Kavanaugh hearing

[Jason]

I just remember the days when 'evil' was a 'religious term' and strictly anathema to the those of the atheist persuasion. It's amusing how people change their beliefs when it suits their political agenda.

[pErvinalia]

Evil is in general lexicon as well. It doesn't have to be in the religious sense.

[Jason]

Well, that wasn't the prevailing opinion back in the day on RDF.

[Brian Peacock]

There's no requirement to 'believe in evil' in the religious sense in order to use the term - the religious don't own it for Christsakes!

[pErvinalia]

Claim evil back!!

[JimC]

Evil is as evil does...

[Scot Dutchy]

I'm loving this use of the word 'boof'.

That's is Dutch btw. It means thief.

[Tero]

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/11/world-b ... ult-again/

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

This is supposedly a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board.

No, it isn't. I don't know if you just made it up because you want it to be so, if you are ignorant of this forum's raison d'être because you were late to class, or if you are confusing it with another forum, the self-proclaimed lifeboat for the rational mind.

Whatever. Just know that the purpose of this forum was to serve as a replacement for RDF's chopped off section titled "Feral OffTopic". Its very name is a parody of 'rational', and if you look at the date it went public you'll discover that it was about a week after Feral OffTopic got the chop and a year before the entire rest of the original Richard Dawkins Forum followed it into the digital abyss.

Being a replacement for Feral OffTopic doesn't mean "Rationalia" is not a forum of mostly friendly, rabid atheists who value reason, logic and science. It also doesn't change the fact that reason and logic are useful in discussions and argumentation, and this forum has a variety of serious debate and discussion topics and threads.

[Forty Two]

Regarding your assertion that Leland Keyser said that she had 'never met' Kavanaugh, can you cite this quote? As far as I'm aware what she said is that she doesn't know Kavanaugh.

She doesn't know Mr. Kavanaugh. Had she met him, she would know him. Before the FBI interview, Keyser submitted two statements, and then she was interviewed by the FBI and reaffirmed it. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/l ... thing-new/

Lame bullshit. I've met thousands of people in my life, as I expect you have. Most of them I don't know. I asked you for the quote of Keyser saying that she never met Kavanaugh, or never met him, ever, as you claimed she said. Despite your claim it looks like you don't have one, because she never said that, ever, and it was a fabrication on your part.

Oy, so, she doesn't know him. Right? She does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she does not remember the party that Ford described. Right?

CBS News reported this:

Keyser had previously released a statement through her attorney saying that she did not remember the party in question, and that she does not remember ever meeting Kavanaugh.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine- ... kavanaugh/

The difference is relevant and it seems you realize that because it's the only thing in my post that you responded to. Keyser says she believes Blasey Ford's allegation, but she cannot recall the party at which it occurred. If she attended the party she would have met Kavanaugh, because it was a small gathering. She didn't say she's never met him. Given that this was a statement issued by a lawyer on her behalf, I think it's reasonable to believe that under the lawyer's advice she didn't say she's never met Kavanaugh because that would be asserting something of which she cannot be sure.

She did not testify that she recalled the occurrence, and just couldn't recall the party at which it occurred. She didn't remember the party or the occurrence. But she said she "believed." I.e., she's believing without having any knowledge herself. She's not saying something to the effect of "yes, I witnessed part of an incident like that (like, Ford running out of the house), but I can't place the location and I don't remember the party." She wrote to the committee that “is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question." Not just the party - she has no recollection of the "incident in question."

A lot of people "believe" Ford. That is not a sign of support or corroboration. It, like all faith, is a wish.

[Forty Two]

Wasn't someone saying that it's wrong to call political opponents "evil"?

Tu Quoque! Tu Quoque!

Wasn't somebody saying it doesn't matter what other people do when we point out one person's defalcation?

Anyway - the distinction is that they called Kavanaugh evil for his political opinion, whereas Trump is calling people evil for supposedly bringing false charges. People who make up stories to defame and injury other people are, whatever you want to call them, playing dirty pool.

That being said, I'm no fan of the word evil, and I don't call anyone evil. It's a value judgment. People aren't evil or good - they can strive to be evil or good - but, actions are good or evil, and people do them. It's not a useful label, except like in dungeons and dragons, and Lord of the Rings, where people have "natures" that are either good/paladin-like or evil-thief-like, and have to behave in accordance with their alignment.

[Hermit]

This is supposedly a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board.

No, it isn't. I don't know if you just made it up because you want it to be so, if you are ignorant of this forum's raison d'être because you were late to class, or if you are confusing it with another forum, the self-proclaimed lifeboat for the rational mind.

Whatever. Just know that the purpose of this forum was to serve as a replacement for RDF's chopped off section titled "Feral OffTopic". Its very name is a parody of 'rational', and if you look at the date it went public you'll discover that it was about a week after Feral OffTopic got the chop and a year before the entire rest of the original Richard Dawkins Forum followed it into the digital abyss.

Being a replacement for Feral OffTopic doesn't mean "Rationalia" is not a forum of mostly friendly, rabid atheists who value reason, logic and science. It also doesn't change the fact that reason and logic are useful in discussions and argumentation, and this forum has a variety of serious debate and discussion topics and threads.

Correction: It says on the tin that Rationalia is populated by friendly rabid atheists (mostly) The tin says nothing like "a lifeboat for the rational mind". Its raison d'être is to serve as a replacement for Feral OffTopic. The raison d'être was not, supposedly or otherwise, to be a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board. The two founders were certainly not anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-science, but reason, logic and science simply played no part in discussions that led up to the decision to found Rationalia. It really is not some massive statistical error that the section titled "Serious Stuff" contains significantly fewer than half the number of posts in the section titled "Fun Stuff".

[Jason]

Yeah... well... we used to have all sorts of fun (and lots of female members too), but shit changes.

[Forty Two]

This is supposedly a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board.

No, it isn't. I don't know if you just made it up because you want it to be so, if you are ignorant of this forum's raison d'être because you were late to class, or if you are confusing it with another forum, the self-proclaimed lifeboat for the rational mind.

Whatever. Just know that the purpose of this forum was to serve as a replacement for RDF's chopped off section titled "Feral OffTopic". Its very name is a parody of 'rational', and if you look at the date it went public you'll discover that it was about a week after Feral OffTopic got the chop and a year before the entire rest of the original Richard Dawkins Forum followed it into the digital abyss.

Being a replacement for Feral OffTopic doesn't mean "Rationalia" is not a forum of mostly friendly, rabid atheists who value reason, logic and science. It also doesn't change the fact that reason and logic are useful in discussions and argumentation, and this forum has a variety of serious debate and discussion topics and threads.

Correction: It says on the tin that Rationalia is populated by friendly rabid atheists (mostly) The tin says nothing like "a lifeboat for the rational mind". Its raison d'être is to serve as a replacement for Feral OffTopic. The raison d'être was not, supposedly or otherwise, to be a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board. The two founders were certainly not anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-science, but reason, logic and science simply played no part in discussions that led up to the decision to found Rationalia. It really is not some massive statistical error that the section titled "Serious Stuff" contains significantly fewer than half the number of posts in the section titled "Fun Stuff".

I never said it was formed to be a lifeboat for the rational mind, and I made no assertion as to why it was founded. The forum is not merely a "Feral OffTopic" discussion. There is room for that, of course, but there are political, news, current event, historical, philosophical, and scientific areas of the forum. Rationalia is not supposed to be anti-reason or anti-logic -- but if you're trying to say that the discussion boards here are not rational, logical or pro-science, then I'll grant you that some folks here do support your assertion.