Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[MadMojoMonkey]

Before you get into this whole post, I have a request.

It's daunting to try to answer the 20 questions you asked, let alone try to reply to all the other points.
I'll do my best to answer the questions, but it'd help the flow of the conversation if you could maybe pick the one biggest thing to unravel from the litany of things I said that bother you. I get that we don't agree on much, and that's fine. It'd just help if we took on one issue at a time to try to come to understand each other, rather than mashing everything into every conversation.

Would you say that if 100% of the accusations being fuzzy, uncorrorborated and/or actively refuted, and all contained within circumstances of underage drink that constitutes a "persistent pattern of sexual assault"?

No. Either the number of claims is small and it's not a pattern and I don't care, or the number of claims is large and it'd be foolish to claim that all of them are lies.

Have you ever been to couples therapy?

No.

Why is it hard to believe she's mistaken?

For the reasons I've stated.

Why are those four people less believable than she is? is it more plausible that she's mistaken, or that all four of those people are lying?

None of them is any more believable than the others, and what I see is 5 believable stories. I'm not picking sides because 4 of them are similar. Not yet.

Humans lie for all sorts of reasons, and often say untrue things which they believe, despite the white-washing of memory that compels that belief.

Humans lying doesn't bother me. I don't care whom lied about what. I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS.
I assert that we don't need to evaluate the veracity of any individual claims when it comes to crimes of sexual nature. What turns someone on is not something that changes throughout their life. If it's women, it's women. If it's men, it's men. If it's violence, it's violence. Etc.

That's my hypothesis.

Really? It doesn't matter that this guy has worked honorably at the highest levels of public service? That means nothing to you?

I don't even know how to answer this.

It means that he's earned the respect of an independent body to verify the claims, nothing more. People whom are otherwise good do bad things all the time. It is perfectly common for someone to live a double-life to cover up their guilt. Dahmer's neighbor's called him a "quiet man who kept to himself."

Do you at least acknowledge the suspicious timing of all this??
How could there be "a flood of claims" just waiting to be made....but not one of them surfaced before now?

The timing is the opposite of suspicious.
Imagine you were raped, and you reacted in all the common ways people react. Shame, self-blame, depression, etc.
Then you just want to separate yourself from that person, that place, and get on with your life in denial of the thing that happened to you... by them.
Until you see them about to be appointed to a positon of great power and authority, with impact on millions of people's lives...

Then you realize that you have to face your fear, your shame, your depression, and man-up to face whatever comes in order to prevent this person from enacting their beliefs on a scale which makes what happened to you a detail.

How? See above.
If you've never been a victim of violence, then don't even pretend you understand what they've dealt with. If you have, then try to understand that other people are seriously traumatized by that kind of thing and if you weren't, then you are the exception to the rule, not them.

Source?


Source?

lol. It's the Cosby thing. If you can't find your own sources on that, then don't expect me to waste my own time.

When would you say that the hearing has served its purpose?

As I said, when it has determined his character and whether or not he's a good fit for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.
The exact details of that are up to the committee and/or the laws which address this process, since the committee is Congress.

Why can't the thing that comes to light be a sham? What is sham-like about the hearing?

I've repeatedly said that it can.

Oh. Everything about the hearing is a sham. I don't think 1 letter of the intent of the constitution is playing out in this hearing or in the SCOTUS appt. hearings I've seen in my lifetime.
This one is no different.

Why do you deny that we have all the facts.

'Cause there is no other possible explanation of the universe.

Why do you assert that you know everything?

[BananaStand]

what I see is 5 believable stories. I'm not picking sides because 4 of them are similar. Not yet.

No, you don't see 5 believable stories. You see TWO believable stories and a binary distribution that favors one of those stories by a ratio of 4 to 1. How you don't find that compelling makes me wonder how you can be a man of science.

I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS

If every single word this cunt says turns out to be 100% true....and BK gets confirmed anyway.....there still wouldn't be a rapist on the SCOTUS.

You might wanna turn down the ol' demagogue-sensitivity dial

[Poopadoop]

No, you don't see 5 believable stories. You see TWO believable stories and a binary distribution that favors one of those stories by a ratio of 4 to 1. How you don't find that compelling makes me wonder how you can be a man of science.

Well, you see there's her story, K's story, his friend the blind drunk's story (fwiw), her friend saying she doesn't remember (which isn't a story, it's a blank page), and I don't know who the other one is you keep referring to, but I assume they don't remember either. So there's actually two stories, one blackout, and two don't remembers.

If every single word this cunt says turns out to be 100% true....and BK gets confirmed anyway.....there still wouldn't be a rapist on the SCOTUS.

You might wanna turn down the ol' demagogue-sensitivity dial

"attempted rapist" just sounds so awkward.

[Poopadoop]

Mojo would you want a guy who sticks his dick in a girl's face at a college party on the SC?

Not sure what the word is for that. "Dickinfacer?"

[BananaStand]

guy who sticks his dick in a girl's face at a college party

That's ALOT of guys.

[Poopadoop]

That's ALOT of guys.

What % of men do you think have stuck their dick in a girl's face at a party (where she wasn't complicit obv., so no strippers or w/e) at least once in their life? I'm not talking just about your college buddies here, I mean all men.

[BananaStand]

What % of men do you think have stuck their dick in a girl's face at a party (where she wasn't complicit obv., so no strippers or w/e) at least once in their life? I'm not talking just about your college buddies here, I mean all men.

More than 1 in 4

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, you don't see 5 believable stories. You see TWO believable stories and a binary distribution that favors one of those stories by a ratio of 4 to 1. How you don't find that compelling makes me wonder how you can be a man of science.

I said it's a red herring whether or not her story is true. If it's false, then it doesn't matter. If it's true, then a pattern of repeated behavior will become known and no single story being true or false with change the greater picture.

My personal belief is that there is never an in-between when it comes to sex.
I.e. if someone has a problem with this, then it is never a 1-off event.

If every single word this cunt says turns out to be 100% true....and BK gets confirmed anyway.....there still wouldn't be a rapist on the SCOTUS.

You might wanna turn down the ol' demagogue-sensitivity dial

I never said otherwise. I said if what she said is true, then there will be loads of other people with similar claims.
If it becomes a Cosby level of accusations, then it becomes far more likely that he's guilty than not, IMO.

I don't personally think having a known rapist on SCOTUS is good for American legal precedent, but maybe Congress disagrees. If so, then fine. I'll deal with the consequences as they come.

I said if what she said is true, then we'll soon see more people coming forward making similar claims. If that is 1 or 2 people, then it's easy to see them as opportunists. If it's dozens of people, then it becomes harder and harder to believe that all of them are making it up.

That's my hypothesis, not a fact, not based on any data other than my lack of any experience with a person whom was a 1-time sexual predator, but never again thereafter.

You might wanna turn down the ol' demagogue-sensitivity dial

How am I expressing demagoguery?
I'm not appealing for anyone to support my ideas, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just sharing my opinions.

I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word. Can you clarify?

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word. Can you clarify?

Your use of the word rapist = demagoguery

It's an appeal to an emotional argument. You have no basis in fact, or in legal definitions, for using the word "rapist"

[Poopadoop]

Your use of the word rapist = demagoguery

It's an appeal to an emotional argument. You have no basis in fact, or in legal definitions, for using the word "rapist"

Here, let me hold your hand through this. Got it? Ok, now pay attention.

He said "I don't want a rapist on the SC". He did not say "K is a rapist."

See the difference? That's issue number one. You have to read what people say and take that for what it means, not give it a different meaning by changing a word or two, and then responding to that different meaning as if THAT was what they said.

Issue number two: Even if he did say "K is a rapist" (and I remind you again he didn't), that's not demagoguery. It's an opinion, unproven. Everyone here who might have read that (if he'd actually said it, which he didn't) is aware of its (currently at least) unproven status. So it's not a means he would theoretically (if he had actually said that - which he didn't - see issue one above) be using to persuade you or anyone else here of anything. It would simply be him making an unsubstantiated claim.

Again, not to keep harping on it, but it's important you learn this, this second point is only a hypothetical, because of the first issue, which is really an important element of your continuing difficulty in communicating effectively with people here: it's not actually what he said.

[BananaStand]

Here, let me hold your hand through this. Got it? Ok, now pay attention.

He said "I don't want a rapist on the SC". He did not say "K is a rapist."

Here let me hold your hand through this. Now look both ways. Wait for the light..... Ok let's go

I was asked to use fewer words. If you want me to start unpacking all of my responses again...i will. But in this case, MMM's use of the word rapist, is within the following context that summarizes his overall point:

"We should let this Kavanaugh thing play out because if we don't we might have a rapist on the SC"

^If I'm misrepresenting MMM's point, I welcome the correction.

I have two responses to this...

1) Define "play out". 6 FBI background checks, 1200+ written questions, 30 hours of testimony.....what's "enough"? How many accusers of dubious credibility should we entertain?

2) Where did the word "rapist" come from?

No one has accused BK of rape. It's not even reasonable at this time to even speculate that he's possibly committed rape on anyone ever. Why is it a concern that there would be a rapist on the supreme court? Why is that an issue. At worst, if everything Ford says is true, you would have an over-zealous groper on the SC. If we're jumping from that to "rapist", without any credible piece of factual evidence to support such an incendiary charge, then there has to be a reason.

If that reason is a credible suspicion of rape...I'd like to hear what that is.

If the reason for using that word is to emphasize a point and garner support for your argument by leveraging most human beings' distaste for rape....then that is demagoguery

[Poopadoop]

I was asked to use fewer words. So I changed someone else's words to suit my argument, and here's a long-winded justification for whatever else I said

Hilarious.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your use of the word rapist = demagoguery

It's an appeal to an emotional argument. You have no basis in fact, or in legal definitions, for using the word "rapist"

My quote was, "I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS." in an abstract conversation about whom to believe in this kind of he-said/she-said.

I've made it clear that I'm not accusing BK of anything, nor taking a side in this, yet.

It's a fair point that Dr. Ford is not accusing BK of rape. She uses the term sexual assault.
I'll refrain from using that word in this conversation.

[Poopadoop]

How am I expressing demagoguery?

You aren't. He's just using his favourite big word he learned from me.

I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word.

He doesn't know either. He just thinks it's a good name to call someone who expresses a thought that results in him experiencing cognitive dissonance.