Sam Lowry said:
Booray said:
Sam Lowry said:
quash said:
Sam Lowry said:
Booray said:
Doc Holliday said:
Booray said:
Canada2017 said:
One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .
And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.
You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?
Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?
Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.
Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.
Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.
That is your logic.
Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.
Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.
Try again.
Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.
That's the analogy, and it holds.
Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.
Pretty different scenario.
You are better than this.
The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.
To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.
There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.
I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.
I'm not saying the story was a lie. That's someone else's argument. But we don't know that the woman was drunk. Assuming the NYT excerpt is accurate, we only know she was present at what was described as a drunken party. As you mentioned, we don't know any gray areas. If she was drunk, how drunk was she? How drunk was the witness? Your analogy assumes she was incapacitated by a roofie to the point of blacking out, but it makes no such assumption regarding the witness. In fact it doesn't even assume he was drinking at all.
You're better than this.
You are supporting that argument.
The poster who called the piece a lie did so solely because the victim did not remember the event.
I used the analogy to demonstrate how her failure to recall what happened did not make the opinion piece a lie. The analogy plainly demonstrates a scenario in which a rape story can be true without the victim's recollection; that was its purpose.
Its not an argument that the described event happened; if it was, it would not be an analogy.
We agree that the evidence is so hazy that it should not be used to prosecute or prevent confirmation. In fact, the authors of the book say the same thing. The point of the story was that it was supported by a credible witness
yet it was not investigated after it came to light. That the idea the FBI did not find any additional evidence of sexual assaults by Justice Kavanaugh is a complete myth, because the FBI refused to look forward them even when witnesses were trying their hardest to tell their story. That it was so important to get him on the bench, we ignored credible evidence of disqualifying acts.I am conflicted on the investigation. It should never come up so late in the process and it is hard to see how one could ever decide what actually happened at a drunken party 30 years ago. But at the same time, the refusal to even look for facts when a lifetime SCOTUS appointment is at stake is pretty horrifying.
But all of that is pretty far afield. The story wasn't a lie. Not even close..
