Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

On the basis that the conclusion is absurd. Learn to think for yourself instead of believing everything purported by “credible” polls. Kind of like last night when you insisted "rape parties" were a thing. I am starting to be very surprised by you. 

That's a non-answer.  It's absurd simply because you say it's absurd?  Even if it is absurd, nonetheless we have the highest ranking governmental official in the state of Alabama saying that she has no reason to disbelieve the woman claiming Roy Moore sexually assaulted them or had sexual contact with them when they were minors, but she was still voting for him.  I have both personally talked with numerous friends and acquaintances as well as some prominent people in the political sphere who straight up said that even if the allegations were true, he shouldn't have it held against him because it was so long ago and he was only 17 at the time.

So apparently the absurd is quite popular among certain segments of the population.  On what basis to you say that these known backing of absurdities aren't enough to add up to a slim majority of Republicans or evangelicals?  Your gut feeling isn't a good basis.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's a non-answer.  It's absurd simply because you say it's absurd?  Even if it is absurd, nonetheless we have the highest ranking governmental official in the state of Alabama saying that she has no reason to disbelieve the woman claiming Roy Moore sexually assaulted them or had sexual contact with them when they were minors, but she was still voting for him.  I have both personally talked with numerous friends and acquaintances as well as some prominent people in the political sphere who straight up said that even if the allegations were true, he shouldn't have it held against him because it was so long ago and he was only 17 at the time.

So apparently the absurd is quite popular among certain segments of the population.  On what basis to you say that these known backing of absurdities aren't enough to add up to a slim majority of Republicans or evangelicals?  Your gut feeling isn't a good basis.

"Majority of republicans would see BK appointed even if it is proven he is a rapists."

If such a claim is asked to be taken as accurate, you better have a hell of a lot more than poll to point at. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. How's that? I am staring to question your ability to use common sense. Seriously. Don't let your delusion blind you. You're a smart guy. 

I'm done arguing about the silly poll. Go ahead and respond, but as far as I am concerned, this little rabbit trail is done buddy. 

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not trying to get you to accept my proposition. There inherently is some evidentiary burden in this setting, and it mostly closely resembles a “preponderance of the evidence.”

I don't have any problem with that. 

But you were implying there were actual codified standards for evidence in a senate hearing - ex the committee chairman  - or at least that's what I inferred.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

"Majority of republicans would see BK appointed even if it is proven he is a rapists."

That wasn't the question asked in the poll.  This was:

If the charge of sexual assault during a party in high school by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is true, do you think Brett Kavanaugh:

- Should be confirmed to the Supreme Court
- Should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court
- Unsure

So, to be accurate it would be "Majority of Republicans would see BK appointed even if it is proven that the allegations of attempted rape/sexual assault are true."  

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

If such a claim is asked to be taken as accurate, you better have a hell of a lot more than poll to point at. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. How's that? I am staring to question your ability to use common sense. Seriously. Don't let your delusion blind you. You're a smart guy. 

Look, I'm asking you for sound reasons other than your gut feelings to disbelieve a poll from a very reputable and experienced polling organization.  If you won't do that, I guess I'll just have to accept that you have your reasons for doing so are personal, if odd.  But quit questioning my common sense.  And I don't care what your opinion is of me.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm done arguing about the silly poll. Go ahead and respond, but as far as I am concerned, this little rabbit trail is done buddy. 

Because you won't answer simple questions.  God only knows why not.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Because you won't answer simple questions.  God only knows why not.

Wrong. My answer isn't good enough for you. It isn't enough for you that I find the conclusion absurd. 

I mean yeah. Just accept my answer, disagree with it, and move on.

[homersapien 11,440]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That wasn't the question asked in the poll.  This was:

If the charge of sexual assault during a party in high school by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is true, do you think Brett Kavanaugh:

- Should be confirmed to the Supreme Court
- Should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court
- Unsure

So, to be accurate it would be "Majority of Republicans would see BK appointed even if it is proven that the allegations of attempted rape/sexual assault are true."  

 

Actually, to use the word "rape" wouldn't be justified if it didn't appear exactly like that in the poll question. 
 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't have any problem with that. 

But you were implying there were actual codified standards for evidence in a senate hearing - ex the committee chairman  - or at least that's what I inferred.

When did I imply that? 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually, to use the word "rape" wouldn't be justified if it didn't appear exactly like that in the poll question. 
 

The poll question uses sexual assault, true.  The question asked is even less inflammatory from a wording standpoint than I even said.

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because you won't answer simple questions.  God only knows why not.

Wrong.  I do. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. My answer isn't good enough for you. It isn't enough for you that I find the conclusion absurd. 

Because you give no reasons for finding absurd except you just think it is.  That's a non-answer.

 

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I mean yeah. Just accept my answer, disagree with it, and move on.

I'll move on because I can't get blood from a turnip.  But I can't accept an answer when there isn't one.

[homersapien 11,440]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When did I imply that? 

During a series of posts on the matter.  You kept referring to this hearing as being the equivalent - or analogous - to a trial. I disagreed, by contending there are no formal rules for a senate investigation other than what the chairman and committee determine.

It's not a huge deal except you were making arguments regarding what evidence/testimony was permissible or not regarding Ford's case.  My opinion is the committee can take or refuse information as they want. (I could be wrong but no one has shown me why.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because you give no reasons for finding absurd except you just think it is.  That's a non-answer.

 

I'll move on because I can't get blood from a turnip.  But I can't accept an answer when there isn't one.

Titan, I am not going to write an essay on the margin of error or on the issue of true representative samples (and whatever other issues accompany polling). This is not that deep dude. You do not need to be so querulous and demanding on the basis of such a simple statement.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

During a series of posts on the matter.  You kept referring to this hearing as being the equivalent - or analogous - to a trial. I disagreed, by contending there are no formal rules for a senate investigation other than what the chairman and committee determine.

It's not a huge deal except you were making arguments regarding what evidence/testimony was permissible or not regarding Ford's case.  My opinion is the committee can take or refuse information as they want. (I could be wrong but no one has shown me why.)

The evidentiary standards are analogous to those in a trial. Legal evidentiary thresholds spawn forth from societal expectations evolving from everyday interactions. Perfect example, workplace or school. When someone is accused of a wrong, the accusation is investigated. A conclusion isn't reached merely because an allegation arose. Essentially we are figuring out, in those circumstances, which party we are going to believe. If one party can produce weightier evidence than the other party, the former should prevail. Why is this difficult to understand?  

[homersapien 11,440]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

The evidentiary standards are analogous to those in a trial. Legal evidentiary thresholds spawn forth from societal expectations evolving from everyday interactions. Perfect example, workplace or school. When someone is accused of a wrong, the accusation is investigated. A conclusion isn't reached merely because an allegation arose. Essentially we are figuring out, in those circumstances, which party we are going to believe. If one party can produce weightier evidence than the other party, the former should prevail. Why is this difficult to understand?  

Because you misrepresented it initially?

And they are only analogous to a trial to the extent the committee/chairman make them that way. 

Again, you seemed to be arguing at the time there were ex committee standards in play that affected Ford's evidence.

I'm sorry if I inferred something you weren't saying (but that doesn't necessarily mean I wasn't justified in doing so).

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Because you misrepresented it initially?

And they are only analogous to a trial to the extent the committee/chairman make them that way. 

Again, you seemed to be arguing at the time there were ex committee standards in play that affected Ford's evidence.

I'm sorry if I inferred something you weren't saying (but that doesn't necessarily mean I wasn't justified in doing so).

It's ok. Just do better next time. I'll let this one slide 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Titan, I am not going to write an essay on the margin of error or on the issue of true representative samples (and whatever other issues accompany polling). This is not that deep dude. You do not need to be so querulous and demanding on the basis of such a simple statement.

No one asked for an essay.  I asked for a reasonable answer other than you think it's absurd because you think it's absurd.  If you believe there are problems with their methodology, then present them along with what makes you more qualified to understand such things than Marist.  Their stated margin of error for this poll is +/- 3.9 percentage points.  So even if you go with the most favorable result and subtract 3.9% from the number, that's still 50.1% of Republicans and 44.1% of evangelicals.  Explain to me how you know they are in error.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Can Titan and I ever have an exchange where you don't butt-in like an annoying dog nipping at the heels? You aren't providing anything other than:

"Uhh, Titan's right. Nola's wrong." [Insert pointless contentions and annoying commentary]

Actually, if you go back, you will find I was pursuing a parallel line of argument to what Titan was pursuing pretty much at the same time.  The only difference was you weren't responding to many of my posts. Now it seems you are hiding behind Titan to avoid engaging me.  Funny huh?

Anyway, on this forum, anyone can reply to any post they care to.  It shouldn't be all that difficult to keep up with who's who, so please "try harder" to do so.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

No one asked for an essay.  I asked for a reasonable answer other than you think it's absurd because you think it's absurd.  If you believe there are problems with their methodology, then present them along with what makes you more qualified to understand such things than Marist.

Well that's the thing, I just think it's an absurd proposition. Maybe this will help you understand why I feel this why, and I don't mean this in jest - I do appreciate you wanting to understand why I feel this way, I initially thought that you just wanted to pick at me but I think you do truly want to understand (unlike others):

Say that a "credible" poll concluded that majority of Democrats think BK should not be confirmed even if is innocence is overwhelmingly proven and in fact all of the allegations are fabricated. I would vehemently disagree with that. While that may true for some Democrats, it is absurd on its face to impute it to majority of them. While they may not "want" him appointed, I think it quite a stretch to impute to the majority of them such a conclusion that basically attributes a "I don't care, regardless" attitude. I don't think it would require one to then articulate a flaw in the polling process. The conclusion in and of itself is enough for that person to disagree. 

Does that help any? 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually, if you go back, you will find I was pursuing a parallel line of argument to what Titan was pursuing pretty much at the same time.  The only difference was you weren't responding to many of my posts. Now it seems you are hiding behind Titan to avoid engaging me.  Funny huh?

Anyway, on this forum, anyone can reply to any post they care to.  It shouldn't be all that difficult hard to keep up with who's who, so "try harder" to do so.  

The difference between you and Titan is that he is actually interested in hearing what others have to say. 

[homersapien 11,440]

57 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well that's the thing, I just think it's an absurd proposition. Maybe this will help you understand why I feel this why, and I don't mean this in jest - I do appreciate you wanting to understand why I feel this way, I initially thought that you just wanted to pick at me but I think you do truly want to understand (unlike others):

Say that a "credible" poll concluded that majority of Democrats think BK should not be confirmed even if is innocence is overwhelmingly proven and in fact all of the allegations are fabricated. I would vehemently disagree with that. While that may true for some Democrats, it is absurd on its face to impute it to majority of them. While they may not "want" him appointed, I think it quite a stretch to impute to the majority of them such a conclusion that basically attributes a "I don't care, regardless" attitude. I don't think it would require one to then articulate a flaw in the polling process. The conclusion in and of itself is enough for that person to disagree. 

Does that help any? 

 

Is it OK for me to respond to this after Titan does? 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well that's the thing, I just think it's an absurd proposition. Maybe this will help you understand why I feel this why, and I don't mean this in jest - I do appreciate you wanting to understand why I feel this way, I initially thought that you just wanted to pick at me but I think you do truly want to understand (unlike others):

Say that a "credible" poll concluded that majority of Democrats think BK should not be confirmed even if is innocence is overwhelmingly proven and in fact all of the allegations are fabricated. I would vehemently disagree with that. While that may true for some Democrats, it is absurd on its face to impute it to majority of them. While they may not "want" him appointed, I think it quite a stretch to impute to the majority of them such a conclusion that basically attributes a "I don't care, regardless" attitude. I don't think it would require one to then articulate a flaw in the polling process. The conclusion in and of itself is enough for that person to disagree. 

Does that help any? 

I'm sorry, but this still just feels like a longer version of saying that you don't believe it just because you don't believe it.  I'm not saying you have to accept the numbers uncritically, but I'd expect some digging into the methodology, the way the sample was gathered, the wording of the question, or even a credible charge of purposely misrepresenting the data.  Not just "I think it's dumb."

[homersapien 11,440]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The difference between you and Titan is that he is actually interested in hearing what others have to say. 

Actually, I am very interested in hearing what you have to say.  Seriously. You are mistaking argument with disinterest. 

I am also willing to try and help you understand the science behind anything you don't seem to understand. 

The problem here is not mine, but your attitude (see the continuing stream of sophomoric and arrogant insults.) That's always been the case with you.   I would be a lot less edgier if you showed some occasional sincerity - if not humility

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm sorry, but this still just feels like a longer version of saying that you don't believe it just because you don't believe it.  I'm not saying you have to accept the numbers uncritically, but I'd expect some digging into the methodology, the way the sample was gathered, the wording of the question, or even a credible charge of purposely misrepresenting the data.  Not just "I think it's dumb."

OK great. Good talk

[homersapien 11,440]

58 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Say that a "credible" poll concluded that majority of Democrats think BK should not be confirmed even if is innocence is overwhelmingly proven and in fact all of the allegations are fabricated. I would vehemently disagree with that. While that may true for some Democrats, it is absurd on its face to impute it to majority of them.

 

Since Titan has taken his turn, I'd like to address this hypothetical:

If a (scientifically designed) credible poll concluded "that majority of Democrats think BK should not be confirmed even if is innocence is overwhelmingly proven and in fact all of the allegations are fabricated, it would be a valid conclusion.  That would be what the majority of Democrats think.

Doesn't matter if one thinks the results are absurd or not.  It would be accurate within the statistical margin of error.

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Twitter can post crap or link to data. It takes a baseline of objectivity and intellect to draw the distinction.

Twitter intellect? Interesting.