Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[MagdalenaRita]

That doesn’t appear to be what she is saying at all.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Of course the same would apply to all people. I was posting in context of this forum. The whole point is that people can and do move on from their reckless youth. It’s ridiculous to judge people forever based on that.

 

[ConstantLearner]

She was probably using the word Christian to show that they were good, not to limit a person’s goodness by religion.

I know people who claim to be Christian and aren’t good people at all. And I know some wonderfully charitable Muslims. I think it’s wrong to judge anyone by the religion they say they adhere to.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Of course the same would apply to all people. I was posting in context of this forum. The whole point is that people can and do move on from their reckless youth. It’s ridiculous to judge people forever based on that.

We all have to be careful with our word choices.

 

[HarryStotle]

Why on earth would you hire the guy with the cloud over his head? Do you need to “prove” the allegations?

Simple answer: Yes.

If you don’t agree, remember this principle of yours, that simply putting a cloud over someone’s head is sufficient to ruin his or her career or life, the next time you are accused without evidence of something corrupt.

Just that cloud condensating over your head should be sufficient to get you canned or passed over, YOU say about those allegations when they are made against you.

This is why the golden rule should be referenced here.

If that is the kind of culture and standard for justice that you want to realize in the country, that is the reason you are not finding common ground with those who disagree.

 

[HarryStotle]

Start:

She was probably using the word Christian to show that they were good, not to limit a person’s goodness by religion.

I know people who claim to be Christian and aren’t good people at all. And I know some wonderfully charitable Muslims. I think it’s wrong to judge anyone by the religion they say they adhere to.

Yup, and it is equally, if not more, WRONG to judge anyone by immutable characteristics like skin colour or gender, since they have absolutely no say in those – I mean even if this is contrary to modern confused gender theory and all.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

This whole thread is about a Catholic Christian and my post was in reference to his past in relation to others. Also I used the adjective Christian in conjunction with nice and decent and having a family; Christian wasn’t replacing those, it was in addition to them. Sorry that it bothered you, but you read too much into my comment to get racism and anti Semitic out of it.

 

[HarryStotle]

This whole thread is about a Catholic Christian and my post was in reference to his past in relation to others. Also I used the adjective Christian in conjunction with nice and decent and having a family; Christian wasn’t replacing those, it was in addition to them. Sorry that it bothered you, but you read too much into my comment to get racism and anti Semitic out of it.

This is a live example of why social media, political correctness and virtue signaling have had such a pernicious effect on society.

People seem very ready to read the worst into what others say or write. On that basis, they jump on any comment or observation and the original author feels they have to clarify or they will be caustically shamed or denounced. Rather than staying strong and expressing their own views consistently, there is an impulse to go overboard and kowtow to the pressure or overtly demonstrate one’s alignment to the going narrative for fear of being cast out of the constantly changing maelstrom currently misrepresented as the social “order.”

I like Thomas Woods’ take on this “rape culture” narrative.

”Rape culture,” says Wikipedia, “is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.”

To believe in “rape culture” is to believe that our society considers rape “normal.”

I’m pretty sure most people would consider that claim insane.

As it turns out, it was people on the left — the very people who would complain about “rape culture” today — who abolished capital punishment for rapists of adult women in 1977, and for rapists of children in 2008.

So in other words, it was the toughest defenders of “the patriarchy” who wanted to keep rape a capital crime, and it was the left who wanted to soften the punishment.

Go make sense of that.

Someone Says ‘Rape Culture Is a Myth’ - LewRockwell

Shop all books by Tom Woods From The Tom Woods Letter: OK, at this point my newsletter is getting too easy to write. Now it’s Texas Christian University that’s gone insane. The other day, comedian and podcaster Steven Crowder showed up on the TCU campus, put up a sign reading “‘RAPE CULTURE’ IS...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[Gingersnaps4]

This is exactly right!

 

[Brendan_64]

And if I had a dollar for every American guy I knew in real life who was a loud, obnoxious drunk when he was young,

If we’re all going to be barred from positions of responsibility because we may have gotten drunk on a regular basis when we were at university, then that’s probably a huge percentage of every profession wiped out.

 

[ConstantLearner]

If we’re all going to be barred from positions of responsibility because we may have gotten drunk on a regular basis when we were at university, then that’s probably a huge percentage of every profession wiped out.

That’s true, and Kavanaugh’s high school and college drinking don’t bother me at all IF he didn’t drive. I have a big problem with drunk driver’s. I had a friend, a wonderful family man, who was just doing his jpb when he was struck and killed by a drunk driver. He left behind a wife and children who loved him dearly and miss him every minute of every day. THAT is suffering.

I think today, college drinking is looked upon in a much more negative light than it was in Kavanaugh’s time at school, as it should be. It is no longer socially acceptable to be drunk.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m sorry to hear about your friend, terrible loss for his family. Driving while drunk can destroy lives.

I think today, college drinking is looked upon in a much more negative light than it was in Kavanaugh’s time at school, as it should be. It is no longer socially acceptable to be drunk.

That may be the case, but is it fair to judge a man by what happens to socially acceptable or not today?

Your point on drink driving is fair, but is there any evidence to suggest Brett Kavanaugh drove while drunk?

Social norms are interesting though. Driving while using a mobile phone is dangerous and I believe that texting messages while driving is as dangerous as driving while drunk.

I was once sitting with some young people in their 20s and early 30s and they were talking about how dreadful it was for people to drink and drive. I then said that it was actually just as dangerous to text messages and drive. The response from them was quite quiet.

I wonder if someone was caught texting while driving would the outrage be the same for each today? Or would the response to the person driving while texting be the same as the response back in the 1970s to someone caught driving while drunk?

 

[PetraG]

That’s true, and Kavanaugh’s high school and college drinking don’t bother me at all IF he didn’t drive. I have a big problem with drunk driver’s. I had a friend, a wonderful family man, who was just doing his jpb when he was struck and killed by a drunk driver. He left behind a wife and children who loved him dearly and miss him every minute of every day. THAT is suffering.

I think today, college drinking is looked upon in a much more negative light than it was in Kavanaugh’s time at school, as it should be. It is no longer socially acceptable to be drunk.

It doesn’t bother you at all? He is Catholic. There have been times it has been winked at as a venial sin, but it has never been morally acceptable for a Catholic to be drunk. It has never been acceptable for high school kids to be binge drinkers. We also knew how many of those high school binge drinkers kept it up roughly until marriage…if they hadn’t developed a drinking problem by then that they couldn’t break just by wanting to do it.

Someone who is new to social drinking may mis-estimate how alcohol affects them and may have far too much to drink a few times, before they learn their own limits. I do not mean that.

I mean I am roughly Kavanaugh’s age, that I was in high school and college in the 1980’s, and we all knew that going out and tying one on was seriously wrong. There was a lot of social pressure to do it, particularly if you wanted to be “popular” and on the invitation list to parties with the “cool kids,” but let’s not pretend nobody knew it was wrong for high schoolers or college students to get liquored up, even back in those days when your friends didn’t have video evidence to show you just how charming you could be with a nose full.

I was once sitting with some young people in their 20s and early 30s and they were talking about how dreadful it was for people to drink and drive. I then said that it was actually just as dangerous to text messages and drive. The response from them was quite quiet.

I wonder if someone was caught texting while driving would the outrage be the same for each today? Or would the response to the person driving while texting be the same as the response back in the 1970s to someone caught driving while drunk?

It is a lot easier to give yourself permission to commit the sins being winked at by your friends, yes. People have trouble believing that driving “buzzed” or trying to drive and text at the same time are “that bad,” mostly because we all want to do what we want to do. That doesn’t mean that we should really expect to be forgiven for all the things that we knew darned good and well were wrong but allowed ourselves to do because they were still widely being rationalized at the time we did them. It would be better if today’s standard became: In 20 years, when everyone accepts what everyone knows now, will you think this decision is OK?

 

[Brendan_64]

It doesn’t bother you at all? He is Catholic. There have been times it has been winked at as a venial sin, but it has never been morally acceptable for a Catholic to be drunk.

There are lots of things that are morally unacceptable for Catholic (and others) to do, that is the nature of sin. But we all sin.

Moral outrage because somebody got drunk while at High School and then at university, is over the top.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I know people who claim to be Christian and aren’t good people at all. And I know some wonderfully charitable Muslims. I think it’s wrong to judge anyone by the religion they say they adhere to.

It is a common phrase among Christians when explaining someone’s character to describe them as a good, devout or decent Christian. This typically just means they are a good person who is doing their best to follow Christ and the precepts of the faith. It doesn’t mean someone who isn’t Christian is not good. It is just a common phrase to describe someone of the same faith. Just as a Muslim person may describe another Muslim as a good, devout and decent Muslim. It would not mean that all those outside the Muslim faith are not good.

It is true there are Christians who are not good but then they might not really be following Christ but it is also important to remember there is good and bad in all of us.

…Kavanaugh’s high school and college drinking don’t bother me at all IF he didn’t drive. I have a big problem with drunk driver’s. I had a friend, a wonderful family man, who was just doing his jpb when he was struck and killed by a drunk driver.

I am sorry to hear about your friend. That is truly sad. Getting drunk is gluttony and a sin. I would pray for your friend, his family and the drunk person. Hopefully the drunk driver has or will repent.

That said, we have no idea if Judge Kavanaugh drank and then drove, so I don’t think we should go there. I would though suspect that the since he appears to be a good Catholic family man (not that people of other faiths aren’t good) he has probably been to confession regarding his drinking sins and other sins of the past and until recent allegations has appeared to have earned himself a very good reputation.

 

[Start]

I feel like you put a negative spin to everything they said.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The ends justify the means. If you have to elect a mentally unstable moron who is a danger to the entire world, but who might appoint judges you like, so be it. The ends (a judge you like) justify the means (electing a 3-time married playboy with 18 or 19 allegations of sexual assault who knows absolutely nothing about economics, diplomacy, other countries, or, actually, anything. But the ends justify it.

You said yesterday that YOU voted for Trump. Obviously you thought the ends justified something when you did that.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

It seems like you didn’t really listen to anything anyone said regarding their reasoning throughout this long thread. You just believe an accusation means someone is automatically guilty and you don’t want to hear anything else. You seem very angry.

 

[PetraG]

There are lots of things that are morally unacceptable for Catholic (and others) to do, that is the nature of sin. But we all sin.

Moral outrage because somebody got drunk while at High School and then at university, is over the top.

Where did I say you ought to be “morally outraged”? Are those the only options, “morally outraged” and “hey, no problem”?

So…the administration of their high school would have been disappointed and lowered the trust they had in them at the time they did it, but at their high school reunion if their old principal is there and he hears about it later, he’s supposed to feel differently about what they did because the years have passed? I think he might not say, “Brett, I’m really disappointed in you,” but don’t tell me that he is “over the top” for even thinking it.

Do you think the administration in either case ought to be throwing a fit because a minor was inappropriate while using alcohol? Well, no…that is why it isn’t legal for minors to be given alcohol! They aren’t mature enough to handle it yet. I would go so far as to say that a minor-on-minor assault in such a situation is more the fault of whatever adult supplied the alcohol than of either of the minors who had been drinking.

I was surprised when you said it didn’t bother you at all, as if you’re talking about someone who did something they had no way to know was even wrong. I was in high school then, so I know better. If you were in high school then, you know better, too. If it was a betrayal of trust to go out drinking back when it happened, it still is such looking back in retrospect.

Having said that, no, I was not implying that the things a 17 year old does ought to be held against them for the rest of their lives. As I said before, I was far more concerned about whether inappropriate alcohol use in college was carried through into adulthood, since you and I both know that there are problem drinkers out there holding down jobs and holding onto professional esteem because they hide their social drinking. That is not something we should think are OK for a member of the federal bench, let alone a justice of the Supreme Court. Again: I don’t mean using enough alcohol to feel any effect at all. I’m talking about an amount sufficient to affect the discretion that someone in that position has to have at all times. (That is: someone who knows things that should not be disclosed to anyone or who ought to maintain appropriate behavior at all times.)

 

[PetraG]

As my final comment in this thread, I want to thank you all for opening my eyes. Now I see clearly that I was wrong and you were right!

Here is what I have learned:

1. Any accusation against a man needs “proof.” No proof, no incident. It’s as if it didn’t happen. Of course this means open season on females of all ages, because if you’re careful, they can’t “prove” you did anything! Fondle them when no one’s looking. Shove them into empty rooms and lock the door and turn on loud music to muffle their screams. As long as there are no witnesses and no physical evidence, it’s all good. Do what you want!!! And of course this is what our Great Leader advised: “You can do whatever you want. You can grab them by the p…” How right he was! He is an inspiration and a role model for all males.

The alternative is that if an accuser says something happens, it did. The accuser not only cannot lie, but cannot make a mistake, if the person claims to be a victim of a horrible enough crime. The memory, the conclusions and the word of a crime victim are unassailable.

You do understand why this is an untenable standard, do you not?

1. Any woman who comes forward to accuse a powerful man of sexual abuse will be mocked, ridiculed, and called a liar or a psycho. This should shut up those uppity women for another 50 years or so. This feminist stuff about “rights” has gone too far. They need to be put back into the kitchens and bedrooms of America. Make America Great Again!

I am a woman and I don’t think it is reasonable to take mortal offense that the word of a crime victim is not held to be the world’s most unassailable forensic evidence. We know too much about the nature of trauma and memory to hold that standard. It is wrong to say that someone who can be shown to be wrong must be lying. It is also wrong to say that someone who is certain of her testimony must be correct. That simply is not true.

There are too many men who would still be rotting in jail if DNA evidence to exonerate them had not become available. “Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 70% of the more than 350 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.” Eyewitness Identification Reform - Innocence Project

cont…