Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Oct 30, 2018 02:07 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]He can remember with absolute clarity every party he was and wasn't at in 1982 and 1983, but...can't remember that he drank often, and a lot. Got it. He was a frequent partier, his yearbook comments showed that, and so were the comments made by Yale classmates, and others from high school. 

I've already shown that he freely admitted to drinking too much sometimes, so obviously he does remember that. The only thing about his drinking he claimed was that he never blacked out. His yearbook comments only show that high schoolers are preoccupied with parties, which is not news. His Yale classmates didn't say anything he didn't already admit to, and they're all leftists.

Quote:He didn't murder anyone. lol That's the thing, he couldn't be honest over his drinking habits from high school and college. Something that sounds pretty innocuous on the surface, but something you might want to downplay if you have a habit of groping women and conducting yourself in inappropriate ways around women, at parties. That sounds more like the truth.

I didn't say he murdered anyone.
I asked you how you would react to being so unfairly accused of a crime? That you keep dodging the simple questions says a lot about your intellectual honesty, if not your propensity to sociopathy. Either you would react emotionally, self-righteously knowing you're innocent, or you lack the capacity to express/feel that depth of emotion. That you can't admit this is the exact catch-22 Kavanaugh found himself in evinces either your blatant partisanship or lack of basic human empathy.

And as proven with his own quotes above, he was clearly honest about his drinking. You just seem to rely on what others have told you to think or are incapable of basic reason, likely due to emotional bias. What "sounds like the truth" to you is laughable when you never manage to make anything but emotional arguments. Come on, you're an adult, not a little girl. Act like it.

Quote:Why did he text so many of his classmates when the investigation was going on, if he wasn't worried about something tawdry coming up about him? Many people get drunk and act a little reckless in high school and college, there's no need to downplay it and make it sound like you had a few too many beers at times, ''like everyone else.'' That's the part you're missing, that he wasn't forthcoming with that info, downplayed it, and I'm not the only one who listened to his testimony who is coming away with that. I'm not a leftist, by the way, so I have no hidden agenda.

Again, you've been duped by leftist media. He didn't go contacting everyone; he said he was aware that his accusers were running around trying to get others to back up their stories...and there's proof some were pressured to. Again, his own quotes show he didn't downplay his drinking, and nothing anyone has claimed has refuted that. It's like you're incapable of even reading the sources I've cited, your bias is so strong.

If you're not a leftist, you sure do like their lies. If it walks like a duck...

To answer your question, if you are honest in your relationships with family, friends...you won't feel scared shitless if skeletons come out of your closet years later. That's how he appeared to me; a man who had not entirely shared with his wife, that he wasn't this choir boy that she and his kids had come to believe he is. She didn't meet him until he was in his 30's, so lots she probably doesn't know about him, but that he should've shared with her, just in the natural course of a relationship. Of course, being accused of sexually assaulting someone, whether true or not, would be devastating to one's reputation. But, it goes beyond all of that once he started presenting his side of the story during the hearing. Your reactions are as though this is the first you've heard of an opposing opinion against Kavanaugh. MANY people viewed the same hearing and came away with finding her more credible than him. Make of that as you will.

Your name calling shows me that you don't have much of an argument. You always resort to that, and that's a sign of someone who wants to put down his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. Different argument, but same tactic. Yawn.

You love Kavanaugh, we get it. Your mind was probably made up before you heard one word out of Dr Ford's mouth. Like most of the dudes sitting on the panel that day.

Move along, nothing new to see here. White male privilege under construction.

Quote:Your name calling shows me that you don't have much of an argument. You always resort to that, and that's a sign of someone who wants to put down his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. Different argument, but same tactic. Yawn.

Yeah..that's Syne's modus operandi---ad hom and attack the poster when he can't argue his points. It's a disgusting and childish tactic that brings this whole forum down to a lower level.

(Oct 30, 2018 08:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Your name calling shows me that you don't have much of an argument. You always resort to that, and that's a sign of someone who wants to put down his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. Different argument, but same tactic. Yawn.

Yeah..that's Syne's modus operandi---ad hom and attack the poster when he can't argue his points. It's a disgusting and childish tactic that brings this whole forum down to a lower level.

It just seems to go on and on, and it just derails threads, and causes you to not want to really interact anymore. I think that's why I disappear for long spurts, and I return hoping it's changed, but it hasn't. It shouldn't be permitted. Of course it's hard to keep a site ad hom free completely, but if you see it in every thread that the person is in, that person should be suspended. If only we ran the world. 

(Oct 30, 2018 07:57 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]To answer your question, if you are honest in your relationships with family, friends...you won't feel scared shitless if skeletons come out of your closet years later. That's how he appeared to me; a man who had not entirely shared with his wife, that he wasn't this choir boy that she and his kids had come to believe he is. She didn't meet him until he was in his 30's, so lots she probably doesn't know about him, but that he should've shared with her, just in the natural course of a relationship. Of course, being accused of sexually assaulting someone, whether true or not, would be devastating to one's reputation. But, it goes beyond all of that once he started presenting his side of the story during the hearing. Your reactions are as though this is the first you've heard of an opposing opinion against Kavanaugh. MANY people viewed the same hearing and came away with finding her more credible than him. Make of that as you will.

That does not answer my question about your reaction to a similar situation.
You know, where a whole political party is hell bent on making people believe something that isn't true.
Heavy drinking when you're young isn't the big damning skeleton you seem to think it. It's pretty common. Nor did he ever appear scared, including when interviewed right next to his wife. He was angry and justifiably self-righteous about being accused and subject to character assassination without ANY evidence whatsoever. If you wouldn't be, you're either guilty or lacking emotional affect. Do you get that? Only the guilty or mentally ill/disabled would have zero emotional response to that. He had death threats targeting his family.
I'm well-aware of people deciding he was guilty because they had been hurt themselves, were partisan, etc.. I'm never surprised when leftists make unsubstantiated claims. An emotional sense of credibility says zero about the facts presented.

Quote:Your name calling shows me that you don't have much of an argument. You always resort to that, and that's a sign of someone who wants to put down his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. Different argument, but same tactic. Yawn.

What name calling? Leftist? Is that inherently derogatory?
Do people other than the guilty or sociopathic fail to show the expected emotional affect?
If women should not be treated like children, shouldn't they be expected to be able to give rational reasons for their beliefs instead of only emotional reactions based on rumors and lies?

Quote:You love Kavanaugh, we get it. Your mind was probably made up before you heard one word out of Dr Ford's mouth. Like most of the dudes sitting on the panel that day.

Move along, nothing new to see here. White male privilege under construction.

Kavanaugh wouldn't have been my first pick. I very much preferred Amy Coney Barrett. Yes, considering the suspect timing of Feinstein holding back info she had for over a month til just after Kavanaughs confirmation hearing and all the subsequent delay tactics, it certainly smacked of partisan tactics right off the bat. But I'm always willing to access info on its own merit....there just wasn't any in this case.

Why did Kavanaugh cry at the hearing but Ford did not (even though she claimed she did at the polygraph)? One was acting, and you really think it was the career lawyer, instead of the psychologist, who had the acting chops? Okay...whatever you say, deary.

And your comments about male privilege, wholly emotional arguments, and dismissal of all actual evidence indicate you approached it with foregone conclusions. I am arguing facts and normally expected human reactions, while you are arguing your subjective impressions, with a heavy dose of misconstrued fact. If you're insecure enough to feel the need to write off my preference for fact, over your subjective emotional reaction, as "white male privilege", that says the world about you.

---

(Oct 30, 2018 08:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 30, 2018 08:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Your name calling shows me that you don't have much of an argument. You always resort to that, and that's a sign of someone who wants to put down his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. Different argument, but same tactic. Yawn.

Yeah..that's Syne's modus operandi---ad hom and attack the poster when he can't argue his points. It's a disgusting and childish tactic that brings this whole forum down to a lower level.

It just seems to go on and on, and it just derails threads, and causes you to not want to really interact anymore. I think that's why I disappear for long spurts, and I return hoping it's changed, but it hasn't. It shouldn't be permitted. Of course it's hard to keep a site ad hom free completely, but if you see it in every thread that the person is in, that person should be suspended. If only we ran the world. 

Why do people incessantly whine about people they don't have to interact with? Your decision to interact is on you, but you think, what, that others should be held responsible for coddling you? People need to be adults and take responsibility for their own actions, like responding to people online. That's a choice you make...and this forum does have an ignore function. When people refuse to use that, it seems to indicate that they both want to interact and take no responsibility for doing so. You know, like children.

How do you write women so well?
I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
- As Good as it Gets

And weak minded people often take challenges to their opinions as ad hominems. It's how they quell cognitive dissonance and avoid counterargument. They dodge direct questions so much that people have to resort to pushing buttons to get any kind of intellectually honest response at all.

But go right ahead playing the victim. I'm sure it has served you well in life.

No, you called me a sociopath for no reason at all.

I'm done with you now, Syne. Have fun screaming like a child into your echo chamber. I'm not so sure that has served you well, but you don't seem to care.

Quote:And weak minded people often take challenges to their opinions as ad hominems.

Another ad hom. Now we're weak minded people.

Quote:But go right ahead playing the victim. I'm sure it has served you well in life.

Another ad hom. Now we're playing the victim.

It never ends. He makes everything personal.

(Oct 30, 2018 08:57 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]No, you called me a sociopath for no reason at all.

I'm done with you now, Syne. Have fun screaming like a child into your echo chamber. I'm not so sure that has served you well, but you don't seem to care.

That's not actually what I said.

(Oct 30, 2018 05:39 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I asked you how you would react to being so unfairly accused of a crime? That you keep dodging the simple questions says a lot about your intellectual honesty, if not your propensity to sociopathy. Either you would react emotionally, self-righteously knowing you're innocent, or you lack the capacity to express/feel that depth of emotion.

You freely chose the "sociopathy" option when you could have chosen the "intellectually dishonest" option. And you could have made arguments against either or both, which you also freely chose not to.

Echo chamber? What a complete lack of self-awareness you have. Only those ensconced in a bubble must ignore all facts to maintain their opinion.
You're more than welcome to ignore me, and not caring what strangers online think has served me very well. I pity people who are sensitive to how anonymous internet people treat them. They should go get a real life.

(Oct 30, 2018 10:25 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:And weak minded people often take challenges to their opinions as ad hominems.

Another ad hom. Now we're weak minded people.

Quote:But go right ahead playing the victim. I'm sure it has served you well in life.

Another ad hom. Now we're playing the victim.

It never ends. He makes everything personal.

People who try to hurt others, are usually hurting inside. They think they'll feel better by putting others down, but it usually only exacerbates their problems.

Your ghost threads are way more fun

(Oct 30, 2018 10:25 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:And weak minded people often take challenges to their opinions as ad hominems.

Another ad hom. Now we're weak minded people.

I just described a type of person. You're the one who just told us the description fits you.

Quote:

Quote:But go right ahead playing the victim. I'm sure it has served you well in life.

Another ad hom. Now we're playing the victim.

It never ends. He makes everything personal.

Whining is what victims do. It's an objective observation, but thanks for letting us know it applies to you.

---

(Oct 30, 2018 11:07 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]People who try to hurt others, are usually hurting inside. They think they'll feel better by putting others down, but it usually only exacerbates their problems.

Your ghost threads are way more fun

True, and a corollary of that is people who are hurting often assume others are intending to hurt them. They think they hurt because of the actions of others, but that blame keeps them from addressing their internal problems.

I'm not interested in hurting anyone, and wonder why you feel internet strangers even have the power to hurt you. I'm only interested in intellectually honest arguments, and I try my damnedest to draw those out of people. I would prefer to use Socratic questions instead of making assumptions, but biased people arduously avoid inconvenient questions...as you have repeatedly done here.