Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2018, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Excellent article. I don't see how anyone can really argue against any of it.

Well, her first point about remembering is based on a lack of knowledge of how the brain encodes memories. When put into a situation like that where the fight, flight, or freeze part of the brain takes over, the neurotransmitters that help to encode memories aren't doing that. They are shut off to conserve energy for the more primitive parts of the brain that involve getting away. Everyone reacts to those situations differently, so using one person's memory of an attack to discredit another person because they lack enough details is just rooted in ignorance of psychology/neurobiology.

Character statements are also worthless in these situations. Time an again you will get statements from people that will say "well they never acted that way with me." I hear it often when I have to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases at the university.

Now, the timing of Feinstein bringing it up is interesting, I won't deny that. And I also find some of the inconsistencies a little troubling. Things like the polygraph and Judge refusing to testify under oath tends to lend some credibility to her side, though.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2018, 02:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I havent really paid much attention to the daily ongoings on all this, so how was it explained and by whom?

My early guess this is a sad pathetic ploy by Dems, but I could be wrong. And I hope I am because if this is all staged then it really hurts the  accusations by actual victims.

I don't think it's staged. I think the timing was planned out, but this wasn't staged.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2018, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Excellent article. I don't see how anyone can really argue against any of it.

I take issue with the claim that she does not remember the exact date is a "key issue". I also don't think how she got there was a "key issue". I ran around with a few friends in high school and I have clear memories of parties but I can not always remember exactly who drove me to them.  I also have some very clear memories of things that happened in houses that I was not exactly sure who the owner was.

In addition to Kavanaugh and Judge she has identified two other people who were there. It was not a huge party where she just showed up. There were only 4 boys there. I think identifying who was there is much more important that identifying who owned the house.

What about the "key issues" that Kavanaugh has refused to address. Why does he refuse to comment about how he knew her back then and what exactly their relationship was? Seems to me that is a much bigger "key issue" than who drove her to the party.  

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2018, 02:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Character statements are also worthless in these situations. Time an again you will get statements from people that will say "well they never acted that way with me." I hear it often when I have to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases at the university.

This.  Just because a man does not attack every woman he knows on a professional level or went to school with does not mean he has never assaulted a woman.

(09-21-2018, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it's staged. I think the timing was planned out, but this wasn't staged.

This also.

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 02:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I havent really paid much attention to the daily ongoings on all this, so how was it explained and by whom?

My early guess this is a sad pathetic ploy by Dems, but I could be wrong. And I hope I am because if this is all staged then it really hurts the  accusations by actual victims.

Check my post #330 on this thread.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-21-2018, 02:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, her first point about remembering is based on a lack of knowledge of how the brain encodes memories. When put into a situation like that where the fight, flight, or freeze part of the brain takes over, the neurotransmitters that help to encode memories aren't doing that. They are shut off to conserve energy for the more primitive parts of the brain that involve getting away. Everyone reacts to those situations differently, so using one person's memory of an attack to discredit another person because they lack enough details is just rooted in ignorance of psychology/neurobiology.

Character statements are also worthless in these situations. Time an again you will get statements from people that will say "well they never acted that way with me." I hear it often when I have to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases at the university.

Now, the timing of Feinstein bringing it up is interesting, I won't deny that. And I also find some of the inconsistencies a little troubling. Things like the polygraph and Judge refusing to testify under oath tends to lend some credibility to her side, though.

(09-21-2018, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I take issue with the claim that she does not remember the exact date is a "key issue". I also don't think how she got there was a "key issue". I ran around with a few friends in high school and I have clear memories of parties but I can not always remember exactly who drove me to them.  I also have some very clear memories of things that happened in houses that I was not exactly sure who the owner was.

In addition to Kavanaugh and Judge she has identified two other people who were there. It was not a huge party where she just showed up. There were only 4 boys there. I think identifying who was there is much more important that identifying who owned the house.

What about the "key issues" that Kavanaugh has refused to address. Why does he refuse to comment about how he knew her back then and what exactly their relationship was? Seems to me that is a much bigger "key issue" than who drove her to the party.  

Okay, I guess you CAN argue some of it.  What I should've said and the point I was making is that it was a well balanced article that does not automatically assume either side is wrong nor right and brings up questions that both sides should address. It may not be perfectly unbiased, but it's probably addresses this situation in as about as unbiased a manner as one could get.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2018, 03:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Okay, I guess you CAN argue some of it.  What I should've said and the point I was making is that it was a well balanced article that does not automatically assume either side is wrong nor right and brings up questions that both sides should address. It may not be perfectly unbiased, but it's probably addresses this situation in as about as unbiased a manner as one could get.

I disagree. There is bias inserted into the article. The point of view was subjective, and with subjectivity there is always bias, it can't really be helped. Let's look at the memory situation, for instance. Objectively, one's memory of a traumatic event cannot be used to determine the credibility of the statement. Because of natural variability between individuals in how we encode memories there is no way to say for certain. Some people encode few or none, some people encode everything, and some encode false information.

A person with a bias favoring Kavanaugh would say that the lack of memory goes against the credibility of Ford. Someone with a bias against Kavanaugh would say that the lack of memory points to a traumatic event actually occurring. The truth is, though, that we can't use it at all for credibility.

Your own point of view leads you to see credibility in this article. If something is slightly conservative skewed, you will be more likely to say it is unbiased than if it is slightly liberal skewed. I'm not saying the piece presented is heavily skewed, but it is leaning in a direction of bias with its subjective interpretations of the facts.

Edit: I know you said it isn't perfectly unbiased, but I would say you could get a more neutral discussion of the situation quite easily.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2018, 07:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: This conservative just posted an entire thread on twitter claiming Ford might have mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else...and then posted that person's name and photo.

Okay, I’ll begin laying out some information concerning Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

Yes, I am sharing the original post.  It is public knowledge now.

From his twitter info:

So NOW the guy is apologizing for his series of tweets.

I mean it wasn't a one off...he had a whole string going with photos and "ideas".  So I'm not sure what he's thinking.

I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 21, 2018

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 02:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, her first point about remembering is based on a lack of knowledge of how the brain encodes memories. When put into a situation like that where the fight, flight, or freeze part of the brain takes over, the neurotransmitters that help to encode memories aren't doing that. They are shut off to conserve energy for the more primitive parts of the brain that involve getting away. Everyone reacts to those situations differently, so using one person's memory of an attack to discredit another person because they lack enough details is just rooted in ignorance of psychology/neurobiology.

Character statements are also worthless in these situations. Time an again you will get statements from people that will say "well they never acted that way with me." I hear it often when I have to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases at the university.

Now, the timing of Feinstein bringing it up is interesting, I won't deny that. And I also find some of the inconsistencies a little troubling. Things like the polygraph and Judge refusing to testify under oath tends to lend some credibility to her side, though.

As to the first part: Are you suggesting we should forgive Kav's assertion that he wasn't there if it is found that he was, because his brain encoded the memory differently?

The middle part: Character witnesses are as valuable as their character. That's an enigma wrapped in a paradox

As to the final: Fienstien has no firm ground to question anyone's integrity in this matter; as she displayed none. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2018, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it's staged. I think the timing was planned out, but this wasn't staged.

Planned out by whom. 

If this lady has some locked up supressed traumatic experience that she has tried a lifetime to move on from... And then sees her attacker hand picked by a self proclaimed kitty grabber for a lifetime position at the highest level of our government.. Maybe she was finally able to overcome the mental burden and share her story because she thought those were details the rest of the country should probably know.

I dont think that is planned. She wasnt holding this in all those years waiting for lil rapey weirdo kav to get his supreme court shot to finally spill the beans.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2018, 09:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the first part: Are you suggesting we should forgive Kav's assertion that he wasn't there if it is found that he was, because his brain encoded the memory differently?

The middle part: Character witnesses are as valuable as their character. That's an enigma wrapped in a paradox

As to the final: Fienstien has no firm ground to question anyone's integrity in this matter; as she displayed none. 

Walk me through your mental gymnastics routine again how you manage to make Fienstien the bad guy in the story about a sexual deviant nominating an attempted rapest for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 10:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Walk me through your mental gymnastics routine again how you manage to make Fienstien the bad guy in the story about a sexual deviant nominating an attempted rapest for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?

For holding onto the information about a "sexual deviant nominating an attempted rapest for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land" for months instead of making ot known the minute she discovered it. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2018, 10:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For holding onto the information about a "sexual deviant nominating an attempted rapest for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land" for months instead of making ot known the minute she discovered it. 

Has the confirmation vote happened yet? Do you think a senator would be wise to research an informant?

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 11:10 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Has the confirmation vote happened yet? Do you think a senator would be wise to research an informant?

Oh you asked one question and it was answered, so that prompted you to post 2 more.

If Fienstien was as concerned about an FBI investigation as she claims she would have turned this info over to the immediately and let them research the informant; it's not the Senator's job; unless you are suggesting Senator vetting is plenty. Something tells me you're not saying that and really not thinking about what you are saying. 

You're most likely just mad and emotional. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2018, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh you asked one question and it was answered, so that prompted you to post 2 more.

If Fienstien was as concerned about an FBI investigation as she claims she would have turned this info over to the immediately and let them research the informant; it's not the Senator's job; unless you are suggesting Senator vetting is plenty. Something tells me you're not saying that and really not thinking about what you are saying. 

You're most likely just mad and emotional. 

You didnt answer the first one. So i will. Has the confirmation vote happened? No. So why are you attacking her for bringing something up before the vote. 

If she brought it up after the fact maybe i could see your point. But there were hundreds of thousands of documents dumped on to our senators about this confirmation just recently.

Keep attacking the messanger though... Maybe it will make attempted rape look better on our Supreme court justice nominee's resume

[GMDino]

So another (named) accuser, at least one more (unnamed) and more on the horizon.

Obviously they are not proven...they have not even been investigated...but do we continue with the push to nominate?  Or do we step back take some time to look into it and then go ahead if they are shown to be false?  

The accusations being false would only cement Kavanaugh's character as rock solid.

[Goalpost]

It's only a matter of changing the vote of a few people.

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 09:43 AM)Goalpost Wrote: It's only a matter of changing the vote of a few people.

They don't even have to change their votes yet.  They can just say they want to delay the vote until all this is sorted out.

[Goalpost]

(09-24-2018, 09:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: They don't even have to change their votes yet.  They can just say they want to delay the vote until all this is sorted out.

I'm really not into delaying.  Just let each side have their say this week.