And Baden, the US and the UK aren't in the same league. The UK is on par with Massechusettes maybe. — frank

What do you mean by this?

See the email he wrote to the Senate: https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576

We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties...during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.

That's a bit serious, isn't it? Not entirely beyond the bounds of credibility though, social facilitation, drugs, and hormones in a combination that is not unknown in colleges, along with an old-fashioned attitude to women that is possibly more inclined to being conserved by conservatives. The good old days when men were men and women were resources to be protected and/or exploited. My daughter needs protecting, but your daughter is quite good looking and no better than she ought to be. Justice.

http://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049

"The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%."

This basic fact combined with the credibility of Blasey Ford's background, previous conversations with therapist, and request for confidentiality are why I tend to believe her. The idea that it's just 50/50 he said/she said is absurd. You actually could just believe every accusation and be right 95% of the time. Better though to look at the context carefully and make a considered judgment. And with every new accusation the chances of this being a conspiracy of lies fades into absolute insignificance. This is why it's so wrong-headed to continue to bat for the accused over the victim or to pretend there's some kind of equivalency of probability there.

Edit: + http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077801210387747

This paper gives a 5.9% false reporting rate for the US.

You don't get to use #metoo to discredit my arguments. Period. If you want to address my points, do so. — Baden

I am addressing your points. And please recall two things, we have the same goal, and I've invested a ton of my own personal time in serving as a political advocate for crime victims, and was part of a process of changing a major public safety law here in Florida.

You're getting carried away, as is pretty much the entire culture right now, and that getting carried away is a threat to the #metoo movement. If anybody can be declared a victim simply by making a claim, eventually none of the claims will be seen as credible.

Let's assume Dr. Ford is a victim, that her claim is true. She is of course within her rights to talk about that, or keep it private. But if she wishes to use her personal experience to comment upon public policy, she's regrettably gone about that in an unhelpful manner. No police report, no public statements about her experience until the very last minute of a highly charged political decision 35 years after the alleged crime etc.

Whether she is a victim or not we can wish her well, but we can't use her as a model of how crime victims should influence public policy with their personal stories.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved. That's a lower bar than in a criminal case, but it seems absurd to put someone on the court if we feel they PROBABLY lied, despite there being a reasonable doubt that he lied. — Relativist

Yes, I can agree with all this.

Personally I don't want him on the court whether he lied or not, but that's another subject.

If anybody can be declared a victim simply by making a claim, eventually none of the claims will be seen as credible. — Jake

No, if you bully the 95% of claimants who are statistically found to be telling the truth by unreasonably doubting them then not only will more of the public unreasonably think they are liars, but they will be less likely to come forward, and that will encourage more crimes against them.

But if she wishes to use her personal experience to comment upon public policy — Jake

What comments did she make about public policy?

No police report, no public statements about her experience until the very last minute of a highly charged political decision 35 years after the alleged crime etc. — Jake

The information was leaked by a third party so her insertion into politics at this particular moment was not of her doing. Please familiarise yourself with the details of the case before commenting.

Whether she is a victim or not we can wish her well, — Jake

No, what we do with victims, if she is one, is provide them justice.

This basic fact combined with the credibility of Blasey Ford's background, previous conversations with therapist, and request for confidentiality are why I tend to believe her. The idea that it's just 50/50 he said/she said is absurd. — Baden

Like I said, you're getting carried away.

I'm an upstanding citizen with no criminal record or other black marks against me, and I claim that Baden tried to rape me 35 years ago during a spring break in Daytona Beach. I have no proof, no evidence. But readers should believe me because I'm a nice guy claiming to be a victim. Given the above, there's no way we can accept Baden as a moderator on the forum, because when he rejects my claim he might be lying.

This is very silly. I already said every accusation has to be taken in context. And the context of this accusation is you trying and failing miserably to say anything intelligent. Besides, I can prove I wasn't in America at that time, and you're definitely not my type. :)

The information was leaked by a third party so her insertion into politics at this particular moment was not of her doing. Please familiarise yourself with the details of the case before commenting. — Baden

Look Baden, Dr. Ford told her story to her congress woman at the time of the nomination. She didn't tell her priest, she told her congress woman. She wanted her story to influence the decision.

Please come down off your politically correct morally superior high horse and return to your usually very sensible self.

Or, if you are just making a case, much as I might pretend I was Hitler's attorney and make his case, ok, that's fine. But in that case please just state that is what you are doing.

Besides, I can prove I wasn't in America at that time, and you're definitely not my type — Baden

More lies from the rapist!!! :smile: I sure was your type that day on the beach!! Again, you have no leg to stand on here, because I am claiming to be a victim, without any evidence at all, and thus everything I'm saying surely must be true.

Jake, you need to go read the details of the case before commenting. She told her therapist she was assaulted before any of the recent political events. Plus, she asked Feinstein that the information remain confidential.

because I am claiming to be a victim, without any evidence at all, and thus everything I'm saying surely must be true. — Jake

But, of course, I never claimed that. So, OK, this is actually the third time I've posted the below. Can you please read it carefully and try to understand that I am saying any accusation should be analysed in context. Also, please do not jump into threads without reading them. If you want to argue with me, you need to know what my position is.

Just want to reemphasize that of the four scenarios I outlined, I only proposed, with reasons, the one that she is telling the truth and he is lying as the most likely. Any fair observer should recognize the possibility of the others, and analyze them in context. What should be dismissed out of hand though are absurdities like Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault; or that what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done does not qualify as a sexual assault; or that what he did no matter how it's considered legally was really nothing serious, that is was just misbehavior and so on. — Baden

Not to mention on this page alone:

Better though to look at the context carefully and make a considered judgment. — Baden

I already said every accusation has to be taken in context — Baden

Again, just read. It's that easy.

I'm an upstanding citizen with no criminal record or other black marks against me, and I claim that Baden tried to rape me 35 years ago during a spring break in Daytona Beach. I have no proof, no evidence. But readers should believe me because I'm a nice guy claiming to be a victim. Given the above, there's no way we can accept Baden as a moderator on the forum, because when he rejects my claim he might be lying. — Jake

There's a difference between some anonymous person making a claim on the internet and someone publicly requesting an FBI investigation and agreeing to sworn testimony before the Senate. It's easy to be willing to lie in the former case, less so in the latter.

Ford has already had to move home because of death threats and would face charges of perjury and/or lying to the FBI were she making it up. And for what? To stop one particular conservative from being nominated to the Supreme Court, when he'd just end up being replaced by another were she successful in her attempt? I think her telling the truth is more likely than her being crazy irrational.

Jake, you need to go read the details of the case before commenting. — Baden

You need to stop claiming to be the morally superior holy roller expert on the subject, because you certainly are not. As example...

She told her therapist she was assaulted before any of the recent political events. — Baden

She told her therapist, but nobody who could actually do anything to remove the alleged rapist as a threat to the public. This lack of action was a public statement that what maybe happened to her was not really that big of a deal.

She allowed him to become a lawyer, a high ranking public official in the Bush administration, a judge. 35 years of opportunity to right the wrong that she perceives. 35 years of opportunity to protect the rest of us from someone she sees as being seriously flawed. A single police report would have probably ended Kavanaugh's career before it ever started, but instead, for 35 years she chose to ignore us.

She had a right to ignore us. But we also have a right to review this record documenting a lack of concern for the rest of us, and find her credibility weak.

Plus, she asked Feinstein that the information remain confidential. — Baden

She contacted her congresswoman with the intention of her story having an influence upon a major political decision, a fact I see you are intent to ignore. She willfully entered the political process, and is now being evaluated by that process. It's reasonable for people in that process to evaluate her claim as not being useful, given that she brings little to the table other than a claim.

Look Baden, I'm all for crime victims bringing their stories in to the public political realm. I spent a year of my life facilitating that very process. But this is not how you go about it.

As the mod of philosophy forum, and a normally sensible commentator, you should be able to realize that if we accept claims without evidence, then the credibility of all claims are undermined. Such a process is not helpful to the #metoo movement.

If we accept claims without evidence, it's only a matter of time until others begin fabricating claims in order to get money, fame etc, and then nobody will believe anything.

Ford should be allowed to tell her story under oath, not that this will accomplish anything more than boosting TV ratings. She should be respected as a person (unless it can be proven she's lying). But after that, she sucks as a witness, and is basically wasting our time.

There's a difference between some anonymous person making a claim on the internet and someone publicly requesting an FBI investigation and agreeing to sworn testimony before the Senate. — Michael

She wanted to be anonymous. And she didn't request an FBI investigation for 35 years, thus, from her point of view, putting lots of other women at risk.

As the mod of philosophy forum, and a normally sensible commentator, you should be able to realize that if we accept claims without evidence... — Jake

But I've said several times already we should analyze all claims in context. The claim itself is evidence of wrongdoing though it's not on its own, conclusive evidence. Other evidence, corroborating evidence, should obviously be looked for. Which is why I think the fairest thing is to have a delay while some investigation be carried out as it was in the case of Anita Hill. I've never taken anything other than the view here that we should neither immediately accept nor immediately reject any claim. I did mention the fact that the vast majority of claims turn out to be true to illustrate how the 50/50 he said/she said perception is misleading. That should be a consideration in any judgement.

She should be respected as a person (unless it can be proven she's lying). But after that, she sucks as a witness, and is basically wasting our time. — Jake

But then you go to the other extreme and simply reject her out of hand even before she has a chance to tell her story. Why should she bother in that case?

She told her therapist, but nobody who could actually do anything to remove the alleged rapist as a threat to the public. This lack of action was a public statement that what maybe happened to her was not really that big of a deal. — Jake

To interpret a lack of action as a statement that 'it was not a big deal' is both naive and incredibly misinformed on at least two levels. Psychologically, it is well known that sexual assault is massively under-reported as a result of overwhelming feelings of shame, guilt and embarrassment, and the fact that Ford has in fact spoken about this to friends and psychologists previously, indicate that she's been carrying around such feelings of shame for a quite literally decades. One doesn't go to a therapist and speak about something that happened years before because its 'not really that big of a deal'.

Socially, the intensity of the power dynamics that have to be negotiated in reporting a fellow student at an elite institution are massive. Reporting sexual assault is not going to the DMV and filling out a form. It is to be subjected to intense scrutiny (rightly so, to a degree) and it is to have to relive and retell a traumatic experience (not rightly so). It is being called to account, publicly and procedurally, for your own intensely personal victimization while having to face down the pressures of a judicial and socio-cultural system that is overwhelmingly not staked in your favour.

Finally, the focus of your post in her 'allowing' a predator to advance in his career and putting 'other women at risk' is just victim-blaming in all its puerile glory. The perpetrator puts victims at risk. Not other victims. It takes a certain kind of madness to hypothesize his guilt and, on the assumption that he really is guilty, still place the focus on a victim as the locus of agency. That's absurd.

No, if you bully the 95% of claimants who are statistically found to be telling the truth by unreasonably doubting them then not only will more of the public unreasonably think they are liars, but they will be less likely to come forward, and that will encourage more crimes against them. — Baden

You have the right to confront your accusers and subject them to cross examination. Any system that doesn't allow an accused to fully (and I mean fully) question their accusers on anything of relevance is unjust.

One doesn't go to a therapist and speak about something that happened years before because its 'not really that big of a deal'. — StreetlightX

Corroborating yourself with your own prior comments seems a bit flimsy doesn't it? There was a supposed attempted rape at a party, yet exactly one person has any recollection of it. Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? No one recalls what would have been an extremely distraught young woman literally running from the party? What have her parents said or her best friends said of that night? Wouldn't someone somewhere have seen or heard something or would have been a confidant at the time of the incident?

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? Yes, could be, I guess, but this approach I'm taking is the flip side of the coin you're taking, where you try to make the other person's story seem incredible.

It's no more crazy to question why Ford would tell her therapist about an incident decades prior that didn't happen than it is to ask how a violent crime occurred in a crowd of people where no did anything, said anything, or can remember anything.

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? — Hanover

There were only five people attending this party according to Ford. There was only one witness, Mark Judge, in the room where the incident allegedly occurred. It's possible Judge was also inebriated and didn't (or would rather not) make a big deal out of the incident. If neither Judge, Kavanaugh or Ford told what happened to the other two people who weren't in the room, then Judge remains the only potential witness. That neither Ford or Judge (let alone Kavanaugh) would have told anyone is nothing out of the ordinary.

There were only five people attending this party according to Ford. There was only one witness, Mark Judge, in the room where the incident allegedly occurred. It's possible Judge was also inebriated and didn't (or would rather not) make a big deal out of the incident. If neither Judge, Kavanaugh or Ford told what happened to the other two people who weren't in the room, then Judge remains the only potential witness. That neither Ford or Judge (let alone Kavanaugh) would have told anyone is nothing out of the ordinary. — Pierre-Normand

It's possible also that everyone was drunk and all recollections are faulty. It's also possible that Judge is an upstanding person who would never permit someone to commit attempted rape in his presence and would have expressed outrage at the occurrence. It's also possible that Ford was very close to her mother and would have told her of this immediately and then her protective father would have charged over to that house and wrung some necks. It's also possible that Kavanaugh almost raped her, but she got away and the group of childhood friends entered into a pact of silence and she remained too embarrassed and humiliated to tell anyone. It's also possible Ford hates those guys for all sorts of historical reasons and has a vendetta even though nothing ever happened to her.

Speculation is like creative writing. We are only limited by our imagination.

Speculation is like creative writing. We are only limited by our imagination. — Hanover

You have moved the goalpost quite a bit, from arguing that Ford's allegations are implausible to arguing that it is possible that they are untrue. But I was merely countering your argument that they are implausible, which was grounded in part on the unjustified premise that the party was "filled with people".

Corroborating yourself with your own prior comments seems a bit flimsy doesn't it? — Hanover

I was adressing the question of motivation - why now? - as are most who (including Ford herself, I imagine) cite this fact. I.e. it makes this less likely to be some kind of midnight hour conspiracy.

Corroborating yourself with your own prior comments seems a bit flimsy doesn't it? There was a supposed attempted rape at a party, yet exactly one person has any recollection of it. Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? No one recalls what would have been an extremely distraught young woman literally running from the party? What have her parents said or her best friends said of that night? Wouldn't someone somewhere have seen or heard something or would have been a confidant at the time of the incident?

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? Yes, could be, I guess, but this approach I'm taking is the flip side of the coin you're taking, where you try to make the other person's story seem incredible.

It's no more crazy to question why Ford would tell her therapist about an incident decades prior that didn't happen than it is to ask how a violent crime occurred in a crowd of people where no did anything, said anything, or can remember anything. — Hanover

You clearly didn't even read Ford's account of what occurred. The rape attempt didn't take place in the middle of a crowded fucking room.

It's a pity that you still haven't even researched what happened and are making your comments, like other supporters of Kavanaugh here, on the basis of an ignorance of the facts.

This paper gives a 5.9% false reporting rate for the US. — Baden

But what's the probability when a big political decision is at play? Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? Isn't this accusation from decades ago when he was 17?

I'm not sure that's enough to bar his nomination. Seems to me there are better, more recent reasons to oppose the nomination. Maybe Ford is telling the truth, but the Democrats are definitely using it for political reasons (not that the Republicans are above that either).

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? Isn't this accusation from decades ago when he was 17? — Marchesk

Go and research what happened. And you'll find the answers. Or maybe read the thread.

And you'll find the answers. — Baden

I doubt that. From what I've read and heard so far, opinion tends to break along political lines.

But I'll agree with the posters who said each Senator should weigh the testimony of both and the available evidence, for what it is, and come to a decision.

You're wasting everyone's time here if you don't even know for sure what age he was when this happened or the circumstances surrounding how the accusations were released and the background to that. All the information is available both on this thread and on Google.