Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton:

However "callous," "vulgar," and "insulting" it might be, it is a relevant question and a real possibility.

What evidence do you have that this is a “real” possibility? While it is not impossible, without substantive evidence it is nothing more than a lurid accusation.

That she decided to report it decades later in part because she disagreed with Kavanaugh's ideology is a plausible possibility.

I do not think it plausible that she reported an attempted rape because their political ideologies differed. I see no reason to think that the difference in their political views had anything to do with it. And even if it did, what difference does it make? You say you have no reason to think her accusation was political and yet you suggest that there is a real possibility they were. You fault others for making it politic and yet you suggest that it was.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑October 13th, 2018, 2:45 pm
What evidence do you have that this is a “real” possibility? While it is not impossible, without substantive evidence it is nothing more than a lurid accusation.

Oh, please. It is not an acusation at all. It is a possibility. The only "evidence" you need for possibilities is the absence of foreclosing factors.

I do not think it plausible that she reported an attempted rape because their political ideologies differed. I see no reason to think that the difference in their political views had anything to do with it.

A difference in political views is itself a reason. What role it played, if any, is unknown. But it is possible.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑October 13th, 2018, 8:35 am Greta, one advantage of the Atlantic article by Benjamin Wittes is that it cannot simply be dismissed, as so much is, as partisan.

But my bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.

Yes, it's reminiscent of the Clinton case where the original transgression was less serious than the untrustworthy testimony. Ideally you don't want people who are prepared to give dodgy testimonies to be judging others' testimonies in the highest court of a land. Ideally.

Today, given that Trump is apparently AOK with many despite an assessed 3% level of truthfulness during campaigning, in a time when real news is declared "fake" and fake news is declared "fair and unbiased", the Orwellian feel of it all suggest that the times suit liars like the POTUS and Kavanagh.

I am reminded of Dawkins's accounts of multiple iterations of Prisoners' Dilemma, how in a society where most individuals are "nice", more likely to cooperate than defect in transactions, then cooperative individuals thrive (in politics, read cooperation and defection as truthfulness and lying). On the other hand, if the non cooperative are predominant, then cooperative types are exploited and won't thrive.

The latter dynamic seems to be in play at present.

GE Morton:

Oh, please. It is not an acusation at all. It is a possibility. The only "evidence" you need for possibilities is the absence of foreclosing factors.

Raising the possibility is more insidious than an outright accusation. It is possible that he is a serial rapist but can’t remember because he is frequently blackout drunk. It is possible that he struck a deal with Trump ahead of time knowing Ford might come forward, Trump getting the Republicans to push through the nomination and curtailing a full investigation in exchange for the promise of protecting Trump from prosecution. There is ample evidence of the absence of foreclosing factors. Its possible.

A difference in political views is itself a reason. What role it played, if any, is unknown. But it is possible.

You cannot say what role it played but you put it forth as a possibility. Why? What is the relevance? What difference does it make? It does not change the facts of the matter. It only serves to cast doubt on her testimony by suggesting she was politically motivated. It is also possible, and I think most who are not partisan would agree, that she was motivated by the fact that someone who attempted to rape her might be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Greta wrote: ↑October 11th, 2018, 3:05 am My understanding is that the issue is less what happened all that time ago but the lies he told in a hearing just now and that is not appropriate for a person applying to have one of the most important jobs in the land for life.

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

Looks like you were dead wrong Greta. The Democrat attempt to smear Kavanaugh was one of the the lowest, most disgusting political stunts I have seen in a long time.

AS for that lying bitch who gave false evidence that Kavanaugh had raped her, I think she should be jailed for life.

Regards

Dachshund

Even a simpleton is entitled to an opinion.

Looks like Trumps has got the US economy is running pretty hot, Lucky? I mentioned this to you a while back, but you, didn't agree.

What do you think now? It seems to me only a simpleton would disagree ?

Regards

Dachshund

Looks to me like Trump is spearheading the greatest political movement in the history of the USA.

What do you think, Lucky?

Regards

Dachshund

Well Obama brought the market up 148% during his tenure, Clinton beat him with 228%. So far Trump has brought it up 27%, which is okay. Certainly better than GW Bush who was negative 27%. But it is early yet.

What do you think about Trump's stand on birthright citizenship ?

Only a moron (a Democrat) would argue that the existing law isn't absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Right Lucky?

Regard

Dachshund

Still waiting to hear about how "hot" the US economy is under the current administration. Personally I don't enjoy whack-a-mole posting (though I am certainly capable of playing and winning).

The US economy is booming under Trump...

* Obama raised taxes, while Trump's administration has passed the biggest tax cuts in US history.

* Obama presided over the weakest economic expansion since the Great Depression. In 2016 when Trump took office the economy was growing by less
than 2%, now it is growing by over 4%.

*Trump and Congressional Republicans have created the strongest labour market in a generation.

*Although it is extremely rare for unemployment to fall below 4%, it currently sits at 3.7 %, and has averaged 3.9% throughout 2018.

*GDP hit 3.5% in the third quarter of 2018, marking the best back-to-back quarters of growth since 2014, and putting the US on track to hit 3% annual growth for the first time since 2005.

* The labour market has been strong under Trump adding 4 million jobs since he took office and consumer confidence reached nearly a two decade high in October.

* Minorities, especially young minorities, have experienced record low unemployment.

*Low income households are increasingly confident about their economic future as the economic recovery has begun to help all population groups.

* The US added 32,000 new manufacturing jobs in October, more than 1000 every day including holidays and weekends..

* October was a strong month for unemployment overall, with the economy adding 250,000 jobs, far exceeding expectations of 190,000

You want more, Lucky ? There's plenty. Just ask.



Regards

Dachshund

Note how Dachshund uses bait and switch. He baits by making false inflammatory claims about the Kavanaugh hearings and when someone bites he switches to Trump gushing like a teenage girl with a crush on a boy band.

In my experience, Dachshund's posts are generally either angry insults in capital letters or mindless verbatim copy-and-paste jobs from other sources. For example, this post:

viewtopic.php?p=323320#p323320

was copied word-for-word from here:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... more-jobs/

(with only the change to the spelling of the word "Labor" to indicate that he might have actually read and thought about any of it.)

This post:

viewtopic.php?p=323088#p323088

was copied word-for-word from here:

https://ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/l ... 2/apes.htm

He has done this kind of unacknowledged word-for-word copying since he first came here about a year ago. He appears to me to be incapable of thinking rationally for himself. If you try to engage him in an argument in which he has to actually think for himself, without simply looking up what someone he regards as an ally says and block-quoting them, you'll find that he has little to offer in the way of thoughtful analysis and tends to just angrily assert himself to be objectively right. He usually does this with capital letters, because, as we know, if you say something in capital letters it makes it more right.

This is probably why he explicitly advocates dictatorship and the genocide of people who look different from himself, by the removal from them of the protection of human status, very similarly to the way that humans have been compared to rats by similarly genocidal people in the past. Anger, fear and in-eloquence can be a dangerous combination. If he genuinely shares the views that he parrots here then he is a deeply disturbed and potentially dangerous person whose words here, if they were attached to a traceable person, would undoubtedly constitute a crime in the country in which he claims to live. If he were in a position of power and influence then the words that he has parroted about African people, and people of African descent, would in particular cause his presence to be "not conducive to the public good".

He appears to me to be incapable of thinking rationally for himself.

I agree. Actually the only times when I feel like I am communicating with an actual person are during those small periods of confusion when a non-rote answer is required. Sadly those moments are usually garbled and without thought.
Personally I think Dachshund has successfully maximised the attention shown to him relative to his abilities.