T
Theo520
Guest
You are deflecting from being shown your error.
Man up and acknowledge there is an assault on his livelihood.
- Status
Man up and acknowledge there is an assault on his livelihood.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What I disputed was the claim that it would destroy his livelihood. I’m not sure the cancellation of a lecturer on law amounts to an “assault” either. Nor has it been established that the reason for the cancellation was the allegations per se, rather than his very non-judicial reaction to them. Do you have any word from Harvard as to what changed their mind? I am reasonably certain that if Kavanaugh had denied the allegations with the decorum suitable for the lofty post for which he has been appointed, that Harvard would not have cancelled his lectures. I think Kavanaugh did himself more damage than any allegations of misconduct 35 years ago would have done. So you see there is nothing for me to “man up” to.LeafByNiggle:
You are deflecting from being shown your error.
Man up and acknowledge there is an assault on his livelihood.
T
Theo520
Guest
I still think you are deflecting. The original statement was people were attempting to ‘destroy his reputation’ and what candidate would want to ‘risk their livelihood’
You were then shown how groups are explicitly attacking his sources of income. Sure, he can remain on the current court unless he’s impeached or pressured to resign (loose his primary income)
U
ucfengr
Guest
For you young whipper-snappers, the drinking age in Maryland was 18 until October 1983, and grandfathered in anybody who could drink legally prior to the age changing to 21. I know this because I missed the cutoff by less than a month, so it was a sore point.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The point where I entered the conversation I was responding to this:LeafByNiggle:
I still think you are deflecting. The original statement was people were attempting to ‘destroy his reputation’ and what candidate would want to ‘risk their livelihood’
You were then shown how groups are explicitly attacking his sources of income. Sure, he can remain on the current court unless he’s impeached or pressured to resign (loose his primary income)
And my response was:
It is quite clear what I was responding to and what my response was. You cannot twist it to suit your purposes. And you still have not shown that anyone is attacking his livelihood. Ender has shown that one contract he had is now cancelled. But it is not clear that Dr. Ford and/or Democrats caused that cancellation. It is much more likely that Kavanaugh caused them himself by his display.
E
Ender
Guest
In the Twilight Zone it might be a big red flag that Judge has no recollection of the specific party Ford referred to when she herself cannot identify the specific party at which it (allegedly) happened. How would it even be possible to remember details from a specific party when no specific party has been identified?Ender:
Yes, and that is a huge red flag. No recollection about the event at which he supposedly witnessed the behavior. Certain that the behavior never happened. I am glad that he is being questioned by trained FBI investigators.
There is a big red flag in all of this, but it is waving over Ford’s testimony, and no one elses.
Right, I forgot that Ford was only supposed to be in the house. Well, that makes him quite the witness. One can only imagine how that interrogation should have played out.
“Q: Were you in the house when Ford alleges she was assaulted?”
“PJ: What house? When?”
"Ford: “Um, someones house sometime in the summer. Maybe in 1982. Maybe some other summer.”
"PJ: You’re kidding, right? "
Whatever she may believe about her friend, her sworn statement contains no support whatever for Ford’s allegation.
In a saner time this would be the critical point: there is absolutely no evidence, and no corroboration that Ford’s charge is true.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, as you helpfully cited, my claim was not that it would destroy his livelihood.
It’s not clear how many others would actually be willing to risk their livelihood and good name to such a carnival.
If we assume “livelihood” refers solely to the money he earns (and not to all the social ramifications), then the Harvard letter shows that, well yes, he will take a financial hit for daring to accept the nomination from Donald Trump.
To be even more accurate, what I said actually applied to those who have not yet been nominated. Kavanaugh may have a lifetime appointment, but what about the risk someone takes who does not have such a protected income? It may be that little could be done to Kavanaugh, but that hasn’t kept the professional witch hunters from hurting him as much as possible. The risk Kavanaugh faced was small enough, but the risk others may face may be daunting indeed. As I said.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As much as you would like to generalize the discussion, my remarks were directed solely toward the Ford accusations of Kavanaugh. I made no claims about other accusations directed at other people.
E
Ender
Guest
Pointing out that your characterization of what I said differed from what I actually said is not a generalization; it is an insistence on addressing the specific statement I made and not the hash you attributed to me. You misinterpreted what I said - even while you were citing it - and my point is reinforced by the Harvard action.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually, most anyone can see the flag.
Fantastic narrative made up of whole cloth. Why not wait for the FBI?
And nothing to refute it.
The time of men getting away with assault done in secret? Please.
E
Ender
Guest
Wait…weren’t we supposed to wait for the FBI? What will you say when they turn up nothing at all to corroborate her tale? What will we wait for then?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sure, now, in the specific case of Kavanaugh. But what was goig on in this saner time that you talk about? That is the issue that you are defecting from.
E
Ender
Guest
That saner time was when we actually believed in a system of justice that required proof before judging that an allegation was true. What we have returned to is the system of gross unfairness of 100 years ago when the allegation of a white person against a black was accepted as true simply because we chose to accept the word of one race against that of another. Now it is a question of preferring one gender over another.
The very concept of justice has been discarded…in this case. I’m sure the people who ignore it now will find use for it again in some future instance. Justice has become a tool, not an end: use it where it is beneficial, ignore it when it is not.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When considering the balance between men being falsely accused and men truly assaulting women and not being charged, I will be convinced of your admonition when the statistics show the numbers in the first group rival the numbers in the second.
E
Ender
Guest
Statistics? What do statistics or past bad behavior have to do with the question of whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford? Yours is not an argument for justice but for reparations for the (alleged) past sins of others. Here Kavanaugh is not being treated as an individual, but as a member of a group, and that what matters is not justice for Kavanaugh but getting back at “the group.”
This is how far we’ve fallen.
When U.S. senators badger a nominee about high school yearbook code language, you know we are in a different era. When media analysts like ABC’s Matthew Dowd express hope against another “sexual predator” on the high court, smearing both Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, you know media venom has reached grotesque levels. When a cartoonist portrays Kavanaugh’s daughter praying for God to forgive her “lying, alcoholic father for sexually assaulting Dr. Ford,” you know that the darkest and cruelest attacks are now welcomed into the marketplace if the target is right.
As I said, the concept of justice has been rendered irrelevant, and apparently decency as well. What is truly disturbing is to see how many people not only accept this but actively defend it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you are critical of my references to the more general case of men as a group vs. women as a group (instead of focusing exclusively on the Kavanaugh case), may I remind you that I was responding to this:LeafByNiggle:
Statistics? What do statistics or past bad behavior have to do with the question of whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford? Yours is not an argument for justice but for reparations for the (alleged) past sins of others. Here Kavanaugh is not being treated as an individual, but as a member of a group, and that what matters is not justice for Kavanaugh but getting back at “the group.”
So it appears that you already generalized the situation to considerations of “one gender over another.” You can hardly fault me for talking about the general case when you already opened up the discussion to the general case.
E
Ender
Guest
I was pointing out the gross injustice perpetrated in the past by the very mindset that is being used against Kavanaugh, and wondering how those who would surely condemn the past are so comfortable using the same tactics against a different target group today. Apparently it is the dislike of the target rather than the tactic that determines whether the practice is acceptable.
D
dvdjs
Guest
While there may be some residual racis that you talk about, we do have a a system of justice that required proof, beyond a reasonable doubt,to reach a verdict of guilty in a criminal proceeding. There are other, lower standards in other proceedings: Legal Standards of Proof | Nolo
Are you confusing Kavanaugh’s appointment hearing as beloning to our justice system?
E
Ender
Guest
The last thing I am likely to do is confuse the Kavanaugh hearing with anything having to do with justice. Again, the fact that a hearing is not a trial does not excuse condemnation based on unsubstantiated allegations. We used to have a basic understanding of fairness, but we appear to have lost even that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are right in one respect. My comment about statistics did differentiate between the targets. It showed that as a group, men have not suffered from false accusations nearly as much as men have gotten away with assaults without being accused at all. There is no reason to think that bias has changed. But if it does, I’ll join your cause.LeafByNiggle:
I was pointing out the gross injustice perpetrated in the past by the very mindset that is being used against Kavanaugh, and wondering how those who would surely condemn the past are so comfortable using the same tactics against a different target group today. Apparently it is the dislike of the target rather than the tactic that determines whether the practice is acceptable.
- Status