Dennis Prager, moral paragon

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _Some Schmo »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:What are they gonna do? Accuse her of raping someone?

If she's a Republican, I wouldn't put it past her.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _canpakes »

cinepro wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:It would be bad news for Democrats if the Republicans replace Kavanaugh with Amy Coney Barrett.


Isn't she unabashedly pro-life though? If people are worried about Kavanaugh and Roe v. Wade, there would be torches and pitchforks if Barrett got near a confirmation hearing.

Not that torches or pitchforks would change anything.

And sometimes, torch-wielding crowds are full of some very good people. Or so I’ve heard.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _Some Schmo »

canpakes wrote:And sometimes, torch-wielding crowds are full of some very good people. Or so I’ve heard.

A+ for humor.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _honorentheos »

Themis wrote:
cinepro wrote:I do believe something happened to Ford, but I'm not confident in her ID of Kavanaugh as the attempted rapist. We all know (or should know) the problems with memory of such things, especially from stressful situations over long periods of time. So like I said, I agree that it's possible, but I'm not confident enough to "convict" him of it.


It depends. If this event happened in some way we would expect some details like where it took place could more easily be forgotten or mis-remebered. If she knew this person before the event then it is less likely she will misidentify or later think it was someone else who did it. Our minds are good at remembering some details better then other details because our mind are finite and have to prioritize what to remember.

I haven't been following this thread and just started reading. I'm close to cinepro's position in that I think the evidence, even after Thursday, needs to be further investigated. And I share his views on the three accusers in that Ford's appears the most credible and serious, Ramirez appears to be being honest but her account lacks certainty while having the potential for the most witnesses, and Swetnick is problematic as a witness since her accounts are basically about the social scene.

When I was listening to Ford's account, I was reminded of a story that was shared in a pop science book around 10 years ago about a falsely convicted rapist. You can read it for free at this link. It's chapter 1 in the book:

NOTE: THE LINK IS TO A PDF DOWNLOAD

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=19&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiblI72v-DdAhWQIDQIHVF0DoU4ChAWMAh6BAgBEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fketabnak.com%2Fredirect.php%3Fdlid%3D68595&usg=AOvVaw0ib68dpD25-Qq5uaFw0_vf

Five days before her thirtieth birthday, on August 24, 1986, Toni Gustus was out on her patio. It was a Sunday, about four o’clock in the afternoon, and Gustus was in a T-shirt working on some plants. She had just moved to Massachusetts from Iowa; the only contact she had in town was the person who had hired her for a job at the United Way in Framingham. She had found a small two-bedroom basement apartment with a living room that opened onto a sunken patio. When she stood on the patio, the street came up to her chest. A man strolled by and asked for directions. His eyes seemed glassy and his speech was slurred. Gustus did not know how to direct the man, but her Midwestern upbringing kept her from giving a curt answer and turning away.



The intruder was not much taller than Gustus. She was about five foot five, and he may have been five foot nine or ten. But he was considerably stronger...The moment he started removing her clothes, another instinct kicked in. Gustus started to memorize details about the man. He was white and in his early twenties. He had a little black cross on one arm that may have been ink or may have been a tattoo. He had dark blond hair that fell over his forehead and his ears. His hair was parted in the middle. His nose was long in proportion to his face. His eyes were blue and relatively narrow. He had a tapered jaw. On and on she went, looking for distinctive features. She swore to herself, I am not going to forget this face.

After he raped her, the man allowed her to dress...He did nothing to stop her from walking out of the living room... From a drugstore, she called her boss and told him what had happened. He drove by, picked her up, and took her to the police station. Police officers administered a rape kit, and immediately asked Gustus to tell them everything distinctive about the rapist. Gustus unloaded every detail she had memorized about the man—the nose, the chin, the eyes, the hair. The man had been wearing a blue and white shirt, a blue windbreaker, and jeans. An artist came up with a composite picture that Gustus thought was fairly accurate. She told the police the man’s voice was slurred, but she was good with voices and had memorized how he sounded. By the time the police arrived at the crime scene, the rapist was gone, but he had left his windbreaker behind. There was a burrito wrapped in plastic and foil inside one pocket. Police ocers traced it to a convenience store. There was a black-and-white-lm security camera in the store, and the police showed Gustus the grainy video. She recognized the rapist the moment she saw him even though the tape did not show his face. Gustus had memorized the man’s body language, the way he carried himself. The police showed her photos of a number of possible suspects and pictures from local high school yearbooks. None of the photos matched the rapist...In early December, the police picked up a man who matched the composite picture. Late one evening, police detectives brought Gustus a set of fifteen photos. Gustus pointed to the photo of the man the police had picked up, but she said she needed to see him before she could be sure. Through a one-way mirror at the police station, Gustus thought she saw the rapist. She was cautious by nature, and asked if she could hear the man’s voice. The police held a door ajar so Gustus could hear the suspect speak. Gustus told the police she was 95 percent sure that the man in custody was the rapist. His name, she learned, was Eric Sarsfield.

Gustus spent Christmas that year with her family, in a small Illinois town across the Iowa border. She had thought a lot about Sarseld in the days after she’d identified him. She was quite certain he was the rapist but was worried about the sliver of doubt at the back of her mind. Gustus was the sort of person who took responsibility for everything; no matter the situation, she asked herself what she had done wrong, or what she could have done better. Was her sliver of uncertainty only a manifestation of this trait to doubt herself? There was a Presbyterian church in town that Gustus had long known; it was a place of refuge and comfort. She was a person of faith, and the church always renewed her. She used to sing in the choir, and the choir director had been her voice teacher. Sitting in the safe space of the church, ensconced by family, Gustus suddenly felt the burden of doubt lift from her shoulders. She was not 95 percent sure that Eric Sarseld was the rapist; she was 100 percent certain. She testified against Sarseld. When asked how certain she was that the man sitting in the defendant’s chair was the rapist, Gustus said she was sure. The defense, of course, pointed out that Gustus had initially not been certain. But there were many things about Gustus and the crime that made her testimony compelling. She had seen her assailant for an hour in broad daylight on a sunny day. She was an extraordinarily diligent witness with a keen memory for every distinctive detail about the rapist. Her trustworthiness was unimpeachable, her caution exemplary. She was not the kind of person to say Sarseld was guilty if she had the slightest doubt. Sarsfield pleaded innocent, but that did not mean much. Gustus told herself that it was possible he had no recollection of the crime because he had been so drunk...In the end, when the jury found him guilty, Gustus felt a tremendous relief. The months since the crime had been terribly difficult, and she wanted to move on with her life.

She put the case out of her mind. Over time, she learned that Sarseld had appealed his conviction, that he’d been turned down, and that he had gone to prison. Gustus got married and settled down. In 2000, fourteen years after the crime, Gustus received a letter from the district attorney in Middlesex County. It said new evidence had come to light in the case and asked her to come in for a chat. The letter instantly triggered doubts—and dread. Gustus turned to her husband and said, “Oh my God. Something has happened and it is not really him.” She learned that a DNA test had been conducted using the rape kit that the police had administered on the day of the crime. The test showed that Sarsfield could not have been the rapist. Gustus did not know much about DNA and was full of questions. She spent half her time blaming herself for not taking her initial sliver of doubt seriously, and the other half wondering about the accuracy of DNA tests. She had a talk with a friend who knew about the science of genetic testing and reassured herself that the test was accurate and had been conducted by a reputable laboratory. But her doubts persisted. She had seen what she had seen. She would never have testified against Sarseld if she had not been sure he was the rapist. She had gone fourteen years being certain that Sarsfield was guilty.

Finally, she consented to a meeting with Sarseld, but insisted it be on her terms. Her husband would accompany her, and the meeting would take place in her therapist’s office. When Eric Sarseld showed up, he brought his fiancée and his lawyer. The moment they greeted each other, Gustus saw something she had not seen before in Eric Sarseld—not at the police station when she’d initially identied him through a oneway mirror, not when police had held a door ajar so she could hear his voice, and not in court when he’d sat silently before her as she testied. What she saw convinced her that she had made a terrible mistake. Gustus had had crooked teeth as a child and had worn braces—teeth were something she noticed. The rapist had had even teeth.


While I don't see any reason to doubt Dr. Ford's testimony, the main reason I have seen pursuing more facts as critical through the hearing process and the FBI investigation is that we, as a nation, are being asked to support a decision being made based on two people's memories of something that happened over thirty years ago. That's a long time and our brains aren't video recorders. It seems there is enough evidence in the accounts we have for an investigation to either find corroborating facts that help validate the claims or cross off major points of potentially confirming evidence that suggests whatever happened, we are on shaky ground as we are forced to rely on memory only.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _EAllusion »

Going back to Prager's original arguments, since Ford's testimony there's been a tidal wave of older women talking about sexual assault they experienced when they were younger, but told no one. I can link some articles on this phenomenon if anyone doubts it, but I assume that this is heavily reported on enough to be common knowledge.

If you take Prager et al. seriously, that's a whole lot of lying grandmas out there.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _Themis »

honorentheos wrote:While I don't see any reason to doubt Dr. Ford's testimony, the main reason I have seen pursuing more facts as critical through the hearing process and the FBI investigation is that we, as a nation, are being asked to support a decision being made based on two people's memories of something that happened over thirty years ago. That's a long time and our brains aren't video recorders. It seems there is enough evidence in the accounts we have for an investigation to either find corroborating facts that help validate the claims or cross off major points of potentially confirming evidence that suggests whatever happened, we are on shaky ground as we are forced to rely on memory only.


While your story is nice, I doesn't do anything against my point which is our brains tend to pick certain details to remember better then other ones even though none are 100%. I also mentioned if she KNEW him before, this would make it less likely to misidentify. Your story has to do with trying to identify someone they had never known. That is much more likely to misidentify. I'm not saying Ford's recollection is certainly true, but I think it is plausible he could have been very drunk and easily not remember anything. Especially since this claimed event would not have had the dramatic effect on him that it would on her.
42
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _honorentheos »

At this point, I wouldn't rule out any option. I don't think it's probable Ford is knowingly lying but it's still a possibility given nothing presented to date has eliminated it. It's possible Kavanaugh is telling the truth but was so drunk he doesn't remember doing it but that also requires him knowingly lying about getting black out drunk. I'd put both of those at very low probabilities.

in my opinion, the highest probabilities lie somewhere between him knowingly lying about something that he views as far less significant of an event than it was to Ford on one end, to Ford having reworked memories through replaying them in her mind to the point she is now absolutely certain about things she might not have been 15 years ago or more on the other end. Memory is a strange thing, and every time we access it we change it. The fact she was accessing these memories over and over 5 or more years ago through therapy doesn't mean she changed major details. But her certainty that it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her shouldn't be assumed to mean there is 100% certainty that Brett Kavanaugh assualted her.

You have to be honest about what evidence has legitimately eliminated at this point, and it isn't much. I'm hopeful the investigation will change that.

Mark Judge appears to be the one person Ford did know of that group, and based on things she's said it sounds like her close friend who invited her to the place the event is claimed to have occurred was dating him. This explains why she could say she knew Judge, he had been friendly towards her before, and it also suggests things about her account where she made eye contact with him and felt he would help her but then didn't. Both Judge and Ford's friend who dated him are to be interviewed by the FBI. If both deny having ever introducing Ford to Kavanaugh or going to an informal gathering where there was drinking where both Ford and Kavanaugh were present then it makes the entire account on Ford's part almost impossible to support. That's frustrating but that's reality. If, OTOH, they end up confirming there were events where all four of them were present even if they don't confirm anything else then we have Kavanaugh lying about having met Ford. I think at that point it would be irresponsible to take anything else Kavanaugh has said on the matter as having equal weight to Ford's claims.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _Themis »

honorentheos wrote:At this point, I wouldn't rule out any option. I don't think it's probable Ford is knowingly lying but it's still a possibility given nothing presented to date has eliminated it. It's possible Kavanaugh is telling the truth but was so drunk he doesn't remember doing it but that also requires him knowingly lying about getting black out drunk. I'd put both of those at very low probabilities.


I would put black out drunk as high probability since, from what I have heard, there are witnesses to that kind of drinking by Kavanaugh.

in my opinion, the highest probabilities lie somewhere between him knowingly lying about something that he views as far less significant of an event than it was to Ford on one end, to Ford having reworked memories through replaying them in her mind to the point she is now absolutely certain about things she might not have been 15 years ago or more on the other end. Memory is a strange thing, and every time we access it we change it. The fact she was accessing these memories over and over 5 or more years ago through therapy doesn't mean she changed major details. But her certainty that it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her shouldn't be assumed to mean there is 100% certainty that Brett Kavanaugh assualted her.


I would put at high probability that something dramatic happened to her, unless she is a good liar and making it all up. I agree that the details of a dramatic event can be changed as we go over them in our minds.
42
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _honorentheos »

Themis wrote:
honorentheos wrote:At this point, I wouldn't rule out any option. I don't think it's probable Ford is knowingly lying but it's still a possibility given nothing presented to date has eliminated it. It's possible Kavanaugh is telling the truth but was so drunk he doesn't remember doing it but that also requires him knowingly lying about getting black out drunk. I'd put both of those at very low probabilities.


I would put black out drunk as high probability since, from what I have heard, there are witnesses to that kind of drinking by Kavanaugh.

While I agree there is a very high probability he is lying about ever getting black out drunk, I don't think the evidence weighs heavier in that direction when it comes to explaining why he claims to be innocent of the accusation with Ford. Maybe it's quibbling over a detail or two, but between him having a gap in his memory where this could occur so he claims it didn't happen, and his viewing what happened as two teens drunkenly fumbling around on a bed at a party where nothing happened so it's ludicrous it would interfere with achieving his lifelong dream of becoming a member of the Supreme Court so he's willing to lie about the event ever occurring suggests to me the former is less likely than the later given what we know about Kavanaugh. For him to have just gotten too drunk to remember, be willing to lie about that kind of thing ever happening, but also not have any sense it was possible he did the thing he is accused of occupies a space I think is very unlikely.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dennis Prager, moral paragon

Post by _Themis »

honorentheos wrote:While I agree there is a very high probability he is lying about ever getting black out drunk, I don't think the evidence weighs heavier in that direction when it comes to explaining why he claims to be innocent of the accusation with Ford. Maybe it's quibbling over a detail or two, but between him having a gap in his memory where this could occur so he claims it didn't happen, and his viewing what happened as two teens drunkenly fumbling around on a bed at a party where nothing happened so it's ludicrous it would interfere with achieving his lifelong dream of becoming a member of the Supreme Court so he's willing to lie about the event ever occurring suggests to me the former is less likely than the later given what we know about Kavanaugh.


I think it very plausible he doesn't remember the event. He may have viewed it at the time as more innocent then from the view point of Ford and being very drunk you likely don't remember it the next day. From witness statement getting drunk and going to parties was common so why remember a particular party 35 years ago. I also think, based on what we know of him, that he is willing to lie about it.
42
Post Reply