How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@anatess2, @Just_A_Guy,

Can living a virtuous life protect you from attacks like this?  Yes.  Imagine the following scenario as an alternative to the sham that is unfolding now.

DiFi: This woman accused you of sexually assaulting her.
BK: What!?!  I've never done anything like that.
DF: She says that in a drunken party you forced....
BK: (chuckle) she said that?  Well, I know that's not true.
DF: You DARE to laugh at this brave and noble woman who has come out of hiding to bring this to light?
BK: Well, I'd like to hear all she has to say.  Let her come here and say EVERYTHING that happened.  I'd like her to say it on a dozen news outlets.  I'd like every newscaster to repeat her lies a million times.  I'd like YOU to repeat it until you have nowhere else to go but to believe her.  And I'll prove you all wrong.
DF: I am utterly offended that you would be so glib as to not take this accusation seriously.  You are showing no remorse for your despicable behavior.  I will do everything in my power to keep you from getting on that bench.
BK: And here I thought I'd have the presumption of innocence.  But I know now that was just naive. So, go ahead and make your threats and your accusations as long as I have my day to defend myself.

Weeks go by.  Several other accusers come out.  DiFi goes so far into it that there's no way to apologize for it.  Ford repeats her lies all over the news and is very consistent in her story.

Here is what he could say if only one thing were true.

Yes, it's just a dream.  He does, in fact, drink.  But what if he never did?  Wouldn't that be proof against such an accusation?  That's how living a virtuous life can protect you from an evil accusation.

I don't think this would hold up, just based on the fact that this same argument could be used for the fact that he said he's never once behaved in such a reprehensible manner. That is what "he" says, "she" says otherwise.

The same would play out in this scenario. "She" says he drunkenly forced (insert sexual assault details here). "He" says he never drank one bit in his life, thus this scenario could not have happened. "She" says otherwise. 

I see the logic of your statements, but nothing in this scenario is working off of logic. It is working off of a he-said she-said scenario.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 I have never in my life touched one drop of alcohol a woman inappropriately. Ask anyone from high school, college, or my professional life.  I've never drunk any alcohol sexually abused a woman.

He basically said exactly this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Godless said:

There were plenty of questions being raised about Kavanaugh prior to Ford's allegations. Things like perjury, for instance, tend to raise a lot of questions. 

Excellent article. Thank you for it. I didn't know about any of this stuff. Though based solely on this article, Leahy comes of looking much worse than Kavanaugh, who strikes a more partisan pose than naive old me is comfortable with but doesn't come across as perjuring himself at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I don't think this would hold up, just based on the fact that this same argument could be used for the fact that he said he's never once behaved in such a reprehensible manner. That is what "he" says, "she" says otherwise.

The same would play out in this scenario. "She" says he drunkenly forced (insert sexual assault details here). "He" says he never drank one bit in his life, thus this scenario could not have happened. "She" says otherwise. 

I see the logic of your statements, but nothing in this scenario is working off of logic. It is working off of a he-said she-said scenario.  

Not so.  The left already "KNOWS" that all men commit sexual assault.  So, to make such a statement (that he'd never do such a thing) is ludicrous to them.  That's why that works for them.

But the left also knows that MANY people are teetotalers.  And it is a very easy thing to corroborate.  I can't tell you how many kids from my high school would be absolutely ready to testify that no, Carb never drank and never would.

The difference is that drinking is so common there would be no reason to hide it.  Sexual assault, well, that's something someone would hide.  And he'd be very good at hiding it.  But to hide drinking once in a blue moon?  Why would anyone hide it?

This is why setting a standard so high that you take extra measures can do if such measures are above and beyond what "normal good people" do.

Quote

In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

--D&C 89:4

I realize that isn't the way that verse is normally read and understood.  But I sure think it applies.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

Not so.  The left already "KNOWS" that all men commit sexual assault.  So, to make such a statement is ludicrous to them.  That's why that works for them.

But the left also knows that MANY people are teetotalers.  And it is a very easy thing to corroborate.  I can't tell you how many kids from my high school would be absolutely ready to testify that no, Carb never drank and never would.

The difference is that drinking is so common there would be no reason to hide it.  Sexual assault, well, that's something someone would hide.  And he'd be very good at hiding it.  But to hide drinking once in a blue moon?  Why would anyone hide it?

But whether he drank or not is a small mechanism for the actual act that they are concerned about: sexual assault.

They don't care about the mechanisms/scenarios surrounding the actual act (hence why the details of Ford's recollection are not so imperative to the media). All they care about is the fact that she accused him of sexual assault. Everything else is irrelevant. So even if he claimed he never drank, that would not diminish the left's argument that he's a rapist/threat to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

But whether he drank or not is a small mechanism for the actual act that they are concerned about: sexual assault.

They don't care about the mechanisms/scenarios surrounding the actual act (hence why the details of Ford's recollection are not so imperative to the media). All they care about is the fact that she accused him of sexual assault. Everything else is irrelevant. So even if he claimed he never drank, that would not diminish the left's argument that he's a rapist/threat to society.

No, a very important part of her story to make it even more believable/shocking is that he was a drunken high school jock.  And it was a critical part of the overall narrative that she repeated over and over again.  She even mentioned it was one reason she thought he might accidentally kill her.

If that major detail of the overall narrative were wrong, it was all wrong.  It was someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

No, a very important part of her story to make it even more believable/shocking is that he was a drunken high school jock.  And it was a critical part of the overall narrative that she repeated over and over again.  She even mentioned it was one reason she thought he might accidentally kill her.

If that major detail of the overall narrative were wrong, it was all wrong.  It was someone else.

I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with your logic. I just don't think the media/dems would follow this logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

But whether he drank or not is a small mechanism for the actual act that they are concerned about: sexual assault.

They don't care about the mechanisms/scenarios surrounding the actual act (hence why the details of Ford's recollection are not so imperative to the media). All they care about is the fact that she accused him of sexual assault. Everything else is irrelevant. So even if he claimed he never drank, that would not diminish the left's argument that he's a rapist/threat to society.

I’m going to volunteer as one anecdotal example of a counterpoint.  I don’t doubt that when Kavanaugh has (and had, during his high school days) his full faculties about him, he was the soul of respect.  

It’s the drinking allegations that in my mind give Ford a bit more credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m going to volunteer as one anecdotal example of a counterpoint.  I don’t doubt that when Kavanaugh has (and had, during his high school days) his full faculties about him, he was the soul of respect.  

It’s the drinking allegations that in my mind give Ford a bit more credibility.

Can they be supported though? Besides her own account of his alleged drunkenness? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with your logic. I just don't think the media/dems would follow this logic. 

Look at it this way.  One reason why people win or lose the argument in the court of public opinion is that there are some values and assumptions that in the public arena are taken to be completely believable, and others not so much.

That a man (any man) would never touch a woman inappropriately, is not really believable to the public.  Regardless of statistics, evidence, credibility, that statement is simply a non-starter.  No one believes it no matter how many witnesses or character witnesses to the contrary.  The public simply doesn't believe it.

But the public is ready to believe that someone who NEVER drinks would be well known to NEVER drink.  And if that were brought to light, the public would absolutely believe it.  And if that was an actual fact, then the public opinion would be in favor of Kavanaugh.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Can they be supported though? Besides her own account of his alleged drunkenness? 

Partially.  I think Kavanaugh admitted today, when confronted about some nonsense in his yearbook, that he drank beer in high school.  And Mark Judge’s writings about an inebriated “Bart O’Kavanaugh” seems likely to be a reference to Brett Kavanaugh.

By way of contrast:  I believe a lot of terrible things about Donald Trump. But he is a well-known teetotaler; and I have heard enough reports of this that I would be immediately suspicious of anyone who claimed otherwise.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

But the public is ready to believe that someone who NEVER drinks would be well known to NEVER drink.  And if that were brought to light, the public would absolutely believe it.  And if that was an actual fact, then the public opinion would be in favor of Kavanaugh.

I don't think they would absolutely believe it. I think they'd say it was a lie to try to make the sexual assault allegation less believable. That never touching a sip of alcohol is so unlikely in this day and time, and the argument of  "come on, every teenager tries some alcohol once".

I just don't see it standing up against public opinion the way you do. But alas, it doesn't really matter since this isn't something Kavanaugh is trying to defend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not so.  The left already "KNOWS" that all men commit sexual assault.  So, to make such a statement (that he'd never do such a thing) is ludicrous to them.  That's why that works for them.

But the left also knows that MANY people are teetotalers.  And it is a very easy thing to corroborate.  I can't tell you how many kids from my high school would be absolutely ready to testify that no, Carb never drank and never would.

The difference is that drinking is so common there would be no reason to hide it.  Sexual assault, well, that's something someone would hide.  And he'd be very good at hiding it.  But to hide drinking once in a blue moon?  Why would anyone hide it?

This is why setting a standard so high that you take extra measures can do if such measures are above and beyond what "normal good people" do.

I realize that isn't the way that verse is normally read and understood.  But I sure think it applies.

So much naivety. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Look at it this way.  One reason why people win or lose the argument in the court of public opinion is that there are some values and assumptions that in the public arena are taken to be completely believable, and others not so much.

In today's and tomorrow's world the meter is moving...strong...to....the....left...on these sorts of things. The whole world's going mad. There's little common sense left. Some...but it's slipping quickly.

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That a man (any man) would never touch a woman inappropriately, is not really believable to the public.

And yet...10 years back. 15, 20, 50, etc...

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But the public is ready to believe that someone who NEVER drinks would be well known to NEVER drink.  And if that were brought to light, the public would absolutely believe it.  And if that was an actual fact, then the public opinion would be in favor of Kavanaugh.

I believe the meter moved past the point where this is true....let's see.....oh....today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeccaKirstyn said:

I don't think they would absolutely believe it. I think they'd say it was a lie to try to make the sexual assault allegation less believable. That never touching a sip of alcohol is so unlikely in this day and time, and the argument of  "come on, every teenager tries some alcohol once".

I just don't see it standing up against public opinion the way you do. But alas, it doesn't really matter since this isn't something Kavanaugh is trying to defend. 

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

So much naivety. :)

It isn't really about Kavanaugh.  I was just getting in the middle of the argument between JAG and Anatess about whether a virtuous life would protect you from accusations like this.  And it does in ways you really can't imagine.

Let's shift, for example, to Pence.  One thing he does all the time is that whenever he goes anywhere that women are present, he always makes sure it is very public or has someone that can act as chaperone or several chaperones.  Whenever he goes away overnight, he always takes his wife with him.  And she accompanies him as much as possible.

By taking these precautions, he is showing himself to go above and beyond what "normal people" do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In today's and tomorrow's world the meter is moving...strong...to....the....left...on these sorts of things. The whole world's going mad. There's little common sense left. Some...but it's slipping quickly.

And yet...10 years back. 15, 20, 50, etc...

I believe the meter moved past the point where this is true....let's see.....oh....today.

In the world of media, politicians, and activists, you may be right.  But I have a good number of friends who are liberals who back Ford in this matter.  And I know if they heard Kavanaugh never drank, they'd immediately do a 180.

But, hey, it was fantasyland anyway.  He did and does drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

It isn't really about Kavanaugh.  I was just getting in the middle of the argument between JAG and Anatess about whether a virtuous life would protect you from accusations like this.  And it does in ways you really can't imagine.

Let's shift, for example, to Pence.  One thing he does all the time is that whenever he goes anywhere that women are present, he always makes sure it is very public or has someone that can act as chaperone or several chaperones.  Whenever he goes away overnight, he always takes his wife with him.  And she accompanies him as much as possible.

By taking these precautions, he is showing himself to go above and beyond what "normal people" do. 

I don't disagree that by having very strict standards you're protecting yourself from any assumed harm/wrong doing. 

But in the scenario (which some assume to be occurring) that someone tells a blatant lie about your character, it doesn't matter how virtuously you lived. They're telling a lie. 

Is this what is happening? We will never know (unless someone changes their story, i.e. Ford says she remembers who the assaulter was and it wasn't Kavanaugh, or Kavanaugh says actually it was me). 

But this idea of lying about an individual's character for political gain would occur no matter your virtuosity. Could it potentially be less effective? Maybe. But in this time and age where any sexual assault allegation, no matter the severity or amount of details, is taken at full face value, then a presumed virtuous character goes out the window. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

a virtuous life would protect you from accusations like this.  And it does in ways you really can't imagine.

Why can't I imagine it? Am I stupid? Have I not lived a virtuous life?

Keep in mind here...we're talking about SCOTUS nomination. It's a different level of stakes, and...as of now...a different level of fightin' dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why can't I imagine it? Am I stupid? Have I not lived a virtuous life?

Of course you haven't.  Kidding.

No, you're not stupid.  It is about faith vs logic.  I quoted that verse from the word of wisdom.  I have faith that by following principles that the Lord has set out to be an example to the world, that we will receive divine protection from the schemes of others.  What will that be?  I have no idea.  It's something the Lord does.  It is miraculous.  That's why you can't imagine it.  None of us can.  It is miraculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Of course you haven't.  Kidding.

No, you're not stupid.  It is about faith vs logic.  I quoted that verse from the word of wisdom.  I have faith that by following principles that the Lord has set out to be an example to the world, that we will receive divine protection from the schemes of others.  What will that be?  I have no idea.  It's something the Lord does.  It is miraculous.  That's why you can't imagine it.  None of us can.  It is miraculous.

I was going to say something snippy like, "That worked out really well Joseph Smith." but then I thought it might be taken seriously instead of entirely flippantly like I thought it.

I don't entirely disagree. But the rain falls on the righteous and the wicked...and so forth.

Regardless when you're in the arena of SCOTUS nominations or Romney-in' it...well then.... Or in other words, if you're fighting in cage-matches you're running the risk of getting kicked in the jimmy an awful lot more than if you're just walking down the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share