backlash from who?

from the left

if he didnt say he believed her he'd be in the crosshairs

I had assumed that's what you meant

thats more logical a conclusion than actual positive discrimination.

legit, thanks for engaging on this. you made me think it through in a different way

k

but yeah I agree on sargon being more full on these days and a bit less compassionate

yeah I kinda miss that compassion; it was probably very useful; I cam imagine it changed the opinions of a lot of main stream left-leaning people

agreed

angry sargon is funny but yes, it doesnt convince new people

and he used to convert a lot of people. I'm sure his current path isnt doing that nearly as much

Yes I agree; I was never part of the main stream left. Though there were some lies they preached that I fell prey to before I started watching political commentary from all sorts of sides

this is why I watch Tim. he is as far left as I can watch without reeeeing

because he does actual research and doesnt lie

I watch some rather far left people

Though I disagree with lots of

the things they say

They do have the occasional speck of gold in their huge mountain of dirt

I try not to give them my clicks. its the only way to hurt them

good conversation

😃

@Jes no it isnt. you didnt listen to what i was saying if you believe that

I said that an accused naturally will deny it

so i give more weight to an accuser but wont take action without evidence

it is substantially more likely a someone deny allegations than someone make false allegations

so i weigh a accusation slightly higher but no action should be taken without evidence

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” - John Adams

@Timcast cool, I must have missed that bit.

thanks for clarifying

@Timcast so what you're saying is... lobsters?

So what you're saying is... All lobsters are rapists?

#yesalllobsters

I think the issue here is that innocence is violated by the insinuation that there is _any_ validity to accusations which are almost beyond proof by definition.

If you allow Dr. Ford's testimony to in any way affect your perception of Judge Kavanaugh's moral character, something has already been lost.

That's because you're looking it as either
"The accusation is 100% correct"
Or
"The accusation is 100% incorrect"

It could be that Ford was assaulted, but not by Kav

Sure, but that is also the crucial matter determining whether Kavanaugh is even 1% guilty, or whatever you want to call it.

Right but it's not a necessary fact that Kavanaugh is guilty for Ford to have been a victim

Sure, but what we are opining on here is not the guilt of Kavanaugh, not the existence of Ford's abuser.

So you can believe that someone is victimized, and then go "okay, let's see if we can determine the victimizsr"