Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
What I support is people speaking honestly about what they actually know.
Click to expand...
Then you need to lead by example and only speak honestly about what you actually KNOW about Kavanaugh.

Otherwise your alleged “support” of this guiding principle of yours appears to be just a tad compromised.

Not that I am trying to impugn your integrity or anything. 😖
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In an ideal world one might expect such confidentiality from the committee. But I can see how Dr. Ford might not trust having 21 Senators keep her name out of it. Perhaps Dr. Ford should have trusted in that confidentiality, but it seems she did not. That is not Senator Feinstein’s fault.
Click to expand...
Clearly she couldn’t even trust one Senator to keep her confidentiality. Oops.
 
Last edited:
Since Dr. Ford is a psychologist, SHE should not believe what she is saying. We know that ALL memories–even flashbulb memories–are subject to change over time with regard to details. This has been researched to death by experimental psychologists. That is why eyewitnesses to a crime or accident are notoriously inaccurate and often contradictory in their reports after the crime or accident has taken place, and their testimony continues to change even more with the passage of time. Any psychology professor must be aware of this.
 
Last edited:
That memory can be inherently unreliable does not mean all our memories are inherently unreliable. You’re drastically overstating your case.
 
It’s never an all-or-none situation. However, a significant number of memories concerning life experiences do change over time in regard to the details, not so much the main idea. At the same time, people are often sure they remember the details and will even swear to perfect recall. Research shows the exact opposite occurs.

When I say “all memories,” I mean all different KINDS of memories, not every single memory.
 
Last edited:
Then I misunderstood the question. I think the clear answer would have to be “aye.” I am no fan of the Supreme Court or life-time appointment, thinking it is the one of two big mistakes the founding fathers made. But it is the role of the Senate to consent, or not, to the presidential appointment. I think he is too young personally, but that is only because of life time appointments. Otherwise, he is a good candidate.
 
HarryStotle said:
So you basically just admitted that @pnewton is “right,” but then YOU go on to do exactly what he claimed was the “bigger problem.”
Click to expand...
Not exactly. If you think I was agreeing without qualification you are wrong - how di dyou miss the “but”.

i agree that there is a general problem of jumping to conclusions with insufficient and insufficiently vetted information. However that does not mean that every particular case of an assessment of integrity is wrong. There is no problem, for example in accepting the authenticity of the words from Kavanugh’s own mouth. And while we don’t have a total picture of Kavanaugh, we have a pretty rich one. My assessment, as a citizen, might be imperfect, but it does not suffer gross defects of being based on terribly scant or unreliable information.
 
HarryStotle said:
they should also have a right to decide for themselves how they wish to refer to others vis a vis their or her or his gender.
Click to expand...
No one has that right.
HarryStotle said:
Although, in my defense, I recall you identifying as ‘female’ somewhere.
Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I have been careful not to reveal personal details, in particular my gender, my age, my field, etc. in this venue.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
they should also have a right to decide for themselves how they wish to refer to others vis a vis their or her or his gender.
Click to expand...
No one has that right.
Click to expand...
So you believe in compelled speech?

That individuals ought to be compelled to use this or that word?

Why then wouldn’t individuals, who want to refer to themselves as opposite to their biological gender, or by some other made up pronoun, also be compelled to use either male or female, if as you say “no one has the right” to decide for themselves regarding the use of words as they wish to use them.

If the individual him or herself has “no such right” then you are basically stating that someone other than the individual (the state perhaps?) can decisively determine speech on behalf of that individual.

Are you certain you want to go there?

Think about it before you answer.

Hint: No one is compelling you to say anything at all. It IS your right to formulate speech as you determine.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
So you basically just admitted that @pnewton is “right,” but then YOU go on to do exactly what he claimed was the “bigger problem.”
Click to expand...
Not exactly. If you think I was agreeing without qualification you are wrong - how di dyou miss the “but”.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I caught that.

But…

… all that means is @pnewton is correct in all cases except in your case. So you are claiming that the “bigger problem” @pnewton refers to applies to everyone else BUT not to you?

The exception that breaks the rule apparently, because you are exceptional in this respect: everyone else in the world has the “bigger problem” because they “are the people who think they know what integrity looks like,” BUT you are the exception because YOU know what integrity is all about?

Not sure your ‘but’ alleviates you of your problem.

Sounds a heck of a lot like special pleading.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
So you believe in compelled speech?
Click to expand...
I believe in respect.
Calling a person who identifies in ome way with words that depart from that identification is disrespectful. Any child knows that.
Click to expand...
What children know is not really a basis for sound determinations.

Most children do not know why they know, but merely follow what they have been taught almost thoughtlessly.

Your claim is that no one has a right to formulate their own thoughts and decide their speech terms for themselves.

This gets into very dangerous territory very quickly.

You didn’t answer the problem that if the person has no inherent right to decide their own speech, who or what is it that can dictate to the person the terms they must use.

Respect or disrespect doesn’t answer the issue of compulsion and neither does respect remove the speech and thought rights of the individual because respect is not subject to compulsion. Respect must be earned or, at least, reciprocated.

Unearned respect is an empty formality, and compelled respect doesn’t rise to the level of actually being respect,

Certainly we begin with respect by default, but if someone then presumes the right to demand your respect and demand that you use certain terms to describe them without qualification and with no right not to comply, that would be sufficient to remove any respect that might have been present since the respect was demonstrated not to be mutual nor reciprocated since they have assumed the right to be a dictator over your speech and thought.

Again, very dangerous territory.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
It appears that you are setting a somewhat frivolous standard for finding him credible – i.e., if he merely denies, he is not credible; if he denies his own participation, then he is kind of credible; but if he disavows bad conduct, then he is credible.
Click to expand...
You may think it frivolous, but I think it virtuous.
Click to expand...
Maybe. And maybe it could just be virtue signaling, or a facade.

What someone says publicly is hardly a reason for finding them completely credible or virtuous.

The content of their character and a life well-lived would be far better grounds.

Disavowing bad conduct, on the other hand, might be just words.

I am sure Cosby or Weinstein would also “disavow bad conduct”… …in public.

But you would find them credible and virtuous merely on that basis?

Means virtually nothing.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Information could be powerful, but misinformation is devastating.
Click to expand...
What is even more powerful is the capacity to distinguish true information from misinformation.

That would be called intelligence, knowledge and/or wisdom.

That way there is no need to blindly follow supposedly ‘trustworthy’ dispensers of information and/or disinformation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In cases like this it is up to the President to order the investigation by the FBI. Not to do so was his choice.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is a perception thing?

I mean the FBI has already conducted six background checks into Kavanaugh.

To order another one might leave the impression that the FBI are just incompetent, do shoddy work, and have a tendency to miss the obvious.

Trump certainly wouldn’t want to give the public any more reason not to trust the FBI. 😉

Their reputation is pretty much shredded as it is.

It would be like rubbing salt into a wound.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I really think there is a big chance that Kavanaugh is right and Ford is either mis-remembers, or is the one committing perjury.
Click to expand...
An expert on body language has gone through the video of Ford’s testimony and finds her testimony to be questionable, to say the least.

The main point is that there are certain autonomic movements, especially of the eyes when a person is accessing their visual memory. Ford doesn’t make use of her visual memory in any questions asked of her, relative to what she claims was a traumatic experience. She relies almost completely on her notes as if she has no actual living memories of the events she speaks of. A dead giveaway that she has rehearsed everything she says and doesn’t actually remember a thing. That is remarkable given that she claims the experience was burned into her memory.
meltzerboy2 said:
When I say “all memories,” I mean all different KINDS of memories, not every single memory.
Click to expand...
You may want to watch this video and listen to where and why Ford isn’t convincing relative to what she doesn’t authentically remember.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top