View Full Version : The junk science Republicans used to undermine Ford and help save Kavanaugh
Trish
10-07-2018, 06:34 PM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
Common
10-07-2018, 06:37 PM
I guess the FBI and the other witness' were junk science also trish
Trish
10-07-2018, 06:40 PM
I guess the FBI and the other witness' were junk science also trish
Thanks for your contribution
Lummy
10-07-2018, 06:40 PM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
It's a terrible shame, really, especially if she doesn't spend time in the pokey for this BS.
Trish
10-07-2018, 06:41 PM
It's a terrible shame, really, especially if she doesn't spend time in the pokey for this BS.
Thanks for your contribution
Common
10-07-2018, 06:56 PM
Thanks for your contribution
What kind of contribution would you like, what would make you happy
Trish
10-07-2018, 06:59 PM
What kind of contribution would you like, what would make you happy
Huh? I was genuinely thanking you. I don't have a response for your comment but still wanted to acknowledge you for posting.
Common
10-07-2018, 07:00 PM
Huh? I was genuinely thanking you. I don't have a response for your comment but still wanted to acknowledge you for posting.
Oh ok my fault, I took it wrong :) my apologies
Peter1469
10-07-2018, 07:00 PM
I wonder if the Senate or the FBI got a look at Ford's therapist's case file on Ford. If any sort of regression therapy (to include hypnosis) was used, that would muck up her testimony. I know this wasn't handled in court, but courts give little to no weight to evidence after such treatment methods- because of the danger of creating false memories.
Just tossing that out- I have no idea what went on in Ford's 2012 therapy sessions.
Anyway, no witnesses corroborated Ford's testimony. Perhaps Ford should go ahead and file a criminal complaint in Maryland. That will start a rigorous process to get to the bottom of this.
Common
10-07-2018, 07:24 PM
If ford was telling the truth and she may have been she had no chance of being believed by everyone because of the way the Democrat Senators used her. They exposed her when she wanted to remain anonymous, the held her information until the last minute to delay the confirmation until after midterms. Had they been on the up and up from the start, this may have gone in an entirely different direction. The democrats are to blame for the fiasco not the GOP and anyone impartial can see easily see that.
If the democrats handled themselves in a more mature manner they may have won over the country on this issue but they acted like wild kindergartners. Its over its done and they did it to themselves.
Cletus
10-07-2018, 07:53 PM
They were giving her the benefit of the doubt and treating her as if she was testifying in good faith.
The alternative would have been to identify her a Democrat tool who was willing to perjure herself in order to kill Kavanaugh's nomination and strike a blow at the President.
They were more gracious than I would have been.
Chris
10-07-2018, 07:54 PM
To me it comes down to both Ford and Kavanaugh gave compelling, believable testimony. No evidence emerged to doubt them. You go by innocent till proven guilty.
So, sure, people try to come up with explanations, one side questions her, the other him.
Peter1469
10-07-2018, 07:56 PM
They were giving her the benefit of the doubt and treating her as if she was testifying in good faith.
The alternative would have been to identify her a Democrat tool who was willing to perjure herself in order to kill Kavanaugh's nomination and strike a blow at the President.
They were more gracious than I would have been.
I think it was agreed by the GOP to treat her with kid gloves. I think it was a correct move. Had they attacked her it could very well have backfired and Kavanaugh could well still be a judge rather than a justice.
I expect the Dems were counting on the GOP to attack her.
Cletus
10-07-2018, 08:07 PM
I think it was agreed by the GOP to treat her with kid gloves. I think it was a correct move. Had they attacked her it could very well have backfired and Kavanaugh could well still be a judge rather than a justice.
I agree. Strategically, it was the correct move. However, now Kavanaugh has been seated and nothing can be done to change that. It is time to turn Ford's life inside out. More importantly, it is time to launch a full and comprehensive investigation into Feinstein and her staff, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Hirono, Leahy, Booker, Durbin, and that scumbag, Schumer. They need to make Harris a hobby.
Go Scorched Earth on them.
stjames1_53
10-07-2018, 08:11 PM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
I think I know where you're going here.
Ford testified that it was unequivocally Kavanaugh that sexually assaulted her. This was a walk back from her original claim of rape.
Then the number of people in the room changed, and none will back up her story, at least not under oath and the Pains and Penalties of Perjury Only one witness came forward and testified under oath, Judge. We know how that went for the accused, or should I say against the claimant.
Ford cannot testify as to exactly when or where. She cannot remember arriving nor leaving. She is unsure about just who was in the room at the time.
Could she have been mistaken? Happens all the time. As a matter of fact, there's a growing number of men getting set free because DNA proved them innocent, they were sent to prison by misidentification. So sure were the victims................
Then there's the legal issue involved. Since there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in MD. Why did she go to the FBI when they have no jurisdiction in this matter, They were both juveniles at the time, living on Montgomery County. To call for an FBI investigation is not only insane, but poorly calculated by the democratic party. Feinstein is already pointing her boney-assed finger about the leaked letter at Ford herself, and her friends. Right, sure thing.......
The democratic party has already thrown her under the bus.
My only question is. did this ever really happen at all, as Ford claims? Do remember she is a mind game specialist.
During the hearing she was forever making changes in her story, Kavanaugh did no such thing.
So, you tell me, can anyone prove this ever happened at all?
Just because it could have, doesn't mean it did.
countryboy
10-07-2018, 08:13 PM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
This was an attempted political hit job. Ford was a willing participant and lied numerous times. You lost, get over it.
Trish
10-07-2018, 08:20 PM
This was an attempted political hit job. Ford was a willing participant and lied numerous times. You lost, get over it.
This is a legitimate article that I seeded. This is not about me. Please stay focused on the topic. Thank you
Trish
10-07-2018, 08:22 PM
I think I know where you're going here.
Ford testified that it was unequivocally Kavanaugh that sexually assaulted her. This was a walk back from her original claim of rape.
Then the number of people in the room changed, and none will back up her story, at least not under oath and the Pains and Penalties of Perjury Only one witness came forward and testified under oath, Judge. We know how that went for the accused, or should I say against the claimant.
Ford cannot testify as to exactly when or where. She cannot remember arriving nor leaving. She is unsure about just who was in the room at the time.
Could she have been mistaken? Happens all the time. As a matter of fact, there's a growing number of men getting set free because DNA proved them innocent, they were sent to prison by misidentification. So sure were the victims................
Then there's the legal issue involved. Since there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in MD. Why did she go to the FBI when they have no jurisdiction in this matter, They were both juveniles at the time, living on Montgomery County. To call for an FBI investigation is not only insane, but poorly calculated by the democratic party. Feinstein is already pointing her boney-assed finger about the leaked letter at Ford herself, and her friends. Right, sure thing.......
The democratic party has already thrown her under the bus.
My only question is. did this ever really happen at all, as Ford claims? Do remember she is a mind game specialist.
During the hearing she was forever making changes in her story, Kavanaugh did no such thing.
So, you tell me, can anyone prove this ever happened at all?
Just because it could have, doesn't mean it did.
This is not about me or what I think. This is about scientific professionals providing their expert opinions on the reaction during and after Dr. Ford's testimony.
Chris
10-07-2018, 08:32 PM
...This is about scientific professionals providing their expert opinions on the reaction during and after Dr. Ford's testimony.
Malkin doesn't buy any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV019fkNOqs
Common Sense
10-07-2018, 08:37 PM
The Republican strategy of believing her story, but claiming mistaken identity, was brilliant.
Transparent bullshit, but brilliant nonetheless.
Mister D
10-07-2018, 08:43 PM
The Republican strategy of believing her story, but claiming mistaken identity, was brilliant.
Transparent bull$#@!, but brilliant nonetheless.
The GOP didn't make this political but they did play this better.
Anyway, the extremely dubious circumstances surrounding Ford's allegations are what undermined Ford's testimony. Nothing else.
Trish
10-07-2018, 08:45 PM
Malkin doesn't buy any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV019fkNOqs
This is certainly another perspective. I found her dialogue unprofessional and condescending which was not necessary for her to make her point. I guess this is where we are in society, treating each other with disdain.
Chris
10-07-2018, 09:07 PM
This is certainly another perspective. I found her dialogue unprofessional and condescending which was not necessary for her to make her point. I guess this is where we are in society, treating each other with disdain.
Aren't you treating Malkin with disdain?
Malkin is blunt, to say the least, but makes several good arguments.
Trish
10-07-2018, 09:17 PM
Aren't you treating Malkin with disdain?
Malkin is blunt, to say the least, but makes several good arguments.
Hmmmmm.....you would think someone with her education would understand how much body language plays into what you're saying. We are visual creatures. They teach you that in communication 101. I didn't find her blunt. I found her condescending. Watching her body language and her facial expressions came off smug. She's definitely a beautiful woman so I understand why some favor her.
Adelaide
10-07-2018, 09:17 PM
Trauma and memory are tricky. Your body and brain protects you by often making you forget large portions (alcohol and drug consumption don't help), but I think most people still can identify who did it visually if not by name. Full memory loss is more so something you would see in prolonged, repetitive traumas (child abuse, torture) where a person dissociates to protect themselves.
No comment on the Ford/Kavanaugh aspect.
Don29palms
10-07-2018, 09:21 PM
What makes Christine Ford unbelievable is all the lies she told combined with her bad memory. Also the lack of any evidence didn't help her credibility.
nathanbforrest45
10-07-2018, 09:56 PM
The Republican strategy of believing her story, but claiming mistaken identity, was brilliant.
Transparent bull$#@!, but brilliant nonetheless.
I don't think anyone who wasn't a mindless partisan hack would believe her "story". She did not present a credible testimony, all she said was it happened, with absolutely no backup to the story. Had this been a jury trial unless the jury was made up entirely of man hating lesbians Kavanaugh would have been found not guilty.
There was more than enough "reasonable doubt" about her testimony to not only free Kavanaugh but to brand Ms Ford a lying sack of doo doo.
This had absolutely nothing to do with junk science, it had everything to do with common sense and decency and the rule of law.
Hoosier8
10-07-2018, 10:59 PM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
Nah. Gotta show deference to the accuser but still zero evidence and all witnesses back Kavanaugh, even her bff.
So traumatized that she changed her story for the public statement from her written statement because it sounded more serious. She also lied about a little thing like flying.
roadmaster
10-07-2018, 11:42 PM
People who write these stories are stupid. Junk Science, NO, I guess they wanted these men to say, "we know she is lying, she hates conservative men especially ones who say they love the Lord." If they had said that, with a little research, would be the truth. But no they are not going to be blunt like I would have. She made the whole thing up, she and her D friends knows she is lying and it didn't work. They decided not to belittle her and give her the benefit of the doubt.
stjames1_53
10-08-2018, 05:24 AM
This is not about me or what I think. This is about scientific professionals providing their expert opinions on the reaction during and after Dr. Ford's testimony.
Is this the same scientific group that claimed Florida would be under water by now? There can only be on explanation, scientific or otherwise, it was all a set up. One does not need a scientist to inspect the post I made. What science could have accurately predicted the outcome? They only real winners were placing bets in Vegas in favor of Kavanaugh. He and the rest of America won over adversity......only the small-minded feel they've lost something. The rest of us know we've gained a plus for all America
stjames1_53
10-08-2018, 05:28 AM
This is certainly another perspective. I found her dialogue unprofessional and condescending which was not necessary for her to make her point. I guess this is where we are in society, treating each other with disdain.
I have a question, Did you watch all of it, or just a few select portions? We watched the whole thing here...plenty of popcorn.
stjames1_53
10-08-2018, 05:37 AM
People who write these stories are stupid. Junk Science, NO, I guess they wanted these men to say, "we know she is lying, she hates conservative men especially ones who say they love the Lord." If they had said that, with a little research, would be the truth. But no they are not going to be blunt like I would have. She made the whole thing up, she and her D friends knows she is lying and it didn't work. They decided not to belittle her and give her the benefit of the doubt.
All of the tools are forgotten by the Dems. Once they've been used up, they are tossed to the curb with the rest of the trash...
Adam Smith, the guy that verbally abuse a Chik Filet employee. Where is he now?
David Hogg, a real darling of the Democrats. Where is he now?
Now, Ford....................
They've all been tossed under the bus. They never accomplished the Democrat ends. The means is not what matters to the Democrats as long as they can use a scorched earth policy.
In the service they were called cannon fodder for good reason...............
donttread
10-08-2018, 06:45 AM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
You have to admit it was a lot kinder than just saying she is a liar! No proof, no proof. "Innocent until proven guilty"
countryboy
10-08-2018, 07:05 AM
This is a legitimate article that I seeded. This is not about me. Please stay focused on the topic. Thank you
"Legitimate" by what standard? Ford is a liar, she was caught lying. Which is probably why she's attempting to distance herself from the whole charade now.
Trish
10-08-2018, 07:53 AM
"Legitimate" by what standard? Ford is a liar, she was caught lying. Which is probably why she's attempting to distance herself from the whole charade now.
Thank you for your contribution.
Trish
10-08-2018, 07:54 AM
You have to admit it was a lot kinder than just saying she is a liar! No proof, no proof. "Innocent until proven guilty"
Thank you for your contribution.
Trish
10-08-2018, 07:55 AM
Is this the same scientific group that claimed Florida would be under water by now? There can only be on explanation, scientific or otherwise, it was all a set up. One does not need a scientist to inspect the post I made. What science could have accurately predicted the outcome? They only real winners were placing bets in Vegas in favor of Kavanaugh. He and the rest of America won over adversity......only the small-minded feel they've lost something. The rest of us know we've gained a plus for all America
Thanks for your contribution
Trish
10-08-2018, 07:55 AM
People who write these stories are stupid. Junk Science, NO, I guess they wanted these men to say, "we know she is lying, she hates conservative men especially ones who say they love the Lord." If they had said that, with a little research, would be the truth. But no they are not going to be blunt like I would have. She made the whole thing up, she and her D friends knows she is lying and it didn't work. They decided not to belittle her and give her the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for your contribution
Trish
10-08-2018, 07:56 AM
Nah. Gotta show deference to the accuser but still zero evidence and all witnesses back Kavanaugh, even her bff.
So traumatized that she changed her story for the public statement from her written statement because it sounded more serious. She also lied about a little thing like flying.
Thanks for your contribution
stjames1_53
10-08-2018, 07:59 AM
Thank you for your contribution.
let's look at how the "ahem" interview was conducted.
When Ford was testifying, the Republicans had to submit their questions, though Williams who then read the question. They were not allowed rebuttal, unless it was written in long hand and still presented through Williams. This was part of her conditions to testify.
When K was on the hot seat, they were able to constantly grill him as if he was found holding the smoking gun. There was no smoking gun, but that pretty much tells you how it went down, Again, you didn't watch the whole thing. It was very enlightening.
Why did she constantly change her story?
stjames1_53
10-08-2018, 08:02 AM
You're not going to get anyone to back up your claim that this has scientific value. It has none, and you're not actively participating through this thread other than to offer condescending attitude.
Thanks for you contribution?
Really, Trish............This is a bait thread, something I thought you'd never do
Trish
10-08-2018, 08:06 AM
You're not going to get anyone to back up your claim that this has scientific value. It has none, and you're not actively participating through this thread other than to offer condescending attitude.
Thanks for you contribution?
Really, Trish............This is a bait thread, something I thought you'd never do
WTF?!! Are you serious? Have I attacked anyone? Have I done anything to disrespect anyone's opinion on this thread? I'm interested in hearing what members think and I'm giving you a platform to express it.
Wow- go away. This is why I don't want to participate on this forum anymore. I have tried to reengage but it's just really not worth it. I don't need this shit.
countryboy
10-08-2018, 09:05 AM
Thank you for your contribution.
Lol, the truth really hurts (left wing narratives) sometimes.
Peter1469
10-08-2018, 09:13 AM
WTF?!! Are you serious? Have I attacked anyone? Have I done anything to disrespect anyone's opinion on this thread? I'm interested in hearing what members think and I'm giving you a platform to express it.
Wow- go away. This is why I don't want to participate on this forum anymore. I have tried to reengage but it's just really not worth it. I don't need this shit.
Don't let them get you down.
Tahuyaman
10-08-2018, 09:16 AM
What kind of contribution would you like, what would make you happy
One which agrees with her partisan based views.
Trish
10-08-2018, 09:46 AM
One which agrees with her partisan based views.
Please keep your comments to the topic not me. This isn't about me and your dislike for me.
Tahuyaman
10-08-2018, 09:48 AM
Please keep your comments to the topic not me. This isn't about me and your dislike for me.
That is relevant to the topic. I don't dislike you.
Captdon
10-08-2018, 09:55 AM
The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans.
President Trump explicitly endorsed the theory Saturday, shortly after Brett M. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed as a Supreme Court judge, telling reporters he was “100 percent” sure Ford accused Kavanaugh in error.
In days leading up to the confirmation vote, the same notion was implicit in the rationale of every senator who attempted to defend Kavanaugh without wholly dismissing Ford’s accusations — her vivid testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were teens in the 1980s:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life,” said Susan Collins (R-Maine), who gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th vote.
“Something happened to Dr. Ford; I don’t believe the facts show it was Brett Kavanaugh," said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat to support the nominee.
“That would get me off the hook of having to make a hard decision,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most loyal defenders. “I don’t know if this is a case of mistaken identity.”
“I watched all the hearings that took place last week and was just floored at the number of people who offered that as an explanation,” said Ira Hyman, a cognitive psychologist who specializes in traumatic memories at Western Washington University.
“This story [of mistaken identity] that’s being offered here is a way of both trying to validate sexual assault and not deny it — which is a lovely change — but at the same time create a narrative that Kavanaugh couldn’t have been the person who did it," he said. "That’s just not consistent with memory research on misidentification.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-junk-science-republicans-used-to-undermine-ford-and-help-save-kavanaugh/ar-BBO38Oq?li=BBnb7Kz
Yes, it was a poltically safe way to say she lied.
Captdon
10-08-2018, 09:58 AM
To me it comes down to both Ford and Kavanaugh gave compelling, believable testimony. No evidence emerged to doubt them. You go by innocent till proven guilty.
So, sure, people try to come up with explanations, one side questions her, the other him.
Her ever changing story was believable?
Chris
10-08-2018, 10:13 AM
Hmmmmm.....you would think someone with her education would understand how much body language plays into what you're saying. We are visual creatures. They teach you that in communication 101. I didn't find her blunt. I found her condescending. Watching her body language and her facial expressions came off smug. She's definitely a beautiful woman so I understand why some favor her.
And Ford's body language:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI
Blahseh Ford no.....I don't want to file any Police Reports. I just want to tell my story to Congress about this Republican/Conservative guy. No I have no proof or evidence, that's not important. Whats important is the telling of my story. So I can get that out there for the Country.
This is really difficult for me to do. :rollseyes:
Trish
10-08-2018, 01:22 PM
And Ford's body language:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI
You post a video that has audio added to the video with someone narrating that there's something mentally wrong with this woman?
I don't know what to say to you right now. I'm just flabbergasted.
Tahuyaman
10-08-2018, 01:31 PM
You post a video that has audio added to the video with someone narrating that there's something mentally wrong with this woman?
I don't know what to say to you right now. I'm just flabbergasted.
She's simply describing the signals her body language is sending.
ripmeister
10-08-2018, 02:50 PM
Many on the right are anti science.
Don29palms
10-08-2018, 03:26 PM
You post a video that has audio added to the video with someone narrating that there's something mentally wrong with this woman?
I don't know what to say to you right now. I'm just flabbergasted.
There is something mentally wrong with Ford. She is a demonrat after all.
Hoosier8
10-08-2018, 04:30 PM
Many on the right are anti science.
As described by the left because many on the right do not blindly follow the dogma which is the true anti-science.
ripmeister
10-08-2018, 05:13 PM
As described by the left because many on the right do not blindly follow the dogma which is the true anti-science.
That's a silly statement. You obviously don't understand this scientific method.
donttread
10-08-2018, 05:13 PM
Trauma and memory are tricky. Your body and brain protects you by often making you forget large portions (alcohol and drug consumption don't help), but I think most people still can identify who did it visually if not by name. Full memory loss is more so something you would see in prolonged, repetitive traumas (child abuse, torture) where a person dissociates to protect themselves.
No comment on the Ford/Kavanaugh aspect.
She is also a trained psychologist who could fake PTSD if she wanted to. Has anyone else thought of that angle?
Chris
10-08-2018, 05:27 PM
She is also a trained psychologist who could fake PTSD if she wanted to. Has anyone else thought of that angle?
She was presented as a trained psychologist. She wasn't. Some of her statements about how memory works--they seemed like odd questions at the time--the answers were incorrect according to the psychological literature--is what I read somewhere. I think Adelaide's post is more accurate than Ford's was.
Chris
10-08-2018, 05:30 PM
You post a video that has audio added to the video with someone narrating that there's something mentally wrong with this woman?
I don't know what to say to you right now. I'm just flabbergasted.
You brought up body language. So I posted a narrative on Ford's body language. Much of what was said about Kavanaugh's body language was unflattering as well.
Captdon
10-08-2018, 06:51 PM
That doesn't matter. Only Ford matters. She's the new Goddess of Goodness to the women. You can't treat this stuff seriously when they don't tell the truth.
Hoosier8
10-08-2018, 08:23 PM
That's a silly statement. You obviously don't understand this scientific method.
Because I don’t fall in line with the dogma? LOL
Tahuyaman
10-08-2018, 08:24 PM
Many on the right are anti science.
No. They are opposed to partisan politics posing as science.
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 05:19 AM
You post a video that has audio added to the video with someone narrating that there's something mentally wrong with this woman?
I don't know what to say to you right now. I'm just flabbergasted.
let's get back to that junk science thing. How many men have been falsely accuse and imprisoned only to be cleared through DNA testing after a woman has claimed that a man raped her and demanded that this was the guy?
It is not junk science when science clears the accused. False identifying has imprisoned many innocent men. Thank science for clearing innocent men.
Now, that isn't saying something bad did not happen to them. It just says it wasn't who they claimed it was.
It has gotten to the point where people are becoming convinced it never happened at all. But we're being kind to her by not challenging her record. Do you really want us to look real close into Ford and her history?
Is she really an train psychologist? We don't know because all of her social media and records have been scrubbed clean, or at least until the FBI pulls it out of the dark and into the light.
This may be the can of worms you really don't want to open.
I hope she gets charged with perjury and misleading a Congressional committee while under oath.
But I know you'll defend her while she rots in a federal prison and only because she's a woman attacking a conservative.
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 05:22 AM
Many on the right are anti science.
What science are you talking about here? How to read body language?
nathanbforrest45
10-09-2018, 06:20 AM
I seem to remember a "psychologist" claiming President Donald Trump was mentally unstable based entirely on his body language.
nathanbforrest45
10-09-2018, 06:30 AM
Don't let them get you down.
I wonder how she can post in a 15 year old girl voice to show us how traumatized she was by not being lauded over for her wit and wisdom.
nathanbforrest45
10-09-2018, 06:33 AM
Please keep your comments to the topic not me. This isn't about me and your dislike for me.
No one here dislikes you. You are probably a wonderful person and can bake a mean apple pie. However your viewpoint is something else. We don't agree with your VIEW POINT not with you personally. You however are making it personal with your snide and dismissive "thank you for your contribution". And now you are whining like a Christine Ballsy Ford clone
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 11:07 AM
No. They are opposed to partisan politics posing as science.
I'm referring to the science not the politics.
Tahuyaman
10-09-2018, 11:25 AM
I'm referring to the science not the politics.
Man made global warming is politics portraying itself as science. There's no science involved.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 11:31 AM
Man made global warming is politics portraying itself as science. There's no science involved.
I rest my case.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 11:34 AM
Because I don’t fall in line with the dogma? LOL
No because you apparently don't understand the scientific method.
Tahuyaman
10-09-2018, 11:43 AM
No because you apparently don't understand the scientific method.
If you are a believer in man made global warming, you are the one who has no understanding of a true scientific method.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 12:27 PM
If you are a believer in man made global warming, you are the one who has no understanding of a true scientific method.
I side with peer reviewed science albeit with a skeptical eye. You reject it out of hand to fulfill your political ajenda.
Hoosier8
10-09-2018, 01:55 PM
I side with peer reviewed science albeit with a skeptical eye. You reject it out of hand to fulfill your political ajenda.
Which peer reviewed science do you agree with? Michael Mann’s science? LOL
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 02:14 PM
Which peer reviewed science do you agree with? Michael Mann’s science? LOL
Pretty much every major science organization agrees there is a consensus on anthropomorphic induced climate change. The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and The American Meteorological Assc would be examples of many. This argument is no longer a scientific one but rather a political one with the extractive industries and their lapdogs perpetuating the scam of climate change denial. This is not unlike the debate that raged around cigarettes and their effects on health.
Hoosier8
10-09-2018, 03:23 PM
Pretty much every major science organization agrees there is a consensus on anthropomorphic induced climate change. The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and The American Meteorological Assc would be examples of many. This argument is no longer a scientific one but rather a political one with the extractive industries and their lapdogs perpetuating the scam of climate change denial. This is not unlike the debate that raged around cigarettes and their effects on health.
You think every major science organization does climate science?
Yours is a logical fallacy, actually a couple of them. Also organizations that do not reflect the dogma run the chance of losing funding.
According to you, inconvenient science is science denial.
Peter1469
10-09-2018, 03:53 PM
Not specific to climate change, but a recent study found a large number of peer review articles to be flawed (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so) and actually unscientific.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:12 PM
Not specific to climate change, but a recent study found a large number of peer review articles to be flawed (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so) and actually unscientific.
You and Hoosier will believe what you want to believe I guess.
Cletus
10-09-2018, 04:14 PM
As will you.
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 04:21 PM
I side with peer reviewed science albeit with a skeptical eye. You reject it out of hand to fulfill your political ajenda.
nope...celestial mechanics completely ignored.....
constantly changing paradigm (earth's nature) ignored.....
Constantly altering models, ignored.
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 04:23 PM
You and Hoosier will believe what you want to believe I guess.
you believe all liberal lies. You post them in here everyday. You ignore the earth's change patterns and blame others. A typical ploy of liberals.
You drive? Natural gas heat? Use propane for grilling?
If these so-called scientist have their way, you wont be doing any of the above:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/
The consumer always foots the bill. and only the very wealthy will be using cars for personal activities
The Xl
10-09-2018, 04:23 PM
As opposed to the "science" that incriminated Kavanaugh in the first place
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:26 PM
You think every major science organization does climate science?
Yours is a logical fallacy, actually a couple of them. Also organizations that do not reflect the dogma run the chance of losing funding.
According to you, inconvenient science is science denial.
Science organizations like the NAS are multidisciplinary. Where is the logical fallacy in providing examples of three science based organizations and there consensus on anthropogenic induced climate change. The funding angle is another red herring put out by deniers like you because you can't criticize the actual peer reviewed science.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:28 PM
Not specific to climate change, but a recent study found a large number of peer review articles to be flawed (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so) and actually unscientific.
Sure that happens. That's why its called peer reviewed and constantly open to criticism. That doesn't change the consensus the exists unless you are saying that its all bogus. Are you saying that.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:31 PM
nope...celestial mechanics completely ignored.....
constantly changing paradigm (earth's nature) ignored.....
Constantly altering models, ignored.
I don't know what any of that means. Did you get that from some denier publication. Constantly changing earths nature paradigm? WTF does that even mean?
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:32 PM
As opposed to the "science" that incriminated Kavanaugh in the first place
What science incriminated K? I thought it was simply a persons testimony. Not sure where you are going with that. Nowhere I guess.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:37 PM
you believe all liberal lies. You post them in here everyday. You ignore the earth's change patterns and blame others. A typical ploy of liberals.
You drive? Natural gas heat? Use propane for grilling?
If these so-called scientist have their way, you wont be doing any of the above:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/
The consumer always foots the bill. and only the very wealthy will be using cars for personal activities
All liberal lies? Are you saying that the state of the current scientific consensus on ACC is all liberal lies?
Sure I do all those things but I try to limit my carbon footprint as much as possible. The focus needs to be on alternatives. It might surprise you for example that I'm pro nuclear.
Peter1469
10-09-2018, 04:37 PM
You and Hoosier will believe what you want to believe I guess.
As well as the Economist and whoever conducted the study that was the subject of the article.
Peter1469
10-09-2018, 04:38 PM
Sure that happens. That's why its called peer reviewed and constantly open to criticism. That doesn't change the consensus the exists unless you are saying that its all bogus. Are you saying that.
read the article if you want to know what I am saying
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:39 PM
As well as the Economist and whoever conducted the study that was the subject of the article.
Well, we actually got off track regarding the OP by getting onto the climate change debate.
ripmeister
10-09-2018, 04:44 PM
read the article if you want to know what I am saying
I read the article. What was it 6% of articles in these bogus journals. Every discipline has its outliers and there are certainly charletans out there. That is not an indictment on the vast majority of research that is peer reviewed.
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 05:08 PM
Science organizations like the NAS are multidisciplinary. Where is the logical fallacy in providing examples of three science based organizations and there consensus on anthropogenic induced climate change. The funding angle is another red herring put out by deniers like you because you can't criticize the actual peer reviewed science.
Ok, the most glaringly obvious question is
How much will it cost?
Once taken as a tax, will it ever be repealed or will it only increase, as most taxes do.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 05:10 PM
I don't know what any of that means. Did you get that from some denier publication. Constantly changing earths nature paradigm? WTF does that even mean?
scientific terms........you've just shown your level of education on the matter. Google is your friend
stjames1_53
10-09-2018, 05:19 PM
All liberal lies? Are you saying that the state of the current scientific consensus on ACC is all liberal lies?
Sure I do all those things but I try to limit my carbon footprint as much as possible. The focus needs to be on alternatives. It might surprise you for example that I'm pro nuclear.
nuclear............unstable at best. Does more damage than good when measured in lives, shelf life's measured in 10g increments. Solar? By products are pure poison. Wind, the jury's still out.
Tidal pools only work in very very large areas of water.
Peter1469
10-09-2018, 06:30 PM
Well, we actually got off track regarding the OP by getting onto the climate change debate.
The article mentions up to 40,000 peer reviewed articles that are bunk. Some of those may be climate studies.
Peter1469
10-09-2018, 06:30 PM
I read the article. What was it 6% of articles in these bogus journals. Every discipline has its outliers and there are certainly charletans out there. That is not an indictment on the vast majority of research that is peer reviewed.
It isn't the journals that are bogus. It is flaws in the peer review process.
Hoosier8
10-10-2018, 06:47 AM
Science organizations like the NAS are multidisciplinary. Where is the logical fallacy in providing examples of three science based organizations and there consensus on anthropogenic induced climate change. The funding angle is another red herring put out by deniers like you because you can't criticize the actual peer reviewed science.
Methinks you pay to much attention to alarmist and nutty environmentalists than actual science.
Like this writer for Slate:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/884587292387442688/CZRstbAj_bigger.jpg
(https://mobile.twitter.com/EricHolthaus)
Eric Holthaus
@EricHolthaus
(https://mobile.twitter.com/EricHolthaus)
If you are wondering what you can do about climate change:The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.I mean, if you are looking for something to do.
Many on the right are anti science.
That's funny how do you explain all those on the Right that are into Nuclear Power.....Science Right?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.