I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.
Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?
bubbadog said:I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.
Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?
She alleges it, and I find her allegations credible.
I've laid this out elsewhere extensively. We may never know the truth of what happened. But there needs to be more examination of the claims followed by careful deliberation by the Senate.
Jack Bauer said:pardon my French, but what in the actual **** are you talking about?riflebear said:
And people wonder why no one takes CNN or MSNBC seriously.
Feinstein held back for the same reason the WaPo did: It was an anonymous allegation by someone who wished to remain anonymous. You don't move forward based on something like that -- at least you don't do so if you're behaving in a responsible way. (And if Feinstein was just being partisan, why didn't she play this anonymous accusation card back in August, when it probably could have done more damage?)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.
Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?
She alleges it, and I find her allegations credible.
I've laid this out elsewhere extensively. We may never know the truth of what happened. But there needs to be more examination of the claims followed by careful deliberation by the Senate.
I agree with you until careful deliberation causes a delay on a vote.
There was time for careful deliberation weeks ago when Feinstein declined to ask Kavanaugh anything about it . By waiting until the last second, Feinstein converted this into something hyper-political and IMO, threw the opportunity for careful deliberation out the window.
If careful deliberation was ever the intent of her party, they had a chance but declined it. Honestly, I don't believe careful deliberation is a thing to be attained at this point. By waiting, Feinstein converted it into something political.
Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
Sam Lowry said:Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
Uh, okay.HuMcK said:Sam Lowry said:Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.bubbadog said:Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)Edmond Bear said:bubbadog said:Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.GrowlTowel said:
I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.
We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.
We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.
All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.
This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.
But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.
This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.
And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.
IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.
But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.
https://giphy.com/gifs/2fs2I4ujlBf20