Dennis Prager, moral paragon

[_honorentheos]

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.

Fair enough. The argument he was just too drunk to remember seems to come from people viewing his testimony as evidence of his sincerity. I don't think the emotion of his testimony mattered either way. It did show he equivocated and deflected when the matter of getting black out drunk was brought up multiple times, and it seems likely he was willing to lie about that.

So, supposing that is why he claims innocence. For that to be the major factor, it means he has to have no real recollection of being at an event like the one described...ever. As in, he never hung out at a friends house and drank beers with a small group of people where his memory was so flawed he wouldn't recall who was there or what actually happened. It's not just an assault, it has to black out the entire category of events like this having occurred where he was there. That seems unlikely on it's own.

I can't put the black out drunk explanation very high on the probability scale. It still requires him to have lied to the Senate under oath while categorically eliminating the idea he would have been at a gathering like was described with the people Ford named as present, two of whom we know were among his main drinking buddies. Because he is a good guy who just can't remember because he liked beer? That seems like a bad explanation to me.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

To be fair to Dr. Ford, this conversation has made me think about a particular high school party (I believe I mentioned it on the other thread) where some buddies and I were taking hits right out of the keg. I was being urged on by a couple of buddies and ended up drinking so much I made myself super sick.

I know the party happened. I know a bunch of people from my school was there. I could only identify two people with certainty, my two friends, if I were pressed on the details. Oh, and I know there was pizza.

I don't remember the house, the neighborhood, the time frame, but I do remember being driven home and the party took place on a Saturday because the next day I went to Seattle to watch the Oilers play the Seahawks.

The problem, of course, is trying to recall an event from 30 years ago with accuracy. It's virtually impossible, and like Honor mentioned you basically are trying to reconstruct your memories. I do NOT believe memory recovery is accurate, and people who're vulnerable to suggestion are vulnerable to reconstructing memories of events that either didn't happen or are highly subjective. In Dr. Ford's case, perhaps there was an interaction with Kavanaugh, which I could find plausible given my own experience with drinking and a 30-year gap, but that's about where it ends. I have no idea what happened, to what degree, and I don't trust her memories of the event, especially given the political climate we're in.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

The problem, of course, is trying to recall an event from 30 years ago with accuracy. It's virtually impossible, and like Honor mentioned you basically are trying to reconstruct your memories. I do NOT believe memory recovery is accurate, and people who're vulnerable to suggestion are vulnerable to reconstructing memories of events that either didn't happen or are highly subjective. In Dr. Ford's case, perhaps there was an interaction with Kavanaugh, which I could find plausible given my own experience with drinking and a 30-year gap, but that's about where it ends. I have no idea what happened, to what degree, and I don't trust her memories of the event, especially given the political climate we're in.

Some say it isn't important whether Joseph Smith actually saw God or not. What matters is that he thought he did. And think about, if Dr. Ford's memory isn't accurate we could see Roe v. Wade overturned. We need the liberal gospel to be true. Either way it doesn't give Kavanaugh a right to be angry about a false accusation. It's not her fault that psychologists help people develop false memories. Women should feel comfortable making all kinds of accusations both real and imagined. It's better to send a 100 men to jail unjustly than to let one rapist go free.

[_Themis]

Some say it isn't important whether Joseph Smith actually saw God or not. What matters is that he thought he did. And think about, if Dr. Ford's memory isn't accurate we could see Roe v. Wade overturned. We nee the liberal gospel to be true. Either way it doesn't give Kavanaugh a right to be angry about a false accusation. Women should feel comfortable making all kinds of accusations both real and imagined. It's better to send a 100 men to jail unjustly than to let one rapist go free.

Understanding memory can be very inaccurate doesn't mean it is in each case. We tend to remember dramatic events long after they occurred better then mundane ones. Some dramatic memories can be more affected by memory recall over the years while others much less so. We shouldn't ignore an accusation because it is against someone you want desperately to be on the supreme court. Each accusation should be investigated to establish the best facts available. So many rapes go unreported because they know it will negatively impact their lives even more. This situation may not inspire others come forward about sexual assaults given how negatively it is impacting Ford's life. You would have to be a little nuts to make it all up here knowing how much some people will hate you. A lot of people don't come forward because they are not willing to go through all that crap.

by the way I agree with others Kavanaugh's lying problems should eliminate him for consideration as a supreme court judge.

[_ajax18]

by the way I agree with others Kavanaugh's lying problems should eliminate him for consideration as a supreme court judge.

Perhaps we should impeach every supreme court justice we've caught in a lie. And you haven't proved that Kavanaugh is lying about anything.

[_EAllusion]

Dr. Ford is not claiming to have recovered memories. She's claiming to have been subject to an attempted rape by someone she knew, which is the sort of thing you'd expect a person to remember. It doesn't prove she's telling the truth, but typically, you'd expect exactly the kind of memories Ford has where some details have faded, but others are clear as day. That's how traumatic memory formation works. Ford happens to have expertise in that exact thing, which is part of why she was such an ideal witness. And describing any memory of an event over 30 years old as a "recovered memory" is inaccurate. Radical skepticism in the entirety of one's memory is not warranted either.

[_Themis]

by the way I agree with others Kavanaugh's lying problems should eliminate him for consideration as a supreme court judge.

Perhaps we should impeach every supreme court justice we've caught in a lie. And you haven't proved that Kavanaugh is lying about anything.

I believe they have proven him a liar on some important issue, but nice to see you think lying is fine as long as they support your ideology.

[_EAllusion]

by the way I agree with others Kavanaugh's lying problems should eliminate him for consideration as a supreme court judge.

Perhaps we should impeach every supreme court justice we've caught in a lie. And you haven't proved that Kavanaugh is lying about anything.

There's quite a chasm between, "Has told a lie in their life before" and "has repeatedly lied under oath to Congress." It appears you're so into defending Kavanaugh you've now decided to go with the position of it's no big deal if justices are shameless liars. The subtext, of course, is, "so long as they are doing it in the course of pursuing policy aims I favor." Something tells me a Kavaunaugh-esque liar nominated by a Democrat wouldn't enjoy this kind of defense.

[Guest]

Dr. Ford is not claiming to have recovered memories. She's claiming to have been subject to an attempted rape by someone she knew, which is the sort of thing you'd expect a person to remember. It doesn't prove she's telling the truth, but typically, you'd expect exactly the kind of memories Ford has where some details have faded, but others are clear as day. That's how traumatic memory formation works. Ford happens to have expertise in that exact thing, which is part of why she was such an ideal witness. And describing any memory of an event over 30 years old as a "recovered memory" is inaccurate. Radical skepticism in the entirety of one's memory is not warranted either.

We're not talking about recovered memories. We're talking about how memory works. Accessing a memory also changes it. Doing so repeated changes it more.

I'm not arguing a point to attack Ford, I'm saying we don't know a lot. We don't know FOR SURE that she and Brett Kavanaugh met while they were in high school. We don't know FOR A FACT that her certitude she expressed in the hearing is consistent with the degree of knowledge she had originally of the identity of the person involved. As noted in the story from The Hidden Brain, her certitude could come from reflection. In some ways, her answer to Feinstein regarding the way memory is encoded bothered me because it basically argued memory is infallible when formed under trauma. It would have helped had she included some other detail like, "I know it was Brett Kavanaugh because I had met him <insert detail of a time she recalls having met Kavanaugh> and...<things she said in hearing>."

I say that because we can't just assume her claiming with 100% certainty that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her means Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. It seems likely but it's not certain nor should it be treated as such without corroborating evidence. Which, frankly, I'm assuming will be the best we'll get from the FBI investigation but which I think becomes sufficient given it would make Kavanaugh's denials perjury. There's also the possibility that the people interviewed continue to maintain they were never in a situation where Ford met Kavanaugh let alone where such an event might have occurred.

ETA: It looks like you were posting in response to ajax. Quoting someone once in a while when you are specifically responding to something that person said would be helpful. If you argue that you are responding to a broader topic, then my earlier comment I deleted stands that it would be unjustifiably biased.

[_honorentheos]

Some say it isn't important whether Joseph Smith actually saw God or not. What matters is that he thought he did. And think about, if Dr. Ford's memory isn't accurate we could see Roe v. Wade overturned. We need the liberal gospel to be true. Either way it doesn't give Kavanaugh a right to be angry about a false accusation. It's not her fault that psychologists help people develop false memories. Women should feel comfortable making all kinds of accusations both real and imagined. It's better to send a 100 men to jail unjustly than to let one rapist go free.

Ajax, I have a difficult time talking with you about most things because the filters every subject get ran through before it becomes a conscious thought in your head jumbles everything up into something almost unrecognizable. It seems your comments are the result of a bunch of conservative propaganda talking points being tossed into a blender and dumped out onto the page. EA is right in pointing out the problem with viewing the issue as being about recovered memories but it would do you both good to damned start quoting people with their names so there's context instead of posting into the solipsistic void of your minds.

And read a damned book once in a while.