We live in an era in which many have risen up to address the pervasive problem of sexual abuse.
Not what I asked, so I will try again.
Condemned?
Thanks for the catch. I did mean deflecting. but it is too late to edit. But defecting works.
Let’s assume your statistics are accurate; what does it matter in this specific case? Are you suggesting that because men unjustly got away with assaults in the past that it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is unjustly treated in this case? We’re still talking about bias, and it’s still wrong whether it harmed women before or harms men now. How do you justify injustice?
“Credibility” again. This is a claim that facts are irrelevant, and all that matters is whether you believe this person or that one. It is how one justifies choosing winners and losers without having any standard by which to choose one or the other save personal preference. It is why the same people who today say “believe the woman” were the same people a generation ago who dismissed a different set of accusers as “trailer trash” when it was the man they preferred.
No. Are you suggesting that it is only in the court system that justice and fairness are relevant concerns? Is this how you justify the treatment Kavanaugh has received?
I don’t. And I would not apply statistics to justify a decision in this case either. I only mention them now to counter the implication that this “believe the woman” thing is part of a pattern that has gone too far. Or, as Trump has said, “It’s a scary time for men.”LeafByNiggle:
Let’s assume your statistics are accurate; what does it matter in this specific case? Are you suggesting that because men unjustly got away with assaults in the past that it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is unjustly treated in this case? We’re still talking about bias, and it’s still wrong whether it harmed women before or harms men now. How do you justify injustice?
You are unique in requiring an even balance. Also, we have no way to measure how many women were assaulted and said nothing, it’s not recorded.
I said nothing about an even balance, just not extremely out of balance.LeafByNiggle:
You are unique in requiring an even balance. Also, we have no way to measure how many women were assaulted and said nothing, it’s not recorded.
There is also huge bias in those ‘estimates’ Better to do what we already do, we report and investigate whenever they occur. And by investigate I’m referring to law enforcement, not the media.
That is where the huge bias is - in law enforcement.LeafByNiggle:
There is also huge bias in those ‘estimates’ Better to do what we already do, we report and investigate whenever they occur. And by investigate I’m referring to law enforcement, not the media.
Worth reposting.dvdjs:
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.
That assumes of course, that Dr. Ford was not assaulted by Kavanaugh. No one wants their loved ones to be attacked unjustly. But let us assume for a moment that Dr. Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh. In that case I wonder how many of the people criticizing Ford have wives, sisters, daughters, granddaughters? Would they want their loved one who was assaulted to be dismissed? I am not saying Ford is right and Kavanaugh is wrong. I am just pointing out that the stakes are equally high on both sides for deciding incorrectly.I have to wonder how many of the women calling for Kavanaugh’s head have husbands and or brothers,sons,grandsons?Would they want their loved one to be assulted in the manner the ,left has done to Judge Kavanaugh.
I know you don’t like to read … but read anyway:
But not by Kavanaugh, and to treat him as if he responsible for what other males might do is guilt by association, just the opposite of presumption of innocence.