EAllusion wrote:To the actual argument at hand, I would not jail someone if there was a 50% chance they were lying about committing sexual assault. But I wouldn't hire them either. That there is a distinction at all between a criminal trial and a job interview is lost on some people.
Of course the Kavanaugh hearings before the Senate committee were not a job interview.
But the precautionary approach (and lack of presumption of innocence absent conclusive proof) you rightly apply in a job interview applies even more strongly to a hearing designed to decide whether it is prudent to make someone a Justice of the Supreme Court for life.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: If people exercise the precautionary principle (as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' principle used in criminal courts) in a series of relatively trivial decisions in everyday life, then there is all the more reason for using it in making the momentous decision as to whether a person may safely be made a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Because the decision as to who should be made a Justice of the Supreme Court is vastly more important than buying a used car. So one should be vastly more cautious about whom one appoints.
Again, you clearly have extended a presumption of innocence to Dr Ford - why?
You’ll think so if you confuse action vs. claim, as well as presume vs. conclude.
Some Schmo wrote:Dude, if I wanted to paint a picture of climate change not happening, I'd only talk to people who support that claim. How can that be considered a real investigation?
If you told me I should believe in climate change, and to back up your claim you named three people that could corroborate your claim, and I went to talk with them and they all said "Sorry, I don't know anything about climate change or Some Schmo's claim", then yes, I would be very skeptical of your claim.
Some Schmo wrote:Dude, if I wanted to paint a picture of climate change not happening, I'd only talk to people who support that claim. How can that be considered a real investigation?
If you told me I should believe in climate change, and to back up your claim you named three people that could corroborate your claim, and I went to talk with them and they all said "Sorry, I don't know anything about climate change or Some Schmo's claim", then yes, I would be very skeptical of your claim.
This analogy is all wrong. It's hard to know where to begin.
First, the scenario I was painting was of someone trying to convince someone else of something that was false.
Second, if I wanted you to get to the truth, I wouldn't restrict who you talked to.
And third, if I wanted you to believe what was true, I certainly wouldn't direct you to only people who have a vested interest in you believing BS.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
EAllusion wrote:...That there is a distinction at all between a criminal trial and a job interview is lost on some people.
Only an imbecile would think of the Senate Confirmation Hearing as a "job interview". When was the last job interview you had where one of the interviewers told the press that they wouldn't hire you no matter what, all because they thought one of your references was a mean guy? or when has an interviewer called you in for a job and then asked you to explain an accusation of rape? How obtuse of you to toe the Liberal line as if reality was lost on you.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote:...That there is a distinction at all between a criminal trial and a job interview is lost on some people.
Only an imbecile would think of the Senate Confirmation Hearing as a "job interview". When was the last job interview you had where one of the interviewers told the press that they wouldn't hire you no matter what, all because they thought one of your references was a mean guy? or when has an interviewer called you in for a job and then asked you to explain an accusation of rape? How obtuse of you to toe the Liberal line as if reality was lost on you.
Well, I have never interviewed for a high profile public job, so the press hasn't been particularly interested. Senate confirmation is much more akin to a job interview in that it is a determination if a person is qualified and appropriate for the bench. That it is politicized doesn't change the core function of the process. The level of doubt needed about an allegation of serious misconduct to deny a job in the public trust is much less than a criminal trial.
Look, we know your position is the Republican affiliated figures should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are within the good graces of conservative culture. Outside criticism is inherently illegitimate. You can spare everyone the tortured reasoning you use to arrive at that position every time.
Cinepro, I once recorded 4 interceptions in a youth football game. I remember it extremely well. I remember a few of the people there. I could say that you can ask them to verify my story. They might, but they might also not remember it. If they don't, that doesn't mean my claim has been falsified. What's significant to me enough to remember wouldn't necessarily be significant to them.
EAllusion wrote:Cinepro, I once recorded 4 interceptions in a youth football game. I remember it extremely well.
Is it because he was a Republican and raped you?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
EAllusion wrote:Cinepro, I once recorded 4 interceptions in a youth football game. I remember it extremely well. I remember a few of the people there. I could say that you can ask them to verify my story. They might, but they might also not remember it. If they don't, that doesn't mean my claim has been falsified. What's significant to me enough to remember wouldn't necessarily be significant to them.
That's great, but if you gave me the names of three people who were supposed to be there and they all said "Sorry, I don't recall ever being at a football game with EAllusion during that time period...", I would be very skeptical of your story. Especially if one of them was supposed to be your teammate.
cinepro wrote:That's great, but if you gave me the names of three people who were supposed to be there and they all said "Sorry, I don't recall ever being at a football game with EAllusion during that time period...", I would be very skeptical of your story. Especially if one of them was supposed to be your teammate.
And hopefully you wouldn't hold that against me.
What if EA's Rape-publican (GET IT!?!?!?) coach pinned him to the ground, tore at his top, but was knocked off by his assistant frat bro coach friend Squi-dawg?
And what if EA were a woman?
I'd say you pretty much have to believe him otherwise you're basically a rapist, too.
And if you still don't believe him, then this country sucks. HARUMPH!
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.