upon to make impartial life or death decisions regarding the fate of an entire country and its citizens.

He gave a 5 minute soliloquy on how he likes to drink beer. When asked how much is too much? He couldn't answer that, except a vague reference to a blood alcohol chart. "I don't know, whatever the chart says, blood alcohol chart". Which basically means he doesn't care about how drunk he gets or he doesn't think you can get too drunk.

His own drinking friends at Yale don't believe he should be elected. They say he drank to the point of blacking out and being stumbling drunk on numerous occasions, and that he lied while under oath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-were-brett-kavanaughs-drinking-buddies-we-dont-think-he-should-be-confirmed/2018/10/04/923cf6ac-c821-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aa6b5f501f4

Neil Roy said:

Neil Roy said:

...the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that the conservatives insist on the constitution and laws be enforced.

And my name is not "Neil Boi"... shall we start discussing your real name? Is that all you can do is sling insults at people rather than having a civilized discussion?!

I call you Neil Boy when you make inane unsupported blanket statements like this, as you so often do.

raynbec said:

Edgar: If personal use weed arrests were overturned as a whole, who'd want to bet people would then be clamoring for weed distribution (having obviously way more weed than just for yourself) charges to be overturned? How long until people demand hard drug convictions to be reversed? There are proper ways to change the system. On its face, disobeying laws just because you don't like them is not moral. Even when the crimes are ones that you deem harmless.

Their sentences should be reduced as well. Smoking pot doesn't hurt anybody. Marijuana has many many therapeutic and medicinal effects. If your medicine was illegal, and somebody risked their ass to give it to you, should they be punished? That's what the current law does, is punish people who haven't done anything wrong. You can't go making blanket statements like disobeying the law is immoral. The law itself is immoral, which defeats the purpose of having laws to begin with.

bamccaig said:

as a society, we should probably stop punishing narcotic use with prison and instead invest in social services to reduce the reliance on narcotics in the first place. Obviously prison isn't much of a deterrent. All it accomplishes is ruining people's lives permanently and making it nearly impossible to escape from the drugs. That just means more and more of the population is unproductive and even hostile.

I fully agree with bambam here. If drugs were legalized, or de-criminalized, that would take all the power away from the dealers and smugglers and criminal gangs that profit off of it. Drug use is nothing new in the history of humanity, and we've more than proved that the law and prison is not a proper deterrent. End the war on drugs. Gangs would fall apart, violence would plummet, and society would only benefit. Those people with addictions to drugs could then be treated openly, without fear or stigma.

Back to Kavanaugh, his own law school, Yale, practically disowned him. There is an open letter opposing his confirmation, written by Yale professors, law students, and the Yale community, that goes into detail why he should not have been confirmed.

Open Letter from Yale

Read it, and tell me Brett Kavanaugh is not partisan, and that he is impartial. Both are blatantly false. They detail specific judgements by Kavanaugh that prove he is not fit to be a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Brett Kavanaugh is just another one of the good ole' boys, getting wasted to the point of blacking out. For all we know, he did assault Ford but he can't remember it.

But hey, you guys elected Trump, so I'm probably just talking to a brick wall here.

raynebc said:

Narcotics users fuel the market for narcotics, and the dealers and gangs are the ones that should be targeted by law enforcement. I'd be fine with a drug law enforcement policy of nearly no punishment (maybe probation and community service) for any drug user that gets caught and flips on his/her dealer leading to that dealer's arrest. I'm pretty sure this type of flipping is already the norm.

If using drugs isn't wrong, why is distributing them? You're being hypocritical here.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

I'd be fine with a drug law enforcement policy of nearly no punishment (maybe probation and community service) for any drug user that gets caught and flips on his/her dealer leading to that dealer's arrest.

You're pretty much asking people to risk their lives. Their dealer is a career criminal. Likely working for very violent, powerful people. They will not take kindly to "snitches" as they call it. Flipping on a dealer could be a death sentence. And it fails to address the individual's social and medical needs: therapy, detox, and perhaps medication.

I think the key to solving the drug problem is working together to solve social problems that lead people to drugs. And offering the services needed to break the habit and stay clean. Helping people to be productive instead. The dealers rely on the addiction to fuel their business. By making it easier to access alternatives (i.e., legalizing marijuana is probably a start, and considering other options may be worthwhile too) and easier (i.e., free) to access rehab/detox/addiction counselling services you make it more difficult for the addiction to stick. Combine that with sufficient enforcement to protect people from the inevitable violence from desperate dealers trying to secure their business model and I think that we can work towards the shrinking and perhaps eventually virtual collapse of the underground.

Why would you deal with dangerous thugs when you can access safer alternatives legally? And why would you continue to deal with dangerous thugs when you can access the health care resources needed to free yourself from the burden? I think that it's fair to say that most hard drug users regret the drugs. They want to quit, but they cannot. It's too difficult. Those users can be helped by providing them with the services needed to quit and stay clean long term. The ones that don't want to quit probably can't be helped, but they're probably a minority. Hopefully most of them are millionaires in Hollywood that don't need to rob innocent people to afford their habits.

There is an open letter opposing his confirmation, written by Yale professors, law students, and the Yale community, that goes into detail why he should not have been confirmed.

It's a Google doc. It's not signed at all. It has names listed at the end of it. Anybody could add anybody's name to it. And it's mostly students, ranging from the 80's to now. It's little more than a social experiment. A popularity contest. Probably they were asking for "signatures" on Facebook and a bunch of students added their names to fit in with their friends. It's meaningless.

I don't know who this person is, and I don't care. I have no doubt that he's corrupt. They wouldn't want him if he wasn't. But I don't know why it surprises you. They've been blatantly ignoring the people for more than a decade (probably a century) and yet we still keep trusting them to represent us. I cannot understand how humans are so naive, but I guess most of us are just born to be pawns. Nothing else could explain our subordination to the corrupted state.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Back to Kavanaugh, his own law school, Yale, practically disowned him. There is an open letter opposing his confirmation, written by Yale professors, law students, and the Yale community, that goes into detail why he should not have been confirmed.

They found 2000 people from a liberal state and liberal school that oppose a conservative being appointed to the supreme court?!

MY. GOD. It's unthinkable!

And Mr. K may actually be a complete D-bag. The problem is, liberals have played their hands so thin, nobody trusts them anymore. When they honestly write FRONT PAGE news such as "Trump gets two scoops of ice cream, everyone else gets one." on the SAME WEBSITE, it dilutes everything else they say.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/index.html

And here's an ENTIRELY DEBUNKED (disceptively edited) video that NOBODY (at the MSM) HAS TAKEN DOWN OR CORRECTED yet: Trump "dumps" a box of food to feed the fish while the PM of Japan carefully gives them little bit a time. PROOF of how crude trump is! (omg, what? Really? That's your argument?)

Even Snopes and Politifact had to correct it:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-in-japanese-koi-pond/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/nov/06/donald-trump-and-fish-food-dump-how-early-reports-/

Quote:

It was a story that seemed to reinforce stereotypes of President Donald Trump: On a visit to Japan, he was handed a box of food for a ritual feeding of carp, and after doling out a few spoons’ worth, he got impatient and dumped the rest of the box all at once.

Quote:

The Jezebel post had not been updated by the time we found it around noon on Monday. It was later updated at 12:30 p.m., but with this addendum: "Many people have pointed out that Abe also dumped his fish food into the pond. This does not change the fact that Trump remains a big, extremely stupid baby, though I should also have noted that he is also racist, sexist and thoroughly incompetent. Thank you."

Other reports we viewed around the same time, such as those from CNN, the New York Daily News, and the Telegraph, mentioned that Abe was first to dump his box, but usually did so several paragraphs into the story. A story by the Independent mentions that Abe was the first to dump his box, but the headline gives a different impression: "US President trumps Abe by upending box of food into Tokyo palace koi carp pond."

Think about that when you realize only 30 percent of Americans identify as "progressive". It's because the other 70% know that the media lies non-stop and they've over-saturated and desensitized us so much, we don't even know or care when real news happens.

I have NO IDEA whether Mr K is a monster or not because I don't have 20 hours to sift through piles of bullsh-t to find out the truth. All I know is, I can't trust the media--and nobody else in the USA does either.

[edit] Allegro.CC ate my post.

I just ran stats on those signatures. There's only 891 signatures.

And almost TWO HUNDRED are from people... who haven't even graduated! Look at the numbers. They graduate ... in 20. 1920? My ass. 2020.

This only illustrates my point further. You can never just trust something a liberal reports (conservatives too, but everyone knows they're full of crap.) Liberals love lying with statistics, while conservatives just say "Fakenews, I don't believe in science."

If liberals didn't lie at every opportunity I'd be able to read their articles and outrages. But I can't. Because I know I have to fact check literally everything they say.

Like when they said those Duke Lacross boys raped that girl... then it turns out they weren't even there at the time she said... doesn't matter! Time to ruin innocent boys lives!

Just like "mattress girl". Once again, a completely fake woman's story, ruining the chances of real rape survivors from being taken seriously. Thanks liberals! Nothing like making it harder for survivors to get help.

[edit] Wait. AND LITERALLY ANYONE CAN SIGN THAT GOOGLE DOC ONLINE?! WTF?! What's next? Internet polls count as "scientific research"?

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Correction. Anyone can submit their name, but it will probably be reviewed against school and faculty lists.

DUDE, Kavanaugh graduated from YALE

DID you even READ the letter???? ??? ??? ???

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

"Only 2% of of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false."

On the flip side...

"On a related note, only about 40% of rapes are ever reported to the police..."

"Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm makes you think

If liberals didn't lie at every opportunity

Are you confusing the Donald Trump administration for liberals? I mean, Republicans and Democrats are both neoliberals so it could be an easy mistake to make. ???

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

I'd like to post a detailed reply, but the forum keeps hanging when I try to post. Edit: It seems mostly related to using manual or automatic quotes, probably a server side problem due to the size of this thread.

Edgar: "Brett Kavanaugh cried and sobbed his way through the entire thing."
Dems were mad their smears weren't working so they started whining that he should never show any emotion after being so viciously attacked by partisans. Bull shit.

"Brett Kavanaugh...getting wasted to the point of blacking out."
Nobody demonstrated this ever happened. Quit lying.

"The law itself is immoral"
You and I are not qualified to decide which laws are "immoral" and don't deserve to be followed by anybody. It's your choice if you want to break a law, but you suffer the consequences if you get caught.

"If using drugs isn't wrong, why is distributing them? You're being hypocritical here."
I'm taking a soft, pragmatic stance to humor you guys. Even if individuals using drugs aren't hurting anybody, the gangs and drug lords that move the product undeniably do. Bammccaig agrees that this is the case.

If you don't want to coerce people to flip on their dealers, then we need to consider more ways to deter harmful drug (ie. cocaine) use. I've previously heard about treatments that alter the brain to block the feeling of getting high. If people don't feel good from taking the drugs, they'd stop.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

If you specify a src target, it won't stall when trying to find a link to the quoted text. It's part of Matthew's quoting mechanism, and it parses the entire thread every time you quote someone.

Ie.
<quote name="raynebc" src="https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/615770/1039587#target">

raynebc said:

viciously attacked

You mean like when a drunken lout commits a sexual assault? These were very serious allegations, and you can't prove it didn't happen.

raynebc said:

"Brett Kavanaugh...getting wasted to the point of blacking out."
Nobody demonstrated this ever happened. Quit lying.

Three of his drinking buddy friends testified to this. Are they lying too?

raynebc said:

"The law itself is immoral"
You and I are not qualified to decide which laws are "immoral" and don't deserve to be followed by anybody. It's your choice if you want to break a law, but you suffer the consequences if you get caught.

Uhm, excuse you? Who is qualified? Brett Kavanaugh? A good ole boy? A drunken lout? A liar under oath being elected to the highest court in the land? Such pompous BS.

raynebc said:

I'm taking a soft, pragmatic stance to humor you guys. Even if individuals using drugs aren't hurting anybody, the gangs and drug lords that move the product undeniably do. Bammccaig agrees that this is the case.

And if you decriminalize distribution, and place it on the open market, their profits disappear overnight. No more money to buy coke and guns, and they lose all their power. If I could grow it myself I'd have no need for any of this shit. Just WHO are YOU that I should live by YOUR RULES? BS.

I suffer from schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression. Smoking doobie helps with all of that. My schizophrenia medication gives me severe restlessness and the inability to focus on tasks. It's called akathesia, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. My anxiety hasn't been as bad lately, but over the last few years, it's caused me a lot of problems, and I've always had to deal with depression. WHO ARE YOU to deny me MY MEDICINE?

raynebc said:

If you don't want to coerce people to flip on their dealers, then we need to consider more ways to deter harmful drug (ie. cocaine) use. I've previously heard about treatments that alter the brain to block the feeling of getting high. If people don't feel good from taking the drugs, they'd stop.

Why don't we just give everybody a lobotomy then? Nobody will enjoy anything. ;)

{"name":"babydolllobotomystraightened_suckerpunch_jpeg80_by_nemonameless-d5jle4u.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/071b5ec0669ab097f94a6796b46b3356.jpg","w":2968,"h":2143,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/071b5ec0669ab097f94a6796b46b3356"}babydolllobotomystraightened_suckerpunch_jpeg80_by_nemonameless-d5jle4u.jpg

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

"Only 2% of of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false."

This makes a distinction against accusations and charges. Hopefully, before charging somebody, the police actually do some kind of investigation and throw away obvious false accusations prior to slapping on handcuffs. In any case, [citation needed]. That link is deceptive. It's not from the university. It's just from some activist group, probably organized by students of the university. By itself, it's useless.

raynebc said:

If you don't want to coerce people to flip on their dealers, then we need to consider more ways to deter harmful drug (ie. cocaine) use.

You will never make drugs that work not work without violating the rights of individuals. An individual doing cocaine doesn't harm society. A drug lord using acts of violence to control his segment of the black market does, but the black market only exists while cocaine (or some other equally effective and economical solution) is illegal. If you offer drug users a safer source then you can put the black market out of business. Guys are only willing to kill or be killed because there's hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to gain. If they'll be risking their lives for a McDonald's salary they'll quickly lay their guns down.

These were very serious allegations, and you can't prove it didn't happen.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. There is often evidence when something happens, but there's never evidence when something doesn't happen. At best, you could say with reasonable certainty that something didn't happen because something contradictory did happen, but it's still just an educated guess unless the events are mutually exclusive.

There's a very good reason we presume innocence. It shouldn't have to be explained to you. It doesn't matter how serious the allegations are. The world is not a perfect place. It never was, and it probably never will be. It is a whole lot nicer than it used to be though. So we should be thankful for that. Ultimately, none of this matters. We don't get to decide who is put in power, and we never did. Until we fix the root of the problem arguing about things that we do not control is just a waste of everybody's time and energy. You'd be more productive trying to figure out how we can fix the root cause of these problems: that our nations are not functionally democratic and we as voters don't actually have any control.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

and you can't prove it didn't happen.

That's not how the legal system works in the USA, for reasons bamccaig listed. By extension, any system that presumes guilt is an immoral one.

As for a few college buddies making claims like "he was so drunk he MUST have blacked out", that is speculation. I'd like to see if there was any documentation supporting this or if it it's just more of the same old hearsay. The rest of your partisan bullsh*t on Kavanaugh isn't worth me entertaining any more of.

Just WHO are YOU that I should live by YOUR RULES?

I'm an American citizen. I don't really care if you have mental problems, you're not automatically exempted from the laws the rest of us have to follow just because breaking those laws is helpful for you. If you want to move to a state that allows for medical marijuana, go right ahead, I don't care.

bamccaig said:

An individual doing cocaine doesn't harm society.

An individual doing cocaine harms him/herself and can certainly harm others while under its influence or when jonesing to get another fix. Your argument that legalizing some/all illegal drugs just to destroy the black market for it is more interesting, but drugs that cause severe and permanent harm to the brain still need to be strongly curtailed, such as by rehab programs that have been mentioned in the thread.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Here you go, bambam.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

The number is 2%-10%. Same sources put not reporting at 35%.

Waiting on your argument why the FBI, BBC, et al aren't accurate.

raynebc, have you ever read Civil Disobedience? Do you think MLK went about the Civil Rights movement the wrong way? What about Gandhi resisting British rule?

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

To say that only 2% of reports are false, which is the low end of the estimate for confirmed false accusations, is disingenuous. This discredits the original "group" for leaving that out.

It's impossible to know how many reports are actually false. In the same way that evidence is difficult to find that proves a sexual crime occurred, it would be moreso difficult to prove that a sexual crime did not occur. As above, in general, there would never be evidence of this unless the alleged victim admits to the fraud or the alleged offender was demonstrably nowhere near the victim when the alleged crime occurred (e.g., if video surveillance proved he was accounted for all night). If a man's whereabouts is questionable, or he is certainly involved with the woman at the time, it would be impossible to prove he didn't commit a sexual crime.

In a political world where men are disposable and women are sacred you can guarantee reports of "false accusations" would only be recorded where the alleged victim admits to the fraud, and is completely stable in doing so (not emotional or reckless). This means that we most likely have no idea what the actual rate of false allegations is, and to assert that it is not a concern is completely disingenuous. The implication being that so few false allegations are made that we should just believe women and assume guilt. That's completely wrong and extremely sexist.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

raynebc said:

The rest of your partisan bullsh*t on Kavanaugh isn't worth me entertaining any more of.

Speaking of partisan bullshit;

Since his campaign launched, Trump has repeatedly promised to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Overturning that decision would endanger the lives of countless people who need or may need abortions — including many who sign this letter. Trump’s nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is a reliable way to fulfill his oath. Just a few months ago, Judge Kavanaugh ruled to deny a detained immigrant minor her constitutional right to abortion. Decades-old Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the government may not place an undue burden on a pregnant person’s access to abortion. But Judge Kavanaugh clearly did not feel constrained by precedent: what could be a greater obstacle than a cage? The minor had never wavered in her decision to seek an abortion and had received a judicial bypass from a state judge who found that she was competent to make the decision. Yet Kavanaugh condescendingly and disingenuously held that she must wait weeks until she was in a “better place” to make a choice about her own bodily autonomy — at which point she might not be able to have a legal abortion. Further, Kavanaugh argued that to require immigration authorities to stop blocking her from accessing this right would force the government into complicity.

The judge employed similar spurious reasoning in a 2015 dissent arguing that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate violated the rights of religious organizations, even though those organizations were granted an accommodation that allowed them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage. Kavanaugh’s opinions give us grave concern that he will consistently prioritize the beliefs of third-parties over the rights of the oppressed — not only when it comes to abortion and contraception, but also regarding other forms of medical care (including care for transgender patients), family privacy, and sexual liberty. Litigants harness this same logic when arguing that institutions have a religious right to discriminate against LGBT people — an issue the Court is certain to take up in the years to come.

Judge Kavanaugh would also act as a rubber stamp for President Trump’s fraud and abuse. Despite working with independent counsel Ken Starr to prosecute Bill Clinton, Judge Kavanaugh has since called upon Congress to exempt sitting presidents from civil suits, criminal investigations, and criminal prosecutions. He has also noted that “a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a president can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.” This reversal does not reflect high-minded consideration but rather naked partisanship. At a time when the President and his associates are under investigation for various serious crimes, including colluding with the Russian government and obstructing justice, Judge Kavanaugh’s extreme deference to the Executive poses a direct threat to our democracy.

As part of his assault on the administrative state — based not in law, as he claims, but on policy preference — Judge Kavanaugh has undermined attempts to protect the environment and regulate predatory lenders and for-profit colleges. He has called now-defunct Net Neutrality regulations violations of the First Amendment. If elevated, the judge would pose an existential threat to the government’s ability to regulate for the common good and further twist the First Amendment beyond recognition, using it as a sword to advance his personal political preferences. His appointment would usher in a new era of Lochner, with “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices.”

Judge Kavanaugh has consistently protected the interests of powerful institutions and disregarded the rights of vulnerable individuals. On the D.C. Circuit he denied a student with disabilities access to the remedial education he was promised after he emerged from juvenile detention. In a 2008 dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued undocumented workers are not protected by labor laws. In 2016, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that employers can require employees to waive their right to picket. In a concurrence, he argued that the National Security Agency’s sweeping call surveillance program was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. As an attorney, he advocated for prayer at open public school events in brazen contravention of our country’s separation of church and state.

The list goes on. We see in these rulings an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideologue intent on rolling back our rights and the rights of our clients. Judge Kavanaugh’s resume is certainly marked by prestige, groomed for exactly this nomination. But degrees and clerkships should not be the only, or even the primary, credential for a Supreme Court appointment. A commitment to law and justice is.

It doesn't even matter if he assaulted Ford or not, he has a proven record of denying people their fundamental human rights and of supporting the wealthy.

It amazes me how brainwashed you people are. You defend ugly, evil people with such fierce loyalty? You're just a bunch of lap dogs for the rich and powerful.

There's little point discussing this. You are of the opinion that it's okay to force your laws on me and take away my freedom and that I have no say. Well that's mostly true. Democracy is dead in the US. The rich and powerful control the government and we are no longer in the land of the free and the home of the brave.... we are no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Bambam why can you spout paragraphs without any supporting evidence (just your feels) but I post anything and it comes under extreme scrutiny?

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

I guess all I have to say is :

Elizabeth Warren For President 2020

EDIT

raynebc said:

As for a few college buddies making claims like "he was so drunk he MUST have blacked out", that is speculation. I'd like to see if there was any documentation supporting this or if it it's just more of the same old hearsay.

I provided a link.

Take a look at the results of this quick DDG search :

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+brett+kavanaugh+drink+excessively&t=seamonkey&ia=web

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Bambam why can you spout paragraphs without any supporting evidence (just your feels) but I post anything and it comes under extreme scrutiny?

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Scrutinize all you want. I'm right here. Your "supporting evidence" isn't really evidence. It's just politics.

Even research papers are open to scrutiny. That's kind of the point. Just because it's been written doesn't mean that it's correct. The whole point is for people to scrutinize it. Any papers about this subject will be subjective because there is no conclusive data. You'll find it hard to locate papers that challenge it because research requires funding and research that might call into question the Feminist ideology will be very unpopular. The funny thing about most research papers is that they are behind pay walls (at least for us laymen). A practice I find very distasteful, if not downright disingenuous.

I assume if you saw any flaws in my logic you would have attacked that. Instead, you're attacking my right to question your "evidence".

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Although Judge has explained that names were changed in his book to protect privacy — Georgetown Prep is referred to as Loyola Prep — there is a reference in the book to a drunken “Bart O’Kavanaugh” vomiting and passing out in a car. On his yearbook page, Judge apparently refers to Kavanaugh as Bart.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

There's nothing wrong with occasionally getting drunk enough to vomit or black out. If it was a daily occurrence today then you might question this person's stability, but having done it in college sounds like par for the course and having done it a few times ever is just everybody's experience that isn't a buzz kill. This is akin to the whole "I did not inhale" bullshit. Of course you inhaled. It's just politics. And the results don't matter. This is not questioning whether the person is qualified to be a supreme court judge. It's attacking his character so the powerful position can go to somebody that is otherwise strategic for another player. It doesn't fucking matter. You're being distracted by this bullshit so that you aren't paying attention to the real trick.

Append:

The abortion angle, if true, will be far more persuasive. Like I said, women are the sacred resource of all time. Everybody will get upset over a woman's rights being tromped on. A guy that drinks too much? You're referring to most of the population now. Are we all going to crucify him for that? Odds are it was his own camp that paid to have this brought up to distract you from the politics that might actually defeat him. :D

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamKEG said:

There's nothing wrong with occasionally getting drunk enough to vomit or black out. If it was a daily occurrence today then you might question this person's stability, but having done it in college sounds like par for the course and having done it a few times ever is just everybody's experience that isn't a buzz kill. This is akin to the whole "I did not inhale" . Of course you inhaled. It's just politics. And the results don't matter. This is not questioning whether the person is qualified to be a supreme court judge.

Yes, actually it's called binge drinking and alcoholism. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a drunk like you. Go to an AA meeting for fricks sake.

Did you even see the list of anti-qualifications I pointed out above?

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

> In a political world where men are disposable and women are sacred you can guarantee reports of "false accusations" would only be recorded where the alleged victim admits to the fraud

Begging the question.

> and is completely stable in doing so (not emotional or reckless).

The source I linked to indicates otherwise--teenagers (i.e., selfish idiots) and unstable women are the primary reporters of false rape, not women with strong and successful careers.

> This means that we most likely have no idea what the actual rate of false allegations is, and to assert that it is not a concern is completely disingenuous.

Argument from ignorance.

> The implication being that so few false allegations are made that we should just believe women and assume guilt. That's completely wrong and extremely sexist.

Strawman. I never argued or claimed that.

> Even research papers are open to scrutiny.

You don't have the credentials to review (or should I say scrutinize) articles published in peer reviewed journals, sorry.

> I assume if you saw any flaws in my logic you would have attacked that.

I didn't care to dissect your post when replying to this thread takes so long.

> Instead, you're attacking my right to question your "evidence".

By putting 'evidence' in quotes you are clearly disregarding a reputable source for no reason, and calling into question the reliability of government data, peer reviewed data, and a respected international news company.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Strawman. I never argued or claimed that.

Then your point was not clear. Please make it so we can move on.

You don't have the credentials to review (or should I say scrutinize) articles published in peer reviewed journals, sorry.

Neither do you, for that matter.

By putting 'evidence' in quotes you are clearly disregarding a reputable source for no reason,...

I gave my reasoning.

...and calling into question the reliability of government data...

Yes.

...peer reviewed data...

I saw no such thing.

...and a respected international news company.

*cringe*

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

You are of the opinion that it's okay to force your laws on me

Civilizations have rules. If you don't want to be subject to somebody's rules, go buy an island in international waters and make your own rules.

I provided a link

The article doesn't show they ever documented this when it happened. It's still just hearsay. Which is what I said it was the last time you linked it.

there is a reference in the book to a drunken “Bart O’Kavanaugh” vomiting and passing out in a car.

It looks like a story about a pseudonym scribbled in a year book about somebody getting drunk and falling asleep is the closest you have to evidence? I don't find that convincing, but the Democrats are desperate to justify their hatred for Kavanaugh.

Unproven claims and innuendo from decades ago don't negate a life long professional career.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

> Then your point was not clear. Please make it so we can move on.

My belief is false rape accusations are not significant enough a problem when many women (35%!) do not report rape in the first place. Priorities!

> Neither do you, for that matter.

I'm not the one with the conspiracy that academia is some women-ruled nuthouse.

I delegate what I don't know to those who do. Maybe you should be more humble and do the same instead of being a know it all.

> Yes.

Why would the FBI's data be inaccurate? Someone feminist conspiracy?

> I saw no such thing.

Fucking hell there's no point in discussing anything with you. The BBC article lines to this study. /Violence Against Women/ is a peer-reviewed journal.

> *cringe*

Awesome, I no longer trust the BBC. Thanks for opening my eyes.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

raynebc said:

Civilizations have rules. If you don't want to be subject to somebody's rules, go buy an island in international waters and make your own rules.

Jamaica is sounding pretty nice right around now. ;) But seriously, if it were just me what does it matter, but there are millions of Americans who have smoked pot before and who do so regularly. Who are you to silence their voice? If we had things your way, everyone would be in jail. Instead, the laws need to be changed because they are immoral.

raynebc said:

It looks like a story about a pseudonym scribbled in a year book about somebody getting drunk and falling asleep is the closest you have to evidence? I don't find that convincing, but the Democrats are desperate to justify their hatred for Kavanaugh.

That was just the tip of the iceberg. If you had read the linked article on the intercept, there is an entire memoir of mark judges book called wasted. He was a self admitted serial groper and first class drunk, not to mention being best friends with 'Bart O'Kavanaugh', who is obviously Brett Kavanaugh.

I still don't see what's wrong with you people when you blindly support drunks, liars, and bigots.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

If you think when you post a link to a news article that links to a way back machine page for a now missing paper that everybody is going to jump through all of these hoops to read it then you're crazy. It's a waste of everybody's time because your evidence is always slanted.

In this case, the paper you're referring to appears to be locked behind a paywall too, but somehow this copy was apparently temporarily available on the state of Idaho's government Web site, and the Way Back Machine site is therefore archiving it. It's probably technically against the law to be accessing it in this way, but we'll overlook that for now.

The paper you're citing itself says that the majority of law enforcement believes that false rape accusations are common. It's a wonder then that their analysis of law enforcement's data draws the conclusion that it is not. Who knows better, the people that deal with the accusers, victims, and perpetrators for a living, or academics in a university with an agenda?

While I am able to see this paper, I was unsuccessful finding peer review of it. I found some feminists using it as proof that false accusations are rare, but I haven't been able to find anybody questioning the paper's findings let alone confirming them. The sad thing is a group of people can publish a paper that nobody else is interested in, and that alone is enough for countless other people to point to and say "look, everybody else is wrong, false accusations almost never happen because 4 people with the same agenda as me said so!"

For the luls:

the paper said:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Oh. :-/

the paper said:

Bios

David Lisak, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He has conducted research on the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence, including the motives and characteristics of nonstranger rapists, the impact of abuse on male development, and the relationship between childhood trauma and the perpetration of violence. In addition to research, he consults widely with law enforcement, prosecutor and judicial agencies, as well as universities and the U.S. military.

Lori Gardinier, MSW, PhD, is the program director for the Human Services Major at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts where she is also the founder of the Campus Center on Violence Against Women. She holds a master’s degree in social work from Boston University and a PhD from Northeastern University. She has <b>practiced in the area of antipoverty/ social justice work in community-based settings</u> and as a counselor in organizations addressing intimate partner violence. Her most recent publication examines the Paid Family Leave Campaign in Massachusetts as a social movement.

Sarah C. Nicksa, MA, is a PhD candidate in the sociology program at Northeastern University. Her dissertation, entitled “Bystander Reactions to Witnessing Sexual Assault: The Impact of Gender, Community, and Social Learning,” will be completed in spring 2011. She regularly teaches “Violence in the Family” and is a medical advocate at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center.

Ashley M. Cote is a graduate of Northeastern University’s College of Criminal Justice, where she focused on juvenile justice, security, and criminology. At Northeastern University, she was a member of the Campus Center on Violence Against Women, studied the effects of parental attachment on youth violence, and was elected a gubernatorial advisor for the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee under the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. She is currently employed at the Massachusetts General Hospital’s police, security, and outside services department and plans to earn a master’s in social work and urban leadership.

(Underlined emphasis mine)

When you search for these names only two of them appear to have more than a couple of papers, which seems to indicate they were students at the time. They're not highly respected experts in their field of study. They're just some people that needed to do some research to get their fancy papers. As impressive as that is, I find it really hard to believe that none of them believe themselves to have had a conflict of interest. It appears all of them were deeply invested in the fight against violence against women specifically (not just violence in general, only against women), and they seemed to be working directly with alleged victims. If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know what is.

I don't have time to pick the entire paper apart. I don't think it's worth my time either. If I do pick it apart you'll just find another one and try to place the burden on me again to do your research for you.

This I find amusing near the start of the paper:

the paper said:

For centuries, it has been asserted and assumed that women “cry rape,” that a large proportion of rape allegations are maliciously concocted for purposes of revenge or other motives. [sic] Most famously, Sir Matthew Hale, a chief justice of the court of the King’s bench of England, expressed this view in a form that became the basis for special jury instructions that would be used late into the 20th century (Schafran, 1993). Hale (1847) wrote,

It is true rape is a most detestable crime, and therefore ought severely and impartially to be punished with death; but it must be remembered, that it is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho never so innocent. (p. 634)

They're claiming that this "chief justice of the court" was asserting and assuming that women "cry rape", but if you read his quote he said no such thing. All he said, quite factually and admirably, is that it's easy to accuse somebody of rape and difficult to prove it. Which for the purposes of law mean that it's difficult to determine who is lying and who is telling the truth. That is by no means asserting that women "cry rape", but allowing for the inevitable possibility, and it certainly is not assuming that women generally are. Only that in a fair judicial system the courts must assume the accusations are wrong.

We must assume that the accused is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. This means that some guilty parties will go unpunished, but importantly it means that fewer innocent parties will be punished for crimes they did not commit. Albeit, in today's society, being accused of rape is already pretty much enough to ruin your life. The prison sentence is just "gravy".

Being that the authors apparently were so biased as to put a spin on the meaning of this quote (or at least, failed to quote the relevant parts of the citation) I can't imagine the rest of their paper is any more credible. If you still need me to sift through this thing page by page and pick it apart then whine about it.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

bamccaig, no wonder you don't like academia, you have no fucking clue how it works. And you went to school? Did you snooze through English?

You don't know how peer review works, you don't know what conflict of interest is, you don't know how research is performed... wow.

This is like arguing with a flat earther: they think they know how the scientific process works, but they never took Science 101.

Post Reply


Go to: