J.C.MacSwell

I said If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. So, Ten oz. What exactly are you advocating? Is it guilty until proven innocent or is it something else?

If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. It is much more difficult but we need to consider ways to improve on the status quo without taking away the rights of the accused. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with #MeToo, but including rush to judgement is taking it too far. We have already seen the willingness to use it politically and as a weapon (something that the historic statistics make no accounting for).

I think that is a reasonable estimate, roughly 2 out of 3 or almost that. Combined with 5% of falsely accused to accused (the middle of range admitted to by the lady that made the graphic) you get 15 falsely accused per 1000 rapists, not just 2 as the graphic suggests. This does not take into account the fact that all of the "rapists" in the graphic that were tried and found "not guilty" are assumed instead to be guilty, which was one of NicholaiRen's objections. So Ten oz, how many more accusations, honest ones and dishonest ones, would make you more comfortable? How much would you like to embolden the Swetnick's and Avennatti's, who I would suggest are much more readily induced to bring accusations forward than average victims. At what point would you stop laughing?

+1 to that. I believe I have only given positives in this thread, including a couple to posters that seem to disagree with my positions (on what I consider their better or more informative posts, or corrected me when I clearly got something wrong) Badgering with negatives isn't going to change anyones mind. It may have the opposite affect. As an example, this post by a very new member currently has 2 negative reps, Why, I have no idea...I can't even guess what is being objected to.

While she stands by the purpose of the graphic, to address the fears of false accusation, she admits the graphic was "flawed". https://sarahbeaulieu.me/the-truth-about-false-accusation "This graphic did miss the mark in many ways, and I own that." Why is it that currently too many in the U.S. from commentators to politicians, from scientists to the President, feel the need to exaggerate to make their point? At least in her case she admits to the flaws in the graphic. I think that gives her more credibility going forward, something that seems lost on many people, including some here.

"On the internet, 37% of statistics cited are made up, and 53% of them are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

Setting aside your math (a couple of hundred vs several million...not sure what you are referring to there) what exactly are you advocating? Is it simply that women making allegations should be taken seriously? (extremely reasonable...what can we do to assure this?) Or is it somehow taking it further? Are you advocating changing the presumption of innocence, or due process? If so, how and how much?

Nice suggestion... Let's all pass on giving detailed instructions on that one...

OK. I think that is the most frequently cited number 1 in 20, not 1 in 50 as INow claimed (though it could be that low) and not 1 in 10 (though it could be that high). No one knows for certain, but 1 in 20 seems like it is a reasonable estimate. In any case what does it mean with regard to an individual allegation? They aren't 95% guilty, They are either 100% guilty or 0%. Are you 95% certain Kavanaugh is guilty? Are you 5% certain Ford is lying? The statistics cannot tell us what the truth is.

It is the basis of your objection. You directly claimed you could make it fair for the victim by "responding accordingly"... ....whatever that means

I knew someone would agree...just didn't think it would take 8 years...

You quoted that and answered: INOW, I know your hearts in the right place toward the victim but no matter where you start, you cannot make it fair for the victim. Using Ford as the example, and assuming she was assaulted/attempted rape and traumatized at 15 by Kavanaugh, what can you possibly do to make it fair? You can't go back in time. You can't punish Kavanaugh any amount that would make it fair for her. Voting him down for the Supreme court, disbarring him, jailing him...might give her justice... but what can you suggest as making it fair for her? She didn't ask for this...what can you possibly suggest to make it fair for her...or any victim? My question wasn't defeatist, nor merely rhetorical. Going forward for future potential victims or ones that are currently traumatized...what can you, or any of us suggest we do? If all you can come up with is to remove rights from the accused you are going down the wrong path. It's not going to hold up. What do you consider "responding accordingly", and how does it make it fair for someone who has been sexually assaulted?

Yes backfire. The question actually assumes Ford deserved more credence (the Democrat position), but it got diluted by a seemingly much less credible accusation. Senator Collins called Swetnick's allegations "outlandish" where she considered Ford "compelling". Swetnick's allegation demonstrated the flaw in the unqualified "believe the accuser" claim (I am calling it unqualified rather than the context I considered obvious in deference to Swansont). Keep in mind it is the Democrats that are now lamenting the Avanetti/Swetnick allegations (see the link). The sad part is that the full block is not even the tip of the iceberg if you are looking at attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment... ...never mind the daily fear of all of the above. (based on the rapes represented by the block) Falsely accused could be as low as you suggest, but could also be 4 or 5 times higher (that is generally considered the range). The statistics cannot be applied in a specific case. Kavanaugh either attempted to rape her or he didn't. But what can be done? How many more falsely accused would you like to encourage by artificially making these statistics more balanced, by taking away the rights of the accused? You cannot make it fair. There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim.

Did Hirono's unqualified "believe all sexual assault accusers" backfire on the Democrats? Titled "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh": https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

That said, while I don't agree with blaming the victim for the delay (or never coming forward), I don't see piling on the negatives on Mistermack. Trump has already said and tweated much worse. According to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a little over half of Republicans said they would consider voting for a political candidate who had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple people if they agreed with them on the issues. Conversely, 81 percent of Democrats say they would “definitely not vote for” the candidate. https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/ So...they thus claim over half of the Republicans would consider voting for Trump...pretty solid limb they are crawling out on

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one. Ideally they go to the police immediately, whether 5, 15, or 50, but you cannot blame them for staying silent. Ideally, they could be made to feel comfortable and safe to do so, to come forward. I am sure that taking away the rights of the accused is not the way to attempt to help them do so. Maybe it simply cannot be made fair. But at least we can avoid blaming the victim.

It appears to be heading toward a confirmation. I know many of you will be disappointed but I like the reasons given by Senator Collins on her decision. She was one of the few Republicans to call out Trump for mocking Ford.

For me, my default position would be different for a trial and for this or other circumstance, but that would only matter at the point of decision. My starting point would be be to withhold belief or disbelief, which may even be maintained afterward. Also "not guilty" does not equate to "innocent".

Do you really believe Trump would withdraw him even if they did, based on the evidence they have gathered to this point?

Right. She hoped an anonymous uncorroborated allegation would suffice on it's own. If I hadn't seen her testimony I would not have thought this was plausible from someone with a PhD.

Republicans and Democrats. I can see why neither wanted to, especially in a public forum, though for very different reasons, Mitchell maybe not due to time constraints?...but the FBI certainly had the opportunity to, and for some reason chose not to. They had plenty of time to do it even within the limited time they took for the investigation.

Obviously there is more to it than that but, rhetoric aside, that pretty much sums it up.

Understood wrt the bold. Though we have no idea how statistics should enter the discussion of this case in particular. I am not defending Kavanaugh with this argument. I am wondering why the question wasn't raised by anyone during the hearing, or by the FBI in their investigation. Planting disinformation, on it's own, is not a crime.

She might. Or she might not. But it was odd that she would have taken one and not understood how they work, and even after the fact not found out. One would think she would have had a professional interest, on top of the obvious (obvious to me...) one of finding out how much credibility it would add or not add to her allegations.

I based it on watching her being interviewed, and questioned directly on it, and instead of clarifying that she meant closer to what you believe she instead she doubled down on it. It certainly was and is newsworthy and is already a factor in the election campaign. If it is not obvious to you yet it should be soon.