Kavanaugh hearing

[Hermit]

Very, very apt...

Someone with the ambition to become a shyster is bound to turn up presently to point out that Kavanaugh has not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn't it weird how male politicians and other males in powerful positions keep getting piled on by liars and goldminers, all of them motivated by political opportunism, filthy lucre, revenge for being slighted in the past or any combination thereof? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya.

[Brian Peacock]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

You're mixing your metaphors with your absolute claims to objective facts, again Booker did not call Kavanaugh 'evil incarnate' as you claimed (though you will never own that claim I guess), but Trump did call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions, didn't he? Now, the question is not how long you are prepared to stir a distracting spat about the true meaning of evil and who applied it to whom - but how long are you going to fudge the issue of Kavanaugh's partisan alignment with the GOP?

I get the feeling you're waiting for FOXNEWS to work out where your moral compass should be pointing on this, eh?

I'll own it - he never used the word incarnate, or the precise term "evil incarnate."

Really? So you didn't say: " ... They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out ..." then?

But, when discussing this issue, we're all using paraphrases and such - like where someone said that Kavanaugh used the words "lefty extremists" - which he didn't use those words either. But, the gist of it is the same.

Yes, we all use general terms, aphorisms, metaphors, similes and the like in political (or any) discourse, and it's what we express by those means which is the important thing, not necessarily the individual words themselves. Your words expressed the moral censure of those who you said were unduly objecting to or opposing Mr Kavanaugh's appointment when they characterised him as evil incarnate. I requote you for context below...

...While it seems there is now no reasonable grounds or legitimately basis on which to object to or oppose a Supreme Court nominee (how very dare they!), none of that really touches on the point...

There are plenty of reasonable grounds and legitimate bases on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees. That doesn't mean that the tactics used with respect to the character assassination of Kavanaugh were legitimate. They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out...

You specifically claimed that 'they' were calling him "evil" before allegations of youthful indiscretion were raised, and by this that such calls were unreasonable grounds and an illegitimate 'basis on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees'. Own it.

Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil and complicit in the evil. Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others." If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil, no?

No.

While not putting aside the fact that, by you lights, it was the specific application of a term like 'evil' to Mr Kavanaugh's character that you considered deserving of moral censure, your earlier general point, that in political discourse we all use things like aphorisms, metaphors, similes and the like to convey our ideas, and that using a term like 'evil' might act as a guide or hint towards 'the gist' of our ideas, is accepted and not at issue.

However, in light of your remarks, you seem keen to play your tune both forwards and backwards here - acknowledging that we use colourful language to highlight our ideas but also seeking to hold that language to account by a specific or definitive meaning of those colourful terms. One such term is 'evil', and for our purposes I think we can reasonably adopt my previous loose definition of 'evil' as being akin to 'wilful moral turpitude'...

Joe provided the context of what Sen Booker actually said, but I'm going to deal with your specific argument, which is...

• P1: Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others."
• P2: If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil
• P3: Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil.
• CN: Therefore Booker said Kavanaugh must be evil.

Your argument necessarily rests on applying the conditional 'if-then' of P2 to the claim of P3. As Joe pointed out earlier, you have to establish that Booker's words were actually directed at or specifically referring to 'supporters of Kavanaugh' in order to support P3, but only after you have supported the conclusion of P2's condition, that 'Kavanaugh must be evil' if his supporters are 'complicit in evil'. On the first point, Booker's appeal was clearly to everyone, not Kavanaugh supporters alone...

There is so much at stake here. This has nothing to do with politics; this has to do with who we are as moral beings. And so, I want to call on everybody...

That and the failure to establish the conclusion of P2--because Brett Kavanaugh could just as easily be the personification of good while being promoted by supporters complicit in evil as being complicit in evil, or evil, himself--kills your argument.

As you know, Booker was going to great pains to express his view in the broadest terms, that view being that when it comes to elevating a Supreme Court Justice moral values not political values should take precedence. In the quirky pseudo-religious language in which much of American politics is couched, and with an accompanying reference to 'Scripture' to drive the point home, Booker suggests (and I only say 'suggests' here because I don't agree with him) that moral matters are characterised and considered in terms of an opposition to evil. What he was doing was imploring people to 'do the right thing', and of course to forward his view that the right thing to do was to reject Mr Kavanaugh's nomination.

Yet the raggedy end of the American right took exception to this, and in that took it upon themselves to be offended and outraged on Mr Kavanaugh's behalf - not because Booker was actually calling Kavanaugh or his supporters evil but because he was suggesting that moral considerations, and particularly Christian moral considerations, should take precedence over political considerations in this matter. On that basis the raggedy-right sought to misrepresent Booker in both substance and intent, and one can only assume they did this to obscure and negate Booker's broad point. To facilitate this they harnessed and mobilised the sympathies of Republican supporters - they emotionalised(!) the matter in order to create a clear line demarcating the bounds of a political battleground - "Hey look guys. They're calling us evil. How very dare they!" It also seems to me that your emotions were suitably stirred too.

I haven't fudged any "alignment" of Kavanaugh. The guy worked in the Bush administration for years, on the Starr commission in the 1990s. He's a lifelong Republican. No getting around that.

Mr Kavanaugh undertook a detailed and specific assault on Democrats in his hearing, accusing them of ruining his life among other things, after describing and affirming his political views to the American public via a high-profile FOXNEWS interview in the week of his hearing. Given his actions and his history I agree with you, there's no getting around the fact that Mr Kavanaugh is firmly affiliated with the GOP - which makes him partisan by definition.

The point you don't seem to want to engage with though is not whether Mr Kavanaugh is politically partisan, something you're apparently quite happy with, but whether it is appropriate to elevate such an avowed partisan individual to the position of Supreme Court Justice. As expressed by former Justice Stevens, Mr Kavanaugh's avowed and obvious partisanship should preclude his elevation to the Supreme Court, as under the terms of the constitution, as well as in practical and moral terms, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to non-partisanship and to operate beyond the reach of the political to-and-fro of the legislature.

I'm not sure how you can ever square that as far as Mr Kavanaugh's appointment goes, other than by perhaps assuming that the robes of a Supreme Court Justice are imbued with a certain magical power - the magical power to render all those who wear them politically agnostic?

Shove your moralizing somewhere. Self-righteousness is unappealing.

You disavow moral considerations by moral fiat after justifying the moral censure of Mr Kavanaugh's objectors for their presumed criticism of his moral character.

All political arguments are moral arguments, concerned as they are with how the shared realm of human affairs should and should not, can and cannot, operate and be organised. Politics is a moral landscape, yet you seem to think that running off the field with the ball shouting 'Shove it' is a good thing to do at this point.

Also, I'm not here to appeal to your sensibilities.

No, Trump did not call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions. He called the people who brought the false allegations evil for bringing false allegations, and he said the Democrats set it up - and they did. Feinstein's conduct - the Avenatti thing - the Swetnick thing - these are bullshit allegations, raised for political purposes.

I find it interesting that you're prepared to apply a charitable and nuanced interpretation of Mr Trumps words while not affording Sen Booker or those who have criticised Mr Kavanaugh's elevation the same courtesy.

[Forty Two]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

You're mixing your metaphors with your absolute claims to objective facts, again Booker did not call Kavanaugh 'evil incarnate' as you claimed (though you will never own that claim I guess), but Trump did call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions, didn't he? Now, the question is not how long you are prepared to stir a distracting spat about the true meaning of evil and who applied it to whom - but how long are you going to fudge the issue of Kavanaugh's partisan alignment with the GOP?

I get the feeling you're waiting for FOXNEWS to work out where your moral compass should be pointing on this, eh?

I'll own it - he never used the word incarnate, or the precise term "evil incarnate."

Really? So you didn't say: " ... They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out ..." then?

of course I did - which is why "evil" is in quotes, and incarnate isn't. They did call him evil, though, and he is incarnate. I then posted the exact quote, which is roughly that supporters of his are supporters of evil. See cory booker's words. They mean the same thing. If they support evil, he's the evil. They're "complicit in the evil [kavanaugh]".

You want to mince words, fine. I owned the exact language.

But, when discussing this issue, we're all using paraphrases and such - like where someone said that Kavanaugh used the words "lefty extremists" - which he didn't use those words either. But, the gist of it is the same.

Yes, we all use general terms, aphorisms, metaphors, similes and the like in political (or any) discourse, and it's what we express by those means which is the important thing, not necessarily the individual words themselves. Your words expressed the moral censure of those who you said were unduly objecting to or opposing Mr Kavanaugh's appointment when they characterised him as evil incarnate. I requote you for context below...

My words express the fact tht they Cory Booker called him evil. Evil.

...While it seems there is now no reasonable grounds or legitimately basis on which to object to or oppose a Supreme Court nominee (how very dare they!), none of that really touches on the point...

There are plenty of reasonable grounds and legitimate bases on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees. That doesn't mean that the tactics used with respect to the character assassination of Kavanaugh were legitimate. They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out...

You specifically claimed that 'they' were calling him "evil" before allegations of youthful indiscretion were raised, and by this that such calls were unreasonable grounds and an illegitimate 'basis on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees'. Own it.

Yes, those calls are unreasonable ground and illegitimate bases on which to object to the SCOTUS nominee. I said there ARE legitimate bases to object to any nominee. Youthful indiscretions and bullshit allegations brought forward at politically opportune times are not among them.

Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil and complicit in the evil. Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others." If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil, no?

No.

While not putting aside the fact that, by you lights, it was the specific application of a term like 'evil' to Mr Kavanaugh's character that you considered deserving of moral censure,

I never said it deserved moral censure. It's an effort to morally censure him. Generally speaking, calling one's political opposition evil is stupid, and is just namecalling.

your earlier general point, that in political discourse we all use things like aphorisms, metaphors, similes and the like to convey our ideas, and that using a term like 'evil' might act as a guide or hint towards 'the gist' of our ideas, is accepted and not at issue.

This is quite simple. You don't need to muddle it. The Democrats, including Cory Booker, were stopping at nothing to sully Kavanaugh's name, drag him through the mud, and raise any idiotic and over-the-top allegation and attack that they could to do it. Among them, were things like Cory Booker's statement.

However, in light of your remarks, you seem keen to play your tune both forwards and backwards here - acknowledging that we use colourful language to highlight our ideas but also seeking to hold that language to account by a specific or definitive meaning of those colourful terms.

I said nothing about colorful language there. I said paraphrasing. When we describe what so and so said, we'll often not use the exact quote. Everyone does it. You're being a bit obtuse - Booker called him evil. He didn't use the word incarnate. Fine. But saying his supporters are complicit in evil means Kavanaugh is the evil.

One such term is 'evil', and for our purposes I think we can reasonably adopt my previous loose definition of 'evil' as being akin to 'wilful moral turpitude'...

Joe provided the context of what Sen Booker actually said, but I'm going to deal with your specific argument, which is...

• P1: Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others."
• P2: If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil
• P3: Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil.
• CN: Therefore Booker said Kavanaugh must be evil.

Your argument necessarily rests on applying the conditional 'if-then' of P2 to the claim of P3. As Joe pointed out earlier, you have to establish that Booker's words were actually directed at or specifically referring to 'supporters of Kavanaugh' in order to support P3, but only after you have supported the conclusion of P2's condition, that 'Kavanaugh must be evil' if his supporters are 'complicit in evil'. On the first point, Booker's appeal was clearly to everyone, not Kavanaugh supporters alone...

He was clearly referring to those who don't oppose Kavanaugh's nomination. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398 ... n-the-evil

There is so much at stake here. This has nothing to do with politics; this has to do with who we are as moral beings. And so, I want to call on everybody...

That and the failure to establish the conclusion of P2--because Brett Kavanaugh could just as easily be the personification of good while being promoted by supporters complicit in evil as being complicit in evil, or evil, himself--kills your argument.

Kavanaugh is good, but people that don't oppose his nomination are complicit in evil for failing to oppose? That's absurd.

As you know, Booker was going to great pains to express his view in the broadest terms, that view being that when it comes to elevating a Supreme Court Justice moral values not political values should take precedence. In the quirky pseudo-religious language in which much of American politics is couched, and with an accompanying reference to 'Scripture' to drive the point home, Booker suggests (and I only say 'suggests' here because I don't agree with him) that moral matters are characterised and considered in terms of an opposition to evil. What he was doing was imploring people to 'do the right thing', and of course to forward his view that the right thing to do was to reject Mr Kavanaugh's nomination.

As you know, Booker was pontificating, bloviating, and trying to score political points. To have the illusion that Corey Booker was busy raising a spirited defense to "moral values" is a bit naive. He was doing his part to torpedo the nomination, plain and simple, because the only chance the Democrats have to stop a conservative justice from taking a spot on the court is to get past the november elections and hope they grabbed a majority in the Senate.

Yet the raggedy end of the American right took exception to this, and in that took it upon themselves to be offended and outraged on Mr Kavanaugh's behalf - not because Booker was actually calling Kavanaugh or his supporters evil but because he was suggesting that moral considerations, and particularly Christian moral considerations, should take precedence over political considerations in this matter. On that basis the raggedy-right sought to misrepresent Booker in both substance and intent, and one can only assume they did this to obscure and negate Booker's broad point. To facilitate this they harnessed and mobilised the sympathies of Republican supporters - they emotionalised(!) the matter in order to create a clear line demarcating the bounds of a political battleground - "Hey look guys. They're calling us evil. How very dare they!" It also seems to me that your emotions were suitably stirred too.

You can't do much more in the way of mental gymnastics than that. I don't know what anyone else thought. I also don't impute any motivation to Booker other than his (understandable) partisan opposition to Kavanaugh. To suggest that he was looking at Kavanaugh and truly suggesting that Christian values require a moral judgment be made as against Kavanaugh because of his wilful, moral turpitude is something you'll need to demonstrate, rather than simply declare. There is nothing in Booker's track record or platform that suggests that he views this kind of moralizing as relevant to political appointments in any other context.

I haven't fudged any "alignment" of Kavanaugh. The guy worked in the Bush administration for years, on the Starr commission in the 1990s. He's a lifelong Republican. No getting around that.

Mr Kavanaugh undertook a detailed and specific assault on Democrats in his hearing, accusing them of ruining his life among other things, after describing and affirming his political views to the American public via a high-profile FOXNEWS interview in the week of his hearing. Given his actions and his history I agree with you, there's no getting around the fact that Mr Kavanaugh is firmly affiliated with the GOP - which makes him partisan by definition.

That's not really an issue. Other Justices are partisan. There is no mistaking where Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor align. The Republican Party is dominated by conservative leaning persons, and as such they will appoint a conservative. They're not going to appoint someone who leans left.

The point you don't seem to want to engage with though is not whether Mr Kavanaugh is politically partisan, something you're apparently quite happy with,

Again, you mischaracterize quite a bit. "Happy?" No. Accepting of reality? Yes. You think Obama did not appoint partisan people? Those committed to left wing judicial philosophies? Of course he does. That's his discretion.

but whether it is appropriate to elevate such an avowed partisan individual to the position of Supreme Court Justice. As expressed by former Justice Stevens, Mr Kavanaugh's avowed and obvious partisanship should preclude his elevation to the Supreme Court, as under the terms of the constitution, as well as in practical and moral terms, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to non-partisanship and to operate beyond the reach of the political to-and-fro of the legislature.

I'm not sure how you can ever square that as far as Mr Kavanaugh's appointment goes, other than by perhaps assuming that the robes of a Supreme Court Justice are imbued with a certain magical power - the magical power to render all those who wear them politically agnostic?

No, I accept the reality that everyone knew there was a politically divided court and we all knew where the line was. His partisanship - in my view - is no worse.

Shove your moralizing somewhere. Self-righteousness is unappealing.

You disavow moral considerations by moral fiat after justifying the moral censure of Mr Kavanaugh's objectors for their presumed criticism of his moral character.

I didn't censure anyone. I expressed an understanding of his own response to the Democrat attacks by citing an example. If someone calls you "evil", and in the process they are tossing out unsubstantiated and self-contradictory allegations to try to derail your appointment, you may well get little hot about it. I would think it odd if he didn't.

All political arguments are moral arguments, concerned as they are with how the shared realm of human affairs should and should not, can and cannot, operate and be organised. Politics is a moral landscape, yet you seem to think that running off the field with the ball shouting 'Shove it' is a good thing to do at this point.

Morality and self-righteous moralizing are not the same thing.

Also, I'm not here to appeal to your sensibilities.

Nor I yours.

No, Trump did not call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions. He called the people who brought the false allegations evil for bringing false allegations, and he said the Democrats set it up - and they did. Feinstein's conduct - the Avenatti thing - the Swetnick thing - these are bullshit allegations, raised for political purposes.

I find it interesting that you're prepared to apply a charitable and nuanced interpretation of Mr Trumps words while not affording Sen Booker or those who have criticised Mr Kavanaugh's elevation the same courtesy.

That isn't the way I see it - I use pretty much his literal verbiage.

[Forty Two]

This is supposedly a pro-reason, pro-logic, pro-science message board. Is that post offered because you think it makes some sense? LOL.

[Cunt]

I wonder what the 'believe victims' crowd thinks of mattress girl?

I just learned about her, and that some people actually STILL believe her accusations.

[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.

Keyser stated the following:
“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the Committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Mr. Walsh said. “However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

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/

[Animavore]

Traitor women are the worst.

[Animavore]

Lol.

[Sean Hayden]

Yep. I'm struggling to see how these guys aren't just liars.

Can it really be that we have millions of people incapable of such basic self-awareness? I guess it's possible, but man it's bizarre.

[Cunt]

Traitor women are the worst.

Did you just assume their gender?

[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.

[pErvinalia]

I don't see anything wrong with Ani's post, other than the false accusations figure potentially suffering from circular reasoning (but I wouldn't imagine it would be out by much). I wonder what was triggering 42.

[Tyrannical]

Lol.

He sexually assaulted me

Where? Ummm...
When? Ummm....
How did you get there? Ummmm....
How did you get back? Ummmmmm....
Your four named witnesses all deny it? Ummmmm.....

[Tero]

Very funny.

[Sean Hayden]

They didn't all deny it. Why are you repeating that lie? It takes 5 min to research this shit man.