J.C.MacSwell

From your link that is promoting a negative view of Kavanaugh: "There’s a high legal bar for perjury — but this could still influence senators’ decisions" That sounds like they would tend to agree with me. I don't think he demonstrably perjured himself. So you automatically believe that? Why? I thought you were only advocating unquestioned belief for those who claim to be sexually assaulted.

I am pretty sure he can't be demonstrated to have perjured himself. His characterization of himself as; a serious athlete/student, which clearly he was; that sometimes drank too much, which he admitted to; never blacked out or not remember the events of the previous night, which is likely unprovable either way; are not things that can be readily demonstrated as false. You may not like it, but I don't believe you can prove he lied under oath. No more than can be demonstrated that Ford had her lying done for her (not saying she directed it) by her Lawyers.

No one said the whole situation was, but if you cannot even admit that there was politics involved in much of this (both sides, but we are discussing the Democrats here) then at least allow us to express that view...I think we consider it obvious.

It was your words, not his, and clearly chosen due to their negative connotations. Much worse has been said on here about Kavanaugh, but I don't see the neg reps piling up.

While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.

That often works. One of the reasons you have to look at evidence and not simply resort to listening to an emotional debate...

Sure why wouldn't he run out and press charges against himself as well? What exactly did she say that could be questioned to "support said innocence?

Seeing this came from her Lawyers, who have been intentionally deceptive, she could be on vacation. She might have flown to a nice resort. ...or she might be scared. How would we know?

Solid point, but why do you feel the need to include your opinion with respect to the bold? It has nothing to do with the point you are making. There are significant risks to speaking out that can make it very difficult to do so, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. This is true regardless of how you view Kavanaugh.

That's essentially what the positive aspects of the #MeToo movement is about. It's unfortunate that some have taken it to extremes, at least in their rhetoric, often for short term political gain. It might work, but it may also backfire (the extremes, not referring to your well written post, which I agree with). The vast majority are not on the extreme left or extreme right. How will they vote in this upcoming election? The ones not swept up by the rhetoric will have a choice of supporting this extreme rhetoric on the left, a (relatively) more moderate position on the right that is lead by a rude narcissistic egomaniac...or not vote at all. Tough times. Hopefully they get it right, and for the right reasons, in 2020 because it is not looking good for anyone right now.

So. You believe all the accusations Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh?

I said If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. So, Ten oz. What exactly are you advocating? Is it guilty until proven innocent or is it something else?

If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. It is much more difficult but we need to consider ways to improve on the status quo without taking away the rights of the accused. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with #MeToo, but including rush to judgement is taking it too far. We have already seen the willingness to use it politically and as a weapon (something that the historic statistics make no accounting for).

I think that is a reasonable estimate, roughly 2 out of 3 or almost that. Combined with 5% of falsely accused to accused (the middle of range admitted to by the lady that made the graphic) you get 15 falsely accused per 1000 rapists, not just 2 as the graphic suggests. This does not take into account the fact that all of the "rapists" in the graphic that were tried and found "not guilty" are assumed instead to be guilty, which was one of NicholaiRen's objections. So Ten oz, how many more accusations, honest ones and dishonest ones, would make you more comfortable? How much would you like to embolden the Swetnick's and Avennatti's, who I would suggest are much more readily induced to bring accusations forward than average victims. At what point would you stop laughing?

+1 to that. I believe I have only given positives in this thread, including a couple to posters that seem to disagree with my positions (on what I consider their better or more informative posts, or corrected me when I clearly got something wrong) Badgering with negatives isn't going to change anyones mind. It may have the opposite affect. As an example, this post by a very new member currently has 2 negative reps, Why, I have no idea...I can't even guess what is being objected to.

While she stands by the purpose of the graphic, to address the fears of false accusation, she admits the graphic was "flawed". https://sarahbeaulieu.me/the-truth-about-false-accusation "This graphic did miss the mark in many ways, and I own that." Why is it that currently too many in the U.S. from commentators to politicians, from scientists to the President, feel the need to exaggerate to make their point? At least in her case she admits to the flaws in the graphic. I think that gives her more credibility going forward, something that seems lost on many people, including some here.

"On the internet, 37% of statistics cited are made up, and 53% of them are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

Setting aside your math (a couple of hundred vs several million...not sure what you are referring to there) what exactly are you advocating? Is it simply that women making allegations should be taken seriously? (extremely reasonable...what can we do to assure this?) Or is it somehow taking it further? Are you advocating changing the presumption of innocence, or due process? If so, how and how much?

Nice suggestion... Let's all pass on giving detailed instructions on that one...

OK. I think that is the most frequently cited number 1 in 20, not 1 in 50 as INow claimed (though it could be that low) and not 1 in 10 (though it could be that high). No one knows for certain, but 1 in 20 seems like it is a reasonable estimate. In any case what does it mean with regard to an individual allegation? They aren't 95% guilty, They are either 100% guilty or 0%. Are you 95% certain Kavanaugh is guilty? Are you 5% certain Ford is lying? The statistics cannot tell us what the truth is.

It is the basis of your objection. You directly claimed you could make it fair for the victim by "responding accordingly"... ....whatever that means

I knew someone would agree...just didn't think it would take 8 years...

You quoted that and answered: INOW, I know your hearts in the right place toward the victim but no matter where you start, you cannot make it fair for the victim. Using Ford as the example, and assuming she was assaulted/attempted rape and traumatized at 15 by Kavanaugh, what can you possibly do to make it fair? You can't go back in time. You can't punish Kavanaugh any amount that would make it fair for her. Voting him down for the Supreme court, disbarring him, jailing him...might give her justice... but what can you suggest as making it fair for her? She didn't ask for this...what can you possibly suggest to make it fair for her...or any victim? My question wasn't defeatist, nor merely rhetorical. Going forward for future potential victims or ones that are currently traumatized...what can you, or any of us suggest we do? If all you can come up with is to remove rights from the accused you are going down the wrong path. It's not going to hold up. What do you consider "responding accordingly", and how does it make it fair for someone who has been sexually assaulted?

Yes backfire. The question actually assumes Ford deserved more credence (the Democrat position), but it got diluted by a seemingly much less credible accusation. Senator Collins called Swetnick's allegations "outlandish" where she considered Ford "compelling". Swetnick's allegation demonstrated the flaw in the unqualified "believe the accuser" claim (I am calling it unqualified rather than the context I considered obvious in deference to Swansont). Keep in mind it is the Democrats that are now lamenting the Avanetti/Swetnick allegations (see the link). The sad part is that the full block is not even the tip of the iceberg if you are looking at attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment... ...never mind the daily fear of all of the above. (based on the rapes represented by the block) Falsely accused could be as low as you suggest, but could also be 4 or 5 times higher (that is generally considered the range). The statistics cannot be applied in a specific case. Kavanaugh either attempted to rape her or he didn't. But what can be done? How many more falsely accused would you like to encourage by artificially making these statistics more balanced, by taking away the rights of the accused? You cannot make it fair. There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim.

Did Hirono's unqualified "believe all sexual assault accusers" backfire on the Democrats? Titled "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh": https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html