Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[zinfamous]

It's a long thread, so thanks for nothing. EDIT: Ah, you are taking the enlightened position of thinking she's full of shit. Very solid ground you're walking on, dude.

Science doesn't equal right, either, particularly when it comes to how the brain functions. It's just the best guess at the time, so maybe don't overweight it.

Right. His argument in terms of memory issues related to traumatic experiences and time is that, in this case, it injects reasonable doubt. That's all it ever says, really, which is fair. Of course, it injects reasonable doubt into both parties, but let's not dwell on that. (Obviously we should only ever trust this god-fearing, anointed WASP testimony from the pre-canonized GOP candidate, despite the very same science saying the very same thing about the other party....as uz)

Conservatives and other science-terrorists only ever interpret this work, however, as a defense of a position that is only ever counter to their opponent of the time. The data and the discussion doesn't matter, just that a nebulous conclusion means that the data can always be used to defend one perspective, and one perspective only.

Now just take the work with memory, time, trauma, and inebreation, and apply that to minorities that stand accused of capital crimes.

Well, of course, obviously they are guilty. Because evidence and because testimony at the time. Who cares how it was gathered? Suddenly, all that other science that was pivotal for the very same argument is suddenly meaningless when yet another colored is going to get properly tossed into the slammer for life and, gawd-willing, at the end of a needle!

 

[brycejones]

I don't need it explained to me.

You sure?

 

[ivwshane]

I don't need it explained to me.

Don't kid yourself guy, you need a lot explained to you.

 

[ivwshane]

Right. His argument in terms of memory issues related to traumatic experiences and time is that, in this case, it injects reasonable doubt. That's all it ever says, really, which is fair.

Conservatives and other science-terrorists only ever interpret this work, however, as a defense of a position that is only ever counter to their opponent of the time. The data and the discussion doesn't matter, just that a nebulous conclusion means that the data can always be used to defend one perspective, and one perspective only.

Now just take the work with memory, time, trauma, and inebreation, and apply that to minorities that stand accused of capital crimes.

Well, of course, obviously they are guilty. Because evidence and because testimony at the time. Who cares how it was gathered? Suddenly, all that other science that was pivotal for the very same argument is suddenly meaningless when yet another colored is going to get properly tossed into the slammer for life and, gawd-willing, at the end of a needle!

Even more amazing is that they apply this memory failure to her but not to Kavanagh. She mis-remembered events, Kavanagh? Well his memory is as sharp as it has always been.

 

[zinfamous]

I have no logical failures. I believe her memory is faulty and I provided science to back up my opinion. Is that confusing for you?

Why is Kavanaugh's memory impeccable?

 

[zinfamous]

Even more amazing is that they apply this memory failure to her but not to Kavanagh. She mis-remembered events, Kavanagh? Well his memory is as sharp as it has always been.

yep. I think I was editing that post while you replied, lol.

 

[pcgeek11]

Now consider the motive for her actions, which have led directly to threats against her life and the lives of those in her family.

What is worth that risk ON TOP of the part where lying to the FBI is a felony and she's asking to talk to them.

Weigh it all, man. Then pull out your Occam's razor.

I think she does believe what she says....

Just because she believes it doesn't mean she isn't mistaken.

Kavanaugh and his wife have also been getting threats...

 

[zinfamous]

I don't need it explained to me.

If your history around here proves one thing beyond observational certainty, it is that you need many things explained to you.

Your apparent distaste for this chore is irrelevant, of course. It still remains true.

 

[zinfamous]

I think she does believe what she says....

Just because she believes it doesn't mean she isn't mistaken.

Kavanaugh and his wife have also been getting threats...

Why is it that Kavanaugh believes what he says and is, by that same metric, correct in what he says, simply because he believes it?

 

[jackstar7]

I think she does believe what she says....

Just because she believes it doesn't mean she isn't mistaken.

Kavanaugh and his wife have also been getting threats...

If you don't see the difference, I have to assume you don't want to see it.

 

[blackangst1]

Why is Kavanaugh's memory impeccable?

Never said it was. Thus why, on several posts, I support an FBI investigation. Is that hard to comprehend?

 

[jackstar7]

I like that we're meant to take the word of the guy who was apparently known to get blackout drunk when it comes to his memory.

That seems like real good logic being used.

 

[Jhhnn]

Even more amazing is that they apply this memory failure to her but not to Kavanagh. She mis-remembered events, Kavanagh? Well his memory is as sharp as it has always been.

Yeh, but she's a woman & prone to hysteria, obviously. I mean, they all are, right? Conservatives kinda have their own version of Sharia law...

 

[crashtech]

Ok. Just throw the whole federal judiciary nominating process on the garbage heap of history and come up with something new. This shit is insane.

Maybe require a supermajority to actually install anybody so we, theoretically, end up with political moderates across the board. A term instead of lifetime appointments sound good too.

I might support that, although it might be that we've become so polarized that appointments would become almost impossible with such a rule.

 

[pcgeek11]

You are simply blind. Hearing about something contemporaneously is always suggestive of validity, but not proof of it. This is simply the logical result of the fact, say that a fireball passes over Kansas is more likely to validate one person’s claim to have seen it if others say the same thing. Your absurd cult behavior makes it impossible for you to understand the simplest logic.

It is hearsay... There is a reason it is not admissible in a court. I know this isn't a court, but the same theory should apply.

I have also heard and read a lot about Aliens and Spirits that suggests they really exist.

 

[jackstar7]

It is hearsay... There is a reason it is not admissible in a court. I know this isn't a court, but the same theory should apply.

Please explain why the same theory should apply.

 

[FIVR]

Kavanaugh's college secret society motto: "No means yes. Yes means anal"

https://twitter.com/joycemaynard/status/1042777761381838848

 

[pcgeek11]

Is this a court?

Yes or No

Please learn to read.

I said:

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

 

[FIVR]

You guys know I love me some conspiracy theories. Warning: This one is a bit crazy even for me.
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042900718829617152

 

[jackstar7]

Please learn to read.

I said:

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

Yeah, you said that after what I said.

Learn to read a clock.

 

[pcgeek11]

Please explain why the same theory should apply.

No. It is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells.

I'll help you.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...nt_com&p=why+is+hearsay+inadmissible+in+court

 

[Moonbeam]

Please learn to read.

I said:

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

As I said, you are incapable of logical thinking regarding this issue. You saying it should apply does not mean it should apply. And we are not talking about hearsay. We are talking about the absolutely irrefutable logic that the more something has been reported to have happened in the past the more likely it happened than if only one person ever said it happened. Ask anybody 5 or above if they don't agree. Your mind has a cult infection. You can't reason.

 

[jackstar7]

No. It is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells.

I'll help you.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...nt_com&p=why+is+hearsay+inadmissible+in+court

No no no. I know what hearsay is and why it isn't admissible in a court, but we agree this isn't a court, so why should it be dismissed by the Judiciary Committee?

Please, use your own words, regardless of how small.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you ever hear the term "rumor mill" used. Just because you heard something from somebody means nothing. Neither in a court or as evidence that something happened.

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

From the Oxford Dictionary

Hearsay - Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

This is silliness. One of the arguments against her story is that she’s somehow made it up to get Kavanaugh. The fact that people were talking about it at the time is evidence that’s not the case. That bolsters her case.

This isn’t just not nothing, it’s very important evidence.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yeah, you said that after what I said.

Learn to read a clock.

I said it in the very post that you quoted. Go back and check it.

I posted this " There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also: " in post # 1798.

You asked " Is this a court" in post # 1799.

Now admit you were wrong.