I have to disagree. A lot of the ideas floating around are a direct challenge to our culture and society. What is the patriarchy for example if not western culture. People can’t say what they think anymore, the recent Heismen winner was forced to apologize because some SJW journalists decided to dig up some homophobic tweets from when he was like 14 during the highlight of his life.
tell me where Harris went wrong.
Ok. Let’s look at the tweet where Sam lays out his “argument.”
Kavanaugh’s defenders appear to believe either
(1) Ford is lying to keep him off the court and willing to destroy her life in the process. (What’s more, she’s been preparing the ground for this accusation for years.)
or
(2) She is telling the truth (about her experience), but this is a terrible case of mistaken identity.
(1) seems extraordinarily unlikely. As for (2), how common is it to misidentify an assailant who is already known to you (i.e. not a stranger)?
Problems with this:
1- These are NOT the only two explanations. There is also the very real possibility that she thinks she is telling the truth about her experience, but it actually never happened or at least didn’t happen in a manner resembling her current memory of it. This happens ALL of the time. I’m pretty sure that we have all had experiences in which we remember something very clearly in our minds. We can picture the memory. We recall certain details.
And then someone else who was there completely contradicts what we thought. People who we recall being there were, in fact, not present. The location may have been completely wrong. False or inaccurate memories are extremely common.
2- I think his assessment that coming forward will “destroy her life in the process” is extremely inaccurate. She has been lauded as a hero. She could make huge monetary profit off of her status. I’m not saying that there are no negatives associated with coming forward, just that it is insane to discount the benefits that this newfound notoriety could have for her career, fame, and financial standing.
3- Most importantly… This kind of logical reasoning is just so fundamentally flawed. It’s just NOT how we determine or judge guilt or innocence. The exact logic could have been used to come to the conclusion that the woman who accused the Duke lacrosse team of gang rape was clearly telling the truth. By Harris’s logic, that woman was either putting herself at risk by making a false accusation or mistakenly identified her assailants. Clearly, neither of those options were the truth of the matter.
We judge innocence or guilt by evidence. Ford had ZERO evidence.
4 Likes
Kavanaugh blatantly lied at least twice(boofing, Devil’s triangle), Harris notes this. Only the most biased people believe otherwise.
That is kind of a discussion ender for the whole thing. Only agenda and bias would lead one to think otherwise.
For this to be true, i.e. he was referring to the “the devils triangle” as a threesome, not a drinking game as he claims.Kavanaugh would have actually have to have slept (or had sex with) a woman, right?
He claims he was a virgin until many years after college. These things can’t both be true. He was either a virgin or he was promiscuous.
So the obvious question. Where are the women, or even one woman that claims she had sex with Kavanaugh?
Notwithstanding there are no women making that claim, might it not support his claim he was a virgin until years after college and hence his claim “the devils triangle” was a drinking game?
The only person who lends any weight to your version of events is Julie Swetnick. The problem for Julie Swetnick, is everybody says her version of what happened is a crock of shit. No punch bowl, no orgies, in fact no one could recall Julie Swetnick ever being present at any party. Senate report paints devastating profile of Justice Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick - Washington Times She was refereed to the FBI/DOJ for breaking federal law by submitting false statements.
You claim only people capable of extreme bias would believe Kavanaugh’s explanation of “the devils triangle”. Biased people have a conclusion they want, then disregard the facts, no matter how compelling.
It would seem to me, you are the one disregarding the known facts and in doing so reveal your own extreme bias you claim anyone who would disagree with you are guilty of. What a topsy turvy world you must live in @WonkyWaiguo.
2 Likes
There is zero evidence that either of those two things were lies.
Mick is on point here.
Kavanaugh made a very specific and EASILY verifiable claim here: that he was a virgin until many years after college.
That is a BOLD claim. All it would take to categorically prove him a liar is for one single woman to come forward with a diary or journal that provides contemporaneous corroboration of a sexual act. Even the friend of a girl who wrote something in a diary or journal (i.e., “Susan told me that her and Brett had sex on Saturday.”).
NOTHING HAS COME OUT.
Making such a specific and bold claim would be absolutely nuts if he was lying. Are we really supposed to believe that this guy ONLY engaged in gang rapes and sexual assault, but decided to save consensual sex until marriage? That’s absurd…
It is well within the realm of possibility for a group of friends to name a drinking game “Devil’s Triangle” or refer to farting as “boofing.” That is far more believable to me than the idea that he was sexually active in high school with ZERO contemporaneous evidence remaining of that activity.
3 Likes
is it really such a big deal if he indeed lied about something like boofing?
No…
The people who were adamant about taking Kavanaugh down regardless of the facts pertaining to the Ford case were claiming that a lie about the definition of “boofing” constituted perjury. I think that’s a pretty big stretch. The legal definition of perjury stipulates that misinformation or lie must be “material to an official proceeding.” Whether or not some 17 year olds were referring to “anal sex” or “farting” in a juvenile way hardly seems material to the proceedings.
I would disagree on this point @Taiwanguy . Implicit with this suggestion is “if he lies about this one thing, what else is he lying about”. In this regard, I do think they got him to lie, when they asked him if he ever drunk so much he blacked out or couldn’t remember and he replied “no”.
I get why IMO he lied, implicit in this question is “if you blacked out and can’t remember, how can you emphatically state what Dr Ford claims happened, didn’t happen” the answer of course would be he can’t, hence the lie. That doesn’t mean what Dr. Ford claims happened either, but anyone who is of that age, drinking in excess, is going to have a hangover or 2 plus a hazy memory.
“If he lies about this, what else is he lying about…” doesn’t impact whether or not the meaning of the word “boof” is material to the proceedings. Maybe in the court of dumb opinions…, but not legally.
When I was 16-17 in high school, me and one of my friends thought the phrase “toss your salad” was absolutely hilarious. We used it in a kidding way all of the time. Of course, we knew that the phrase actually referred to licking someone’s anus, but we joked about it all of the time. It would be entirely plausible that we would have written it down in our yearbooks to one another…
Does that phrase have any implications whatsoever about my actions and what kind of person I was in high school? lolol… Absolutely not.
Completely immaterial.
If I was being accused of some heinous sex crimes and someone brought up the fact that I used to say “toss your salad” to my friend, I might pretend like I had no idea what the crap they were talking about too…
Oh totally, and we are talking about the court of public opinion. What is hard for those believing in Dr. Ford and the other accusers accounts is the possibility they are wrong.
Being wrong would mean accepting just how low, how disgusting obscene and nasty the tactics of the left have become and by extension the sycophantic media so ready to suck up to a Democrat narrative.
That line of thought might then ask, “if they are lying about this, what else are they lying about?”. Their mind doesn’t want to process that possibility, I might argue it is so frightening, they reject facts and stick with the conclusion that makes their world reasonable and logical.
I thought rich white guy teen sex was called “Boffing” anyway, not “boofing.” The hell is boofing?
Evidently it means “anal sex.” And according to the left, EVERYONE knows that. I’ve never heard it before…
Maybe Kavanaugh and his friends used it to mean “farting” as he claimed… Maybe they used it as slang for “anal sex” as others have said. I don’t care. Regardless, it was the juvenile jokes of 17 year olds and has zero bearing on anyone’s morals.
I don’t even like Kavanaugh. I didn’t like him as a SCOTUS pick.
Like everyone knew what “tea bagging” was, I gather.
Boofing is sticking drugs like ecstasy up your bum. Or alcohol like beer from a beer keg hose to get more drunk by passing the liver. Gays put like meth and ecstasy up their bum to have anal and it crushes it up and gets them real high. But high HIV contraction due to the the pills and crystals tearing things up.
Seriously? Are you f8cuking serious? I am not even going look that up to verify.
This was a huge problem for spreading HIV for gays. But also in college rumors of fraternities doing crazy stunts like hazing pledges by making them stick the hose up their bum has always floated around. Never happened in my fraternity and we are the wild ones who did haze hard. I suspect it’s just a rumor that’s always been floating around.
Like dropping liquid lsd into one’s eyeballs in the 1980s.
I can see why some Feminists would think JP is the " enemy" , but I don’t think his agenda appears more than getting the arguments and data out there . NB, I do not condone the phrase , “Lefty crap” . Always.
Trying to catch up with 100+ posts. I’ll do it in installments…
Politeness is often mistaken for stupidity. It’s really, truly, not the same thing. Martin does seem less clever than JP, but he’s not the moron you think he is. 
Well, first of all, that’s a classic strawman…
If he’d said it’s only been trendy enough to seem mainstream to a large part of the population for the last ten years, I would accept that. What he actually said is bullshit. And he’s over-stuffing the strawman about what patriarchal hierarchy means.
Of course you can, duh! 
The word guru means teacher, guide, expert, or master. That last one is associated with a stereotype, i.e. cult leader, but why treat the word as if it only has that narrow meaning? (Freudian slip?)
Ah, maybe that’s it – he doesn’t want to be labeled a cult leader!
I think that’s harsher than he deserves, actually. I don’t see him as an intentional cult leader, more as someone who’s giving his fans what they want. Win-win! 
No, no, no. The state of academia is a symptom, not the cause. Symptoms become additional causes sooner or later, but it’s a symptom first and foremost. You need to go deeper to effect serious change.
And if "the left"™were to declare him “right” (oops), that would be the “‘triumphant’ return” you spoke of earlier, hence even more popularity for him. So no, he wouldn’t disappear (unless he chose to).
Quality vs. quantity, man. 
He’s the kind of academic we deserve.
The “enforced monogamy” interview led me to the NYT article in which a journalist supposedly “pilloried” JP. “She knew what I meant by enforced monogamy. She’s not stupid!” or something like that. Maybe she did, but I won’t take his word for it.
Here are some memorable quotes from the article:
I take it he’s not into transhumanism. Pity. He would probably have interesting things to add to the subject.
Like I said about the cult thing, he’s giving people what they want.
Of course, the Chosen One isn’t subject to the same rules! 
Wow, maybe there’s even hope for @rowland! 
1 Like