Open Mike 10/10/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 10th, 2018 - 381 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

381 comments on “Open Mike 10/10/2018”

  1. SaveNZ 1

    Weak points in basement of Auckland skyscraper project

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/368322/weak-points-in-basement-of-auckland-skyscraper-project

    About time an insurance fund paid by the developers is set aside for all construction projects so that if any major structural or weather issues become to the fore within 50 years then the ratepayers and residents are not left with the costs to repair with the developer and banks making their profits and walking away Scott free.

    As well as major failures require the individuals involved being stripped of ever being able to work in that industry again and fined or jailed (depending on whether loss of life is involved).

    After Grenfell does anyone only want one staircase in a sky scraper for example?

    If Jenny Shipley is involved (aka China Construction bank) after Mainzeal I’d be scared!

    • Dukeofurl 1.1

      The Grenfell tower didnt have sprinklers which we would require in this Auckland Building. But not sure the sprinklers cover the outside skin.

  2. Adrian Thornton 2

    Instead of all the media and most forums going on and on infinitum about Kavanaugh,Skripal, Russia etc, what about our media, or for that matter any media spending some quality time on issues that actually affect us or the World as a whole.

    For example where are the relentless stories about the USA weaponizing the US currency to conduct financial terrorism indiscriminately around the world?…

    How the U.S. Has Weaponized the Dollar
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-06/how-the-u-s-has-made-a-weapon-of-the-dollar
    “This means that the U.S. can continue to use the dollar to help further its trade, financial and geopolitical aims, largely outside the strictures of international laws and institutions and without the need for messy, unpredictable military campaigns. As John Connally Jr., Richard Nixon’s Treasury secretary, put it in 1971: The dollar is “our currency, but your problem.”

    US Using Dollar as Weapon against Iran, Turkey, Russia: Economic Researcher
    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2018/09/04/1819830/us-using-dollar-as-weapon-against-iran-turkey-russia-economic-researcher

    Or closer to home…..
    “Chorus in urgent talks after probe reveals exploitation”
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/368245/chorus-in-urgent-talks-after-probe-reveals-exploitation
    This outrageous story will get fuck all time either in print or air time, yet it goes to the heart of the labour model being fostered upon NZ as we speak…no instead we get swamped with pointless ‘news’ about Russia, Trump, Kavanaugh anything but the actual news that matters…so it is turning out there really are some useful idiots out there, but it seems that they are not the ones we are always told they are..

    • Morrissey 2.1

      Anti-Russian paranoia has a long and risible history in this country. Those cannons in front of the Auckland Museum were placed there more than a century ago—to fire at Russian warships which the loons of the time were convinced would invade the Waitemata Harbour.

      Muldoon’s ridiculous “dancing Cossacks” anti-union advertisements in 1975 were in the same sad tradition.

      • Dukeofurl 2.1.1

        Wrong cannons. Any way the Museum was built in the 1920s.
        The Museum forecourt guns came from another era. The single remaining gun on MT Victoria was for the Russian Scare of the 1880s era
        The two guns were part of post WW1 trophy craze which swept the country where every town small and large wanted something and Auckland Museum put them there in the 1930s.

      • Stuart Munro 2.1.2

        The Soviet state was no garden of sweets.

        Putin’s kleptocracy isn’t much better.

        • Morrissey 2.1.2.1

          Who said it was?

          Going by your susceptibility to state propaganda, you undoubtedly would have said so.

          • Stuart Munro 2.1.2.1.1

            Yes of course.

            I ‘should be’ an ignorant dupe of the current regime like yourself.

            Like your prescriptivist linguistics, this keeps you living in the past.

          • Ed 2.1.2.1.2

            Morrissey I highly recommend you avoid getting enmeshed with Munro over the subject of Russia.

            • Morrissey 2.1.2.1.2.1

              He knows as much about politics as I know about designing racing yachts. Next to nothing.

              • Stuart Munro

                If you knew anything politics you wouldn’t fall for Putin’s propaganda like a day-old chick.

      • mary_a 2.1.3

        @ Morrissey (2.1) … I’m old, but not quite old enough to remember the cannons in front of the Auckland War Museum being installed to fire at Russian warships! I honestly didn’t realise that was the reason for their placement.

        So thanks for that info M. Didn’t realise Russian paranoia went that far back.

        However, I’m old enough to remember quite well Muldoon’s idiotic scare mongering Dancing Cossacks advertisement, to give the impression if a Rowling Labour government was elected, it would be the end of NZ, because we would somehow become a Soviet controlled state!

        Even worse, Muldoon’s Natz government was elected that time by a captive paranoid section of NZers!!!!! Now that was really scary!

        • Morrissey 2.1.3.1

          The willfully paranoid and dishonest statements about Russia by the authoritarian “left” in this country are strikingly similar to those of the National Party in the 1970s.

    • greywarshark 2.2

      AT
      +1

    • Ad 2.3

      By size of economy New Zealand’s currency has been overvalued for decades and has been our best defensive weapon concerning foreign debt, imports, and our trade deficit.

    • Rosie 2.4

      Hi Adrian. The Brett Kavanaugh story is not irrelevant if you are a woman. This does “affect the world as a whole” because women make up half the world’s population and one Very Large Country is showing us just how much they hate women by electing an alleged sex pest into a powerful position that will affect the outcomes for the women of that country.
      Please try not to minimise the importance of this issue.

      • shadrach 2.4.1

        Kavanaugh was confirmed because the allegations were not supported by any corroborating evidence, and because they were brought by an unreliable witness.

        The notion that a ‘country’ can collectively hate women is just silly. Perhaps this might be helpful to you – it’s scripted and delivered by an American woman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL6k5yOAFM.

        • Anne 2.4.1.1

          Kavanaugh was confirmed because the allegations were not supported by any corroborating evidence, and because they were brought by an unreliable witness.

          Kavanaugh was confirmed despite his lies and obfuscation because witnesses to the sexual assault were prevented from giving evidence in support of the reliable victim as evidenced by her professorship background.

          Fify.

          • Rosie 2.4.1.1.1

            Thank you Anne.
            Clearly shadrach has a fanciful notion that Republicans have justice for female victims of sexual crime deep in their hearts, and enjoys an opportunity to patronise female commenters by attempting to “educate” their silly brains.

            • shadrach 2.4.1.1.1.1

              1. There is no corroborating evidence that Ford was a victim.
              2. There is no corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh committed any sexual assault on Ford.

              The rush to judgement, on nothing more than one woman’s word, is deeply concerning.

              • Anne

                Do look after that eye of yours shadrach. You’ve only got one.

              • Rosie

                I think your lack of insight, emotional intelligence and knowledge on the problem of sexual assault and rape culture in the USA is more concerning.

                • shadrach

                  Innocent until proven guilty is one of the fundamental elements of our justice system. You seem content to dispense with it. I’m not.

                  • Cinny

                    Wow, you do know the FBI investigation was a sham?

                    Who made the decision to limit the inquiry’s scope? The White House and Senate Republicans.

                    The FBI were kept from following up on a long list of possible witnesses provided by Ramirez.

                    Beach week, year book, calendar, devils triangle….. it’s all there in black and white.

                    How about appointing someone to the supreme court who doesn’t have sexual misconduct allegations directed at them?

                    How about appointing someone to the supreme court who can keep their emotions in check?

                    The professor is also innocent and telling the truth until proven otherwise.

                    Someone lied, usually that person is the one with the most to lose.

                    • Chuck

                      “How about appointing someone to the supreme court who doesn’t have sexual misconduct allegations directed at them?”

                      That was the strategy the Democrats put into action hoping to de-rail Trump’s appointment of Kavanaugh.

                      I believe you would call it “dirty politics”.

                    • Anne

                      Someone lied, usually that person is the one with the most to lose.

                      And therein lies the answer to who is lying. 🙂

                    • shadrach

                      “The professor is also innocent and telling the truth until proven otherwise.”
                      The professor was unreliable.

                      “Beach week, year book, calendar, devils triangle….. it’s all there in black and white.”
                      But not any evidence of sexual assault.

                      “Someone lied, usually that person is the one with the most to lose.”
                      Usually. Not always.

                      The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

                  • Rosie

                    I really hope you never end up on a jury here in NZ shadrach. You have no grasp of the big and complex picture of sex crimes.

                    • shadrach

                      I have a grasp on the burden of proof. It is on the accuser.

                    • Cinny

                      shadrach, the burden of proof was obscured by the directive given to the fbi.

                      You say the burden of proof is on the accuser, well in this case there is more than one accuser.

                      Recent history demonstrates that those in a position of power/celebrity etc deny sexual allegations to the bitter end, no matter how many people come forward.

                      Either way it is up to the american citizens to decide, and with the midterms coming, we’ll soon find out how they really feel.

              • Treetop

                Kavanaugh gave the benefit of the doubt to Ford that she had been sexual assaulted, but he stated not by him.

                People do not forget all the psychological and physical events of the sexual assault. If a person can identify the perpetrator then they are known.

                Do not expect the survivor to be able to give an answer when the question cannot be answered because a person is unable to retrieve the information.

                All a survivor can do is to say what they remember.

                • shadrach

                  “If a person can identify the perpetrator then they are known. ”
                  Unless they falsely identify the person. Given Ford’s lack of recall of other critical events, that is a likely scenario.

                  • Treetop

                    Ford stated she was 100% on identifying Kavanaugh.

                    Identifying a person is not enough evidence it is a starting point.

                    Sexual assault recall decades later would be fragmented, this does not mean that the perpetrator cannot be identified by the survivor or what the perpetrator did.

                    Recovered memory is different and a rebound effect is different as well.

                    • shadrach

                      “Ford stated she was 100% on identifying Kavanaugh.”
                      She also claimed she never was involved in polygraph coaching.

                      “Sexual assault recall decades later would be fragmented, this does not mean that the perpetrator cannot be identified by the survivor or what the perpetrator did.”
                      No, but that doesn’t excuse the accuser from meeting some burden of proof. Nor does it take away the acused’s presumption of innocence.

                    • Treetoop []

                      Of course there has to be some burden of proof. I do not like false accusations. I also do not like a flawed investigation.

                      Hypothetically Kavanaugh may recall treating a teenager as Ford has alledged, but cannot recall her face. As I said earlier Kavanaugh gave Ford the benefit of the doubt that what she alledges happened,but he was not the perpetrator.

                      More to come on this subject.

                    • shadrach

                      “Hypothetically Kavanaugh may recall treating a teenager as Ford has alledged, but cannot recall her face.”
                      Is there any corroborating evidence that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone?

                      “As I said earlier Kavanaugh gave Ford the benefit of the doubt that what she alledges happened,but he was not the perpetrator.”
                      Yes, that was also Susan Collin’s conclusion, and despite not agreeing with many of her political positions, I though her summary was sound.

                    • Treetop []

                      A flawed investigation was not able to established that Kavanaugh may have sexually assaulted another person other than what Ford alleges.

                      I did not read what Susan Collin’s conclusion was.

                      It is known on this site that I was sexually violated. I have not gone into detail about how serious the offending was. The person was a neighbour and I cannot remember his facial features. This occurred many decades back.

                    • shadrach

                      “A flawed investigation was not able to established that Kavanaugh may have sexually assaulted another person other than what Ford alleges.”
                      That is not what the investigation was attempting to do.

                      “I did not read what Susan Collin’s conclusion was.”
                      In a nutshell, Susan Collins is of the view that Ford was sexually assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh.

                    • Treetop []

                      That is not what the investigation was attempting to do.

                      That is partly why the investigation was flawed.

                    • shadrach

                      “That is partly why the investigation was flawed.”
                      Why would the investigation have been investigated other potential events that are not alleged? Kavanaugh has been on the FBI’s radar for several years. I have no idea what Kavanaugh got up to years ago, but there is nothing beyond Ford’s own rather patchy testimony to materially implicate Kavanaugh in any way.

          • shadrach 2.4.1.1.2

            “witnesses to the sexual assault were prevented from giving evidence in support of the reliable victim as evidenced by her professorship background. ”

            1. Ford’s ‘professional background’ does not make her reliable witness, any more than Kavanaugh’s professional background makes him a reliable witness.

            2. Ford was unreliable. She didn’t know how to contact the US Senate to give evidence about a Supreme Court nominee. Her most common answer to questions was “I don’t remember”. She alleged that she went to a party sometime in the 1980’s but couldn’t say where that party was, how she got there or how she got home. Ford’s life long friend ‘friend’ who accompanied her to the party named witnesses who then denied her story, under oath. Ford has made statements about polygraph coaching that have been contradicted by her ex-boyfriend. The list goes on and on.

            For what it’s worth, my view is the best response to Ford’s allegations came from Susan Collins, who is very much on the left of the Republican Party (https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-announces-she-will-vote-confirm-judge-kavanaugh?field_article_type_tid=All&field_related_issue_tid=All&keys=Kavanaugh).

            • Dukeofurl 2.4.1.1.2.1

              Ford did all she could. She contacted her local congresswoman, a Democrat, as soon as the short list of 4 was announced by Trump. She was the person who who advised contacting a democratic senator.
              The Dems were hamstrung by her wish to remain anonymous.
              That’s why the delay. Of course Kavanaugh has been prepped to the eyeballs for his testimony and yet still lied about many of the details, like saying those others identified by Ford deny anything happening when the words they used were don’t recall.
              She correctly identified the party in last year of high school, which matches a party on Kavanaugh school wall calendar.

              • shadrach

                I haven’t once questioned the delay. My question is over the lack of corroborating evidence.

                “She correctly identified the party in last year of high school, which matches a party on Kavanaugh school wall calendar.”
                No, she correctly identified ‘a’ party. Ford was unable to name where the party took place, how she got there or how she got home.

            • Gabby 2.4.1.1.2.2

              ‘witnesses to the sexual assault were prevented from giving evidence’

              You ignored that bit didn’t you shadders.

              Hey wasn’t Chump pretty keen on locking ‘her’ up?

              • shadrach

                ‘witnesses to the sexual assault were prevented from giving evidence’

                You mean the witnesses named by Ford’s best friend, all of whom contradicted her under oath?

        • Rosie 2.4.1.2

          Damn. I’ve forgotten how to do an eye roll. It’s been awhile.

          • Anne 2.4.1.2.1

            : roll : Only no space in between. 🙄

            These middle-aged white conservative males(?) know so much more than women when it comes to abusive behaviour towards women don’t they Rosie. 😉

            • Rosie 2.4.1.2.1.1

              Didn’t seem to work but thanks Anne. I was going to give an eye roll to Chuck as well. 😀

              Yes, I’d say middle aged white conservative males are absolute experts in the experience of of sexual assault of women. I definitely need to be educated by these men seeing as I have no knowledge on the topic or understanding of media reports. And I do always enjoy being put in my place. : roll

              • Anne

                : roll :

                I have left spaces between the word ‘roll’ only because it stops it from working. Do what I did but no spaces.
                Have another go. 🙂

              • shadrach

                “I definitely need to be educated by these men seeing as I have no knowledge on the topic or understanding of media reports.”

                Clearly you either don’t understand the presumption of innocence, or you believe it should not apply in the case of sexual assault. The first possibility is ignorance, the second dangerous.

                But seeing as you claim to have “knowledge on the topic or understanding of media reports”, I’ll leave you with this to read https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault-reports-not-rare-reported-studie/.

                “Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.”

                “A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.”

                That;s why we have a presumption of innocence.

                • McFlock

                  So according to even your “research”, Kavanaugh probably committed at least one sexual assault.

                  And presumption of innocence applies to criminal cases, not job interviews.

                  • RedLogix

                    Job interviews generally don’t bring up uncorroborated allegations from back when you where a teenager.

                    • McFlock

                      If they’re important enough, or the complainant is close enough to the open role, they might.

                      Especially in a small town.

                      BTW, “uncorroborated” doesn’t mean “unbelievable”.

                    • RedLogix

                      Nah. This is why sex and politics are best kept at arms length. Both are emotive and dangerous. When they collide the outcome is never clean and no-one is ever happy.

                    • McFlock

                      Sexual assault isn’t “sex”. It’s a crime, and yes criminal history is still pertinent to some jobs. And yes, some employers do pretty thorough background checks that can surface claims about what you did years ago. Some of them are even government jobs.

                  • RedLogix

                    Probably your strongest argument has less to do with Ford’s unsupported allegations and more to do with Kavanaugh’s serious mis-step when politicised his response.

                    Now everything he said about the Democrats was probably true; but the primary role of the Supreme Court is to act as an arbiter above and beyond politics; and in those few sentences he painted himself into a manifest political corner that will come to haunt him and the role he plays into the future.

                    There are a number of issues in play here, but given that the FBI investigation (brief as it was) has vindicated him, there is a good case for him to consider a longer view in the national interest and step down.

                    Sadly in the current highly polarised and reactive environment it’s extremely unlikely Kavanaugh (or indeed anyone else) will do so, but I’d be impressed if he did.

                    • shadrach

                      RedLogix – very well said.

                    • McFlock

                      The FBI investigation didn’t even interview him or Ford. Or several other people with pertinent information. You can’t be “vindicated” by a sham.

                      But yeah, there were many reasons Kavanaugh was inappropriate for SCOTUS. The republicans still block voted for him anyway.

                    • McFlock

                      edit-damn wrong thread

                    • McFlock

                      edit – wrong reply button again

                    • shadrach

                      “Bit of a protip: if quoting a whole sentence would negate the point you’re trying to make by only quoting half the sentence, you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.”
                      Then you shouldn’t do it. I certainly don’t.

                      If you ignore the context of a word in order to insist that someone else meant the sixth definition of that word (out of a dozen options), you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.”
                      Then you shouldn’t do it. I certainly don’t.

                      “If you think anything I’ve written is akin to supporting a lynching, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have a significant language deficiency. The ‘lynching’ you support is metaphorical…being judge, jury and executioner by enabling false accusations.

                      “If you think that believing some people enjoy more physical sex than you are familiar with means that I won’t believe a woman who says she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have a significant language deficiency. I used the idea of scratches, bruises etc as evidence of non-consensual sex. You know what evidence is, eh McFlock?

                      “If you think that a rapist faced with evidence of their sexual connection with their accuser won’t simply state that the connection was consensual and therefore not rape, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      Ah, which is why scratches, bruises etc can be used as evidence for non-consensual sex.

                      “If you think that the fact that a minority of accusations are lies means that you shouldn’t believe a woman who tells you she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have struggled with this one. On one hand you claim we should believe all women, on the other only some women. What happened when a group of people believed Carolyn Bryant?

                      “If you think that “fighting for your reputation” means whining like a little kid in a senate hearing and pointing out all the women who haven’t accused you of sexual assault, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      So you still haven’t answered my question.

                      “Frankly, I think you’re a stupid, lying sack of shit, because you seem to have done all of the above.
                      No. What is happening here is that you have utterly failed to present a coherent argument why we should believe an accuser simply because they are a women, and the allegation is sexual.

                    • shadrach

                      “That’s not what you attributed to me, though, is it.”
                      No, I missed by one line. Amazingly the content was as you said, however.

                      “Then the statistical probability of a match is made based on the prevalence of those characteristics in the wider population.”
                      Of a sample taken from the alleged perpetrator. That’s the part you haven’t grasped this from the very outset. Your probability argument (60:40) is unrelated to a single alleged offender or crime. DNA is linked specifically to a single alleged offender and crime.

                      “The statistical probability of that match has nothing to do with the suspect or the scene…”
                      But the sample is taken from the suspect, not from a wider population.

                      “My potty mouth (what are you, 9 years old?) and name calling are the result of you being an imbecile and a liar.”
                      No, they simply reflect someone unable to make a coherent argument.

                      “ I’m not here to molly-coddle a snowflake who wants rapists to hold their heads up high in society if there aren’t four witnesses who can state the victim fought back.”
                      No, you are here to enable false accusations, accusations that lead to horrendous consequences.

                      “You have occasionally expressed scepticism because Ford kept the incident to herself for decades. You are that reason. You and people like you.”
                      No, actually you are. If more women were encouraged to come forward earlier by skepticism of historic claims without evidence, most likely more prosecutions would result.

                      “And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “believing women” doesn’t mean being blindfully devoted enough to cause a conviction. “
                      Actually no. Your position has changed from believing women to believing most women. You have been remiss in providing any balance to that.

                      “So your innocents in prison idea is bullshit.”
                      Oh really? One name. Brian Banks.

                      “As is your murder bullshit. It has nothing to do with lynching. “
                      Oh really? One name. Emmett Till

                    • shadrach

                      “No, it’s not. It is a random fact about somebody that seems to indicate the person is a sexual offender.”
                      DNA is not a ‘random fact’. DNA is a genetic fingerprint that sets every human being apart from every other human being, with the exception of identical twins. DNA collected from a crime scene, and compared to DNA collected from an individual, can identify that suspect as being at the crime scene to a near certainty (“Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed a “cold hit” murder case – where DNA at the crime scene was matched with a convict in the FBI database. The court allowed a “rarity statistic” to be told to the jury – that there was only a 1 in 930 sextillion chance of finding the same DNA profile in the general population.” https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/forensic-evidence-the-reliability-of-dna-testing.html).

                      Compare that to your probability claims, which don’t even use a data set containing the suspect.

                      “Because you’re a piece of shit. “
                      No, because I am not a gullible fool. You are. You would have been on the side of those who lynched Emmett Till, remember that.

                  • shadrach

                    “And presumption of innocence applies to criminal cases, not job interviews.”
                    Sexual assault is a criminal offence. If you were being accused of such an offence, even just in a job interview, I’m betting you’d be fighting back. And I bet you’d be demanding actual corroboration.

                    “So according to even your “research”, Kavanaugh probably committed at least one sexual assault.”
                    He could also be in the 40%, or whatever. That’s why we have a presumption of innocence.

                    • McFlock

                      I’m not applying for the job of being in the highest court in the land.
                      And again, you’re acting like we don’t have examples equivalent allegations levelled against other candidates for SCOTUS, and those candidates didn’t throw a tantrum.

                      He could be in the maximum-observed 40%. But probably he did exactly what Ford accused him of doing.

                      You’re running a school, and a new applicant for a position is alledged to have sexually assaulted someone ages ago. Would you employ someone who probably should have been convicted of a sex crime? Or would you say “no conviction, no worries”?

                    • shadrach

                      “And again, you’re acting like we don’t have examples equivalent allegations levelled against other candidates for SCOTUS, and those candidates didn’t throw a tantrum.”
                      You really shouldn’t enter a conversation half way through. I have not expressed support for Kavanaugh (in fact you will see I acknowledged one of the best commentaries on this was https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1534267). My point is that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental element of any civilised legal system. When unsubstantiated allegations (from an unreliable witness) can cause people to immediately assign guilt (as some have done here) we are in dangerous territory.

                      “He could be in the maximum-observed 40%. But probably he did exactly what Ford accused him of doing.”
                      On what basis? Certainly not on Ford’s testimony. Certainly not on any corroborating evidence, which was totally lacking. Frankly I find Susan Collin’s conclusion the most credible; Ford was sexually assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh.

                      “You’re running a school, and a new applicant for a position is alledged to have sexually assaulted someone ages ago. Would you employ someone who probably should have been convicted of a sex crime? Or would you say “no conviction, no worries”?”
                      If you want to debate the suitability of Kavanaugh for the role, discuss that with someone else. I have made no comment on that, other than to support the post by RedLogix. But the presumption of innocence is an important legal principle.

                      It is a simple reality that people make false accusations about sexual abuse. If you choose to join the ranks of those who don’t believe women lie, then good luck. But I’ll leave you with this (written by a woman):

                      “Despite the nonsensical statements taking place as a result of #MeToo and on Parliament Hill with, for instance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing that women should always be believed, it’s past time for the mistaken infantilization of women complainants to stop.”
                      https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-woman-who-lied-about-sex-assault-should-be-charged-with-perjury

                    • McFlock

                      The presumption of innocence is an important principle of criminal law.

                      Not job interviews. Balance of probabilities counts there.

                      As to you not knowing what the basis of “probably” is after you came out with the 40% false worst case study, that’s down to your weak comprehension skills.

                      And if you think Ford, specifically, was less believable than Kavanaugh, specifically, then that’s definitely on you.

                    • shadrach

                      “The presumption of innocence is an important principle of criminal law.”
                      And sexual assault is a criminal offence.

                      “Not job interviews. Balance of probabilities counts there.”
                      There is no ‘rule’ around job interviews, so you’ve just made that up. Even on the ‘balance of probabilities’, Ford did not establish a credible case that Kavanaugh was her attacker.

                      “As to you not knowing what the basis of “probably” is after you came out with the 40% false worst case study, that’s down to your weak comprehension skills.”
                      You’re deflecting. You said “He could be in the maximum-observed 40%. But probably he did exactly what Ford accused him of doing.”, and I responded “On what basis?”. That was a question of evidence, not probability, as my following comments showed. So tell us please on what legal basis did you make the claim that “…probably he did exactly what Ford accused him of doing.”

                      “And if you think Ford, specifically, was less believable than Kavanaugh, specifically, then that’s definitely on you.”
                      Ford told lies. She had selective recall. She was simply not credible.

                    • Cinny

                      Why do you think Ford told lies and Kavanaugh did not, shadrach?

                    • shadrach

                      “Why do you think Ford told lies and Kavanaugh did not, shadrach?”
                      We don’t know that Kavanaugh didn’t tell lies. After watching his testimony, I’m not a fan of Kavanaugh, and on balance (as a matter of opinion) I happen to believe something did happen to Ford. However Ford was unreliable, and there is no corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh was Ford’s assailant.

                    • McFlock

                      Kavanaugh’s job interview was not a criminal investigation. If someone interviewing for a job is probably unsuitable, then it would be irresponsible for the interviewers to give them that job.

                      So tell us please on what legal basis did you make the claim that “…probably he did exactly what Ford accused him of doing.”

                      On the basis that he has been accused of doing it and that your links show that the majority of such accusations are true. If the majority of accusations are true and he faced an accusation, then he probably did it. Based on your own sources.

                      And yes, the stresses put on Ford were easily equivalent to stresses placed on women to not press charges, so don’t weasel out of it that way.

                    • shadrach

                      “Kavanaugh’s job interview was not a criminal investigation. If someone interviewing for a job is probably unsuitable, then it would be irresponsible for the interviewers to give them that job.”
                      You’d be best addressing your remarks to someone who is arguing for Kavanaugh’s suitability as opposed to Ford’s unreliability.

                      “On the basis that he has been accused of doing it and that your links show that the majority of such accusations are true.”
                      That isn’t a legal basis. We don’t decide a persons guilt on the basis of the probability of false accusations.

                      “And yes, the stresses put on Ford were easily equivalent to stresses placed on women to not press charges, so don’t weasel out of it that way.”
                      When you make serious allegations, you need to be at least credible. Ford wasn’t.

                    • McFlock

                      You’d be best addressing your remarks to someone who is arguing for Kavanaugh’s suitability as opposed to Ford’s unreliability.

                      Yes, it seems to be very important to you that victims of sexual assault shouldn’t be believed.

                      “On the basis that he has been accused of doing it and that your links show that the majority of such accusations are true.”
                      That isn’t a legal basis. We don’t decide a persons guilt on the basis of the probability of false accusations.

                      Nobody “decided” Kavanaugh’s guilt from a legal standpoint. It wasn’t a court trial. You seem to be having difficulty picking this up. He was never going to be sent to prison. He wasn’t even going to lose his current job. It was all about his suitability to sit on SCOTUS. Whether he had committed sexual assaults was relevant to that (well, not to the repugs, admittedly), but it wasn’t a criminal trial.

                      “And yes, the stresses put on Ford were easily equivalent to stresses placed on women to not press charges, so don’t weasel out of it that way.”
                      When you make serious allegations, you need to be at least credible. Ford wasn’t.

                      She was much more credible than “liked a beer” Kavanaugh. So he probably did it.

                    • shadrach

                      “Yes, it seems to be very important to you that victims of sexual assault shouldn’t be believed.”
                      No, what is important to me are principles of law. For a woman to simply accuse a man of sexual assault and be believed should never be the default position.

                      “Nobody “decided” Kavanaugh’s guilt from a legal standpoint. It wasn’t a court trial. You seem to be having difficulty picking this up. He was never going to be sent to prison. He wasn’t even going to lose his current job. It was all about his suitability to sit on SCOTUS. Whether he had committed sexual assaults was relevant to that (well, not to the repugs, admittedly), but it wasn’t a criminal trial.”
                      You seem to be having difficulty with the basic concept of the presumption of innocence.

                      “She was much more credible than “liked a beer” Kavanaugh.”
                      You’re entitled to your belief. And Kavanaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

                    • McFlock

                      No, what is important to me are principles of law. For a woman to simply accuse a man of sexual assault and be believed should never be the default position.

                      So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.

                      You seem to be having difficulty with the basic concept of the presumption of innocence.

                      Hey, I thought he was innocent of sexual assault until the allegations were made. By your own links, those allegations mean that he probably did it.

                      “She was much more credible than “liked a beer” Kavanaugh.”
                      You’re entitled to your belief. And Kavanaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

                      The statute of limitations means he doesn’t need a presumption of innocence. Because that only applies in criminal trials, not job interviews.

                    • shadrach

                      “So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.”
                      Witnesses. Forensic/physical evidence. It helps if the alleged victim knows, at the very least, some of the basic facts if the alleged assault. “I was there. He did it” doesn’t cut it.

                      “Hey, I thought he was innocent of sexual assault until the allegations were made. By your own links, those allegations mean that he probably did it.”
                      My links related to false allegations, not what evidence is required.

                      “The statute of limitations means he doesn’t need a presumption of innocence. Because that only applies in criminal trials, not job interviews.”
                      Sexual assault is a criminal offence. He has a right to defend himself against accusations.

                    • McFlock

                      “So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.”
                      Witnesses.

                      🙄 Read the sentence again

                      Forensic/physical evidence.

                      only, at best, suggests sexual activity occurred. It says nothing about whether there was consent involved.

                      It helps if the alleged victim knows, at the very least, some of the basic facts if the alleged assault. “I was there. He did it” doesn’t cut it.

                      Ford said so much more than that.

                      But you think it’s very important that rape victims shouldn’t be believed, we all get that.

                      “Hey, I thought he was innocent of sexual assault until the allegations were made. By your own links, those allegations mean that he probably did it.”
                      My links related to false allegations, not what evidence is required.

                      If 40% of allegations are false, then 60% of allegations are true. It’s simple math. If someone is accused of sexual assault, they probably did it. The courts can do their trials according to the level of evidence legally required (which can differ between criminal and civil trials, of which OJ Simpson is a good example), but nobody is required to pretend that someone who probably committed sexual assault is fit to be a judge or whatever.

                      “The statute of limitations means he doesn’t need a presumption of innocence. Because that only applies in criminal trials, not job interviews.”
                      Sexual assault is a criminal offence. He has a right to defend himself against accusations.

                      And he did defend himself. Badly.
                      Sexual assault is not just a criminal act. It is also a shitty thing to do. The level of evidence required to establish whether someone is a shitty person is not stipulated in law. Based on your study about false allegations, Ford’s allegation means that Kavanaugh is probably a shitty person. He will not go to prison for it. He probably got away with a criminal act, and he also got away with being a shitty person because his nomination went through.

                    • shadrach

                      “Read the sentence again”
                      I don’t need to. Witnesses can be people who the alleged victim told straight after the attack. They can be people who saw the after effects, such as physical marks on the alleged victim. Witnesses can go beyond someone who saw the actual attack.

                      “only, at best, suggests sexual activity occurred. It says nothing about whether there was consent involved.”
                      Bruising, cuts, physical matter from the alleged perpetrators body (eg skin).

                      “Ford said so much more than that.”
                      Not that was credible about Kavanaugh being the perpetrator.

                      “But you think it’s very important that rape victims shouldn’t be believed, we all get that.”
                      No, I don’t think they should be believed as of right, just as I don’t think any alleged victim of any crime should be believed as of right.

                      “If 40% of allegations are false, then 60% of allegations are true. It’s simple math.”
                      Which is irrelevant in determining guilt or otherwise in any one specific case.

                      “And he did defend himself. Badly.”
                      And Ford was not credible. There, we agree.

                      “Based on your study about false allegations, Ford’s allegation means that Kavanaugh is probably a shitty person.”
                      Not without evidence or corroboration of some kind. Evidence determines guilt, not statistics.

                    • McFlock

                      Witnesses can be people who the alleged victim told straight after the attack. They can be people who saw the after effects, such as physical marks on the alleged victim. Witnesses can go beyond someone who saw the actual attack.

                      But sometimes, there are none. For reasons like you. She told people close to her years ago, well before he was up for SCOTUS. What arbitrary time limit eliminates those people as witnesses?

                      “only, at best, suggests sexual activity occurred. It says nothing about whether there was consent involved.”
                      Bruising, cuts, physical matter from the alleged perpetrators body (eg skin).

                      I repeat: “only, at best, suggests sexual activity occurred”.
                      You must be the most boring lay in the history of consensual sex.

                      “Ford said so much more than that.”
                      Not that was credible about Kavanaugh being the perpetrator.

                      Her identification of him was a thousand times more credible than his evasions.

                      “But you think it’s very important that rape victims shouldn’t be believed, we all get that.”
                      No, I don’t think they should be believed as of right, just as I don’t think any alleged victim of any crime should be believed as of right.

                      Spoken like a true criminal.

                      “If 40% of allegations are false, then 60% of allegations are true. It’s simple math.”
                      Which is irrelevant in determining guilt or otherwise in any one specific case.

                      In a criminal trial, maybe. Whether or not I invite someone around to dinner, or give them a job, that’s extremely relevant.

                      “And he did defend himself. Badly.”
                      And Ford was not credible. There, we agree.

                      And Kavanaugh is probably a serial sexual offender who has managed to evade justice for decades. There, we agree. /sarc

                      “Based on your study about false allegations, Ford’s allegation means that Kavanaugh is probably a shitty person.”
                      Not without evidence or corroboration of some kind. Evidence determines guilt, not statistics.

                      Her testimony was evidence, dipshit.

                      People like you are why sexual assaults aren’t reported. People like you are why rapists walk free without so much as an arrest, even if their crimes were reported. You are the epitome of “rape culture”. I get that you like to make shit up to wank about your repug idols, but people like you are literally why people like Weinstein, Spacey, Saville, Cosby, and so on got away with it for decades. As well as predatory priests, fathers, husbands, cops, colleagues, employers, flatmates etc, etc, etc.

                      You’re lower than scum.

                    • shadrach

                      “But sometimes, there are none.”
                      Indeed. So we look to other corroborating evidence, such as forensic evidence. We certainly don’t just believe a complainant by default because the alleged attack is sexual.

                      “She told people close to her years ago, well before he was up for SCOTUS.”
                      Actually she waited until 2012 (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez), some 30 years after the alleged events. By that time, Kavanaugh was a US Circuit Judge. Ford had plenty of time to raise these allegations prior to 2012.

                      “You must be the most boring lay in the history of consensual sex.”
                      You are arguing that scratches, bruises and other physical harm are not used as evidence in sexual assault cases?

                      “Her identification of him was a thousand times more credible than his evasions. “
                      Clearly it wasn’t.

                      “Spoken like a true criminal.”
                      Spoken like a defender of the rule of law. You clearly support the notion that women don’t lie about sexual abuse. History shows you to be naieve fool

                      “And Kavanaugh is probably a serial sexual offender who has managed to evade justice for decades. There, we agree. /sarc”
                      Evidence?

                      “Her testimony was evidence, dipshit. “
                      No, it wasn’t. This wasn’t a trial. Her testimony was unsubstantiated claims by a women who couldn’t remember key aspects of the alleged assault.

                      “You’re lower than scum.”
                      That, and the rest of your final paragraph, is irrational nonsense. If you have nothing more than ad-hominem, you have nothing.

                      I support the rule of law. I support fundamental legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence. You believe women never lie about sexual assault. That is both naive and dangerous. It is naive because it denies the reality. And it is dangerous because false accusations lead to greater skepticism toward real victims, and so you get this:

                      “57% of U.S. adults say they’re equally worried about men facing false allegations of sexual assault as they are regarding women facing sexual assault.”
                      https://morningconsult.com/2018/10/11/a-year-into-metoo-public-worried-about-false-allegations/

                      That’s what your “women don’t lie” line enables McFlock. Think on that.

                    • McFlock

                      Some days all that is left is to call a rape supporter a rape supporter, and you want rapists to get away with it.

                      On the one hand you want rule of law, and on the other you point out that we’re not talking about a trial. We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed.

                      You think she shouldn’t.

                      I think that she should. This doesn’t mean that a simple allegation should lead to a conviction. It just means that she should be believed. Not just sexual assault: any crime. You literally wrote “I don’t think any alleged victim of any crime should be believed as of right.” I hope you’re not a cop – anyone wanting to report a crime will get fuckall help from you.

                      If you want to be treated with respect, stop defending a guy who probably committed sexual assault.

                      Oh, and half of americans are largely afraid of what faux news tells them to fear. That doesn’t change the fact that if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, 6:4 odds he actually did it.

                    • shadrach

                      “Some days all that is left is to call a rape supporter a rape supporter, and you want rapists to get away with it.”
                      Then you need to read more carefully.

                      “On the one hand you want rule of law, and on the other you point out that we’re not talking about a trial.”
                      Not at all. I simply corrected your claim that her testimony was ‘evidence’ in the sense you intended. And it is possible to apply basic legal principles to a range of life experiences. For example, I assume you would support the presumption of innocence for Housing Corp tenants evicted from homes with P readings?

                      “We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed.
                      You think she shouldn’t. I think that she should.”
                      I think she should be treated with dignity and encouraged to provide corroboration, as quickly as possible after the event, in order that justice can prevail.

                      “This doesn’t mean that a simple allegation should lead to a conviction.”
                      Are you aware of any sexual assault allegations that have led to a conviction on the word of the alleged victim alone?

                      “It just means that she should be believed. Not just sexual assault: any crime. You literally wrote “I don’t think any alleged victim of any crime should be believed as of right.” I hope you’re not a cop – anyone wanting to report a crime will get fuckall help from you.”
                      The Police do not automatically believe an allegation. They investigate, gather evidence, attempt to corroborate the alleged victims account. They rightly treat all parties with dignity.

                      “If you want to be treated with respect, stop defending a guy who probably committed sexual assault.”
                      I’m not interested in your respect. The deterioration of both your language and your tone is little more to me than a sign of someone unable to civilly conduct the discussion.

                      “That doesn’t change the fact that if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, 6:4 odds he actually did it.”
                      And that says nothing about whether Ford has accurately recalled the events of the 1980’s. She may have, but she waited 30 years to tell anyone, was not credible in her testimony, and lied/forgot about key elements of the allegations.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re looking for reasons to disbelieve her, analysing every possible detail, expecting perfect recall of all aspects of a stressful event in stressful situations, when there’s a 6:4 chance she’s telling the truth and he sexually assaulted her.

                      You are demonstrating why many women don’t report sexual assault “straight away”.

                      You are not conducting a civil conversation. Your obscenities just use longer words than mine. The fact that you demand “evidence” and “corroboration” when it wasn’t a fucking trial, and then use the fact that it wasn’t a trial to discount her statements as “evidence” is a fucking obscenity. You want to be the tone-police now? Stop enabling men to get away with rape.

                    • shadrach

                      “You’re looking for reasons to disbelieve her, analysing every possible detail, expecting perfect recall of all aspects of a stressful event in stressful situations, when there’s a 6:4 chance she’s telling the truth and he sexually assaulted her.”
                      I want to apply sound legal principles to enure justice prevails if at all possible. You want to believe all women as a default position. There is a clear divide, my position is rational and consistent, yours is emotive and dangerous.

                      “You are demonstrating why many women don’t report sexual assault “straight away”.”
                      Actually no. By being very clear about the standard required, I believe we encourage complainants to come forward, and are far more likely to achieve more convictions.

                      “You are not conducting a civil conversation.”
                      I am pointing out to you inconvenient truths. You are hiding behind ad-hominem.

                      “Your obscenities just use longer words than mine. The fact that you demand “evidence” and “corroboration” when it wasn’t a fucking trial, and then use the fact that it wasn’t a trial to discount her statements as “evidence” is a fucking obscenity. You want to be the tone-police now? Stop enabling men to get away with rape.”
                      Expecting a complainant making a serious accusation to provide some corroboration is fairly normal, McFlock.
                      If an employee of mine comes to me accusing a fellow worker of stealing from them, I don’t automatically believe either party. I seek corroboration. I talk to other people who may have knowledge of the event.
                      Your position undermines justice for all parties, by singling out one group as being automatically above the other in the eyes of the law. Like when white people had greater legal status than blacks, or when men held greater legal status than women. Your naive opinions are unhelpful, at best.

                    • McFlock

                      I want to apply sound legal principles to enure justice prevails if at all possible.

                      To what was not much more than a job interview. That’s why you’re a rape enabler.

                      If an employee of mine comes to me accusing a fellow worker of stealing from them, I don’t automatically believe either party. I seek corroboration. I talk to other people who may have knowledge of the event.

                      Well that’s a convenient happenstance, ain’t it.
                      If there’s no corroboration, do you give the accused person the job of tallying up the petty cash box?

                      But more relevant to the hearing: if someone came to you about a prospective employee and said “they were a thief back in the day”, and you got no corroboration and the applicant denied it, would you still hire them as a cashier? Or would you look at the person who told you, and the applicant, and either make a judgement on each person’s believability or even just decide to not risk employing that person at all?

                      Your position undermines justice for all parties, by singling out one group as being automatically above the other in the eyes of the law.

                      Nope. Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed. Not believed beyond all reasonable doubt, just believed.

                    • shadrach

                      “To what was not much more than a job interview.”
                      A job interview at which serious, and unsubstantiated claims of a criminal offence were made.

                      “If there’s no corroboration, do you give the accused person the job of tallying up the petty cash box?”
                      If there is no corroboration, there is very little I can or should do. I certainly don’t assume guilt merely because of a claim.

                      “But more relevant to the hearing: if someone came to you about a prospective employee and said “they were a thief back in the day”, and you got no corroboration and the applicant denied it, would you still hire them as a cashier? Or would you look at the person who told you, and the applicant, and either make a judgement on each person’s believability or even just decide to not risk employing that person at all?”
                      We’ve already addressed this. My, comments have been about the presumption of innocence, and whether Ford was credible. But for the record, I would confront the applicant with the accusation, and assess the evidence. If there was no credible evidence, and the applicant deined the allegations and was the best applicant for the job, I would hire them.

                      “Nope. Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed. Not believed beyond all reasonable doubt, just believed.”
                      Well far be it for me to point out that now you are using a legal term when this is a job interview! But the word believe means accept as true. As true. Why would or should we accept any allegation as true, in the face of denial from the alleged perpetrator? That is elevating one person over another, in this case just because they are a woman. We used to do that for white people over people of colour. For men over women. For rich over poor. For landed gentry over peasants. Remember that?

                    • McFlock

                      I would confront the applicant with the accusation, and assess the evidence. If there was no credible evidence, and the applicant deined the allegations and was the best applicant for the job, I would hire them.

                      The nub of the thing right there. If the allegation is credible, there is credible evidence, i.e. the allegation itself. If the denial is also credible, that leaves you in a quandary: is somebody with credible doubts about their honesty the best person for the job?

                      If you have 20-0dd other applicants, all pretty good for the job, surely there would be one who is roughly the same as the main applicant but without the doubts about honesty? Is “Brett” really so much awesome than all the other applicants that you would risk your business’ cash flow?

                    • shadrach

                      “The nub of the thing right there. If the allegation is credible, there is credible evidence, i.e. the allegation itself.”
                      1. That is quite different to an automatic assumption that all allegations made by alleged victims are true.
                      2. My statement deliberately spoke of evidence outside of the allegation.

                      “If the denial is also credible, that leaves you in a quandary: is somebody with credible doubts about their honesty the best person for the job?”
                      That is a matter to be consider with all of the facts. Kavanaugh may not be the best person for the job, he may even be particularly suitable for the job. But the sexual assault allegations against him do not pass the litmus test to be a part of that consideration.

                      “If you have 20-0dd other applicants, all pretty good for the job, surely there would be one who is roughly the same as the main applicant but without the doubts about honesty? Is “Brett” really so much awesome than all the other applicants that you would risk your business’ cash flow?”
                      I said I would choose the best candidate for the job. If ‘Brett’ is the best candidate, notwithstanding the allegations, then yes I would employ him, unless the allegations could be somehow corroborated.

                    • McFlock

                      I said I would choose the best candidate for the job. If ‘Brett’ is the best candidate, notwithstanding the allegations, then yes I would employ him, unless the allegations could be somehow corroborated.

                      OK, so you’d take that risk.
                      Now let’s say you’d found research that 60% of allegations of historic theft were true. You had no further corroboration, you just knew that the existence of the allegation meant he was probably a thief and his denials make him a lying thief. Would you still hire Brett into a position of trust and responsibility, knowing that he was probably a thief? Not that he definitely is, just that there’s a 60% chance you’re handing the vault keys to a lying thief?

                    • shadrach

                      “OK, so you’d take that risk.”
                      Actually, I don’t view it as a risk as such. Most, if not all candidates have undeclared ‘history’.

                      “Now let’s say you’d found research that 60% of allegations of historic theft were true. You had no further corroboration, you just knew that the existence of the allegation meant he was probably a thief and his denials make him a lying thief. Would you still hire Brett into a position of trust and responsibility, knowing that he was probably a thief? Not that he definitely is, just that there’s a 60% chance you’re handing the vault keys to a lying thief?”
                      Yes. Because, as I have been saying all along, I have no evidence that “Brett” is in the 60%. And you know what that means? There is a risk I’ll be wrong. But far more likely is that I’ll gain an excellent employee whose reputation has been unfairly and inaccurately smeared.

                    • McFlock

                      I have no evidence that “Brett” is in the 60%. And you know what that means? There is a risk I’ll be wrong. But far more likely is that I’ll gain an excellent employee whose reputation has been unfairly and inaccurately smeared.

                      Actually, there’s a 60% chance that you’ve given the lying thief the vault keys.

                      That means that it’s less likely that you’ll gain an adequate employee who is pretty similar to all the other applicants you interviewed, and more likely that you’ve hired an untrustworthy employee. Because that’s how math works: if there’s a 60% chance that something has happened, then it is more likely to have happened than to have not happened.

                    • shadrach

                      “Actually, there’s a 60% chance that you’ve given the lying thief the vault keys.”
                      Not at all. I will have reduced those odds significantly by due diligence, i.e. investigating the claim. We also have comprehensive pre-employment checks, particularly for anyone in a role involving money management, which include police checks and recent employer referencing.

                      None of which helps your naieve view that we should believe all women who make an accusation about sexual assault, when we know for a fact some lie.

                    • McFlock

                      What if it’s a recent employer who alleges there was an issue?

                      None of which helps your naieve view that we should believe all women who make an accusation about sexual assault, when we know for a fact some lie.

                      Most don’t.

                    • shadrach

                      “I have found myself wondering if today’s feminists, if they had been around 60 years ago, would have worn badges saying: “I Believe Carolyn Bryant.” Carolyn Bryant, later Carolyn Donham, is the white woman who, in August 1955, accused a young man, Emmett Till, of sex­ually harassing her. She said Till ­entered the grocery store in Mississippi where she worked and touched her without her consent. Apparently he said: “How about a date, baby?” When she walked away, he ­apparently followed her, put his arm around her waist, and said: “What’s the matter, baby?” What happened after this ­alleged incident is one of the ­darkest moments in modern American history. Bryant told people she had been sexually harassed by Till, a black boy, then just 14 years old. He had made her feel sexually vulnerable, she said. And these people hunted Till down and murdered him. They beat him, shot him and dumped his body in a river. This horrific crime lives on as a terrible stain on the American conscience. The photograph of Till’s mutilated corpse galvanised Americans — black and white — to change their society. And so the civil rights movement was born.”

                      “Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their ­opponents. Is that really the world in which we want to live? I don’t. I would rather live in a world of scepticism than credulity. I would rather live in a world in which what happened to Till — instant punishment following instant belief — can never, ever happen again.”

                      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/women-like-men-lie-on-occasion-even-about-sexual-assault/news-story/7aa7964c9c9114b1995b966da62db238

                    • shadrach

                      “What if it’s a recent employer who alleges there was an issue?”
                      Then they will have evidence.

                      “Most don’t.”
                      Most black people don’t commit crime. Yet when black people generally are racially profiled by the police, we fight against that. Being a man accused by a woman should not mean it is the woman who is believed as of right, and more than we should believe a white person over a person of colour, a wealthy person over a poor person, a person of gentry over a peasant.

                    • McFlock

                      “What if it’s a recent employer who alleges there was an issue?”
                      Then they will have evidence.

                      Not always. And if they did, they might not be in a position to give it to you.

                      “Most don’t.”
                      Most black people don’t commit crime. Yet when black people generally are racially profiled by the police, we fight against that. Being a man accused by a woman should not mean it is the woman who is believed as of right.

                      Not “as of right”. Even just “on the balance of probabilities”.
                      And if you don’t see the difference between detaining someone who is probably innocent and believing someone who is probably telling the truth, you’re a lost cause.

                    • shadrach

                      “Not always. And if they did, they might not be in a position to give it to you.”
                      Then there is no evidence. Simple.

                      “Not “as of right”. Even just “on the balance of probabilities”.”
                      Nah, you’ve been arguing as of right.

                      “And if you don’t see the difference between detaining someone who is probably innocent and believing someone who is probably telling the truth, you’re a lost cause.”
                      And if you don’t understand the difference between ‘probably’ and actually having corroboration, you’re a lost cause.

                    • McFlock

                      Then there is no evidence. Simple.

                      So your pre-employment checks reduce the odds that Brett is in the 60%, but you don’t give them any credence if a previous employer says Brett is not to be trusted? Sounds legit lol

                      “Not “as of right”. Even just “on the balance of probabilities”.”
                      Nah, you’ve been arguing as of right.

                      Yeah but now I’m trying to find the limits of how much you will risk before you give a job to somebody who is probably more trustworthy. I know you’ll never believe a victim of sexual assault. I just want to know how far you’ll ignore your responsibilities as an employer in order to justify your protection of rapists.

                      “And if you don’t see the difference between detaining someone who is probably innocent and believing someone who is probably telling the truth, you’re a lost cause.”
                      And if you don’t understand the difference between ‘probably’ and actually having corroboration, you’re a lost cause.

                      Probably means that Brett most likely did it.
                      Corroboration means, e.g., that someone also says that Brett most likely did it, and increases the probability that Brett did it. But Brett still most likely did it, even without corroboration. Because 60% of complaints are true.

                    • shadrach

                      “So your pre-employment checks reduce the odds that Brett is in the 60%, but you don’t give them any credence if a previous employer says Brett is not to be trusted?”
                      People fall out. People make false accusations.

                      “Yeah but now I’m trying to find the limits of how much you will risk before you give a job to somebody who is probably more trustworthy. I know you’ll never believe a victim of sexual assault. I just want to know how far you’ll ignore your responsibilities as an employer in order to justify your protection of rapists.”
                      I will believe a victim of sexual assault when there is corroboration. And where have I argued for the protection of rapists? Oh that’s right, you think every time a woman cries rape she is telling the truth. Like Anna Costin. Like Nikki Yovino.

                      “Probably means that Brett most likely did it.
                      Corroboration means, e.g., that someone also says that Brett most likely did it, and increases the probability that Brett did it. But Brett still most likely did it, even without corroboration. Because 60% of complaints are true.”
                      You don’t understand corroboration. Corroboration is “to support with evidence or authority” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corroborate). An unreliable claimant who can’t remember when something happened, how she got there or how she got home is not authoritative.

                    • McFlock

                      “So your pre-employment checks reduce the odds that Brett is in the 60%, but you don’t give them any credence if a previous employer says Brett is not to be trusted?”
                      People fall out. People make false accusations.

                      Most of the time the accusations are true, though. So most of the time if you ignore an accusation and hire Brett anyway, you’ve made a terrible mistake that endangers your company.

                      I will believe a victim of sexual assault when there is corroboration. And where have I argued for the protection of rapists? Oh that’s right, you think every time a woman cries rape she is telling the truth.

                      No, just most of the time. Which means the majority of the time. As your link demonstrated.

                      Corroboration is “to support with evidence or authority” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corroborate).

                      Of which I provided an example. Which is what “e.g.” is short for. But even without that example, Brett probably did what he was accused of, most likely did it, and more likely than not did it. And you want to give him access to your company vault. When there are a couple of dozen other applicants who are just as good for the job, and don’t have that accusation over their head.

                    • shadrach

                      “Most of the time the accusations are true, though.”
                      Most of the time white peoples accusations against black people may have been ‘true’. Most of the time the polices racial profiling might be correct. ‘Most of the time’ doesn’t cut it.

                      “No, just most of the time.”
                      But that isn’t what you’re arguing. Your arguing they should be always be believed.

                      “Of which I provided an example. Which is what “e.g.” is short for.”
                      And your ‘example’ was wrong. Having someone say person ‘A’ most likely did it isn’t, on it’s own, corroboration.

                      “But even without that example, Brett probably did what he was accused of, most likely did it, and more likely than not did it.”
                      Only statistically. That’s not corroboration. Unless you’re happy with racial profiling? Gender profiling? Wealth profiling?

                      “And you want to give him access to your company vault. When there are a couple of dozen other applicants who are just as good for the job, and don’t have that accusation over their head.”
                      If there are dozens of other candidates, Brett may not be the ‘best candidate’.

                    • McFlock

                      Most of the time white peoples accusations against black people may have been ‘true’. Most of the time the polices racial profiling might be correct. ‘

                      No, you didn’t talk about accusation, you talked about racial profiling: “Most black people don’t commit crime. Yet when black people generally are racially profiled by the police, we fight against that. “. Stop and search doesn’t need an accusation to occur. And as you said, “Most black people don’t commit crime”, but it’s even worse than that – black drivers are more likely to be pulled over, more likely to be searched, and less likely to have done anything wrong than white drivers.

                      Most of the time’ doesn’t cut it.

                      It does, because your racial profiling argument stipulated that “most of the time” black people were innocent. Hence the injustice.

                      “No, just most of the time.”
                      But that isn’t what you’re arguing. Your arguing they should be always be believed.

                      Yes, because most of the time you’ll be right. If we don’t believe them until other information contradicts them, most of the time we will be wrong. Because 60% of accusations are correct (and that’s the worst case, btw, some studies have shown as low as 1-4% accusations are false).

                      “Of which I provided an example. Which is what “e.g.” is short for.”
                      And your ‘example’ was wrong. Having someone say person ‘A’ most likely did it isn’t, on it’s own, corroboration.

                      Oh, but that would be another accusation, translated into your denialist perspective 😉

                      “But even without that example, Brett probably did what he was accused of, most likely did it, and more likely than not did it.”
                      Only statistically. That’s not corroboration. Unless you’re happy with racial profiling? Gender profiling? Wealth profiling?

                      Can you put forward an example of demographic profiling that actually works 60% of the time? Then we can talk about the ethics of it.

                      “And you want to give him access to your company vault. When there are a couple of dozen other applicants who are just as good for the job, and don’t have that accusation over their head.”
                      If there are dozens of other candidates, Brett may not be the ‘best candidate’.

                      But you’ve put him at the top of the list. Do you still give him the job, knowing there’s a 60% chance that he’s a lying thief, or do you call the referees of canditate #2?

                    • shadrach

                      “No, you didn’t talk about accusation, you talked about racial profiling:”
                      Yes, because profiling can lead to false accusations.

                      “It does, because your racial profiling argument stipulated that “most of the time” black people were innocent. Hence the injustice.”
                      And sometimes the accused in a sexual assault accusation is innocent. Which is why we gather evidence, seek corroboration. And it’s why we shouldn’t just believe an accuser simply because they are white, rich, noble or female.

                      “Yes, because most of the time you’ll be right.”
                      And at least some of time you’ll be wrong. Which is why we need corroboration.

                      “Can you put forward an example of demographic profiling that actually works 60% of the time?”
                      Irrelevant. Gender profiling does not determine guilt in any one case, and therefore it should not determine who one believes in the absence of corroboration.

                      “But you’ve put him at the top of the list. Do you still give him the job, knowing there’s a 60% chance that he’s a lying thief, or do you call the referees of canditate #2?”
                      No, I haven’t. I’ve said Brett will get the job if there is no corroboration of the accusations, and he is the best candidate.

                    • McFlock

                      “No, you didn’t talk about accusation, you talked about racial profiling:”
                      Yes, because profiling can lead to false accusations.

                      Because it’s actually less effective at uncovering offences than treating demographic segments equally, because offenders are a minority in all demographic areas.

                      “It does, because your racial profiling argument stipulated that “most of the time” black people were innocent. Hence the injustice.”
                      Likewise the injustice when an innocent person is accused of any crime. And the way we determine guilt? Evidence. Corroboration. I don’t just believe an accuser simply because they are white, rich, noble or female.

                      That’s mighty egalitarian of you. Especially the way you will be so enlightened as to hand the keys of your vault over to someone who is most probably a lying thief.

                      “Yes, because most of the time you’ll be right.”
                      And at least some of time you’ll be wrong. Which is why we need corroboration.

                      And in the absence of corroboration, even though you know Brett is more likely than not to be a lying thief you’ll still give him a job.

                      “Can you put forward an example of demographic profiling that actually works 60% of the time?”
                      Irrelevant. Gender profiling does not determine guilt in any one case.

                      But your source said that 60% of the time accusations are true, and we’re not determining guilt at the moment. We’re just seeing what risks you’ll take in regards to hiring untrustworthy employees.

                      “But you’ve put him at the top of the list. Do you still give him the job, knowing there’s a 60% chance that he’s a lying thief, or do you call the referees of canditate #2?”
                      No, I haven’t. I’ve said Brett will get the job if there is no corroboration of the accusations, and he is the best candidate.

                      So, knowing he is most probably a lying thief, you’ll still place him in a position of financial trust rather than hiring someone who might do the job adequately and doesn’t have a similar accusation of untrustworthiness.

                      If you won’t believe the referees, why would you bother calling them in the first place?

                    • shadrach

                      Also, you’ve contradicted your self.

                      In response to my comment “Oh that’s right, you think every time a woman cries rape she is telling the truth” you said this:

                      “No, just most of the time. Which means the majority of the time. As your link demonstrated. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536058

                      But that is not what you said here:
                      “We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed. You think she shouldn’t. I think that she should. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1534937

                      or here:
                      “Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1535183

                      So which is it McFlock? Are they to be believed, as you claimed in the last two posts quoted, or just believed ‘most of the time’ as you claimed more recently?

                    • shadrach

                      “Because it’s actually less effective at uncovering offences than treating demographic segments equally, because offenders are a minority in all demographic areas.”
                      Assuming all men are guilty and women don’t make false accusations is fairly ineffective as well.

                      “That’s mighty egalitarian of you. Especially the way you will be so enlightened as to hand the keys of your vault over to someone who is most probably a lying thief.”
                      Or not.

                      “And in the absence of corroboration, even though you know Brett is more likely than not to be a lying thief you’ll still give him a job.”
                      I don’t make employment decisions on statistics. Other wise I wouldn’t employ people from a race who are statistically more likely to have been in jail, for example.

                      “But your source said that 60% of the time accusations are true, and we’re not determining guilt at the moment. We’re just seeing what risks you’ll take in regards to hiring untrustworthy employees.”
                      Yes, 60% of a randomly selected sample, which may or not be relevant to my candidate.

                      “So, knowing he is most probably a lying thief…”
                      Which I don’t.

                      “If you won’t believe the referees, why would you bother calling them in the first place?”
                      Who said I don’t believe them before I call them?

                    • McFlock

                      Sigh. That’s not a contradiction.

                      The first is a question of fact: 60-99% of the time when a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped, she is telling the truth. Therefore “most of the time” she is telling the truth.

                      So the second position follows on: the woman should always be believed until new information comes to light that makes her claim unbelievable. Because more often than not, in the absence of any other information, she is telling the truth.

                      That is not determining guilt. It’s determining whether or not you believe her.

                    • shadrach

                      “So the second position follows on: the woman should always be believed until new information comes to light that makes her claim unbelievable.”
                      But you didn’t use that qualifier, did you? You went from claiming women should be believed to women should be believed “…most of the time”. You never said anything about “until new information comes to light that makes her claim unbelievable.”

                    • McFlock

                      Assuming all men are guilty and women don’t make false accusations is fairly ineffective as well.

                      60% of the time you’d be right about the women and the men they accuse, though. Whereas automatic disbelief gives you an accuracy rate of 40%.

                      “That’s mighty egalitarian of you. Especially the way you will be so enlightened as to hand the keys of your vault over to someone who is most probably a lying thief.”
                      Or not.

                      But most probably is.

                      “And in the absence of corroboration, even though you know Brett is more likely than not to be a lying thief you’ll still give him a job.”
                      I don’t make employment decisions on statistics. Other wise I wouldn’t employ people from a race who are statistically more likely to have been in jail, for example.

                      Well, that’s something to be thankful for, given that the overrepresentation of some ethnicities in our prisons is due to systemic disadvantage and bias, rather than ethnicity. So in your ignorance and confusion between “probably is” and “is more likely than another group to be”, you have avoided doing an injustice. But you’re still probably hiring a lying thief (unlike if you were consciously racist as you describe).

                      “But your source said that 60% of the time accusations are true, and we’re not determining guilt at the moment. We’re just seeing what risks you’ll take in regards to hiring untrustworthy employees.”
                      Yes, 60% of a randomly selected sample, which may or not be relevant to my candidate.

                      But probably is.

                      “So, knowing he is most probably a lying thief…”
                      Which I don’t.

                      You know he most probably is, based on the available information: an accusation was made, and 60% of accusations are correct.

                      “If you won’t believe the referees, why would you bother calling them in the first place?”
                      Who said I don’t believe them before I call them?

                      So you only disbelieve them when they say something bad. So why call them in the first place? You’re accepting the false positivies and rejecting the true negatives.

                    • McFlock

                      But you didn’t use that qualifier, did you? You went from claiming women should be believed to women should be believed “…most of the time”.

                      No, I said that women were telling the truth most of the time. You’re obviously at the stage where you’re pulling random words and changing the context to fit your delusion.
                      You said “you think every time a woman cries rape she is telling the truth.” I responded “No, just most of the time.” So most of the time she is telling the truth, therefore automatic belief means you’ll be correct more often than not.

                      You never said anything about “until new information comes to light that makes her claim unbelievable.”

                      Yes, my mistake, I thought you understood that the position of believing unbelievable things was a logical absurdity. My assumption of your basic competence with the English language was, once again, overly charitable.

                    • shadrach

                      “…I said that women were telling the truth most of the time.”
                      What you said initially was women should be believed. Not ‘most of the time’. Believed. You’ve either changed your position or you aren’t being consistent.

                    • shadrach

                      “60% of the time you’d be right about the women and the men they accuse, though. Whereas automatic disbelief gives you an accuracy rate of 40%.”
                      That 60% (or whatever) is a statistics that only applies across a dataset of historical cases. Not the next case. Or the next. Or the next.

                      “But most probably is. “
                      Probability does not determine whether or not someone should be believed or is guilty. Unless you are profiling?

                      “Well, that’s something to be thankful for, given that the overrepresentation of some ethnicities in our prisons is due to systemic disadvantage and bias, rather than ethnicity.”
                      And yet YOU would make that judgement. Based on your own statements that you would believe any woman because statistically it is more likely they are telling the truth, ten you would chose a person of an ethnicity not over represented in jail over a person of an ethnicity that is over-represented in jail, simply because statistically they are less likely they have been in jail. If you are consistent.

                      “But probably is.”
                      But possibly isn’t. Statistics don’t determine guilt or innocence.

                      “You know he most probably is, based on the available information: an accusation was made, and 60% of accusations are correct.”
                      Of an historical data set. Not of the person in front of me.

                      “So you only disbelieve them when they say something bad.”
                      McFlock you can’t believe or disbelieve someone before you talk to them. And what on earth is ‘something bad’? I’m calling them to get a reference check. If a referee accused a past employee of theft, I would expect corroboration. Evidence.

                    • McFlock

                      It seems that you have difficulty understanding the difference between “fact” and “belief” (a failing common to the average tory and economist). They are not the same thing.

                      Your difficulty with the concept of inductive reasoning is also noted.

                      Probability does not determine whether or not someone should be believed or is guilty

                      Well, that rules out DNA evidence, then. And eyewitness testimony. And fingerprints. All of those involve probability: “1:15,00000000 match”, “I’m very sure”, “9 matching points between the defendant and the crime scene sample”.
                      Legally, “guilt” is determined by belief – just a higher level of belief than we’d normally use.

                      you would chose a person of an ethnicity not over represented in jail over a person of an ethnicity that is over-represented in jail,

                      No, because venn diagrams. A = “venetians”, B=”prisoners”. A can still make up most of B, but B can still be a small minority of A. Therefore “being A” does not necessarily mean “60% chance of being B”. I doin’t expect you to understand, because it’s pretty basic.

                      Statistics don’t determine guilt or innocence.

                      No, but they help you minimise the odds of being ripped off by a crook. It’s what the insurance industry is based on.

                      “So you only disbelieve them when they say something bad.”
                      McFlock you can’t believe or disbelieve someone before you talk to them. And what on earth is ‘something bad’? I’m calling them to get a reference check. If a referee accused a past employee of theft, I would expect corroboration. Evidence.

                      You’re not running a trial. You’re throwing an employment agreement in someone’s direction. You call someone up, they say something like “just quietly, we caught him lifting from the till and didn’t want the publicity of a trial so let him quit, I’m amazed he gave us as a reference”. You’ve got a promising short list of interviewed candidates. Do you even bother investigating, or is it quicker and less trouble to just check out the other applicants’ referees first?

                    • shadrach

                      “Well, that rules out DNA evidence, then. And eyewitness testimony. And fingerprints. All of those involve probability:
                      Not at all. These are scientific probabilities with near certainty. And they are based on actual physical evidence of a particular case.
                      The probability expressed by your desire to profile an individual is flawed, because it uses data from cases that are unrelated to the alleged perpetrator or the alleged event. This is the reasoning you have struggled with throughout this most enjoyable dialogue.

                      “Legally, “guilt” is determined by belief – just a higher level of belief than we’d normally use.”
                      Belief in what? In the veracity of evidence. In the reliability of the science behind DNA analysis and fingerprinting. Not in blind belief in the word of someone simply because of their gender.

                      “No, because venn diagrams. A = “venetians”, B=”prisoners”. A can still make up most of B, but B can still be a small minority of A. Therefore “being A” does not necessarily mean “60% chance of being B”. I doin’t expect you to understand, because it’s pretty basic.”
                      All of which are based on historic cases, with zero evidential relevance to the current case.

                      “No, but they help you minimise the odds of being ripped off by a crook. It’s what the insurance industry is based on.”
                      But not whether or not a persons reputation should be permanently smeared by a false accusation.

                      “You’re not running a trial. You’re throwing an employment agreement in someone’s direction.”
                      That’s your example. I have played along to indulge you, but as I have said I’m not employing Kavanaugh, or even advocating for him. I’m arguing the presumption of innocence. Ford was not credible. She failed to recall key elements of the event, and some of her reported comments have been shown to be untrue.

                    • McFlock

                      These are scientific probabilities with near certainty.

                      Yes. statistics.

                      The probability expressed by your desire to profile an individual is flawed, because it uses data from cases that are unrelated to the alleged perpetrator or the alleged event.

                      You think the prevalence of bloodtype matches or the odds of a given number of sample points coming from two different fingers are related to the individual crime? Nope. It’s based on observed population prevalence to date.

                      “Legally, “guilt” is determined by belief – just a higher level of belief than we’d normally use.”
                      Belief in what? In the veracity of evidence. In the reliability of the science behind DNA analysis and fingerprinting. Not in blind belief in the word of someone simply because of their gender.

                      Your faith is cute.

                      “No, but they help you minimise the odds of being ripped off by a crook. It’s what the insurance industry is based on.”
                      But not whether or not a persons reputation should be permanently smeared by a false accusation.

                      And yet many insurance companies charge younger drivers higher levies, even if the driver hasn’t had a claim #notallyoof.
                      Because the drivers most probably will incur greater claims. Just as someone accused of sexual assault most probably did it. You’re wanting to permanently exonerate people who most probably did the things of which they were accused. I’m surprised you haven’t dragged Burke into the discussion (but that would require competence).

                      “You’re not running a trial. You’re throwing an employment agreement in someone’s direction.”
                      That’s your example. I have played along to indulge you, but as I have said I’m not employing Kavanaugh, or even advocating for him. I’m arguing the presumption of innocence.

                      Yes, while often conflating legal levels of judging guilt with whether or not one gives a potential sex predator a job.

                      Ford was not credible. She failed to recall key elements of the event, and some of her reported comments have been shown to be untrue.

                      Ford was a lot more credible than bretty-boy, but that is a matter of opinion. Your opinion makes society safe for rapists. My opinion is most probably correct, based on the links you provided.

                    • shadrach

                      “You think the prevalence of bloodtype matches or the odds of a given number of sample points coming from two different fingers are related to the individual crime? Nope. It’s based on observed population prevalence to date.”
                      And the blood type taken from the alleged offender, and possibly others allegedly at the scene. So it is specific to the scene, to that one individual case. We don’t determine the blood type of the offender is O+, and immediately assume the guilt of anyone with an O+ blood type.

                      “Your faith is cute.”
                      It’s not faith. It’s a knowledge of how the legal system works.
                      But not whether or not a persons reputation should be permanently smeared by a false accusation.

                      “And yet many insurance companies charge younger drivers higher levies, even if the driver hasn’t had a claim”
                      But they don’t charge them with sexual assault, or any other criminal offence.

                      “Yes, while often conflating legal levels of judging guilt with whether or not one gives a potential sex predator a job.”
                      That was your line, not mine. And I’ve been consistent throughout. You, on the other hand, have not (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536146).

                      “Ford was a lot more credible than bretty-boy, but that is a matter of opinion. “
                      Yes it’s a matter of opinion. Which it wouldn’t necessarily be if Ford had even a shred of corroboration or evidence.

                      “Your opinion makes society safe for rapists.”
                      You’re confused. I haven’t expressed an opinion of Kavanaugh’s guilt or otherwise. But the notion that an allegation of sexual assault should always be believed is a nonsense when we know some women lie.

                      “Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their ­opponents. Is that really the world in which we want to live? I don’t. I would rather live in a world of scepticism than credulity. I would rather live in a world in which what happened to Till — instant punishment following instant belief — can never, ever happen again.”
                      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/women-like-men-lie-on-occasion-even-about-sexual-assault/news-story/7aa7964c9c9114b1995b966da62db238

                    • McFlock

                      “You think the prevalence of bloodtype matches or the odds of a given number of sample points coming from two different fingers are related to the individual crime? Nope. It’s based on observed population prevalence to date.”
                      And the blood type taken from the alleged offender, and possibly others allegedly at the scene. So it is specific to the scene, to that one individual case. We don’t determine the blood type of the offender is O+, and immediately assume the guilt of anyone with an O+ blood type.

                      Blood types are wonderful things. If a baby’s blood type came back O+ and the same as the father’s but not the mother’s, the 1/3 prevalence would be enough to remove a whisper of doubt about parentage. 1/3 isn’t good enough for court by itself. But AB- blood type at 0.6% prevalence could well persuade a jury by itself. Because statistics.

                      “Your faith is cute.”
                      It’s not faith. It’s a knowledge of how the legal system works.
                      But not whether or not a persons reputation should be permanently smeared by a false accusation.

                      Lol bollocks.

                      “And yet many insurance companies charge younger drivers higher levies, even if the driver hasn’t had a claim”
                      But they don’t charge them with sexual assault, or any other criminal offence.

                      Nor has Kavanaugh been even considered for being charged. there you go conflating shit again.

                      “Yes, while often conflating legal levels of judging guilt with whether or not one gives a potential sex predator a job.”
                      That was your line, not mine. And I’ve been consistent throughout. You, on the other hand, have not (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536146).

                      You still can’t tell the difference between describing a fact and determining whether or not one believes someone in the light of that fact. that, at least, is consistent.

                      “Ford was a lot more credible than bretty-boy, but that is a matter of opinion. “
                      Yes it’s a matter of opinion. Which it wouldn’t necessarily be if Ford had even a shred of corroboration or evidence.

                      Yup. leading to my previous point “So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.” Because even if there’s evidence of sexual connection, the rapist can always say the sexual connection was consensual,.

                      “Your opinion makes society safe for rapists.”
                      You’re confused. I haven’t expressed an opinion of Kavanaugh’s guilt or otherwise. But the notion that an allegation of sexual assault should always be believed is a nonsense when we know some women lie.

                      You just say Ford isn’t credible, and emphasise the presumption of innocence. And you expect anyone to believe you might think he is guilty? Fuck off.

                      “Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their ­opponents. Is that really the world in which we want to live? I don’t. I would rather live in a world of scepticism than credulity. I would rather live in a world in which what happened to Till — instant punishment following instant belief — can never, ever happen again.”
                      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/women-like-men-lie-on-occasion-even-about-sexual-assault/news-story/7aa7964c9c9114b1995b966da62db238

                      Again, fuck off. We’re not talking about lynching. Just not putting a likely sex predator in a position to minimise and protect sex offenders. Common sense in social and professional circles doesn’t need to lead to lynching or imprisonment on the same level of doubt, fucko.

                      If you hire someone who you know is probably going to rob for your company, you’re negligent.

                    • shadrach

                      “Because statistics.”
                      The whisper of doubt is only removed from that specific case because of their specific blood types. No doubt is removed because of the blood types of anyone else. If DNA evidence confirmed that there was a 99.9% chance that an accused rapist was the perpetrator, that is evidence. When a women waits over 30 years, can’t recall key details of what happened, and makes statements that are later shown to be untrue, that is an unreliable witness.

                      “Nor has Kavanaugh been even considered for being charged. there you go conflating shit again.”
                      And that again shows your lack of understanding. A ‘charge’ is a formal accusation that someone has committed a crime.

                      “You still can’t tell the difference between describing a fact and determining whether or not one believes someone in the light of that fact. that, at least, is consistent.”
                      What I can tell is that at one point you claimed women should be believed. Then you qualified that.

                      “Yup. leading to my previous point “So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.”
                      No, because of those big words – evidence and corroboration. Remember those?

                      “You just say Ford isn’t credible, and emphasise the presumption of innocence. And you expect anyone to believe you might think he is guilty? Fuck off.”
                      More vulgarity? And still you don’t understand one of our most fundamental legal principles. I have no idea who is telling the truth, but I ma far from being the only one who did not find Ford credible.

                      “We’re not talking about lynching.”
                      You missed the part that pointed out that the lynching occurred because of “instant punishment following instant belief”. You believe women don’t lie. You are demonstrably wrong.

                    • McFlock

                      If DNA evidence confirmed that there was a 99.9% chance that an accused rapist was the perpetrator, that is evidence.

                      Evidence based on knowledge of prevalence in the rest of the population. The only difference between that observation and your own link that said 60% of accusations are correct is the 39.9% difference in the statistic itself.

                      When a women waits over 30 years, can’t recall key details of what happened, and makes statements that are later shown to be untrue, that is an unreliable witness.

                      Still more reliable that someone who packs a wobbly when he was asked if he drinks beer.

                      “Nor has Kavanaugh been even considered for being charged. there you go conflating shit again.”
                      And that again shows your lack of understanding. A ‘charge’ is a formal accusation that someone has committed a crime.

                      Oh, fuck off. He was never considered for beinglegally charged, so stop conflating things you idiot.

                      What I can tell is that at one point you claimed women should be believed. Then you qualified that.

                      Yes, I did had to explain that it didn’t apply to unbelievable claims, because you think it is normal to believe the unbelievable. Which explains your defence of Brett (and yes, you are defending him).

                      “Yup. leading to my previous point “So as long as no witnesses are around, the rapist will always get away with it in your ideal world.”
                      No, because of those big words – evidence and corroboration. Remember those?

                      Exactly: in your ideal world if there are no witnesses to give evidence that corroborates that the woman did not consent to sexual connection, rapists should go free.

                      “You just say Ford isn’t credible, and emphasise the presumption of innocence. And you expect anyone to believe you might think he is guilty? Fuck off.”
                      More vulgarity? And still you don’t understand one of our most fundamental legal principles.

                      It’s not a legal matter, fucko. Stop changing the goalposts. And you can suck my vulgarity.

                      I have no idea who is telling the truth, but I ma far from being the only one who did not find Ford credible.

                      Appeals to popularity, now? Fuck off.

                      “We’re not talking about lynching.”
                      You missed the part that pointed out that the lynching occurred because of “instant punishment following instant belief”.

                      You missed the part where lynching is a touch more extreme than not hiring him to take care of vulnerable women.

                      You believe women don’t lie.

                      You’re a liar. Again. A stupid, lying, rape-defender.
                      At worst that you’ve come up with, 40% of claims are false. Most of the time, women tell the truth. Therefore, if you believe them, most of the time you will be correct. Whereas there’s a 60% chance that your attitude will not just let predators escape social sanction, but leave them in a position to reoffend.

                      You are demonstrably wrong.

                      You’re still a liar.

                    • shadrach

                      “Evidence based on knowledge of prevalence in the rest of the population.”
                      Yes, based on the known science and based on that specific individual. Not a generalization based on 60% of all other individuals.

                      “Still more reliable that someone who packs a wobbly when he was asked if he drinks beer.”
                      But it isn’t Kavanaugh making the accusation, is it? It isn’t Kavanaugh’s side of the story I have been commenting on is it?

                      “Oh, fuck off. He was never considered for beinglegally charged, so stop conflating things you idiot. “
                      You don’t understand what the word ‘charged means’. This is becoming a pattern.

                      “Yes, I did had to explain that it didn’t apply to unbelievable claims, because you think it is normal to believe the unbelievable.”
                      No, you changed your position. Or you unwittingly contradicted yourself.

                      “Exactly: in your ideal world if there are no witnesses to give evidence that corroborates that the woman did not consent to sexual connection, rapists should go free.”
                      No. It isn’t only witnesses that provide evidence. Remember DNA?

                      “It’s not a legal matter, fucko.”
                      It doesn’t matter. Ford is making big claims. She is accusing Kavanaugh of an historical criminal offence.

                      “Appeals to popularity, now?”
                      Well better than someone who says “60:40 he’s guilty, lynch’im”.

                      “You missed the part where lynching is a touch more extreme than not hiring him to take care of vulnerable women.”
                      Lynching. Destroying someones reputation. They are only different by degrees.

                      “Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their ­opponents. Is that really the world in which we want to live?”
                      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/women-like-men-lie-on-occasion-even-about-sexual-assault/news-story/7aa7964c9c9114b1995b966da62db238

                      “You’re a liar.”
                      When you post something, McFlock, it stays.

                      “We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed. You think she shouldn’t. I think that she should. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1534937

                      “Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1535183

                    • McFlock

                      “Evidence based on knowledge of prevalence in the rest of the population.”
                      Yes, based on the known science and based on that specific individual. Not a generalization based on 60% of all other individuals.

                      No, a generalisation based on 99.9% of other individuals, in your example. The percentages differ, but the statements are the same position: this person has X, so they are Y% likely to be the guilty party, based on other times people have had X”.

                      “Still more reliable that someone who packs a wobbly when he was asked if he drinks beer.”
                      But it isn’t Kavanaugh making the accusation, is it? It isn’t Kavanaugh’s side of the story I have been commenting on is it?

                      That’s the point. In order to avoid the fact that the mere allegation means he most likely did it (by your link), you’ll judge her credibility but not his. You’re a rape apologist.

                      “Oh, fuck off. He was never considered for beinglegally charged, so stop conflating things you idiot. “
                      You don’t understand what the word ‘charged means’. This is becoming a pattern.

                      Yes. You ignore the context of the discussion and arbitrarily choose the most convenient definition and assume it’s the only one, or you just choose random words from different clauses and pretend they were used to create comepltely different sentences.

                      “Yes, I did had to explain that it didn’t apply to unbelievable claims, because you think it is normal to believe the unbelievable.”
                      No, you changed your position. Or you unwittingly contradicted yourself.

                      See above. You’re a liar.

                      “Exactly: in your ideal world if there are no witnesses to give evidence that corroborates that the woman did not consent to sexual connection, rapists should go free.”
                      No. It isn’t only witnesses that provide evidence. Remember DNA?

                      DNA does not demonstrate consent or lack of consent. At best, it demonstrates sexual connection.

                      “It’s not a legal matter, fucko.”
                      It doesn’t matter. Ford is making big claims. She is accusing Kavanaugh of an historical criminal offence.

                      well beyond the statute of limitations for that offence. It’s not a legal matter. The existence of the claim means he probably did it. To avoid that and defend a probable sexual predator, you’re attacking the credibility of the victim but not of the probable offender.

                      “Appeals to popularity, now?”
                      Well better than someone who says “60:40 he’s guilty, lynch’im”.

                      Lucky I didn’t say that, liar.

                      “You missed the part where lynching is a touch more extreme than not hiring him to take care of vulnerable women.”
                      Lynching. Destroying someones reputation. They are only different by degrees.

                      That, and the entire “death” thing. But no worries, because your link suggests he most likely did it and got away with it, rather than having his reputation destroyed.

                      “Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their ­opponents. Is that really the world in which we want to live?”
                      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/women-like-men-lie-on-occasion-even-about-sexual-assault/news-story/7aa7964c9c9114b1995b966da62db238

                      When women are more likely to make false accusations than tell the truth, get back to me. Hell, try asking that when men are less likely to be sexually assaulted themselves than to be falsely accused of sexual assault. Because the world we currently live in lets the vast majority of rapists walk free and attacks women who complain about it, like you have done.

                      “You’re a liar.”
                      When you post something, McFlock, it stays.

                      True. You’re a liar who is making society safer for rapists.

                    • shadrach

                      “No, a generalisation based on 99.9% of other individuals…”
                      No, a scientific test based on a specific individual and a specific case, v’s a data set that the alleged perpetrator isn’t even included in!

                      “That’s the point. In order to avoid the fact that the mere allegation means he most likely did it (by your link), you’ll judge her credibility but not his.”
                      It’s her claims. It is therefore her credibility.

                      “Yes. You ignore the context of the discussion and arbitrarily choose the most convenient definition…”
                      No, you’re engaging in a discussion and using terminology you don’t understand.

                      “See above. You’re a liar.”
                      You contradicted yourself. Or you are inconsistent.

                      “DNA does not demonstrate consent or lack of consent. At best, it demonstrates sexual connection.”
                      Which is often denied by the alleged perpetrator, hence it’s evidential value. Like bruising, scratches, and other material evidence.

                      “well beyond the statute of limitations for that offence.”
                      So? I bet that wouldn’t stop you wanting to clear your name if you were falsely accused.

                      “Lucky I didn’t say that, liar.”
                      Yeah, you pretty much did.

                      “That, and the entire “death” thing. But no worries, because your link suggests he most likely did it and got away with it, rather than having his reputation destroyed.”
                      That ‘most likely’ is based on a bunch of other people’s experiences. Whereas in the actual case, there is no evidence and an unreliable alleged victim. Yep, you’re calling for a ‘lynching’.

                      “When women are more likely to make false accusations than tell the truth, get back to me.”
                      I’m ‘getting back to you’ now. Women lie. Not most of the time, but often enough. I can post some high profile and recent examples if you like. Your approach is to establish culpability by gender profile. As they used to do with race. And socio-economic status.

                    • McFlock

                      “No, a generalisation based on 99.9% of other individuals…”
                      No, a scientific test based on a specific individual and a specific case, v’s a data set that the alleged perpetrator isn’t even included in!

                      The suspect isn’t in the DNA reference set for proportions, either.
                      The logic is exactly the same: we know X about a person, and for the reference set that means Y probability the a person did it.

                      “That’s the point. In order to avoid the fact that the mere allegation means he most likely did it (by your link), you’ll judge her credibility but not his.”
                      It’s her claims. It is therefore her credibility.

                      It’s his denial. It’s also his credibility.

                      “Yes. You ignore the context of the discussion and arbitrarily choose the most convenient definition…”
                      No, you’re engaging in a discussion and using terminology you don’t understand.

                      You’re the one who pulls a single definition for words that have many meanings.

                      “See above. You’re a liar.”
                      You contradicted yourself. Or you are inconsistent.

                      No, you just think “belief” is the same as “fact”.

                      “DNA does not demonstrate consent or lack of consent. At best, it demonstrates sexual connection.”
                      Which is often denied by the alleged perpetrator, hence it’s evidential value. Like bruising, scratches, and other material evidence.

                      You must have the most vanilla sex life imaginable, if it exists at all.

                      “well beyond the statute of limitations for that offence.”
                      So? I bet that wouldn’t stop you wanting to clear your name if you were falsely accused.

                      But that’s not a legal issue, either.

                      “Lucky I didn’t say that, liar.”
                      Yeah, you pretty much did.

                      Nope, you liar.

                      “That, and the entire “death” thing. But no worries, because your link suggests he most likely did it and got away with it, rather than having his reputation destroyed.”
                      That ‘most likely’ is based on a bunch of other people’s experiences. Whereas in the actual case, there is no evidence and an unreliable alleged victim.

                      Except the people she told over the years, and the even more unreliable Brett.

                      Yep, you’re calling for a ‘lynching’.

                      Nope. Nowhere have I suggested any violence against him, let alone have him murdered. You’re a fucking liar with bells on

                      “When women are more likely to make false accusations than tell the truth, get back to me.”
                      I’m ‘getting back to you’ now. Women lie. Not most of the time, but often enough. I can post some high profile and recent examples if you like. Your approach is to establish culpability by gender profile. As they used to do with race. And socio-economic status.

                      Nope, not culpability, you fucking liar. Just that the woman is believed and therefore maybe they shouldn’t have hired a probably sex attacker into a position where he has an opportunity to be biased in favour of sex attackers getting away with it.

                    • shadrach

                      “The suspect isn’t in the DNA reference set for proportions, either.”
                      But the DNA is taken from the SUSPECT and compared to the population. DNA is material evidence. Probability of whether another population group contains more liars than not, is not.

                      “It’s his denial. It’s also his credibility.”
                      “Also”. Thank you for acknowledging her need to establish a credible claim. Clearly she failed.

                      “You’re the one who pulls a single definition for words that have many meanings.”
                      You just need you be more careful.

                      “No, you just think “belief” is the same as “fact”.”
                      No, you don’t understand the difference between being believed and being believed ‘most of the time’. (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536146)

                      “You must have the most vanilla sex life imaginable, if it exists at all.”
                      So bruising, scratching and other physical harm is not presented as evidence of rape?

                      “But that’s not a legal issue, either.”
                      No, precisely. So would you fight to clear your name?

                      “Except the people she told over the years, and the even more unreliable Brett.”
                      What people? She didn’t mention it to anyone for about 30 years!

                      “Nope. Nowhere have I suggested any violence against him, let alone have him murdered.”
                      Your acting as a lynch mob. It was a reference to the Till case. I’ll need spell things out to you a bit more, clearly.

                      “ Just that the woman is believed…”
                      All of the time? Most of the time? Which of your positions is it?

                    • McFlock

                      “The suspect isn’t in the DNA reference set for proportions, either.”
                      But the DNA is taken from the SUSPECT and compared to the population.

                      No, it’s not. It’s taken from the suspect and compared to the scene. Then the statistical probability of a match is made based on the prevalence of those characteristics in the wider population. Just as we know that in the wider population women are telling the truth at least 60% of the time, we know that in the wider population a random sample will match with those DNA characteristics in your example 99% of the time.

                      “It’s his denial. It’s also his credibility.”
                      “Also”. Thank you for acknowledging her need to establish a credible claim. Clearly she failed.

                      Existence of the claim means he probably did it. Examination of the claim provides new information beyond your “60% of the time women tell the truth” link. Examining the claim but not the defence provides an information bias that you clearly want to preserve in order to keep a probable sex attacker safe.

                      “You’re the one who pulls a single definition for words that have many meanings.”
                      You just need you be more careful.

                      You need to stop abusing the English language, fucko.

                      “No, you just think “belief” is the same as “fact”.”
                      No, you don’t understand the difference between being believed and being believed ‘most of the time’. (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536146)

                      And you link to the bit where you confuse fact and belief, again. Did you train to act this stupid, or did it come naturally?

                      “You must have the most vanilla sex life imaginable, if it exists at all.”
                      So bruising, scratching and other physical harm is not presented as evidence of rape?

                      It can also be evidence of a good time. In most rape cases, the only evidence about lack of consent comes from the complainant. Because rapists usually try to avoid witnesses and cameras.

                      “But that’s not a legal issue, either.”
                      No, precisely. So would you fight to clear your name?

                      If I already had a sinecure on a good income? What real harm can a slander do me? So I miss out on that job. Liars like that tend to out themselves sooner or later.

                      “Except the people she told over the years, and the even more unreliable Brett.”
                      What people? She didn’t mention it to anyone for about 30 years!

                      She still told people well before he was a scotus judge.

                      “Nope. Nowhere have I suggested any violence against him, let alone have him murdered.”
                      Your acting as a lynch mob. It was a reference to the Till case. I’ll need spell things out to you a bit more, clearly.

                      It was a reference to a murder case, you stupid piece of shit. Nowhere have I suggested any violence against him, let alone have him murdered. Therefore I am not acting like a lynch mob. And in the 1950s, you’d have been defending the lynch mob.

                      “ Just that the woman is believed…”
                      All of the time? Most of the time? Which of your positions is it?

                      Again, you confuse fact with belief. Read your own link very carefully.

                    • shadrach

                      “But the DNA is taken from the SUSPECT…”
                      Exactly! The ‘suspect’ in a sexual assault allegation is not taken from the sample set that makes up the probability of the allegation being false.

                      “Existence of the claim means he probably did it.”
                      ‘Probably’ doesn’t cut it. Not after more than 30 years. Not after Ford’s testimony lacked credibility.

                      “Examination of the claim provides new information beyond your “60% of the time women tell the truth” link.”
                      Not in Ford’s case.

                      “You need to stop abusing the English language, fucko.”
                      “To make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame.
                      https://www.thefreedictionary.com/charged

                      “No, you don’t understand the difference between being believed and being believed ‘most of the time’. (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536146)”
                      You first two comments didn’t say ‘most of the time’. They were unequivocal.

                      “And you link to the bit where you confuse fact and belief, again. “
                      No, I link to the bit where you contradicted yourself.

                      “It can also be evidence of a good time.”
                      So if an alleged rape victim appeared in front of you with scratches and bruises you would say to her “wow good to see your sex life isn’t so vanilla”. Nice.

                      “Because rapists usually try to avoid witnesses and cameras.”
                      But they are less successful at avoiding inflicting (or receiving for that matter) scratching, bruising and the like.

                      “If I already had a sinecure on a good income? What real harm can a slander do me? So I miss out on that job. Liars like that tend to out themselves sooner or later.”
                      That ‘sinecure and good income’ comes with a reputation that someone is trying to destroy. So you don’t value your reputation and wouldn’t fight for it?

                      “She still told people well before he was a scotus judge.”
                      Not before he was a public figure. Not before he was a Judge on the USCOADC. Not for around 30 years.

                      “It was a reference to a murder case, you stupid piece of shit.”
                      You ‘rush to judgement’ attitude is precisely what happened in the Till case. Look it up. What was the basis on which the innocent black man was under suspicion? Carolyn Bryant. The alleged victim, who later admitted she lied.

                      “Again, you confuse fact with belief.”
                      No, I’ve simply pointed out you have contradicted yourself.

                    • shadrach

                      Watch this clip McFlock.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXBwZPxmwpk

                      Focus in on the crazy women at 6:42 and 9:03. They are you.

                      Now imagine they are talking about a different case.

                      Imagine they are talking about a 21-year-old white women named Carolyn Bryant. Imagine that their crazy, screaming, finger pointing is on her behalf. Because she has claimed that a 14 year old black man sexually assaulted her. These women, who are you, believe her. There is no corroborating evidence. But these women don’t care. Women have to be believed. All women…

                    • McFlock

                      Bit of a protip: if quoting a whole sentence would negate the point you’re trying to make by only quoting half the sentence, you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.

                      If you ignore the context of a word in order to insist that someone else meant the sixth definition of that word (out of a dozen options), you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.

                      If you think anything I’ve written is akin to supporting a lynching, you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                      If you think that believing some people enjoy more physical sex than you are familiar with means that I won’t believe a woman who says she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                      If you think that a rapist faced with evidence of their sexual connection with their accuser won’t simply state that the connection was consensual and therefore not rape, you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                      If you think that the fact that a minority of accusations are lies means that you shouldn’t believe a woman who tells you she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                      If you think that “fighting for your reputation” means whining like a little kid in a senate hearing and pointing out all the women who haven’t accused you of sexual assault, you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                      Frankly, I think you’re a stupid, lying sack of shit, because you seem to have done all of the above.

                    • shadrach

                      “Bit of a protip: if quoting a whole sentence would negate the point you’re trying to make by only quoting half the sentence, you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.”
                      Then you shouldn’t do it. I certainly don’t.

                      If you ignore the context of a word in order to insist that someone else meant the sixth definition of that word (out of a dozen options), you might just come across as a lying sack of shit.”
                      Then you shouldn’t do it. I certainly don’t.

                      “If you think anything I’ve written is akin to supporting a lynching, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have a significant language deficiency. The ‘lynching’ you support is metaphorical…being judge, jury and executioner by enabling false accusations.

                      “If you think that believing some people enjoy more physical sex than you are familiar with means that I won’t believe a woman who says she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have a significant language deficiency. I used the idea of scratches, bruises etc as evidence of non-consensual sex. You know what evidence is, eh McFlock?

                      “If you think that a rapist faced with evidence of their sexual connection with their accuser won’t simply state that the connection was consensual and therefore not rape, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      Ah, which is why scratches, bruises etc can be used as evidence for non-consensual sex. Or would you throw that back at the alleged victim be claiming their consensual sex life is too ‘vanilla’?

                      “If you think that the fact that a minority of accusations are lies means that you shouldn’t believe a woman who tells you she was raped, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      You have struggled with this one. On one hand you claim we should believe all women, on the other only some women. What happened when a group of people believed Carolyn Bryant McFlock?

                      “If you think that “fighting for your reputation” means whining like a little kid in a senate hearing and pointing out all the women who haven’t accused you of sexual assault, you’re a stupid sack of shit.”
                      So you still haven’t answered my question.

                      “Frankly, I think you’re a stupid, lying sack of shit, because you seem to have done all of the above.
                      No. What is happening here is that you have utterly failed to present a coherent argument why we should believe an accuser simply because they are a women, and the allegation is sexual.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re a blatant liar. Everything you just commented about is not just incorrect, but has been covered ad nauseum. Which is why you’re just a stupid liar.

                      You literally quoted your own incorrect comment about DNA and agreed with it as if it was something I wrote, when I’d clearly quoted you using it (using blockquote tags and everything) and then described why you were wrong. You’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t even recognise the bullshit you actually wrote.

                      You really are an imbecile.

                    • shadrach

                      “You’re a blatant liar. Everything you just commented about is not just incorrect, but has been covered ad nauseum. “
                      It has been covered ad-nauseum, and you have failed to adequately defend your position.

                      “You literally quoted your own incorrect comment about DNA and agreed with it as if it was something I wrote, when I’d clearly quoted you using it (using blockquote tags and everything) and then described why you were wrong.”
                      Here’s where you admitted the DNA was taken from the suspect https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1537272. “It’s taken from the suspect and compared to the scene. ”
                      I literally called you out on confusing statistical probability with scientific evidence. DNA is scientific evidence, taken from an individual alleged offender. Probability (in the case of false accusations of rape) is calculated using a data set of which the alleged offender isn’t even a part. You missed that key difference, and you haven’t recovered.

                      Your potty mouth and name calling is simply a weak disguise for not having a valid argument. But that’s ok, we all know now you’d believe Carolyn Bryant.

                    • shadrach

                      And we know you’d believe Wanetta Gibson.

                      “Banks was a standout high school football star at Polytechnic High School (Poly) in Long Beach, California. In 2002, his Junior year, Banks verbally committed to USC. After being falsely accused of rape by classmate Wanetta Gibson, he spent more than five years in prison and five years on strict custody parole, but had his conviction overturned in 2012 after his accuser admitted she had fabricated the entire story.”
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)#Sexual_assault_case

                      Brian Banks spent 5 years in jail and 5 years on strict custody parole, but at least he wasn’t lynched, eh McFlock.

                    • shadrach

                      And we know you’d believe Jackie Coakley.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

                    • McFlock

                      “It’s taken from the suspect and compared to the scene. ”

                      That’s not what you attributed to me, though, is it.
                      And besides that, the best bit is that you had to have seen that and stopped reading in order to avoid the bit that clearly states how DNA matching relies on population statistics:

                      Then the statistical probability of a match is made based on the prevalence of those characteristics in the wider population. Just as we know that in the wider population women are telling the truth at least 60% of the time, we know that in the wider population a random sample will match with those DNA characteristics in your example 99% of the time.

                      A DNA match of the suspect in the scene is like the existence of an allegation. The statistical probability of that match has nothing to do with the suspect or the scene, in the same way that the statistical probability of any specific allegation being true has nothing to with the accuser or the accused – they both rely on the probability in the wider population.

                      My potty mouth (what are you, 9 years old?) and name calling are the result of you being an imbecile and a liar. I’m not here to molly-coddle a snowflake who wants rapists to hold their heads up high in society if there aren’t four witnesses who can state the victim fought back.

                      You have occasionally expressed scepticism because Ford kept the incident to herself for decades. You are that reason. You and people like you.

                    • McFlock

                      The flipside of your position is that thousands of rapists would have gone free for decades. The Catholic Church is dealing with the mess that causes, and the life sentences inflicted upon tens of thousands of kids.

                      And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “believing women” doesn’t mean being blindfully devoted enough to cause a conviction. So your innocents in prison idea is bullshit. As is your murder bullshit. It has nothing to do with lynching.

                      If a mate of yours comes to visit and your sister said he sexually assaulted her years ago, would you insist she show photos of scratches (when he’d simply say she just liked that kind of sex), or stay friends with him because you can’t comprehend why she wouldn’t tell you immediately?

                      But let’s try the DNA thing another way: if a DNA analyst says there’s a 99.9% match, where do you think that 99.9% comes from? How do they conclude 99.9%, rather than 60%, or 99.99999%?

                    • RedLogix

                      Wow … this sub-thread must take first prize for endurance. Credit to both of you.

                      I’m not here to molly-coddle a snowflake who wants rapists to hold their heads up high in society if there aren’t four witnesses who can state the victim fought back.

                      Yet you present no alternative mechanism other than automatic ‘guilt by allegation’. Yet this is the ground zero of all moral panics; remember the now ‘satanic child abuse rings’ of the 80’s? It was of course all bunk, but the rule of the day was ‘always believe the survivors’. There’s nothing new about this.

                      The idea we ‘mollycoddle’ rapists is also bunk; our laws treat it as a crime damn nearly equal to homicide. The police and courts usually dealt effectively with cases where there is evidence and corroboration beyond reasonable doubt. Proven offenders are reviled by everyone.

                      But sexual assault and homicide are quite different in nature. Homicide is rare and almost never consented to; sex is common and almost always consented to. On the balance of probabilities any given sexual encounter is almost certainly innocent (if not always politically correct). A dead body is public domain, there is usually a plethora of forensics and evidence; sex is private and the forensics usually long gone. Decades later it’s often only a matter of opinion as to what actually happened.

                      These cases make for very difficult law indeed, troublesome to prosecute and almost impossible to defend. But we can surely do better than a obdurate ‘believe all victims because patriarchy ‘ ideology.

                    • McFlock

                      Yet you present no alternative mechanism other than automatic ‘guilt by allegation’.

                      No, I haven’t covered what the legal situation should be at all, let alone determining “guilt by allegation”. Because it’s not relevant to whether a woman is believed socially, nor is the legal level of guilt pertinent to whether someone is hired for a job.

                      If someone is alledged to have done something that would make their presence in a role unsuitable, there’s a 60% or greater chance that the existence of an allegation corresponds to guilt, and they defend themselves as badly as Kavanaugh did, any employer would be almost negligent to hire them for that role.

                      Personally, for sexual assault court cases I think we do need to do something different, but I’m not exactly sure what. There was an interesting interview a while back with a NZ defence lawyer who had successfully defended 7 rape cases in a row, and she reckoned there were some systemic issues. But that’s a completely different discussion to whether complainants of sexual assault should simply be treated with belief if they come forward to someone else.

                    • RedLogix

                      Wow … finding the ‘Reply’ button on this has become a mission. 🙂

                      You do make a strong point when you argue that the threshold for a job interview is different to that of a criminal case. Indeed I’ve said elsewhere, the entire process has become so politicised and tainted, that BK could stand down in the long-term interests of the Supreme Court and the nation as a whole.

                      But at the same time I did watch Ford’s testimony at some length; and initially I was impressed. And then something didn’t click anymore. Lots of people have picked up on this. On closer examination Ford may not be the straightforward actor she presented as. At the very least it’s highly likely that she is a long-term Democrat activist.

                      So consider your hypothetical job interview; and you have an allegation of sexual misconduct against your top applicant. Looks bad; but then you discover it was made by the partner of one of the other applicants. Now there is real doubt about motivation.

                    • McFlock

                      yes, but if we examine one side more closely, we also need to examine the other.

                      While I might not have picked up some of the subtleties you allude too, BK behaved like he was hiding something bad. There were also the suspisciously quick responses when the allegation first surfaced – finding people from 30 years ago to vouch for you that quickly? Then other women came forward in addition to Ford with other allegations. Then the “investigation” by the FBI was a farce to a suspicious degree.

                      So although he might or might not have done what Ford alleged, I got the distinct impression that he and the republicans were scared he had.

                      And then there’s always the fact that he’s a young judge – they could have put forward someone else from the Federalist list, he sat in the appeals court for a few more years while everything was thoroughly hashed over, and if he’s a saint he goes up when the next vacancy comes up. They weren’t short of ideal candidates, and they chose to batter through on this one. His life wasn’t going to be ruined at all.

                    • RedLogix

                      So although he might or might not have done what Ford alleged, I got the distinct impression that he and the republicans were scared he had.

                      Again elsewhere I’ve expressed the opinion that on the balance of probabilities the events Ford described did happen. But given the context of their young age, the much more liberal sexual mores of the early 80’s, and the alcohol likely involved … I’m not sure it was the crime of the century as Ford would have us believe. Again lots of commentators have said similar, many of them women,

                      This is what happens when we conflate all categories of seriousness down to one big bad bucket of patriarchal evil. Every single one of us has some guilty little secret that can be inflated into something awful by someone with a grudge; we all have something to be ashamed of, yet as a society we only function because we let understanding, redemption and forgiveness to work their healing power.

                      When 40 years later we reach back and indulge in ‘fever of judgmental righteousness’ and think ourselves on the side of angels; I’m not so convinced.

                      Anyhoo that’s it from me. A deeply interesting conversation, but I’ll leave it here for now. Cheers

                    • McFlock

                      yeah thanks RL, it’s been a good chat.

                      The thing is that it wasn’t the crime of the century on a global perspective, but it was for Ford. I genuinely believe that. And BK could have done a George W and apologised for his actions in his youth. They couldn’t really be brushed aside as “boys will be boys” or that it was simply the style of the time, but a sincere apology, even a “I was drunk a lot as a kid and although I don’t remember it, I can’t guarantee it didn’t happen, but I took responsibility for myself and changed my behaviour in my early twenties”.

                      But things like McConnell apologising to BK and so on, it’s just completely hypocritical. And I’m pretty sure that it was the first properly expressed apology by Trump I’ve ever heard, and it was to BK for being called to account for his behaviour in his youth (not just Ford, but his college accusers, the drinking, and the alumnus comment in his yearbook).

                      Sure, it was the 1980s. Sexual assault was comic relief for teen romance movies. Times have changed. The trouble is, BK doesn’t seem to have, if his outrage at being actually investigated at a SCOTUS hearing is anything to go by. He actually made Clarence Thomas look like the guy being accused of decades-old acts, not something more recent at the time.

                    • shadrach

                      “That’s not what you attributed to me, though, is it.”
                      No, I missed by one line. Amazingly the content was as you said, however.

                      “Then the statistical probability of a match is made based on the prevalence of those characteristics in the wider population.”
                      Of a sample taken from the alleged perpetrator. That’s the part you haven’t grasped this from the very outset. Your probability argument (60:40) is unrelated to a single alleged offender or crime. DNA is linked specifically to a single alleged offender and crime.

                      “The statistical probability of that match has nothing to do with the suspect or the scene…”
                      But the sample is taken from the suspect, not from a wider population.

                      “My potty mouth (what are you, 9 years old?) and name calling are the result of you being an imbecile and a liar.”
                      No, they simply reflect someone unable to make a coherent argument.

                      “ I’m not here to molly-coddle a snowflake who wants rapists to hold their heads up high in society if there aren’t four witnesses who can state the victim fought back.”
                      No, you are here to enable false accusations, accusations that lead to horrendous consequences.

                      “You have occasionally expressed scepticism because Ford kept the incident to herself for decades. You are that reason. You and people like you.”
                      No, actually you are. If more women were encouraged to come forward earlier by skepticism of historic claims without evidence, most likely more prosecutions would result.

                      “And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “believing women” doesn’t mean being blindfully devoted enough to cause a conviction. “
                      Actually no. Your position has changed from believing women to believing most women. You have been remiss in providing any balance to that.

                      “So your innocents in prison idea is bullshit.”
                      Oh really? One name. Brian Banks.

                      “As is your murder bullshit. It has nothing to do with lynching. “
                      Oh really? One name. Emmett Till

                    • McFlock

                      Oh, piss off, you liar.

                      I can’t think of simpler ways to explain shit to you for the upteenth time. You’re just a lying little rape-enabler who appropriates murder in order to keep women silent.

                    • shadrach

                      Hi RedLogix

                      “At the very least it’s highly likely that she is a long-term Democrat activist.”

                      I’m not sure she is a “long-term Democrat activist”, but she is a registered Democrat.

                      “Looks bad; but then you discover it was made by the partner of one of the other applicants. ”
                      Or you discover the alleged victim is simply not credible.
                      https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409651-dr-fords-credibility-problem
                      “The only details Ford seems to remember are ones that are damaging to Kavanaugh. She remembers what he allegedly did and that he was drunk, and says she had the good judgment to only have one drink. But Ford seemingly does not remember how she got to the party in question, how she got home, where it was or when it was. Most damaging to her story is the fact that every witness she has named has denied being at the party, under penalty of felony — even her best friend, Leland Keyser. Keyser’s attorney put out a statement saying, “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.” Ford has struggled to keep her story straight. She refuses to turn over her therapy notes, which she has cited as evidence of the attack even though she says Kavanaugh’s name is not mentioned in them. Ford has given different accounts of when the decades-old party took place. In a text message to The Washington Post she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.” A July 30 letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, stated “early ’80s.” However, she somehow narrowed it down to the summer of 1982 in a Sept. 16 Washington Post article. As Mitchell notes in her memo, Ford has not explained how she was able to do that. “

                    • shadrach

                      “I can’t think of simpler ways to explain shit to you for the upteenth time.”
                      Yes, you are full of it. And you can’t explain what you can’t defend.

                      Ford was not credible. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409651-dr-fords-credibility-problem

                      You believe “women”, or “most women”. I’m not sure you even know which.

                      Your ‘belief’ is dangerous, given the cases I have cited, and the numerous others in which false accusations have been made.

                    • McFlock

                      I believe ALL women, because most women tell the truth. If further information comes to light that makes their claim unbelievable, I stop believing them. But faced with the existence of an allegation, I believe her. That has been repeatedly explained to you, you lying scumbag.

                      As was that this doesn’t apply to court cases or murder, you liar.

                    • shadrach

                      I believe ALL women, because most women tell the truth.
                      But by the figures you have been quoting, up to 40% of sexual assault allegations are false. So you will willingly and falsely assign guilt to 40% of those accused. To do that, you have to ignore one of the most fundamental elements of our legal system, the presumption of innocence.

                      “But faced with the existence of an allegation, I believe her.”
                      Then that makes you a fool. And it aligns you with those who lynched Emmett Till, and jailed Brian Banks. It aligns you with Rolling Stone magazine and ‘jounalist’ Sabrina Erdely. Oh the company you keep!

                      (And you still believe Ford, despite there being no corroboration of her story, and despite her huge credibility problem. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409651-dr-fords-credibility-problem).

                    • McFlock

                      The 40% was the worst-case study you could come up with. But either way, again, yet a-fucking-gain, it has nothing to do with “assigning guilt”, but belief.

                      Someone confides in me that they were sexually assaulted, I believe them, because they’re probably telling the truth.

                      Someone goes to you and claims to have been sexually assaulted, you react with disbelief/non-belief unless provided with witnesses who confirm that the scratches and semen were the result of non-consensual sexual contact.

                    • shadrach

                      “The 40% was the worst-case study you could come up with.”
                      No, it was one I quoted. You’ve been repeating the stat ever since.

                      “But either way, again, yet a-fucking-gain, it has nothing to do with “assigning guilt”, but belief.”
                      Not even belief. More like prejudice, based on a data set that the alleged perpetrator isn’t even part of.

                      “Someone confides in me that they were sexually assaulted, I believe them, because they’re probably telling the truth.”
                      Really? And when their testimony doesn’t stack up? When there is no corroboration? When the ‘witnesses’ they put forward denies even being at the party? All i can add is that you really are gullible.

                      “Someone goes to you and claims to have been sexually assaulted, you react with disbelief/non-belief unless provided with witnesses who confirm that the scratches and semen were the result of non-consensual sexual contact.”
                      Consistent with natural justice, and the extremely serious nature of the claims, yes. On the other hand, you believe the claimant without cause.

                    • McFlock

                      Yes. Your source. Don’t blame me for using statistics you introduced into the discussion.

                      So if someone confides in you that they were sexually assaulted, you’d suspend belief and spout “natural justice” arguments at them? And one wonders why some people don’t make complaints about sexual assault. The answer is “people like you”.

                      Nothing said about court or any of that shit. Simply if someone tells you they were sexually assaulted, you’d demand “corroboration”.

                    • shadrach

                      “Yes. Your source. Don’t blame me for using statistics you introduced into the discussion.”
                      Yes, my source. And don;t blame me when I point out that a data set that doesn’t even include the alleged perpetrator is not the same as real evidence.

                      “So if someone confides in you that they were sexually assaulted, you’d suspend belief and spout “natural justice” arguments at them?”
                      No, I would encourage them to go to the authorities and let them decide. What I would not do is encourage them to politicize the event and embarrass themselves in front of the global media.

                      “And one wonders why some people don’t make complaints about sexual assault. The answer is “people like you”.”
                      Actually no. The more false accusations are encouraged (by your rather tardy view of justice), the less likely genuine victims will feel they will be believed.

                    • McFlock

                      Yes, my source. And don;t blame me when I point out that a data set that doesn’t even include the alleged perpetrator is not the same as real evidence.

                      Like the data set that gives the odds of a DNA match being purely coincidental.

                      “So if someone confides in you that they were sexually assaulted, you’d suspend belief and spout “natural justice” arguments at them?”
                      No, I would encourage them to go to the authorities and let them decide.

                      Would you believe them?

                      “And one wonders why some people don’t make complaints about sexual assault. The answer is “people like you”.”
                      Actually no. The more false accusations are encouraged (by your rather tardy view of justice), the less likely genuine victims will feel they will be believed.

                      [edit: I went too far. Suffice to say I despise your callous perversion of reality, and consider you lower than sewer scum.]

                    • shadrach

                      “Like the data set that gives the odds of a DNA match being purely coincidental.”
                      DNA is material taken from an alleged perpetrator and compared to that data set. There is a world of difference. DNA is science. Which is why you method of assigning guilt (probability of a person misreporting an event) is not used as evidence.

                      “Would you believe them?”
                      If they were a total stranger, and they presented zero corroboration, ‘belief’ would not be my default position.

                      “Suffice to say I despise your callous perversion of reality, and consider you lower than sewer scum.”
                      Only because I have exposed your position as an irrational ‘rush to judgement’, that does not bear any serious scrutiny.

                    • McFlock

                      DNA is material taken from an alleged perpetrator and compared to that data set.

                      No, it’s not. It is a random fact about somebody that seems to indicate the person is a sexual offender. Just as hair colour, or the victim identifying them, is a random fact that indicates the same thing. The wider population is not compared with the suspect. It is simply used to provide a probability of whether such a random fact can match the offender. <0.1% of the population that has been DNA profiled has this DNA profile to this level of information, 15% of the population that has been blood typed has this blood type, 60% of the population that made a sexual assault complaint were proved to be telling the truth.

                      “Would you believe them?”
                      If they were a total stranger, and they presented zero corroboration, ‘belief’ would not be my default position.

                      Because you’re a piece of shit.

                      “Suffice to say I despise your callous perversion of reality, and consider you lower than sewer scum.”
                      Only because I have exposed your position as an irrational ‘rush to judgement’, that does not bear any serious scrutiny.

                      No, because you are a piece of shit.

                    • shadrach

                      “No, it’s not. It is a random fact about somebody that seems to indicate the person is a sexual offender.”
                      DNA is not a ‘random fact’. DNA is a genetic fingerprint that sets every human being apart from every other human being, with the exception of identical twins. DNA collected from a crime scene, and compared to DNA collected from an individual, can identify that suspect as being at the crime scene to a near certainty (“Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed a “cold hit” murder case – where DNA at the crime scene was matched with a convict in the FBI database. The court allowed a “rarity statistic” to be told to the jury – that there was only a 1 in 930 sextillion chance of finding the same DNA profile in the general population.” https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/forensic-evidence-the-reliability-of-dna-testing.html).

                      Compare that to your probability claims, which don’t even use a data set containing the suspect.

                      “Because you’re a piece of shit. “
                      No, because I am not a gullible fool. You are. You would have been on the side of those who lynched Emmett Till, remember that.

                    • McFlock

                      ’. DNA is a genetic fingerprint that sets every human being apart from every other human being

                      That’s the TV version. Tell it to David Dougherty. Maybe you should do some reading.

                    • shadrach

                      “That’s the TV version.”
                      No, it’s how the science works. “DNA fingerprinting is a method used to identify an individual from a sample of DNA by looking at unique patterns in their DNA.”
                      https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-dna-fingerprint

                      And from your own source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling):
                      “DNA profiling is a forensic technique in criminal investigations, comparing criminal suspects’ profiles to DNA evidence so as to assess the likelihood of their involvement in the crime.”
                      CRIMINAL SUSPECTS profiles. Compared to DNA EVIDENCE.
                      Not probabilities of a particular gender telling the truth about a particular alleged offence taken from a population that doesn’t even include the alleged perpetrator.

                      Perhaps you should read your own source?

                    • shadrach

                      “When law enforcement investigates a case of sexual violence, DNA evidence can make or break the outcome. DNA evidence has become a routine part of investigating and prosecuting all types of crimes. It is often an important tool in achieving justice for survivors of sexual assault.”

                      “Each person’s DNA is different, except for identical twins. This means that DNA can be used to accurately identify a perpetrator, similar to the way we use fingerprints.”

                      “Trained investigators may look for DNA evidence at locations that are relevant to the case, such as the scene where the assault took place. DNA evidence can also be collected from the body and clothes of the person who survived the assault during sexual assault forensic exam. ”

                      https://www.rainn.org/articles/importance-dna-sexual-assault-cases

                      You ‘believe’ based on a probability derived from a data set that does not include the alleged perpetrator. I look for evidence based on actual material gathered from both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator.

                    • McFlock

                      Read it again. Pay special attention to things like this bit:

                      In the early days of genetic fingerprinting, the necessary population data to accurately compute a match probability was sometimes unavailable.

                      The probability of the suspect’s DNA “matching” (within given criteria) the scene DNA is calculated from a population unrelated to the crime. Just like the probability that the suspect’s claimed behaviour is correctly described is calculated based on a population unrelated to the crime. As soon as you have the two samples sequenced, there’s not a big fucking sign that says “it’s a one in a billion match, no further analyses required”.

                      Do you get it now?

                      You ‘believe’ based on a probability derived from a data set that does not include the alleged perpetrator.

                      Just like DNA probabilities are derived from a data set that does not include the alleged perpetrator.

                      I look for evidence based on actual material gathered from both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator.

                      Because you regard thousands of years of victim testimony in courts as categorically unbelievable, because otherwise they put a probable sex offender on the US supreme court. And that would make you and the republicans look like the rape supporters you are.

                    • shadrach

                      “The probability of the suspect’s DNA “matching” (within given criteria) the scene DNA is calculated from a population unrelated to the crime.”
                      The ‘suspects DNA. The crime scene DNA. Not a randomly selected person and a randomly selected crime scene. Thanks again – your reference supports my argument.

                      “Just like the probability that the suspect’s claimed behaviour is correctly described is calculated based on a population unrelated to the crime.”
                      No, nothing like it.

                      “Just like DNA probabilities are derived from a data set that does not include the alleged perpetrator.”
                      But the DNA comparisons are taken from the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim and/or crime scene. Not a randomly selected person and a randomly selected crime scene.

                      “Because you regard thousands of years of victim testimony in courts as categorically unbelievable, because otherwise they put a probable sex offender on the US supreme court.”
                      ‘Categorically unbelievable’? No. But do I require corroboration before lynching someone? Yes.

                      I’m enjoying this exchange, but I can’t honestly believe you are so bereft of intelligence to understand the evidential difference between matching scientific material and probability derived from a non-matching data set.

                    • McFlock

                      Allegations aren’t “randomly selected”. The link to the crime scene is the complainant. The odds of that identification being a false match are, like DNA, calculated from an unconnected reference population.

                      This isn’t an analogy or other figure of speech. Calculating the odds of a complaint being false and the odds of a DNA “match” being false are exactly the same logical process, they just use different data types.

                      I can’t honestly believe you are so bereft of intelligence to understand the evidential difference between matching scientific material and probability derived from a non-matching data set.

                      Once again: the evidential claim of a “match” between two DNA samples is itself a probability derived from an unrelated data set.

                      “Because you regard thousands of years of victim testimony in courts as categorically unbelievable, because otherwise they put a probable sex offender on the US supreme court.”
                      ‘Categorically unbelievable’? No. But do I require corroboration before lynching someone? Yes.

                      Now you’re confusing lynching with court evidence. The only person talking about lynching is you. Because that’s where you need to go to defend a probably sex attacker.

                    • shadrach

                      “The link to the crime scene is the complainant. The odds of that identification being a false match are, like DNA, calculated from an unconnected reference population.”
                      The suspect and the crime scene are connected (or not) by specific DNA taken from the suspect and the crime scene. The link is not one of probability, it is one of near certainty.

                      “Calculating the odds of a complaint being false and the odds of a DNA “match” being false are exactly the same logical process, they just use different data types.”
                      Rubbish. The scientific evidence in DNA comes from the specific suspect and the specific crime scene. The probability argument is using data from a sample set the suspect isn’t even part of.

                      “Once again: the evidential claim of a “match” between two DNA samples is itself a probability derived from an unrelated data set.”
                      The link is the scientific material collected from the suspect (not unrelated individuals) from a specific crime scene. The probability that an alleged victim lied uses no scientific material, and does not feature the suspect at all.

                      “Now you’re confusing lynching with court evidence. “
                      Not at all. I’m calling you out on the fact that you are blind to the link between your irrational rush to judgement and the lynching of an innocent black man. You are those people who believed Carolyn Bryant.

                    • McFlock

                      I’m lynching nobody.

                      Whereas you’re in the camp that convicted Dougherty because you don’t understand the basics of DNA probability, and you’re also in the camp that refused to believe anyone who made an allegation about Jimmy Saville. You shit on people coming and going – you’ll convict because you believe the person in the white coat is perfect, and you’ll let predators roam free because you won’t believe a victim..

                    • shadrach

                      “I’m lynching nobody.”
                      Yes, you are. You are declaring a party guilty on the basis of an uncorroborated narrative simply because of the gender of the person making the accusation, and despite numerous studies showing that gender makes false allegations. That is the same attitude that saw Emmett Till lynched. It is the same attitude that saw Brian Banks wrongfully jailed for 5 years. I could list numerus similar examples, but you simply don’t care.

                      “because you don’t understand the basics of DNA probability”
                      I understand it well. It is used with samples taken from an actual suspect and an actual crime scene. And it is virtually certain.

                      “You shit on people coming and going…”
                      Really? By demanding evidence? By demanding corroboration of an accusation? I’m on the side of due process. Your on the side of hysteria.

                    • McFlock

                      If I can declare people guilty, then I’m a judge or jury, so it can’t be a lynching. Plus, of course, the entire “not killing anybody” thing.

                      But then you still don’t understand how DNA relies on probabilities derived from a completely unrelated reference population, so yeah, you’re a stupid piece of crap. I just hope you never serve on a jury – you’d supply the easiest conviction ever. I might be inclined to believe complainants, but I sure don’t have a divine faith in someone’s statistical evidence just because they wear a lab coat.

                      You must love CSI.

                    • shadrach

                      “If I can declare people guilty, then I’m a judge or jury, so it can’t be a lynching.”
                      But nobody has nominated you judge or jury. When people start to assume those positions without approval, we are in dangerous territory.

                      “Plus, of course, the entire “not killing anybody” thing.””
                      I bet Emmett till feels better about that, eh?

                      “But then you still don’t understand how DNA relies on probabilities derived from a completely unrelated reference population…”
                      DNA is taken from the suspect and the crime scene. In your 60:40 scenario there is NO forensic material, just a data set that doesn’t even include the suspect. That is a world of difference.

                    • McFlock

                      But nobody has nominated you judge or jury.

                      But you did when you said I was assigning guilt. If I’m not a judge, then I’m just a dude who believes someone who says they were assaulted by someone else.

                      “Plus, of course, the entire “not killing anybody” thing.””
                      I bet Emmett till feels better about that, eh?

                      Would the victim of a lynching feel better if lynching didn’t involve murder? Yes, yes they probably would. But then if lynching didn’t involve murder, it wouldn’t be lynching, which means I’m not lynching anyone, you stupid fuck.

                      “But then you still don’t understand how DNA relies on probabilities derived from a completely unrelated reference population…”
                      DNA is taken from the suspect and the crime scene. In your 60:40 scenario there is NO forensic material, just a data set that doesn’t even include the suspect. That is a world of difference.

                      In your 60:40 scenario the evidence linking the suspect to the crime is the victim’s allegation. The reliability of that allegation is calculated using a seperate reference data set.
                      In your DNA scenario, the evidence linking the suspect to the crime are two apparently matching DNA samples. The reliability of that match is calculated using a seperate reference data set. Your failure to understand this simple concept is quite fascinating.

                    • shadrach

                      “But you did when you said I was assigning guilt. If I’m not a judge, then I’m just a dude who believes someone who says they were assaulted by someone else.”
                      Exactly. You are assigning guilt based on your own prejudice. A bit like those who lynched Enmett Till.

                      “Would the victim of a lynching feel better if lynching didn’t involve murder? Yes, yes they probably would. But then if lynching didn’t involve murder, it wouldn’t be lynching, which means I’m not lynching anyone, you stupid fuck.”
                      But you are, at least symbolically. By assigning guilt on the basis of ‘belief’ alone. Just like those who assigned guilt to Emmett Till on ‘belief’ alone. Or race alone. Either way, you join the ranks fo the despicable.

                      “In your 60:40 scenario the evidence linking the suspect to the crime is the victim’s allegation.”
                      An allegation isn’t scientific evidence, it is an allegation. Whether it is credible is not determined by a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime.

                      You are arguing that the probability of a person making a false allegation, taken from an entirely unrelated data set, is equal in value to scientific evidence taken from the actual suspect and the actual crime scene. That is a level of thinking that doesn’t rise very high.

                    • McFlock

                      “But you did when you said I was assigning guilt. If I’m not a judge, then I’m just a dude who believes someone who says they were assaulted by someone else.”
                      Exactly. You are assigning guilt based on your own prejudice.

                      Nope. I’m not “assigning guilt” at all.

                      A bit like those who lynched Enmett Till.

                      The worst I’ve said is that maybe it would make the accused offender an unsuitable pick for a job at this time. Why you want to compare that to murder is obvious: you want rapists to be free from any criticism for their actions.

                      “Would the victim of a lynching feel better if lynching didn’t involve murder? Yes, yes they probably would. But then if lynching didn’t involve murder, it wouldn’t be lynching, which means I’m not lynching anyone, you stupid fuck.”
                      But you are, at least symbolically. By assigning guilt on the basis of ‘belief’ alone. Just like those who assigned guilt to Emmett Till on ‘belief’ alone.

                      1: I don’t think “symbolically” means what you think it means. What do you think is being “symbolised”?
                      2: I’m not “assigning guilt”.
                      3: I’m not murdering anyone.
                      So go fuck yourself with that line of argument.

                      “In your 60:40 scenario the evidence linking the suspect to the crime is the victim’s allegation.”
                      An allegation isn’t scientific evidence, it is an allegation.

                      Are we supposed to genuflect whenever you use the word “scientific”?

                      Whether it is credible is not determined by a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime.

                      Victim credibility is exactly like how DNA sample credibility can be compromised on closer examination (OJ Simpson). But the reliability of the match or existence of allegation is in each case determined by a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime. As per my previous link on the matter.

                      You are arguing that the probability of a person making a false allegation, taken from an entirely unrelated data set, is equal in value to scientific evidence taken from the actual suspect and the actual crime scene.

                      Even going by your 40% false-positive stat, the mere existence of an allegation might be more valuable than some forensic scientific (hallowed be Science’s name) evidence gathered at a particular scene. DNA might be 1:1000 (read the link), but a partial fingerprint or blood type match might have a false positive rate of 45% or higher. As determined by their prevalence in a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime.

                    • shadrach

                      “Nope. I’m not “assigning guilt” at all.”
                      Of course you are. You believe women. That is your default position. That means you are assigning guilt to the alleged perpetrator.

                      “The worst I’ve said is that maybe it would make the accused offender an unsuitable pick for a job at this time. Why you want to compare that to murder is obvious: you want rapists to be free from any criticism for their actions.”
                      No, I’m calling you out on the logical extension of your willingness to believe someone, without any corroboration, simply because of their gender.

                      “I don’t think “symbolically” means what you think it means. What do you think is being “symbolised”?”
                      It means exactly what I think it means. Symbolically can mean what is represented or implied. By assigning guilt on the basis of your unsubstantiated belief, you are symbolically lynching any suspect without due process. So that line of argument is entirely valid.

                      “Are we supposed to genuflect whenever you use the word “scientific”?”
                      That statement is telling, because by it you show how you devalue science and place your belief’s above evidence.

                      “But the reliability of the match or existence of allegation is in each case determined by a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime.”
                      The reliability is based on material evidence taken from a suspect and a crime scene. We don’t have mere probability, we have actual evidence.

                      “Even going by your 40% false-positive stat, the mere existence of an allegation might be more valuable than some forensic scientific (hallowed be Science’s name) evidence gathered at a particular scene. DNA might be 1:1000 (read the link), but a partial fingerprint or blood type match might have a false positive rate of 45% or higher. As determined by their prevalence in a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime”.
                      Let’s stay with DNA. DNA can link an individual to a crime scene with near certainty. Not 60%. That’s why science trumps prejudice. That is why DNA is evidence and prejudice isn’t.

                    • McFlock

                      You believe women. That is your default position. That means you are assigning guilt to the alleged perpetrator.

                      It means I believe the alleged perpetrator did it, but has none of the legal or siritual repercussions implied by the term “guilt”. I can’t damn anyone to hell or sentence them to prison. At most I can merely decide not to socialise or work with them.

                      “The worst I’ve said is that maybe it would make the accused offender an unsuitable pick for a job at this time. Why you want to compare that to murder is obvious: you want rapists to be free from any criticism for their actions.”
                      No, I’m calling you out on the logical extension of your willingness to believe someone, without any corroboration, simply because of their gender.

                      The logical extension being that because I wouldn’t hire someone for a job, I’d want to hang them from a tree by the neck until they are dead? BTW, gender has nothing to do with my belief. If a man said a woman stole $50 from him, I’d be wary around that woman, too.

                      “I don’t think “symbolically” means what you think it means. What do you think is being “symbolised”?”
                      It means exactly what I think it means. Symbolically can mean what is represented or implied. By assigning guilt on the basis of your unsubstantiated belief, you are symbolically lynching any suspect without due process. So that line of argument is entirely valid.

                      None of those words mean what you seem to think they do. I’m not assigning guilt. I’m not implying a lynching (and I don’t believe you are honestly making that inference). My belief is on the basis of the claim of someone who was there, so it is substantiated by that (rather than me just having a random unsubstaniated belief that brett is a sex attacker). I’m not lynching anybody, “symbolically” or otherwise. And therefore your position is logically invalid.

                      “Are we supposed to genuflect whenever you use the word “scientific”?”
                      That statement is telling, because by it you show how you devalue science and place your belief’s above evidence.

                      No, it shows that you throw the word “scientific” in there as an ironic substitute for actually thinking about your position with any depth. It’s a weasel word you’re using to try to imply greater authority for whatever random example you wish to misunderstand.

                      “But the reliability of the match or existence of allegation is in each case determined by a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime.”
                      The reliability is based on material evidence taken from a suspect and a crime scene. We don’t have mere probability, we have actual evidence.

                      We have evidence (A) linking person (B) to crime scene (C).
                      We can examine (A) more closely, to see if it is biased or contaminated in some way, such as in the OJ Simpson case.
                      We can compare (A) to an unrelated reference set to see the strength of the link and what the odds are of a false-positive, i.e. the odds that some other person can share (A) with (B) and instead be the person at (C).
                      We can also examine (C) more closely to see if it is actually a crime scene.

                      When I talk about (A), do you think I am talking about DNA evidence or witness testimony?

                      “Even going by your 40% false-positive stat, the mere existence of an allegation might be more valuable than some forensic scientific (hallowed be Science’s name) evidence gathered at a particular scene. DNA might be 1:1000 (read the link), but a partial fingerprint or blood type match might have a false positive rate of 45% or higher. As determined by their prevalence in a data set of individuals totally unrelated to the crime”.
                      Let’s stay with DNA. DNA can link an individual to a crime scene with near certainty. Not 60%. That’s why science trumps prejudice. That is why DNA is evidence and prejudice isn’t.

                      Be more honest than CSI. When you say “near certainty”, a numeric probability is calculated for odds against a false-positive match. That probability is arrived at using a reference dataset unrelated to the crime. Whether a high number or a low number, that’s exactly the same logical scientific process as your 60% figure for allegations being true.

                    • shadrach

                      “It means I believe the alleged perpetrator did it…”
                      Exactly. On the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim, who could be lying or mistaken.

                      “The logical extension being that because I wouldn’t hire someone for a job, I’d want to hang them from a tree by the neck until they are dead?”
                      No, the logical extension that you are prepared to declare someone guilty for no other reason than the word of someone you ‘believe’ isn’t lying or mistaken.

                      “I’m not assigning guilt.”
                      Yes, you are. You believe Ford, and therefore you must believe that her claim that it was Kavanaugh is true. In that case you believe the alleged victim despite a lack of corroboration, and in the face of extremely unreliable testimony (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409651-dr-fords-credibility-problem).

                      “I’m not implying a lynching (and I don’t believe you are honestly making that inference).”
                      The inference is clear, because the basis on which Emmett Till was lynched is the same basis you apply to believing Ford. There is no corroboration. No scientific evidence. Just prejudice and stupidity.

                      “My belief is on the basis of the claim of someone who was there…”
                      Where? Ford can’t recall some of the most basic facts about the event, and other people she placed there have denied being there under oath.

                      “No, it shows that you throw the word “scientific” in there as an ironic substitute for actually thinking about your position with any depth.”
                      DNA is science. Probability that someone lied is probability.

                      “When I talk about (A), do you think I am talking about DNA evidence or witness testimony?”
                      You’re squirming. DNA is able to tie an individual to a crime scene with remarkable accuracy. Probability that someone lied doesn’t provide any meaningful material to show guilt or innocence.

                      “When you say “near certainty”, a numeric probability is calculated for odds against a false-positive match. That probability is arrived at using a reference dataset unrelated to the crime.”
                      And the specific DNA material is taken from the crime scene and the suspect. That alone elevates it’s value substantially above probability from a data set that doesn’t reference either.

                    • McFlock

                      “It means I believe the alleged perpetrator did it…”
                      Exactly. On the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim, who could be lying or mistaken.

                      But probably isn’t. So I most likely wouldn’t want the alleged perpetrator to come to my place for dinner.

                      “The logical extension being that because I wouldn’t hire someone for a job, I’d want to hang them from a tree by the neck until they are dead?”
                      No, the logical extension that you are prepared to declare someone guilty for no other reason than the word of someone you ‘believe’ isn’t lying or mistaken.

                      But I have no power to declare guilt or innocence. I’m not a judge.

                      “I’m not assigning guilt.”
                      Yes, you are. You believe Ford, and therefore you must believe that her claim that it was Kavanaugh is true.

                      Is my belief legally binding? At worst, if I were to state my belief, I would merely be making another allegation of guilt. I have no power to declare it.

                      “I’m not implying a lynching (and I don’t believe you are honestly making that inference).”
                      The inference is clear,

                      You make the inference, that’s your problem. I made no implication. Learn the difference between those to words. In the meantime I’ll just add it to the list of things you fail to understand.

                      because the basis on which Emmett Till was lynched is the same basis you apply to believing Ford. There is no corroboration. No scientific evidence. Just prejudice and stupidity.

                      You eat food. Emmett Till ate food. That does not not symbolically imply that you are Emmett Till.

                      “My belief is on the basis of the claim of someone who was there…”
                      Where?

                      Don’t deflect from the fact that you also don’t understand the word “unsubstantiated”.

                      “No, it shows that you throw the word “scientific” in there as an ironic substitute for actually thinking about your position with any depth.”
                      DNA is science. Probability that someone lied is probability.

                      Science and probability are not mutually exclusive. Quantum physics is a branch of science, and it deals with probability at every turn.

                      “When I talk about (A), do you think I am talking about DNA evidence or witness testimony?”
                      You’re squirming. DNA is able to tie an individual to a crime scene with remarkable accuracy. Probability that someone lied doesn’t provide any meaningful material to show guilt or innocence.

                      …actually, it might. That’s up to a judge and jury, though. For mere belief, I’ll take 60:40 odds.

                      “When you say “near certainty”, a numeric probability is calculated for odds against a false-positive match. That probability is arrived at using a reference dataset unrelated to the crime.”
                      And the specific DNA material is taken from the crime scene and the suspect.

                      like the fact someone identifies the person as being at the crime scene

                      That alone elevates it’s value substantially above probability from a data set that doesn’t reference either.

                      Except to know that the two samples match in any meaningful way, scientists (all praise to them in their divine perfection) literally calculate the match “probability from a data set that doesn’t reference either.”

                      Did you work hard to be that fucking stupid, or does it come naturally?

                    • shadrach

                      “But probably isn’t.”
                      But could be. Probably doesn’t cut it.

                      “But I have no power to declare guilt or innocence. I’m not a judge.”
                      Emmett Till wasn’t found guilty by a judge either, McFlock!

                      “Is my belief legally binding?”
                      Was the belief of those who lynched Emmet Till ‘binding’? Certainly was for Till.

                      “You eat food. Emmett Till ate food. That does not not symbolically imply that you are Emmett Till.”
                      Emmett Till wasn’t lynched for eating food. He was lynched because of the dishonesty of a young white girl, and the hysteria of people who believed her over a young black man. I’m sure you understand.

                      “Don’t deflect from the fact that you also don’t understand the word “unsubstantiated”.”
                      I repeat “Ford can’t recall some of the most basic facts about the event, and other people she placed there have denied being there under oath.”

                      “Science and probability are not mutually exclusive.”
                      I didn’t say they were. But you are prepared to declare someone guilty of a serious offence on the basis of probability alone. I hope you are never ion the position to be on the receiving end of that.

                      “…actually, it might.” That’s up to a judge and jury, though. For mere belief, I’ll take 60:40 odds.”
                      Yes I know you will. That’s how innocent people get jailed. That’s how an innocent man was lynched.

                      “Except to know that the two samples match in any meaningful way, scientists (all praise to them in their divine perfection) literally calculate the match “probability from a data set that doesn’t reference either.”
                      Using material gathered from the actual suspect and the actual crime scene. Which is very different from your naieve “60% of alleged victims are telling the truth, so I’ll believe them all” approach.

                    • McFlock

                      “But probably isn’t.”
                      But could be. Probably doesn’t cut it.

                      I’m not sentencing anyone or murdering anyone. “Probably” is perfectly adequate.

                      “But I have no power to declare guilt or innocence. I’m not a judge.”
                      Emmett Till wasn’t found guilty by a judge either, McFlock!

                      Indeed not. He was innocent.

                      “Is my belief legally binding?”
                      Was the belief of those who lynched Emmet Till ‘binding’? Certainly was for Till.

                      An illegal act isn’t legally binding, dickhead. And nobody, AFAIK, has suggested murdering Kavanaugh. If you know of anyone who wants to do so, please inform the police immediately.

                      “You eat food. Emmett Till ate food. That does not not symbolically imply that you are Emmett Till.”
                      Emmett Till wasn’t lynched for eating food.

                      And I’m not lynching anybody.

                      “Don’t deflect from the fact that you also don’t understand the word “unsubstantiated”.”
                      I repeat

                      You repeat your deflection.

                      “Science and probability are not mutually exclusive.”
                      I didn’t say they were. But you are prepared to declare someone guilty of a serious offence on the basis of probability alone

                      1: I’m not declaring guilt. Just declaring whether I’d give someone a job.
                      2: Juries determine criminal guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I.E. some theoretical uncertainty can remain and they can still declare guilt on the basis of that high probability.

                      “…actually, it might.” That’s up to a judge and jury, though. For mere belief, I’ll take 60:40 odds.”
                      Yes I know you will. That’s how innocent people get jailed. That’s how an innocent man was lynched.

                      No, it’s simply how I won’t have some people around to my place for dinner. I’m not lynching anybody, or determining guilt.

                      “Except to know that the two samples match in any meaningful way, scientists (all praise to them in their divine perfection) literally calculate the match “probability from a data set that doesn’t reference either.”
                      Using material gathered from the actual suspect and the actual crime scene.

                      A bit like how data is gathered from the crime scene and the suspect and biochemically compared, with the results being reported to people via the medium of the victim’s mouth.

                      Which is very different from your naieve “60% of alleged victims are telling the truth, so I’ll believe them all” approach.

                      It’s exactly the same principle as DNA using “population data to accurately compute a match probability”.

                    • shadrach

                      “I’m not sentencing anyone or murdering anyone. “Probably” is perfectly adequate.”
                      Was it perfectly adequate for Emmett Till?

                      “Indeed not. He was innocent.”
                      And yet he was lynched because a group of people applied their ‘belief’ to his situation in the same way you are applying your belief to the Ford testimony.

                      “And nobody, AFAIK, has suggested murdering Kavanaugh.”
                      So making a false allegation, or declaring someone guilty solely on the basis of ‘belief’ is only a problem if someone’s killed?

                      “And I’m not lynching anybody.”
                      You are applying the same standard that those who lynched Emmett Till applied. They believed an allegation without corroboration.

                      “1: I’m not declaring guilt. Just declaring whether I’d give someone a job.”
                      On the basis that you ‘believe’ someone purely on face value.

                      “2: Juries determine criminal guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt I.E. some theoretical uncertainty can remain and they can still declare guilt on the basis of that high probability.”
                      They can, but you aren’t a jury. And there is certainly reasonable doubt about Ford’s testimony.

                      “No, it’s simply how I won’t have some people around to my place for dinner. I’m not lynching anybody, or determining guilt.”
                      This isn’t about whether you’d have someone around for dinner though is it. It is whether you support a course of events that leads to people spending time in jail for a crime they didn’t commit. Or being lynched.

                      “It’s exactly the same principle as DNA using “population data to accurately compute a match probability”.”
                      I really don’t think you believe that. There is a vast difference between:
                      1> a process that identifies a perpetrator by material gathered from that person and the specific crime scene, and
                      2> a process that assigns guilt using a probability of dishonesty in an unrelated population.

                    • McFlock

                      “I’m not sentencing anyone or murdering anyone. “Probably” is perfectly adequate.”
                      Was it perfectly adequate for Emmett Till?

                      Emmett Till was murdered. I’m not murdering anyone. Using a literal life-or-death threshold of belief to simple decide whether that person would be appropriate for a job is a bit fucking stupid.

                      “Indeed not. He was innocent.”
                      And yet he was lynched because a group of people applied their ‘belief’ to his situation.

                      Again, I’m not murdering anybody. You really need to figure that out.

                      “And nobody, AFAIK, has suggested murdering Kavanaugh.”
                      So making a false allegation, or declaring someone guilty solely on the basis of ‘belief’ is only a problem if someone’s killed?

                      Not at all. Severe consequences require a reasonably stronger level of belief. If you have 25 pretty good candidates, and one of them is probably a sex attacker, well you could demand dna and all that shit, but why bother? You have 24 other perfectly fine candidates who can do the job.

                      “And I’m not lynching anybody.”
                      You are applying the same standard that those who lynched Emmett Till applied. They believed an allegation without corroboration.

                      But not nearly the same level of consequence.

                      “1: I’m not declaring guilt. Just declaring whether I’d give someone a job.”
                      On the basis that you ‘believe’ someone purely on face value.

                      If there are other perfectly fine candidates for the job, why not? Even if you spent hundreds of thousands on a full investigation that takes months, you’ll most probably be told that you would have made the right call simply taking it at face value.

                      “2: Juries determine criminal guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt I.E. some theoretical uncertainty can remain and they can still declare guilt on the basis of that high probability.”
                      They can, but you aren’t a jury. And there is certainly reasonable doubt about Ford’s testimony.

                      So if I were on a jury, I might find him not guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence. But I still wouldn’t want him in my workplace.

                      “No, it’s simply how I won’t have some people around to my place for dinner. I’m not lynching anybody, or determining guilt.”
                      This isn’t about whether you’d have someone around for dinner though is it. It is whether you support a course of events that leads to people spending time in jail for a crime they didn’t commit. Or being lynched.

                      Nope. It’s about whether a probably sex attacker has been placed on the SCOTUS. A job interview.

                      “It’s exactly the same principle as DNA using “population data to accurately compute a match probability”.”
                      I really don’t think you believe that. There is a vast difference between:
                      1> a process that identifies a perpetrator by material gathered from that person and the specific crime scene, and

                      that’s not the full story how DNA works. The probability of a false-positive “match” is calculated using a probability of a false-positive in an unrelated population.

                      2> a process that assigns guilt using a probability of dishonesty in an unrelated population.

                      “Dishonesty” is merely another type of “false positive”, alongside “cross-contaminated data”, “coincidental match”, and “measurement error”.

                    • shadrach

                      “Emmett Till was murdered. I’m not murdering anyone. Using a literal life-or-death threshold of belief to simple decide whether that person would be appropriate for a job is a bit fucking stupid.”
                      Our discussion has moved well beyond that. You are prepared to believe that someone is guilty of sexual assault solely on the word of an alleged victim, and an unreliable one at that. There are consequences of the consistent application of that view, which include false imprisonment, and yes even death.

                      “Not at all. Severe consequences require a reasonably stronger level of belief. If you have 25 pretty good candidates, and one of them is probably a sex attacker, well you could demand dna and all that shit, but why bother? You have 24 other perfectly fine candidates who can do the job.”
                      Severe consequences didn’t require a ‘reasonably stronger level of belief’ with Emmett Till. Or Brian Banks.

                      “If there are other perfectly fine candidates for the job, why not? Even if you spent hundreds of thousands on a full investigation that takes months, you’ll most probably be told that you would have made the right call simply taking it at face value.”
                      And so we ask for corroboration. We require an alleged victim to be credible. With Ford we had neither.

                      “So if I were on a jury, I might find him not guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence. But I still wouldn’t want him in my workplace.”
                      You might not, but you would have no basis other than ‘belief’.

                      “It’s about whether a probably sex attacker has been placed on the SCOTUS. A job interview.”
                      Or about whether an alleged victim lacked the necessary credibility and corroboration to wreck a potentially innocent mans reputation?

                      “that’s not the full story how DNA works. The probability of a false-positive “match” is calculated using a probability of a false-positive in an unrelated population.”
                      Using material taken from a specific known suspect and a specific known crime scene.

                      “ “Dishonesty” is merely another type of “false positive”, alongside “cross-contaminated data”, “coincidental match”, and “measurement error”.”
                      That is based on probability alone. Whereas DNA is based on actual material that is then able to link a specific individual to a specific crime scene with near certainty.

                    • McFlock

                      Our discussion has moved well beyond that. You are prepared to believe that someone is guilty of sexual assault solely on the word of an alleged victim, and an unreliable one at that. There are consequences of the consistent application of that view, which include false imprisonment, and yes even death.

                      My belief kills nobody.

                      “Not at all. Severe consequences require a reasonably stronger level of belief. If you have 25 pretty good candidates, and one of them is probably a sex attacker, well you could demand dna and all that shit, but why bother? You have 24 other perfectly fine candidates who can do the job.”
                      Severe consequences didn’t require a ‘reasonably stronger level of belief’ with Emmett Till. Or Brian Banks.

                      That’s why what they did to him was wrong, dickhead.

                      “If there are other perfectly fine candidates for the job, why not? Even if you spent hundreds of thousands on a full investigation that takes months, you’ll most probably be told that you would have made the right call simply taking it at face value.”
                      And so we ask for corroboration. We require an alleged victim to be credible. With Ford we had neither.

                      Ford was much more credible than brettyboy. You only say she wasn’t credible because your lot really want rapists to be unaccountable for their actions.

                      “So if I were on a jury, I might find him not guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence. But I still wouldn’t want him in my workplace.”
                      You might not, but you would have no basis other than ‘belief’.

                      So? I believe you’re a piece of shit, and I wouldn’t want you as a colleague, either.

                      “It’s about whether a probably sex attacker has been placed on the SCOTUS. A job interview.”
                      Or about whether an alleged victim lacked the necessary credibility and corroboration to wreck a potentially innocent mans reputation?

                      Not even that. He has perfectly adequate means to use the US legal system to defend his honour. That wasn’t Senate’s job, any more than protecting the reputation of an applicant is the role of any potential employer. Let him sue her.

                      “that’s not the full story how DNA works. The probability of a false-positive “match” is calculated using a probability of a false-positive in an unrelated population.”
                      Using material taken from a specific known suspect and a specific known crime scene.

                      Exactly like how the victim sees the alleged perpetrator at the specific scene.

                      “ “Dishonesty” is merely another type of “false positive”, alongside “cross-contaminated data”, “coincidental match”, and “measurement error”.”
                      That is based on probability. Whereas DNA is

                      … vulnerable to all of those things, as well as based on probability. Fixed it for you.

                      I’ll take the odds of a DNA link being accurate over the 40:60 chance some one is a liar any day.

                      Sure, I’ll bet on the 99.9% probability over the 60% probability, too. That’s merely a comparison of probabilities. But if I’m not risking much and the 99.9% isn’t available, I’ll take 60% every day. I wouldn’t bet my house on it on any single time, but if I bet small amounts often enough, I’ll “almost certainly” win enough to buy another house. Because that’s how probabilities work.

                    • shadrach

                      “My belief kills nobody.”
                      Belief such as yours is the same basis that killed Emmett Till.

                      “That’s why what they did to him was wrong, dickhead.”
                      And it’s also why you trying to declare guilt on the basis of belief is wrong.

                      “Ford was much more credible than brettyboy.”
                      Clearly not. She provided no corroboration. She named ‘witnesses’ who contradicted her. She ‘forget’ key elements of the alleged event. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409651-dr-fords-credibility-problem

                      “So? I believe you’re a piece of shit, and I wouldn’t want you as a colleague, either. “
                      And you have no basis other than belief.

                      “Not even that. He has perfectly adequate means to use the US legal system to defend his honour. That wasn’t Senate’s job, any more than protecting the reputation of an applicant is the role of any potential employer. Let him sue her.”
                      So it’s ok to make unsubstantiated claims about someone, to damage their reputation, because they can sue? How did that work out for Emmett Till?

                      “Exactly like how the victim sees the alleged perpetrator at the specific scene.”
                      Or lies about it.

                      “… vulnerable to all of those things, as well as based on probability.”
                      To a degree that is incredibly small, and is at least based on science, not belief.

                      “Sure, I’ll bet on the 99.9% probability over the 60% probability, too. That’s merely a comparison of probabilities. But if I’m not risking much and the 99.9% isn’t available, I’ll take 60% every day.”
                      That’s easy for you to say. It isn’t your reputation being impugned. It isn’t you sitting in jail for 5 years. It isn’t you being lynched.

                    • McFlock

                      Belief such as yours is the same basis that killed Emmett Till.

                      No, because I don’t believe I should murder people.

                      “That’s why what they did to him was wrong, dickhead.”
                      And it’s also why you trying to declare guilt[…]

                      But I’m not declaring guilt.

                      “Ford was much more credible than brettyboy.”
                      Clearly not.

                      You then concentrate on Ford and ignore bretty-boop’s amazing lack of credibility. Another example of you pressing down on the scales in order to rig the discussion in favour of accused sexual predators.

                      “So? I believe you’re a piece of shit, and I wouldn’t want you as a colleague, either. “
                      And you have no basis other than belief.

                      So? I believe you’re a rapist-enabling piece of shit, therefore I don’t want you in my workplace. Seems reasonable enough.

                      So it’s ok to make unsubstantiated claims about someone, to damage their reputation, because they can sue? How did that work out for Emmett Till?

                      Yes. Brett Kavanaugh is just as vulnerable to lynching as Emmett Till was. You have brought forward a completely reasonable position, in no way making you look like a MAGA-wearing racist fuckwit who calls the cops because a person of colour is having a BBQ.

                      “Exactly like how the victim sees the alleged perpetrator at the specific scene.”
                      Or lies about it.

                      A bit like how a detective might plant DNA evidence at a crime scene.

                      “… vulnerable to all of those things, as well as based on probability.”
                      To a degree that is incredibly small, and is at least based on science, not belief.

                      Not to a degree as small as you seem to think.

                      “Sure, I’ll bet on the 99.9% probability over the 60% probability, too. That’s merely a comparison of probabilities. But if I’m not risking much and the 99.9% isn’t available, I’ll take 60% every day.”
                      That’s easy for you to say. It isn’t your reputation being impugned.

                      Cry me a fucking river. Kav’s behaviour did him more of a disservice than Ford’s allegation – if he’d been reasonable, like Garland or Thomas, he wouldn’t be such a fucking disgrace.

                      It isn’t you sitting in jail for 5 years. It isn’t you being lynched.

                      Nor is Kav.

                    • shadrach

                      “No, because I don’t believe I should murder people.”
                      No, but you believe people should be declared guilty for no other reason than your belief. Like the people who lynched Emmett Till.

                      “But I’m not declaring guilt.”
                      Yes you are. On the basis of your ‘belief’.

                      “You then concentrate on Ford and ignore bretty-boop’s amazing lack of credibility.”
                      It wasn’t BK making the accusations, it was Ford. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you because you believe all women. Or is it some women?

                      “So? I believe you’re a rapist-enabling piece of shit, therefore I don’t want you in my workplace. Seems reasonable enough.”
                      To you, but then that would be consistent with you being in the same group as those who lynched Emmett Till.

                      “Yes. Brett Kavanaugh is just as vulnerable to lynching as Emmett Till was.”
                      Why stop at Brett Kavanaugh. Why stop at lynching? What about spending time in jail? What about having your reputation damaged? You don’t really care about a false accusation though, because you believe all women. Or is it some women?

                      “A bit like how a detective might plant DNA evidence at a crime scene.”
                      Yes, it’s possible. Glad to see you acknowledge women lie.

                      “Not to a degree as small as you seem to think.”
                      And yet Courts accept it. But I’ll leave you to your ‘beliefs’.

                      “Cry me a fucking river.”
                      Yes, I realise you don’t have any concern about false allegations. You are in the group that will believe an allegation simply because of the gender of the alleged victim. And that worked out really well for Emmett Till. And Brian Banks.

                    • shadrach

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/innocence-project-manhattan-rape.html

                      “Investigators had no physical evidence. Semen recovered from the woman did not match the two accused men. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on her testimony, which was inconsistent. ”

                      “Yet, in 1992, a jury convicted Mr. Counts and Mr. Perry on all counts except for the weapons charges. Mr. Perry ended up serving 11 years in prison, Mr. Counts 26.”

                      “Last month, the woman, who has not been identified, told investigators from the district attorney’s office and the Innocence Project the rape “never happened.” Her admission came after DNA testing connected the semen found on her body to another man through an F.B.I. database.”

                      26 years in jail, McFlock. 26 years. For no other reason than people believed a woman who lied. Until DNA was able to establish a connection to another man.

                      On the basis of the arguments you are making, YOU would have convicted these two men. And on nothing more than the word of a liar.

                    • McFlock

                      “No, because I don’t believe I should murder people.”
                      No, but you believe people should be declared guilty for no other reason than your belief. Like the people who lynched Emmett Till.

                      Lynching is a legal process now? The web you weave to pretend we should be nice to probable rapists…

                      “But I’m not declaring guilt.”
                      Yes you are.

                      nope. Nobody will be sentenced on the basis of my belief, or murdered.

                      “You then concentrate on Ford and ignore bretty-boop’s amazing lack of credibility.”
                      It wasn’t BK making the accusations, it was Ford.

                      By claiming indignant, outraged innocence, he was claiming she was a liar or delusional. His credibility counts, too. Unless you want rapists to have a higher level of protection than their victims.

                      “So? I believe you’re a rapist-enabling piece of shit, therefore I don’t want you in my workplace. Seems reasonable enough.”
                      To you, but then that would be consistent with you being in the same group as those who lynched Emmett Till.

                      Because “I don’t want that person in my workplace” is the same as “I want to murder that person”? seems legit /sarc

                      “Yes. Brett Kavanaugh is just as vulnerable to lynching as Emmett Till was.”
                      Why stop at Brett Kavanaugh. Why stop at lynching? What about spending time in jail? What about having your reputation damaged?

                      ♫one of these things is not like the others, ♫
                      ♫one of these things is not the same♫…

                      You don’t really care about a false accusation though, because you believe all women. Or is it some women?

                      You still haven’t worked out the difference between a fact and a belief based on that fact?

                      “A bit like how a detective might plant DNA evidence at a crime scene.”
                      Yes, it’s possible. Glad to see you acknowledge women lie.

                      Show me where I said women didn’t, in a minority of cases, lie.

                      “Not to a degree as small as you seem to think.”
                      And yet Courts accept it.

                      Not in the OJ Simpson murder trial.

                      “Cry me a fucking river.”
                      Yes, I realise you don’t have any concern about false allegations. You are in the group that will believe an allegation simply because of the gender of the alleged victim. And that worked out really well for Emmett Till. And Brian Banks.

                      Because not hiring someone for a better sinecure than they’re already in is totally like murdering them. /sarc

                    • shadrach

                      “Lynching is a legal process now?”
                      Never said it was. I said the people who lynched Emmett Till did so on no other basis than they believed he was guilty.

                      “Nobody will be sentenced on the basis of my belief, or murdered.”
                      They will if your way of determining guilt (your belief) is adopted.

                      “By claiming indignant, outraged innocence, he was claiming she was a liar or delusional.”
                      Nope. He was defending his own reputation. Ford made the claims. She simply wasn’t credible.

                      “Because “I don’t want that person in my workplace” is the same as “I want to murder that person”? seems legit /sarc”
                      There is a link, yes. The basis for you determining you don’t want that person in your workplace is as flimsy as the basis for you assigning guilt to a suspect, and the same basis on which a group of white people lynched Emmett Till.

                      “one of these things is not like the others,”
                      They are all a logical extension of your willingness to assign guilt on no other basis than belief.

                      “You still haven’t worked out the difference between a fact and a belief based on that fact? “
                      Your belief is not based on any fact.

                      “Show me where I said women didn’t, in a minority of cases, lie.”
                      That’s a slippery use of language. ‘In a minority of cases’ is not what you said here:
                      “We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed. You think she shouldn’t. I think that she should. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1534937
                      or here:
                      “Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1535183

                      If you say a women should be believed, then you are asserting she is not lying. Of course you contradicted yourself here https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536058, but I’ve already pointed that out.

                      “Not in the OJ Simpson murder trial.”
                      Are you seriously arguing DNA is not widely accepted as evidence in court?

                      “Because not hiring someone for a better sinecure than they’re already in is totally like murdering them. /sarc”
                      But you haven’t just not hired the person. You have believed a person who lacks credibility and therefore tainted a man’s reputation. This is about far more than a job interview.

                    • McFlock

                      “Lynching is a legal process now?”
                      Never said it was.

                      If it’s not a legal process, stop using a legal term to obfuscate the distinction

                      “Nobody will be sentenced on the basis of my belief, or murdered.”
                      They will if your way of determining guilt (your belief) is adopted.

                      Given that I’ve explicitly stated that my default belief of victims does not extend to conviction or even murder upon accusation, you’re comment directly contradicts the real-world evidence. You’re either lying, or an idiot.

                      “By claiming indignant, outraged innocence, he was claiming she was a liar or delusional.”
                      Nope. He was defending his own reputation. Ford made the claims. She simply wasn’t credible

                      You won’t believe any woman, so whatevs to your thinks.

                      “Because “I don’t want that person in my workplace” is the same as “I want to murder that person”? seems legit /sarc”
                      There is a link, yes. The basis for you determining you don’t want that person in your workplace is as flimsy as the basis for you assigning guilt to a suspect, and the same basis on which a group of white people lynched Emmett Till.

                      Ah, you’ve done the field of communication research a great service. If I choose to not invite someone over to dinner, does that also mean I am “symbolically inferring” that I would like to shit down their throat and piss on their grave? If I fail to say “hello”, is that the “same basis” by which I might negligently cause an industrial gas leak and kill thousands of people? If I call you a lying piece of shit, would that have features in common with committing genocide?

                      Fuck off.

                      “one of these things is not like the others,”
                      They are all a logical extension of your willingness to assign guilt on no other basis than belief

                      1: not assigning guilt
                      2: two are explicitly not logical extensions. And fuck his reputation, he’ll get over it.

                      “You still haven’t worked out the difference between a fact and a belief based on that fact? “
                      Your belief is not based on any fact.

                      It’s based on your fact that researchers observed that at least 60% of sexual assault allegations were demonstrably true.

                      If you say a women should be believed, then you are asserting she is not lying.

                      If I say that on the balance of probabilities someone should be believed, that contends that there is a less than 50% chance that they are lying, mistaken, or as fucking stupid as you. Your link supports that contention.

                      “Not in the OJ Simpson murder trial.”
                      Are you seriously arguing DNA is not widely accepted as evidence in court?

                      No, I just pointed to a prominent case where DNA evidence wasn’t enough to convict someone.

                      “Because not hiring someone for a better sinecure than they’re already in is totally like murdering them. /sarc”
                      But you haven’t just not hired the person. You have believed a person who lacks credibility and therefore tainted a man’s reputation. This is about far more than a job interview.

                      Well then, sirrah, if that man’s reputation has been besmirched then he must defend his honour, slap someone with his gauntlet, and thereby challenge his accuser to a duel! Oh, wait, no, worst case scenario for him was that he’d keep the well-paid job he already had, rather than receiving a promotion. And sue someone, if he manages to be more believable in court than he was facing senate.

                    • shadrach

                      “If it’s not a legal process, stop using a legal term to obfuscate the distinction”
                      I didn’t. Lynching is not a legal process or a legal term.

                      “Given that I’ve explicitly stated that my default belief of victims does not extend to conviction or even murder upon accusation, you’re comment directly contradicts the real-world evidence”
                      No, it doesn’t.
                      You said “And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “believing women” doesn’t mean being blindfully devoted enough to cause a conviction.”, yet that is exactly what occurs, and so that directly aligns with the real world experience.
                      Also, you assign guilt on the basis of your belief. I am illustrating how dangerous that position is by educating you about what happens when that is extended to its logical conclusion.

                      “If I choose to not invite someone over to dinner, does that also mean I am “symbolically inferring” that I would like to shit down their throat and piss on their grave?”
                      It’s not that you don’t ‘invite them over for dinner.’ That is your choice. It’s that your rush to judgement on the basis of naieve belief in someone’s word leads to other far more serious consequences.

                      “It’s based on your fact that researchers observed that at least 60% of sexual assault allegations were demonstrably true.”
                      But the specific suspect is not even part of that data set. And that data set actually says nothing of evidential value to the specific events of another case.

                      “If I say that on the balance of probabilities someone should be believed, that contends that there is a less than 50% chance that they are lying, mistaken, or as fucking stupid as you.”
                      Which is the same reasoning that led to Emmett Till being lynched. And Gregory Counts spending 26 years in jail.

                      No, I just pointed to a prominent case where DNA evidence wasn’t enough to convict someone.
                      While ignoring the vast majority of cases where it is.

                      “Well then, sirrah, if that man’s reputation has been besmirched then he must defend his honour…”
                      Or, more reasonably, the accuser should have to pony up with some actual evidence.

                      BTW – https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/innocence-project-manhattan-rape.html

                    • McFlock

                      Lynching is not a legal process or a legal term.

                      “Guilt” is, you stupid fuck.

                      “you’re comment directly contradicts the real-world evidence”
                      No, it doesn’t.

                      Yes it does.

                      You said “And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “believing women” doesn’t mean being blindfully devoted enough to cause a conviction.”, yet that is exactly what occurs, and so that directly aligns with the real world experience.

                      stop trying to slide from job interviews and social interaction into criminal trials. The stakes are completely different, and the burden of proof is much higher than for a fucking job interview.

                      Also, you assign guilt on the basis of your belief.

                      I’m not assigning guit at all.

                      I am illustrating […lies]

                      You’re a stupid piece of shit who is trying to equate “not giving someone a job” with murdering them.

                      “If I choose to not invite someone over to dinner, does that also mean I am “symbolically inferring” that I would like to shit down their throat and piss on their grave?”
                      It’s not that you don’t ‘invite them over for dinner.’ That is your choice. It’s that your rush to judgement on the basis of naieve belief in someone’s word leads to other far more serious consequences.

                      Like not serving them dessert.

                      “It’s based on your fact that researchers observed that at least 60% of sexual assault allegations were demonstrably true.”
                      But the specific suspect is not even part of that data set.

                      You brought it up. It’s not my fault it works against your rape-defending attempts, and is exactly the same as the DNA database that calculates probabilities.

                      “If I say that on the balance of probabilities someone should be believed, that contends that there is a less than 50% chance that they are lying, mistaken, or as fucking stupid as you.”
                      Which is the same reasoning that led to Emmett Till being lynched. And Gregory Counts spending 26 years in jail.

                      It really isn’t, dude.

                      No, I just pointed to a prominent case where DNA evidence wasn’t enough to convict someone.
                      While ignoring the vast majority of cases where it is

                      Which demonstrates it’s accepted on a case-by-case basis, and is vulnerable to all the same imperfections as any witness testimony.

                      “Well then, sirrah, if that man’s reputation has been besmirched then he must defend his honour…”
                      Or, more reasonably, the accuser should have to pony up with some actual evidence.

                      lol so now you want to rewrite defamation law to protect rich rapists.

                    • shadrach

                      “ “Guilt” is, you stupid fuck.”
                      Guilt is not only a legal process. You really do look at things on a narrow basis.

                      “stop trying to slide from job interviews and social interaction into criminal trials. The stakes are completely different, and the burden of proof is much higher than for a fucking job interview.”
                      Again, your vision is too narrow. I am simply applying a principle to its logical extent. You are prepared to assign guilt on the basis of one person’s word against another. That is dangerously naieve.

                      “I’m not assigning guit at all.”
                      Of course you are. You mindlessly believe the word of a woman because of her gender.

                      “You’re a stupid piece of shit who is trying to equate “not giving someone a job” with murdering them.”
                      No, I am showing you that the logical extension of your position is dangerous.

                      “Like not serving them dessert. “
                      Or lynching. Or 26 years in jail.

                      “You brought it up. It’s not my fault it works against your rape-defending attempts…”
                      It doesn’t work against anything I have said. The probability that someone is lying is not of much value, whereas DNA is.

                      “Which demonstrates it’s accepted on a case-by-case basis, and is vulnerable to all the same imperfections as any witness testimony.”
                      Let’s be clear, we are only discussing the testimony of an alleged victim, not other witnesses, which would of course have evidential value. But DNA is based on actual physical evidence. The testimony of an alleged victim is as reliable as the alleged victim, who you acknowledge lie in 40% of cases.

                      “lol so now you want to rewrite defamation law to protect rich rapists.”
                      Like Emmett Till? LOL. Seriously though, I prefer that those making false accusations face jail time. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-45839644). Mind you, that would be small comfort for Gregory Counts and VanDyke Perry (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-45839644).

                    • McFlock

                      If someone tells me they were assaulted by someone else, I’m not going to insist on DNA tests to determine whether that someone else comes to my place for dinner or gets a job from me.

                      If I was on a jury and the someones else denied sexual activity ever took place, DNA evidence might be useful in determining the truth of that claim. Not because I don’t believe the complainant, but because more serious repercussions of actually declaring someone “guilty” require more than 60:40 odds.

                      But if the defendant in that trial claims the sex was consensual, the DNA is irrelevant to the trial. It simply suggests something that we already know to be true.

                      And if someone hurts someone else’s reputation, they might have to back it up in court. But that’s a civil matter. The aggrieved party sues. Unless you want to reintroduce defamation into the Crimes Act…?

                    • shadrach

                      I understand your point, but I simply don’t agree that your ‘invitation to dinner’ analogy is valid.

                      Ford accused Kavanaugh of what amounts to an historic criminal offence.

                      Even outside of any statute of limitation for criminal prosecution, the accusation has the potential to destroy a career, a marriage, a family.

                      These are serious accusations with serious implications. The presumption of innocence should apply, and there should be a burden of proof on Ford. When we abandon those principles, we jail innocent people. In the past, we lynched them.

                    • McFlock

                      Even outside of any statute of limitation for criminal prosecution, the accusation has the potential to destroy a career, a marriage, a family.

                      Not at all.

                      Firstly, bwett was one step removed from the highest job in his career, and he wasn’t going to lose his current job over a single allegation. Even under US employment law.

                      Secondly, if your spouse or family ditches you over a single allegation from long ago, it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back. You totally did a whole bunch of other stuff for that to happen. Probably a lot worse, too. People don’t just ditch a dad or a brother or a husband that easily. You earn that shit over years.

                    • shadrach

                      “Firstly, bwett was one step removed from the highest job in his career…”
                      That isn’t relevant. If Ford’s accusations had stuck, Kavanaugh’s career would have been over.

                      “…and he wasn’t going to lose his current job over a single allegation. Even under US employment law.”
                      If Ford’s accusations had stuck, Kavanaugh’s career, as it currently exists, would have been finished. His future career would have been limited ‘ambulance chasing’.

                      “Secondly, if your spouse or family ditches you over a single allegation from long ago, it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
                      Really? And you know this how?

                    • McFlock

                      If Ford’s accusations had stuck, Kavanaugh’s career would have been over.

                      Exactly how would that have happened? He has a lifetime tenure.

                      “Secondly, if your spouse or family ditches you over a single allegation from long ago, it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
                      Really? And you know this how?

                      It’s a human thing best described as an emotional connection or bond between two or more individuals based on love and kinship. You might not understand.

                    • shadrach

                      “Exactly how would that have happened? He has a lifetime tenure. “
                      Actually, no, although that is a common misconception about the Supreme Court. https://newrepublic.com/article/151620/says-supreme-court-justices-get-lifetime-tenure

                      “It’s a human thing best described as an emotional connection or bond between two or more individuals based on love and kinship. You might not understand.”
                      After 34 years of marriage, yes, I understand.
                      But you seem to discount the possibility that a false allegation could damage a relationship, even if the accusations are inconsistent with known behaviour. I don’t discount that possibility at all.

                    • McFlock

                      “Exactly how would that have happened? He has a lifetime tenure. “
                      Actually, no, although that is a common misconception about the Supreme Court.

                      So even with that 200-year old common misconception, exactly how would Kav’s career have been ruined?

                      But you seem to discount the possibility that a false allegation could damage a relationship, even if the accusations are inconsistent with known behaviour. I don’t discount that possibility at all.

                      But you didn’t say “damage”, you said “destroy”. End. Divorce, disown. All by itself: everyone’s happy, breakfast every morning, heartfelt companionship at night, then there’s a single allegation out of the blue (not that Ford was the only one), and bam! He’s staying in a hotel and the lawyers are drawing up divorce papers.

                      If you really don’t discount that possibility, that is not a reasonable fear.

                    • shadrach

                      “So even with that 200-year old common misconception, exactly how would Kav’s career have been ruined?”
                      Well he could be impeached. Or he could just be vilified by his own profession. Either way, false accusations can end careers. Sometimes unjustly. It can actually be a reason some people make them.

                      “But you didn’t say “damage”, you said “destroy”. End. Divorce, disown.”
                      Yes, damage can lead to destruction.

                      “All by itself: everyone’s happy, breakfast every morning, heartfelt companionship at night, then there’s a single allegation out of the blue (not that Ford was the only one), and bam! He’s staying in a hotel and the lawyers are drawing up divorce papers.”
                      Yes it can happen. Emmett Till was minding his own business when ‘bam’! he’s on the end of a rope. Or Gregory Counts. What was he doing when he was falsely accused of rape, and ‘bam’ he spends 26 years in jail for a crime his alleged victim lied about.

                    • McFlock

                      Well he could be impeached.

                      Impeached? For an offense outside the statute of limitations? Interesting imagination you have. Besides, they promoted him.

                      Or he could just be vilified by his own profession

                      Throwing a tantrum like a three year old did that. Clarence Thomas seemed to do okay.

                      “But you didn’t say “damage”, you said “destroy”. End. Divorce, disown.”
                      Yes, damage can lead to destruction.

                      So your position is that a not-credible allegation from a not-credible complainant with no corroborating evidence whatsoever could somehow rip apart a healthy family, all by itself? I don’t believe you.

                      “All by itself: everyone’s happy, breakfast every morning, heartfelt companionship at night, then there’s a single allegation out of the blue (not that Ford was the only one), and bam! He’s staying in a hotel and the lawyers are drawing up divorce papers.”
                      Yes it can happen. Emmett Till[…]

                      oh fuck off. Emmet Till wasn’t murdered by his own wife and children. You really do like conflating and confusing unrelated events.

                    • shadrach

                      “Impeached? For an offense outside the statute of limitations? Interesting imagination you have.”
                      This is an issue that has been canvassed widely in the US.
                      https://www.bustle.com/p/can-kavanaugh-be-impeached-supreme-court-history-reveals-everything-you-need-to-know-12134330.
                      https://www.businessinsider.com/can-brett-kavanaugh-be-impeached-from-the-supreme-court-2018-10
                      https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/8xjkwv/brett-kavanaugh-impeachment-supreme-court
                      https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/even-if-kavanaugh-is-confirmed-heres-how-he-could-be-removed/

                      And BTW (from the top reference):
                      …a judge does not have to be convicted — or even accused — of a crime in order to be impeached.”

                      “Throwing a tantrum like a three year old did that. Clarence Thomas seemed to do okay.”
                      No, it would be his professional peers who would be throwing the tantrum!

                      “So your position is that a not-credible allegation from a not-credible complainant with no corroborating evidence whatsoever could somehow rip apart a healthy family, all by itself? I don’t believe you.”
                      Well, but you:
                      1> asserted that a SCOTUS appointment was for life, and,
                      2> you didn’t know that a SCOTUS appointee could be impeached.

                      “oh fuck off. Emmet Till wasn’t murdered by his own wife and children.”
                      Who said he was? Emmett Till was an innocent man, wrongly accused by a lying women (yes McFlock, they do exist), whom people believed and ended up lynched. The parallel is fairly obvious.

                    • McFlock

                      Kav already threw the tantrum. And he got promoted.

                      As for the rest of it, are you living in terror that some non-credible woman will make up an unbelievable allegation and your partner of decades will believe this unbelievable allegation and lynch you?

                    • shadrach

                      “As for the rest of it, are you living in terror that some non-credible woman will make up an unbelievable allegation and your partner of decades will believe this unbelievable allegation and lynch you?”

                      No. I am concerned that innocent people suffer because of false allegations enabled by those (such as you) who devalue important legal principles (such as the presumption of innocence), and therefore encourage a ‘lynch mob’ mentality. This has never just been about Kavanaugh. This is about Emmett Till, Brian Banks, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, David Evans, Rondell Bedward, Jesus Ortiz, Kevin Taveras, Arvin Rivera, Stalin Felipe, Demirel Huskovic, Malik St. Hilaire, VanDyke Perry, Gregory Counts…it is a long list, and it is a disgrace.

                    • McFlock

                      Legal principles are legal principles.

                      This was never about the proof required to lock someone up or kill them. It was about whether we were all required to pretend that someone who probably sexually assaulted someone else was a nice guy. Whether we were all obliged to give him the job rather than believe her, or even have him around for dinner.

                      You’re the one trying to make it a legal matter when he faced no legal repercussions whatsoever.

                    • shadrach

                      “This was never about the proof required to lock someone up or kill them. It was about whether we were all required to pretend that someone who probably sexually assaulted someone else was a nice guy. Whether we were all obliged to give him the job rather than believe her, or even have him around for dinner.”

                      No, it goes well beyond that. You have shown a willingness to believe someone at face value for no other reason than their gender. That is naieve and dangerous, and I have clearly demonstrated to you the danger of applying that principle (e.g. believing someone for no other reason than their race) more widely.

                      From the outset my comments have addressed the issues of burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. Those principles apply beyond the legal system; they are an application of common decency. An individual who makes serious accusations against another should be required to corroborate their claims. If that is not a requirement, then false allegations will abound from malicious intent, and genuine allegations will increasingly be dismissed as not credible.

                    • McFlock

                      No, it goes well beyond that. You have shown a willingness to believe someone at face value for no other reason than their gender.

                      Nowhere have I shown a willingness to murder anyone. And the only reason gender comes into it is because the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the victims overwhelmingly female. But your attitude is the same one that protected priests, scoutmasters, and wrestling coaches for decades.

                      All I’m talking about is an initial belief. Not trials, and certainly not murders.

                    • shadrach

                      “Nowhere have I shown a willingness to murder anyone.”
                      Read again what I said. “You have shown a willingness to believe someone at face value for no other reason than their gender.”

                      “And the only reason gender comes into it is because the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the victims overwhelmingly female.”
                      But you have specifically decided to believe females over males, so gender DOES come into it.

                      “But your attitude is the same one that protected priests, scoutmasters, and wrestling coaches for decades.”
                      Not at all. I’m in favour of victims speaking up. I’m not in favour of people who make false accusations. I’m not in favour of people who judge others guilt or innocence on the basis of gender, race or any other characteristic. And I’m not in favour of the herd mentality that results in innocent people being jailed or worse.

                    • McFlock

                      “You have shown a willingness to believe someone at face value for no other reason than their gender.”

                      Not to the point of murder, dipshit.

                      But you have specifically decided to believe females over males, so gender DOES come into it.

                      I specifically decided to believe probable victims over probable attackers. Gender isn’t as important as you think it is.

                      “But your attitude is the same one that protected priests, scoutmasters, and wrestling coaches for decades.”
                      Not at all. I’m in favour of victims speaking up.

                      And not being believed. So why would they speak up, with people like you to defend their abusers?

                    • shadrach

                      “Not to the point of murder, dipshit.”
                      Yes I know you don’t understand the principle. But it applies nonetheless.

                      “I specifically decided to believe probable victims over probable attackers. Gender isn’t as important as you think it is.”
                      And yet it is you who said you believe ‘women’. You made it about gender.

                      “And not being believed. So why would they speak up, with people like you to defend their abusers?”
                      Because I’m not defending abusers. I’m defending principles of common decency around how we treat serious allegations, such as the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence. I realise you are willing to make an exception with sexual assault cases where it is women making the claim. The long list of men whose lives have been impacted by liars (yes McFlock, women do lie) says you’re foolish and naive.

                    • McFlock

                      “Not to the point of murder, dipshit.”
                      Yes I know you don’t understand the principle. But it applies nonetheless.

                      Do you genuinely think “believe the victim” means “murder someone on the word of one person”? Are you genuinely that fucked in the head, or is it merely a pretense you have to maintain in order to defend kav?

                      And yet it is you who said you believe ‘women’. You made it about gender.

                      Well, maybe men shouldn’t make the words “target” and “woman” so interchangable.

                      “And not being believed. So why would they speak up, with people like you to defend their abusers?”
                      Because I’m not defending abusers.

                      You really are

                      […] The long list of men whose lives have been impacted by liars (yes McFlock, women do lie) says you’re foolish and naive.

                      The much longer list of victims who have been impacted by sexual assault says you defend rapists.

                    • shadrach

                      “Do you genuinely think “believe the victim” means “murder someone on the word of one person”?”
                      No. I genuinely think you just don’t understand that when you apply the principle of blindly believing an allegation without applying some long held principles of natural justice, the result can lead to horrendous consequences. Emmett Till was lynched on the word of one person.

                      “Well, maybe men shouldn’t make the words “target” and “woman” so interchangable.”
                      Maybe women who lie about being sexually assaulted should spare a thought for women who aren’t believed because of their lies.

                      “You really are”
                      No, but I realise you think I am.

                      “The much longer list of victims who have been impacted by sexual assault says you defend rapists.”
                      Many of those will have sought and gained justice, so no, I am not defending rapists. I am however, defending those falsely accused by women you claim don’t lie.

                    • McFlock

                      “Do you genuinely think “believe the victim” means “murder someone on the word of one person”?”
                      No. I genuinely think you just don’t understand that when you apply the principle of blindly believing an allegation without applying some long held principles of natural justice, the result can lead to horrendous consequences. Emmett Till was lynched on the word of one person.

                      Yup, pretty much what I said.

                      “Well, maybe men shouldn’t make the words “target” and “woman” so interchangable.”
                      Maybe women who lie about being sexually assaulted should spare a thought for women who aren’t believed because of their lies.

                      Any excuse to blame the victim rather than the rapist, huh.

                      “You really are”
                      No, but I realise you think I am.

                      Because you are.

                      “The much longer list of victims who have been impacted by sexual assault says you defend rapists.”
                      Many

                      somewhere around the single digit percentage

                      of those will have sought and gained justice, so no, I am not defending rapists. I am however, defending those falsely accused

                      As well as the higher number of people who are accurately accused

                      by women you claim don’t lie.

                      You fucking liar. I never claimed that.

                    • shadrach

                      “somewhere around the single digit percentage”
                      Debatable. But that didn’t help Emmett Till. Or Brian Banks, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, David Evans, Rondell Bedward, Jesus Ortiz, Kevin Taveras, Arvin Rivera, Stalin Felipe, Demirel Huskovic, Malik St. Hilaire, VanDyke Perry, Gregory Counts…

                      by women you claim don’t lie.
                      “You fucking liar. I never claimed that.”

                      Yes you did.

                      “We’re simply talking about whether a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted by someone should be believed. You think she shouldn’t. I think that she should. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1534937

                      and

                      “Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1535183
                      ARE TO BE BELIEVED. If you say a women are to be believed, then you are asserting she is not lying.

                      Of course you contradicted yourself here https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1536058, but I’ve already pointed that out.

                    • McFlock

                      If you say a women are to be believed, then you are asserting she is not lying.

                      No. Just that she’s probably telling the truth.

                      You really do have a four year old’s understanding of the world: something along the lines of “if I believe it, then it must be true”.

                    • shadrach

                      “Just that when someone says they are a victim of a crime, they are believed.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1535183
                      ARE TO BE BELIEVED. No ambiguity there McFlock.

                    • McFlock

                      What do you think is the difference between knowledge and belief?

                      Because yoiur failure to distinguish between the two might explain why you think not giving someone a job is the same as murdering them.

                    • shadrach

                      “What do you think is the difference between knowledge and belief? Because yoiur failure to distinguish between the two might explain why you think not giving someone a job is the same as murdering them.”

                      Well in the case of Ford, you only have belief. Belief in someone who has highly selective memory. Belief in someone who named witnesses who were not even at the event where the alleged attack occurred. Belief in someone who waited over 30 years to tell ANYONE about the alleged attack.

                      But no, I don’t equate the act of withdrawing employment with the act of murder. What I argue is the danger of acting on belief without knowledge.

                      Just as you believe Christine Ford (without knowledge, and in the face of a lack of credibility and corroboration), so 60 some years ago a group of citizens believed Carolyn Bryant. For now, Brett Kavanaugh get’s to keep his job. In 1955, Emmett Till lost his life. In 1055, you would have believed Carolyn Bryant.

                    • McFlock

                      What do you think is the difference between knowledge and belief?

                      Well in the case of Ford, you only have belief. […] What I argue is the danger of acting on belief without knowledge.

                      And yet you dodged the question.

                    • shadrach

                      “And yet you dodged the question.”
                      No. I pointed out to you that you ‘believe’ Christine Ford (and you have nothing more than ‘belief’) in the same way that the people who lynched Emmett Till ‘believed’ Carolyn Bryant.

                      Your position is that a women making an accusation not only ‘should be believed’ but ‘ARE TO BE believed’. That is precisely the type of attitude that saw Emmett Till lynched. That saw Gregory Counts spend 26 years in jail. Etc. Etc. It is dangerous and naieve. But then you know that by now.

                    • McFlock

                      “And yet you dodged the question.”
                      No. I pointed out to you that you ‘believe’ Christine Ford (and you have nothing more than ‘belief’) in the same way that the people who lynched Emmett Till ‘believed’ Carolyn Bryant.

                      That wasn’t the question.
                      What do you think is the difference between knowledge and belief?

                    • shadrach

                      “That wasn’t the question.”
                      Yea, it pretty much was. You believe a lot on pure faith that women don’t lie. I would say that is caused by a gap in your knowledge.

                    • McFlock

                      Yea, it pretty much was.

                      No, it wasn’t. Nowhere near “pretty much”. It’s a very short and specific question: What do you think is the difference between knowledge and belief?

                      Why are you so reluctant to answer it?

                    • shadrach

                      “Nowhere near “pretty much”. It’s a very short and specific question/\…”
                      …and one intended toward deflection.
                      Which is why I responded “You believe a lot on pure faith that women don’t lie. I would say that is caused by a gap in your knowledge.”

                      Meanwhile another name for you – Demirel Huskovic.

                    • McFlock

                      Except I never said that women don’t lie.
                      I even took your highest estimate (40%) for the level at which sexual assault complainants (most often women) might be lying.

                      But you seem to think that the proposition “most women tell the truth” as meaning “all women tell the truth”. You are interpreting certainty from a fundamentally uncertain statement. (because you’re a fucking moron)

                      Belief acknowledges uncertainty. Belief is subjective. My belief can differ from your belief, and neither of us are wrong.

                      Knowledge is certain. Most definitions of knowledge include that the known proposition is “true”. The classic (though insufficient beyond a certain purpose) definition of “knowledge” is a “justified, true, belief”. Truth is an objective characteristic of knowledge that is not necessary for belief.

                      This is relevant because the level of certainty about the objective truth of a proposition is fundamental to the level of consequential action justified by the belief in that proposition. If I think Jim raped or will rape me, I need no excuse to not give him a job. Homicide, on the other hand, would require significantly more certain and extreme circumstances to receive any mitigation in court. Generally along the lines of the threat being immediate and the response reasonable.

                      You seem to think that “belief” implies certainty. It doesn’t, for any normal person. “I believe you are a fucking moron who wants rapists to go free” is a very different proposition to “I know you are a fucking moron who wants rapists to go free”.

          • Chuck 2.4.1.2.2

            shadrach posts are spot on Rosie…eye roll all you like!

      • Ankerrawshark 2.4.2

        Rosie… is that the same Rosie from prior to the 2014 election? If so welcome back!

        • Rosie 2.4.2.1

          HI Ankerrawshark, yes it is. Although after today’s boys clubs rape culture and facts denials and abuse from Bewildered I don’t think I will return.
          What happened around here?

          • Anne 2.4.2.1.1

            Don’t let these noisy, rabid, misogynistic male ignoramuses drive you away from here Rosie.

            There’s only a few of them and they get a kick out of taunting women who have been abused.

            • Rosie 2.4.2.1.1.1

              Thanks for your support Anne.

              That’s really sick of those guys. Must be hanging around on MRA sites, or maybe they have been like that all of their lives.

              • RedLogix

                The problem here is primarily a legal one. I recognise there is a possibility that either Ford or Kavanaugh testimony is correct. None of us actually know the truth of the matter, so instead of resorting to guilt by allegation and execution by lynch mob, we hand over our desire for justice to a legal system. (Imperfect as it is.)

                In that spirit I’m not especially inclined to either believe or defend either of the two parties, but I do have to be extremely concerned when I see the left abandoning vital legal principles such as presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Especially when the justification for doing so rests on some extremely contentious notions such as ‘rape culture’ and similar notions of collective male guilt.

                • Antoine

                  Y’all are having trouble discussing this issue sensibly because you are conflating five different topics:
                  1. Whether Kavanaugh is guilty
                  2. Whether Kavanaugh has been proven guilty on the available evidence
                  3. Whether the process for establishing Kavanaugh’s guilt was adequate
                  4. Whether Kavanaugh is a shitbag
                  5. Whether some of the commentators here are shitbags, and if so, which.

                  If you tackle these one by one, you may do better.

                  A.

                  • Antoine

                    (My take: (1) probably, (2) no, (3) no, (4) probably, (5) I take the 5th)

                    • RedLogix

                      1. I’ve no idea whether K is guilty, no more than I have any idea if Ford is wrong. Specifically I don’t really care; it’s not a fight I have a dog in.

                      2. Agreed. And that’s pretty much where it ends.

                      3. Probably. It was an allegation from 38 years prior, there remains no forensic evidence. The ONLY people who could have provided first hand corroborating evidence have been interviewed. What else should be done? And how long should it take, over and above all the other prior investigations?

                      4. Is no more a valid question than whether Ford is a shitbag. That’s a political question, not a legal one. (I should note however than in his first day serving on the Court he appointed four women and one black legal clerks; apparently setting a liberal precedent no other prior judge has achieved.)

                      5. If you are attempting to label me a shitbag because you disagree with me, please just come out and say so.

                    • Antoine

                      On 5., no of course not, I was trying to sum up the views of e.g. Anne in 2.4.2.1.1 above.

                      A.

          • Treetop 2.4.2.1.2

            What happened around here?

            There is still so much work to be done on the topic of sexual assault.

            For a start the investigation process is flawed.

            • McFlock 2.4.2.1.2.1

              What happened is that our tories have been playing from the CT textbook for so long that they think repug issues are nat issues, so they pretend to believe a screaming frat boy over a calm and clear woman.

          • Ankerrawshark 2.4.2.1.3

            Well it’s great your back Rosie. I remember you leaving the site after the 2014 election. I hope you manage to stay

  3. Morrissey 3

    Robert Mueller

    In case you have any faith in the integrity and honesty of Robert Mueller, please have a look at him setting his own pants on fire during the Bush regime’s preparation for the rape of Iraq.

    Tune in at the 15:45 mark…

  4. AsleepWhileWalking 4

    Eh…sneeked into legislation and came into force October 1, 2018.

    Doubt it will catch any real criminals. Just piss of the rest of us.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/107727171/travelling-overseas-what-to-do-if-a-customs-officer-demands-access-to-your-digital-device

    • Dukeofurl 4.1

      Dont they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime or coming to the country illegally.
      maybe they search your baggage and it has signs of drugs, having the phone means other leads can be followed.
      I think you are fretting over nothing for the common garden travellors

      • Chuck 4.1.1

        The professional criminals will just use something called a cloud to store the important stuff.

        Common garden travellers will be caught up intentionally or not…and their personal lives scrutinised by strangers.

      • KJT 4.1.2

        Yes. You are the wrong colour or looked sideways at the customs officer.

        This should be recognised as the gross and stupid invasion of privacy, it is.

        Part of the creeping intrusion of the State into things that should be none of their business.

  5. adam 5

    This is good. And offers some really good advise at the end. It’s a video by Ana Kasparian breaks down the meme the right-wing likes to spread about her – this is a 7:50 video.

  6. Cinny 6

    More good news

    “Lenders who break responsible lender principles will face new penalties of up to $600,000, the Government said on Wednesday.

    The Government is targeting loan sharks and truck shops.”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/107729929/predatory-lenders-targeted-will-face-big-fines

    • Dukeofurl 6.1

      best penalty – dont have to pay it back.

      It should be structured so the the borrower doesnt have to prove bad practice just that when the lender goes to court to enforce the penalties the judge can ask for proof they acting in good faith, otherwise they get zit.

      Its pointless creating an offence that a government agency has to police after getting complaints …and if they have time …or staff..or any reason to do nothing.

      • greywarshark 6.1.1

        That sounds good dukeofurl. At present aggrieved people acting against fraudsters can be given the runaround with numerous hearings and evasions that cost the country and the complainants. Some sharper definition of what is fraud and how to catch the greased pig fast in a net allowing quick justice and repayment as ordered and failing that quick confiscation of their gains through seizure, bankruptcy or such, would be appreciated by the unwary and vulnerable.

      • David Mac 6.1.2

        In John Campbell’s first report for TV1? he reported of an older beneficiary that had a $43,000 debt to the Truck Shop. She agreed, the debt will never be paid off.

        On one side of the coin there are the irresponsible decisions made by this woman.

        On the other side, the exploitation of the vulnerable.

        Waggling our finger at the woman achieves nothing and does nothing to change the circumstances.

        If we want to make a difference, it is on the exploitation side of the coin where opportunity resides.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2

      Make all loans have a fixed number of payments. If the debtor cannot and does not make a payment the amount is still removed from the books with no action against the debtor permissible. If three payments in a row are missed then the debt is cancelled.

      These capitalists keep telling us that they’re taking huge risks. Well, time for those risks to land where they should – on the capitalists.

      When you loan someone money you’re taking the risk that you’re not going to get it back.

      • Jimmy 6.2.1

        That doesn’t make sense. Under those ‘rules’ no one would get credit. So debtor borrows say, $2,000, purposely misses first three payments and the debt is wiped? So he has just ‘stolen’ 2 grand? I must be mis-reading your comment.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1

          That’s the reason why we have credit ratings.

          My main point is that it’s not the government’s place to protect people from the risks that they take.

    • alwyn 6.3

      I wonder if that includes anyone who is persuaded by Twyford that they can easily afford a $650,000 property on the average wage because he promised them that he was going to provide a 100,000 affordable homes?
      Can we make sure that he has to pick up the tab himself when, as inflation kicks in and interest rates rise, people won’t be able to pay for their homes.
      I don’t see why he should be able to palm his sins off on the taxpayer.

    • Jimmy 6.4

      Very good news. These guys prey on the vulnerable.

  7. greywarshark 7

    Australia – rogue nation?
    National Anthem Lyrics
    Australians all let us rejoice, For we are young and free;
    We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil, Our home is girt by sea;
    Our land abounds in Nature’s gifts, Of beauty rich and rare;
    In history’s page, let every stage Advance Australia fair!
    In joyful strains then let us sing, “Advance Australia fair!”

    Beneath our radiant southern Cross, We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
    To make this Commonwealth of ours, Renowned of all the lands;
    For those who’ve come across the seas, We’ve boundless plains to share;
    With courage let us all combine, To advance Australia fair.
    In joyful strains then let us sing, “Advance Australia fair!”

    https://www.ritas-outback-guide.com/AdvanceAustraliaFair.html

    Australia unfair and lost in the golden soil and wealth and sea.
    And not: For those who’ve come across the seas, We’ve boundless plains to share;
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018666174/sydney-opera-house-racing-promo-and-ipcc-report-denial

    I think with John Clarke dead they have a new song to sing with words and mixed meanings from American Pie about both Oz and USA connected:
    “American Pie”
    [Intro]
    A long, long time ago
    I can still remember how that music used to make me smile
    And I knew if I had my chance
    That I could make those people dance
    And maybe they’d be happy for a while

    But February made me shiver
    With every paper I’d deliver
    Bad news on the doorstep
    I couldn’t take one more step

    I can’t remember if I cried
    When I read about his widowed bride
    But something touched me deep inside
    The day the music died

    [Chorus:]
    [Verse 2]
    Now for … years we’ve been on our own
    And moss grows fat on a rollin’ stone
    But that’s not how it used to be
    When the jester sang for the king and queen
    In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
    And a voice that came from you and me

    Oh, and while the king was looking down
    The jester stole his thorny crown
    The courtroom was adjourned
    No verdict was returned

    And while Lenin read a book on Marx
    The quartet practiced in the park
    And we sang dirges in the dark
    The day the music died

    [Chorus:]
    [Verse 4]
    Oh, and there we were all in one place
    A generation lost in space
    With no time left to start again
    So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
    Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
    ‘Cause fire is the devil’s only friend

    Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
    My hands were clenched in fists of rage
    No angel born in Hell
    Could break that Satan’s spell

    And as the flames climbed high into the night
    To light the sacrificial rite
    I saw Satan laughing with delight
    The day the music died

    [Chorus:]
    [Outro]
    I met a girl who sang the blues
    And I asked her for some happy news
    But she just smiled and turned away
    I went down to the sacred store
    Where I’d heard the music years before
    But the man there said the music wouldn’t play

    And in the streets, the children screamed
    The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
    But not a word was spoken
    The church bells all were broken

    And the three men I admire most
    The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
    They caught the last train for the coast
    The day the music died

    [Chorus:]
    And they were singing bye, bye, Miss American Pie
    Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
    And them good ole boys were drinking whiskey ‘n rye
    Singin’ this’ll be the day that I die
    This’ll be the day that I die

    (Shortened)
    https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/donmclean/americanpie.html

  8. Morrissey 8

    Howler of the Day
    No. 6: Gosman

    The US has invaded relatively few countries since 1945. Certainly no more than the Soviet Union/Russia.”

    https://thestandard.org.nz/second-kremlin-killer-unmasked-putin-untroubled/#comment-1533827

    Howler of the Day is a series designed to highlight the most deranged, crazed, bizarre, paranoid, stupid, mindless, ignorant posts on the Internet. It is compiled by Hector Stoop, for Daisycutter Sports, Inc.

    No. 1: Chris R (“Brash is NOT a bigot”); 
No. 2: Lucia Maria (“No need to read”); No. 3: DigNap15 (“Trump comes across as a very caring guy”); No. 4: UpandComer (“Clintons…murder…sex crimes…ritually satanically sacrificed…); No. 5 realityczech (“Brash, Hosking, …. see Maori as equals”)

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/08/general_debate_26_august_2018.html/comment-page-1#comment-2291897

    • Ed 8.1

      Unbelievable how ignorant or propagandised these neocon supporters are.Gosman, Joe90 and Stuart Munro all appear to be salivating at the prospect of a hot war with Russia.
      Incredible.
      And really worrying.

      • Andre 8.1.1

        The only place where there’s salivating about the idea of a hot war with Russia is among the rabid bats chasing each other around inside your belfry.

        • Morrissey 8.1.1.1

          Once again, you fail to be funny and to rebut an argument. If this was the Army, you’d be permanently on K.P., you waste of space.

          • marty mars 8.1.1.1.1

            Nah you morrie should take your footy out your mouthy. You are embarrassing yourself.

          • Andre 8.1.1.1.2

            Feel free to show any comment made by Gosman, joe90, Stuart Munro or anyone else expressing any kind of enthusiasm for a hot war with Russia.

            Then go looking for comments from Ed suggesting people go enlist, or are sitting in foxholes in Latvia, or in a similar vein about a hot war with Russia.

            The frequency of one of those things is not like the other.

        • greywarshark 8.1.1.2

          Andre
          You have said something that resonates in my belfry. Perfect pitch, I am surprised to hear it.

          • Andre 8.1.1.2.1

            These things can be kinda hit and miss. Although this one seems to have been one of the hits. Given how it’s brought out the Batley Townswomen’s Guild re-enactment team.

      • marty mars 8.1.2

        You smear others and that shows your weakness plus your lack of thinking, analysis and critical thought. Joe and stuart are quality. Gossy is fun. You are boring, repetitive and derivative.

        • Morrissey 8.1.2.1

          Joe and stuart are quality.

          Joe is sometimes, I grant you. But Stuart!?!?!?!???? “Quality” is not a word anyone except you, the very kind and generous fellow that you are, has ever associated with a post by Stuart Munro.

          Gossy is fun.

          “Gossy” is rubbish, and you know it.

          https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1533884

        • Ed 8.1.2.2

          If the meaning for ‘quality’ is warmonger, then you are right.

          • marty mars 8.1.2.2.1

            Yeah that would suit you as this sites greatest warmonger wouldn’t it.

            • Morrissey 8.1.2.2.1.1

              ????

              Marty, how is Ed a warmonger, exactly?

              • He asks people to go to war and die and he has done this multiple times over years. That is up (in principle not numbers obviously) there imo with the generals of ww1 who sent people to their death in those trenches for no reason, no purpose, just their fantasies of their own grandeur.

                • Ed

                  Incorrect.
                  I challenge warmongers like Stuart to enlist as he is so keen for war, rather than forcing others to die for his war lust.

                  • I could put up literally 30 links to your behaviour and you know it and you have said this to multiple commenters you disagree with and offered to pay for their ticket to get there if my recollection is correct. Personally I know it is bluster and bullshit and I rake it the same as someone saying go to he’ll – which it would be btw, but own it mate cos it’s your calling card now.

                    • Ed

                      Why are you such a bully boy on this site?

                      There are many people who are sick of “the old cold war diehards” like you who are “as hateful and credulous and ill informed as ever.”
                      They are appalled that “the spite is truly shocking and how quickly activated!”

                    • Man you are annoying.

                      I’m left. I’m a socialist. I have been for years and years – longer than you’ve been alive dickhead.

                      You try and smear me?

                      You are a snivelling warmongering coward. You are the least aware person I’ve seen on this forum. I’m done with sock wankers like you. Don’t fucken reply to me and I’ll not bother anymore with your warmongering lies. A warporn vegan – now I’ve heard of everything.

                • Morrissey

                  Wrong, marty. The only people he asks to sign up are those who are relentless, bloodyminded advocates of sending others to fight—on this forum that means in Syria, mainly.

                  Surely you don’t have a problem with the likes of “Wayne” being required to actually go into the battles they are so keen to advocate?

                  • Ed

                    Thank you Morrissey.
                    I have been besieged by these crusaders for neocon foreign policy.

                    • Morrissey

                      They have no argument to make, Ed. Personal abuse is their ONLY weapon.

                    • mauī

                      Stay strong Ed, I admire your tenacity.

                      They are doing the work of the elite full to the brim with propaganda.

                      Their lack of questioning of any MSM narrative is concerning for us all.

                  • Whatever – your judgment is twisted imo.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    Morrisey the liar raises his ugly head above the parapet again.

                    “relentless, bloodyminded advocates of sending others to fight”

                    Let’s see you try to support that assertion.

            • Ed 8.1.2.2.1.2

              You live in 1984.

              “War is peace.
              Freedom is slavery.
              Ignorance is strength.”

      • Stuart Munro 8.1.3

        As usual the wretchedly ignorant Ed disparages the efforts of the pacifists seeking to contain Putin’s murderous aggressions. He would be the Lord Haw Haw of the Standard if he had a shred of class.

        • Ed 8.1.3.1

          Read Draco’s entry at 8.2

          • Stuart Munro 8.1.3.1.1

            Why don’t you read it?

            I guess you’d rather listen to George Galloway and Craig Murray.

            “There are, indeed, two things, knowledge and opinion, of which the one makes its possessor really to know, the other to be ignorant. “

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2

      https://sites.evergreen.edu/zoltan/interventions/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

      Thing is, even with all the evidence presented to them they’ll still continue spouting the same BS.

    • Gosman 8.3

      Why is that a Howler? Name me all the countries the US has actually invaded since the end of the secind World war (rather than just had military forces engaged with)? I can think of half a dozen at most.

  9. Morrissey 9

    Funniest—and saddest—Brett Kavanaugh impression of the Week

    This bloke is unhinged, which makes it triply funny. We’ve highlighted the most hilariously crazed ranting in bold italics.

    Man you are annoying.

    I’m left. I’m a socialist. I have been for years and years – longer than you’ve been alive dickhead.

    You try and smear me?

    You are a snivelling warmongering coward. You are the least aware person I’ve seen on this forum. I’m done with sock wankers like you. Don’t fucken reply to me and I’ll not bother anymore with your warmongering lies. A warporn vegan – now I’ve heard of everything.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-10-2018/#comment-1533954

    • Ed 9.1

      Marty Mars has lost the plot.

    • Stuart Munro 9.2

      Comparing a blog commenter to a rapist because you happen to disagree with him.

      Stay classy Morrisey – oh wait, you never were.

      • Morrissey 9.2.1

        I didn’t suggest our good friend marty was a rapist, Stuart. Good Lord! I wanted a comparison for his mad rant against Ed, and Kavanaugh was the most infamous and immediate one I thought of.

        But I take your point and I’ll be more careful in future. In future editions, I’ll headline it thusly:

        Funniest—and saddest—Bob Jones impression of the Week

        https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/womans-mag-editor-humiliates-dyspeptic.html

        • marty mars 9.2.1.1

          You did suggest it by putting my name up with his – you are a sad fuck morrie.

          as for me I’m going to not comment here until I feel like it again – I am not prepared to be abused from you, that fake fuck maui, and ed the horseshit. You lot of tapeworms have made it very unsafe for me and I just can’t be fucked.

          • Macro 9.2.1.1.1

            I’m sorry to read that marty – It’s a similar sentiment to mine. TS has over recent times descended into an echo chamber for useful idiots. They have been around for sometime. My dad, a long-time Union President, had to deal with similar hotheads on a regular basis. These commentators here remind me very much of those idiots my dad had to deal with back then, and in those days , their source of “inspiration” came from the USSR. Back in the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s unions were a significant part of my life, and politics was always the main topic of discussion at our table. The commentary from some, here who think that they understand left politics, is mind numbing. They are so much up their rear that they spout alt right nonsense, or support Russia (no matter what) despite the fact Russia is now in the control of oligarchs, and a tyrant, and as far from a democratic society as one can get.
            There are some here – and you are one – whose comments I enjoy and respect. But I refuse to indulge or waste my time now trying to educate idiots anymore.

            • Morrissey 9.2.1.1.1.1

              Smear, smear, smear. Was your dad Tony Neary?

              By the way, when has Ed, who I presume you’re unloading on so dyspeptically here, ever “spouted alt right nonsense”?

              • Macro

                Just shows you how much you know about Unions of that time – Tony Neary (whom I met, and greatly respect; he was a frequent visitor to our house) was a Union Secretary not a Union President. The two roles are quite dissimilar.
                Pat Walsh was wrong to side with the useful idiots in ’57. They turned on Neary after he condemned the Soviet clampdown on Hungary. Later events subsequently showed that his condemnation of the Soviets was on the side of social justice.
                Were you one of those communist sympathisers too Morrisey? – which probably explains you warped sense of what constitutes social justice.

                • Morrissey

                  There is nothing I have said that would enable you or anyone else to infer that I am a “Communist sympathizer.” It’s interesting—or rather, it’s disturbing and quite sad—to see you still fighting the internecine union battles of the 1950s. Fighting them in your head, at least. I see you’re happy to hurl the “communist” label at any opponent, just like a National Party ratbag of the 1970s.

                  And what have you picked up in anything that I’ve written here or anywhere else that indicates I have a “warped sense of social justice”?

                • Morrissey

                  I note, too, that you have signally failed to provide an example to support your grand accusation that Ed has “spouted alt right nonsense.”

                  • Macro

                    As your are also constant offender as well – it would simply be a waste of effort. But you don’t have to look far – you and he are all over this page with your arid nonsense.

                    • Morrissey

                      Long on smear, short on substance. Did your dad teach you that? When we think of union leaders, we think of heroes like Helen Kelly and Mike Treen; your bitter and unsupported attempts at smearing anyone you can’t argue with is a reminder that the unions have had their dark side, too.

            • Ed 9.2.1.1.1.2

              Your link to the Washington Post is somewhat ironic.
              Such a credible and unbiased source of news…..

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwMvNoq0NUA

              • Macro

                rofl

                On this occasion I shall reply – only to say that you should look up “Confirmation Bias” sometime. But it would probably be a waste of time in your case.
                TRP spent a few comments trying to educate you a few weeks back – but it was a wasted effort, and I haven’t the time nor the patience to bother.

              • James

                Compared to the tin foil hat and pussy impersonator links you use?

          • Morrissey 9.2.1.1.2

            You did suggest it by putting my name up with his

            No I didn’t. I was pointing out how unbalanced and crazed you had allowed yourself to become. Let’s say instead that you’re a Bob Jones. How’s that?

            you are a sad fuck morrie…that fake fuck maui, and ed the horseshit. You lot of tapeworms… I just can’t be fucked.

            Hilarious. After being called for his foam-flecked tirade, he unleashes another one!

          • Anne 9.2.1.1.3

            Marty you have served to confirm for me that there are a some commenters here who are driving good people away.

            I enjoyed Morrissey once but he’s gone over the top. Some of the rwnjs are here for the sole purpose of destroying this site. Some of the lwnjs are equally as toxic and sometimes I wonder if they are trying to destroy this site too.

            I hope you return in due course.

            • Morrissey 9.2.1.1.3.1

              In what way have I “gone over the top”, Anne? Marty has just unleashed a stream of crude and unlettered invective after flinging the wildest accusations against me and several others, and you’re sympathizing with him?

              Could you specify what it is that I have done that is “over the top” today?

            • greywarshark 9.2.1.1.3.2

              I suggest a rolling right wing entry. There can always be one or two here who stir and have little to add then, but most will be in the wings. We might have fewer comments but they will be interesting and it will not just be a place for the self-impressed to bang on about their favourite target.

          • McFlock 9.2.1.1.4

            personally, I hope you feel like it soon. The putinescas can fuck off.

            • marty mars 9.2.1.1.4.1

              I’ll take a week off for getting angry and expressing that.

              • Actually as an 8 year old I’m going to take 8 weeks off. Thanks for your support and thanks to the others who get it. Kia kaha.

                • veutoviper

                  Kia kaha e hoa.

                  I understand why and in fact I have also been self limiting my time here all week in a weaning process towards being TS free, possibly for good.

                  Enough is enough. I have been doing a personal pros and cons exercise, and the cons well outweigh the pros and have done so for some time. You, Anne, Cinny, Stuart Munro, McFlock, Incognito, mickysavage, and a few others are a large part of the pros … but the cons are just so overwhelming in numbers and intent. It was good to see Rosie back yesterday, but doubt that she will be back again.

                  Just wish there was another forum, but lets face it the cons would probably just move over.

                  • Antoine

                    So why not set up a closed group

                    A.

                  • Yep – sometimes time out can be good. Kia kaha e hoa.

                  • Incognito

                    I know what you mean and I also find it hard to not be affected by the growing negativity here on TS; it’s hard because we care. My trick seems to be to approach things on an intellectual level and to stay emotionally detached as much as I can manage. Not ideal, but self-preservation, you know.

                    The other thing to consider when weighing up the pros & cons is not so much what I (can) get from being here but more what I can and do contribute to the site. This is also one reason why I decided to write Posts (previously Guest Posts) and persevere with this – and it does take considerable time & effort in an already very busy life.

                    You offer a lot to TS and you have a unique perspective and experience and long personal history. I think it’s wonderful that you share this freely with us on TS and the site is better for it. Not everybody will agree, not everybody will appreciate it, etc., but for those who do and who do care your presence and contribution is worth it.

                    You’ll have to do what’s right for you, we all do, but I hope you do decide to ‘hang around’ here for a little longer.

                    PS Thank you for the compliment; the pleasure is all mine 🙂

                    • greywarshark

                      incognito
                      I will keep on TS if you do. You have stuck through and Anne and others, making thoughtful comments, helping worthwhile discussion about what affects us in NZ. And what we should keep and what to change and the latest news that is important, and sometimes that is just fun or silly so it isn’t dry boring always earnest but it always swings back to the important.

                      I think this spot is so important. It offers encouragement for ordinary people to talk about our lives here in NZ and what needs improving, and how and just keep each of us in connection. I don’t know of another blog that is so easy to come to.

                      Perhaps those who write posts can moderate them according to their own wishes. Myself I am tired of being involved with groups who can’t change to meet current needs, with past good qualities maintained. Looking to the future and its disastrous possibilities, improving the present, doing practical things with kindness, and not being pussies that never show their claws. Cats are wary creatures that are great survivors. That’s more the way we need to be I think.

                      It is getting that I hardly see anyone I want to talk to and often it is people replying to the ones I think of as self-important trolls who rarely add anything of value. And I want to hear from people who care about people and respect most, but know that there are the negative stompers (think of the giant foot seen in Monty Python skits).

                      Can we stop this decline of TS – I don’t want to be here if it is going to be dominated by individuals stirring. I want diverse thoughtful types that offer a few facts with each comment, not just their Last Word about the thread and flaming. And I don’t want a victim-led diatribe.

        • Stuart Munro 9.2.1.2

          Perhaps you should take a moment or two to reflect Morrissey.

          Your passions are getting the better of you, and you are exercising poor judgement, which cannot help but show you in a bad light.

          On a good day you’re capable of a well-reasoned critique. We just haven’t seen any for a while.

          • Gabby 9.2.1.2.1

            But dammit, people must be made to think correctly.

            • greywarshark 9.2.1.2.1.1

              Yes Gabby it is actually a high-level course – critical thinking, logical thinking etc. I think it comes under Humanities in Universities but unfortunately the economic system that runs us doesn’t think it returns enough money into the education system to pay its way, and that is what NZ education is about.

          • Morrissey 9.2.1.2.2

            Stuart, I do not support Russia or Putin. Neither does Ed. I don’t know anybody on this forum that does.

            But neither do we support the unceasing belligerence toward and provocation of Russia by the same people that have destroyed peace and order in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, and are presently destroying Yemen.

            And another thing: Hillary Clinton was and still is one of those people. The fact that Ed and I, amongst many others, have pointed out that sad fact does not make us Trump supporters. That’s what we were being smeared as eighteen months ago; this Russian nonsense is more of the same.

            • Ed 9.2.1.2.2.1

              Well expressed Morrissey.
              Thank you.
              My thoughts entirely.

            • Stuart Munro 9.2.1.2.2.2

              The desire of ordinary Ukrainians for self government is not an existential threat to Russia – it represents instead the kind of devolution or localization of power that the Left was created to promote.

              These people have considerable experience of what it means to suffer a Moscow dominated political hierarchy – an end no more desirable for them than a Washington or Beijing dominated political hierarchy is to us.

              You probably recall, though Ed probably does not, what is was that Hemmingway was warning the Left about in respect of the Spanish Civil War – that the international Left were being replaced by those who would serve Soviet imperialism.

              This is institutional knowledge the Left forgets at its peril.

              • Morrissey

                You probably recall, though Ed probably does not,

                ???? As though Ed is not a serious and well informed person. Come on Stuart, you’re better than that.

                what is was that Hemmingway [sic] was warning the Left about in respect of the Spanish Civil War – that the international Left were being replaced by those who would serve Soviet imperialism.

                That was more than 80 years ago. There is only one rampant, out of control imperialist power in 2018, and if you want to pretend it’s Russia—well, it’s your credibility at stake, my friend.

                • Stuart Munro

                  “There is only one rampant, out of control imperialist power in 2018”

                  On the contrary, there are at least three.

                  And I think the Yemenis would want to include Saudi, and the Rohingya, Myanmar. No doubt there are others also – Indonesia was pretty expansionist not so long ago.

                  Ed is your fellow traveler Morrissey, don’t be ashamed of the company you keep.

            • RedLogix 9.2.1.2.2.3

              That’s an excellent summary Morrissey. It’s imperialism itself, regardless of which flag it’s being imposed under, that we should be opposed to.

  10. joe90 10

    Kremlin backed patriotic youth clubs in Russia and Eastern Europe, supervised by mercenaries and packed with ultra-nationalists, monarchists, and Soldiers of Christ.

    Right up your alley, Ed.

    August, Chayetina, Western Serbia. The mountainous region of Zlatibor is pristine and peaceful. The pine woods come to life as dozens of children and young people gather for a summer camp. Spirits are high, and smiles are seen all around. This could be any summer youth camp. The youngsters, however, are dressed and geared in fatigues, line up and listen to a middle-aged drill instructor issuing commands. This is not just any summer youth camp, but the military Zlatibor 2018 camp for youth aged 12 to 23, organized by the Russian ultranationalist E.N.O.T. Corp. This group has a strong taste for mercenary and paramilitary activities in Eastern Ukraine.

    https://theglobepost.com/2018/10/08/patriotic-russian-youth-camps/

  11. Ed 11

    Bernie Sanders on Twitter

    “The world spends a total of $1.7 trillion a year on the military.

    The cost to end poverty is $175 billion per year for 20 years, about 10% of what the world spends on weapons.”

  12. Ed 12

    A rare glimpse of the truth in the msm.
    Well done for writing this editorial, Dominion Post.

    “But as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern addressed the news media in the wake of a truly scary report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report that painted a dire picture for millions of people and hundreds of thousands of species across the planet,
    she couldn’t help flash those now-famous pearly whites and promote the “opportunity” that exists for the national economy and its people.

    Even as those experts were warning that a rise of no more than 1.5C in temperature was the new goal to avoid catastrophe, and highlighting the inability of new technology to get us there, Ardern was talking up innovations in our dairy industry: vaccines, new types of feed and methane-busting grasses. She pointedly ignored the issue of stock numbers.

    This is a mere hint of the pain to come, a foreshadowing of the change that will be needed to meet this great challenge and how we might respond.

    Now is the time for a clear plan of action and
    an honest, up-front conversation about the changes needed to execute that strategy across all sectors. And the pain that will come with it, hopefully shared in a way that protects the most vulnerable.

    Give it to us, because we can take it. We have to.“

    https://t.co/Aawh2ywW9i?amp=1

    • BM 12.1

      Ardern doesn’t give a shit about climate change.

      The only thing she’s interested in is retaining power, she’ll say or do whatever it takes, consider yourselves well and truly played lefties

      • Grey Area 12.1.1

        Speaking of parallel universes… You seem to be one bitter individual.

      • Chuck 12.1.2

        Come on BM…be fair. It is one thing to ban future NZ oil and gas exploration (which will not decrease global carbon emissions rather have a net increase shifting the emissions offshore).

        But – Petrol at $3 litre will see Ardern/labour back in the 20’s poll-wise. Fuel costs were not meant to have skyrocketed until Ardern had settled into her UN appointment.

        • Muttonbird 12.1.2.1

          Remember that time when John Key slapped 15% on absolutely everything?

          • alwyn 12.1.2.1.1

            I remember when Labour slapped a 12.5% charge on everything.
            The worst John Key did was to add 2.5% to that and at the same time cut income tax rates so that it was financially neutral.
            I can also remember when the mad doctor, Michael Cullen slapped a 39% tax on peoples incomes because he hated, and was jealous of, those he called “rich pricks”.
            My facts, as quoted, are at least as accurate and honest as yours, aren’t they?

        • BM 12.1.2.2

          Yes, it’s not quite going to plan.

          I have no idea how anyone could take her seriously?

      • Ankerrawshark 12.1.3

        I can’t agree with you on that BM. She was a pretty reluctant leader, although once it came her way she gave it her all. Not sure what your basis is for saying she doesn’t care about climate change

        • BM 12.1.3.1

          Not sure what your basis is for saying she doesn’t care about climate change

          LOL, have you been asleep for the past week?

          • Ankerrawshark 12.1.3.1.1

            Bum…haven’t been asleep. You made the assertion that Ardern doesn’t care about climate change. I asked you your basis for saying that. You either have no good basis or else cough it up.

      • Gabby 12.1.4

        Did she tell you that BMmer?

    • Grey Area 12.2

      Yeah Ed. I wondered if I’d stepped into a parallel universe for a second.

  13. Jenny 13

    Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
    BBC Trending – April 19, 2018

    ….The activists call themselves “anti-war”, but as they generally back the Syrian government’s military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as “anti-Western intervention” or “pro-Syrian government”….

    Syria: the alt-left and other lesser known extremisms
    Cody Roach – The Medium, May 14, 2018

    Syria has overturned many of the assumptions that were once taken for granted about politics. While much of the left still clings to the legacy of the Iraq anti-war movement of the early 2000s, positions have warped and even become the opposite of what they once were. Whereas the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was shunned and protested against in the past, sections of the left have now accepted it as a policy and rhetorical device to be used against the West, not in service of it. Claims of being “anti-war” ring hollow when these same people openly support or refuse to condemn military action taken by non-Western countries (which is often more brutal), and the term anti-war comes to mean little more than “anti-Western intervention.” How is it that parts of the left have adopted views that are more akin to those of right-wing politics, and even views similar to those of neoconservativism and the alt-right? How is it that both the far-left and the far-right have converged on the subject of Syria to agree on so many issues, including open or tacit support of the dictatorship of Bashar Assad?…..

    The alt-left is real, and it’s helping fascists
    Muhammad Idrees Ahmad – The New Arab, August 24, 2017

    …..Before the right hijacked it, the “alt-left” label was used mainly by progressives to refer to a strain of leftism that sees liberalism rather than fascism as the main enemy. It is distinguished mainly by a reactionary contrarianism, a seething ressentiment, and a conspiracist worldview.

    In its preoccupations it is closer to the right: More alarmed by Hillary Clinton winning the primary than by Donald Trump winning the presidency; more concerned with imagined “deep state” conspiracies than with actual Russian subversion of US democracy; eager to prevent a global war no one is contemplating but supportive of a US alliance with Russia for a new “war on terror”.

    Like the right it disdains “globalists”, it sees internationalism as liberal frivolity, and its solidarity is confined to repressive regimes overseas…….

    …..Alt-leftism, like white nationalism, is rooted in privilege. Progressivism will be ill-served if this strain becomes dominant.

  14. eco maori 14

    Kia ora The Am Show this hurricane Michael has been around for a few days now there was heaps of time to warn the people what happened .
    what does ricky have to say well this hurricane will blow the red algae out to sea I hope not to many people are harmed .
    Voting for mandatory alcohol labeling of the harm’s is a must for our children future
    COME ON AUSTRALIA alcohol harm’s Te tangata whenua O Australia the most vote for labeling please.
    No more drilling BAN DRILLING for carbon well the Taranaki chamber of commerce can just lump it do you have your eyes open the other story is about the effects of climate change a huge Hurricane .??????.
    Steve Wilde bring the Old Air New Zealand DC-10 home to New Zealand from Cuba is a good one it would be a world class attraction one of the last DC-10 in the World.
    YOU ALL know my opinion on the subject of the plant from Papatuanuku & Rongo get rid of the dumb LAW’s and stop locking people up over it.
    Grame Lowe the League Jersey auction that’s a good cause ka pai and your truthful words on alcohol labeling and the harm it does to our youth its good to see our society is starting to mature .
    Melisa take on weed and alcohol & mental health is genuine to what I must say about Equality is wahine have to get up and talk about the bad thing’s our society is dishing up for them and go for Leadership roles to change the wrongs that are happening around the World at the minute . Ka kite ano P.S Mark S Sugar need to be labeled to

  15. eco maori 15

    Kia ora the cafe I quite like Rycs Darby Jermaine Clement & Bret Mckenzie.
    Flight of the Concords Rycs new book looks like a good read I’m sure it would give me a sore face Ka kite ano

  16. eco maori 16

    Some Eco Maori music for the minute

  17. eco maori 17

    Since having our children I have always target efficient vehicles to run so as to always have money to proved for my family .
    That has mainly been Diesel vehicles . What I’m saying is if one need’s a car the purchases price should be exclude from ones calculations WHY because one would be spending that money anyway .
    I say spend $15k even if you have to loan the money you are saving when you don’t have to part with $80.00 everytime you have to full up you will have money to buy your children things they need .
    I’v had my big V8’s and stuff but my whano comes first so out the door they went .
    Ka kite ano P.S shop around and get the lowest loan you can. link is below

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/107675892/lowest-price-to-highest-every-electric-vehicle-you-can-buy-in-nz

  18. eco maori 18

    There is a myth that the neo liberals troll’s like to cast around that Maori are privileged we maori know that thought need’s to be reversed. As it is the Europeen’s old men and there son’s that are privileged beyond a doubt the facts tell us they have the best jobs the most money and control of our Aotearoa society per head of capital % wise .
    I say your———- in the wind now when one they try to use the line they are more intelligent than other people . Ana to kai P.S the sandflys have there undie stuck up there—— at the minute Eco wonders why ?????? link below ka kite ano

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/107740316/a-message-from-an-outspoken-pakeha-woman-to-an-outspoken-maori-one

  19. eco maori 19

    Some Eco Maori Music for the minute ka kite ano

  20. eco maori 20

    Here you go Mana wahine .
    The American wahine and minority cultures are going to to vote the gop go oil party out on there———Kia kaha people vote and take control of your own future ka pai
    Link is below ka kite ano P.S the poll show the Dem with a 13 point lead at least .

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/cnn-poll-women-democratic-party-opinion-filipovic/index.html

  21. eco maori 21

    Kia ora Tekaea its cool that the Whenua warriors are getting te tangata to grow kai our tipuna were very good at this task I put a mean garden on the Farm for the mokopuna’s .
    It was cool alot of people supported the people at standing Rock and they are looking to support international indigenous cultures .
    In the last few years the price of fuel goes up and down like Te Ra this has to be a system that is designed to maximise there profts.
    Yes I agree that the people on the streets know were it is safe to camp .
    I have already heaped phrase on Mal Meninga and he deserve it I say .
    Ka kite ano P.S reset Kia Kaha

  22. eco maori 22

    Kia ora Newshub That hurricane that is hit Florida is a big one.
    We definitely down want a cruse ship flipping over in Aotearoa if it happened in fiordland mabe a Kiwi Caption when these ships come to Aotearoa.
    As for jenny shiply I will stick to my morels enough said .
    What I have to say about social media is it has given the lower classes and wahine a voice that the whole Papatuanuku can hear because of social media .
    If law’s are made to control hate speech you have to be careful not to kill off free speech on social media
    If social media is stymied there won’t be any free speech as one would need a Million dollars to get there messages heard on MSN through all the lobbyists money that’s a fact at the minute.
    Ka pai to the new labels on alcohol containers as I hope it will be on all forms of alcohol containers Many thanks to our Australian cousin for backing this new law ka pai.
    There you go wealthy people cleaning corrupt money in Britain $90 billion we know this goes on in many places .
    I can remember when we lived with uni students they were like they had just been let out from under mum’s petite coat very mischief spewed all over the place when they had refreshments we did not join them lol.
    There you go the Saudi’s are not behaving very well in a neighbour country Turkey
    Ka pai those old timers recreational ground’s we need much more thing’s like that for our old people. Ka kite ano

  23. eco maori 23

    Kia ora The Crowd Goes Wild Wairangi & James lets hope Mal is not very successful with his rivalry with OUR coach fingers crossed.
    I got held up with the mokos E hoa
    I have restarted my tau toko hope it works out Wairangi
    Ka kite ano Tagie that looks good I went walk about for 3 weeks when I was 13 lol
    I tau toko Antoniy he is a Australian tangata whenua but some of his word’s are a bit much

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Ngāti Hinerangi and Crown initial Deed of Settlement
    The Crown and Ngāti Hinerangi have initialed a Deed of Settlement for the iwi historical Treaty claims, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Andrew Little announced today. ...
    4 days ago
  • Ngāti Tūwharetoa passes third reading
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, today welcomed Te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu and members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to Parliament to witness the Third Reading of their Treaty Settlement legislation, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. ...
    5 days ago
  • Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers
    Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers  The Government is responding to increased drug-related deaths by cracking down on the suppliers of synthetic drugs while making it easier for those with addiction problems to get treatment, Health Minister Dr David Clark ...
    5 days ago
  • Milestone in Police recruitment
    A milestone in Police recruitment has been achieved with the deployment of more than 1,000 new constables around the country since the government was formed. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Police Minister Stuart Nash congratulated graduates of Wing 321 ...
    6 days ago
  • Government ropes in livestock rustling
    Justice Minister Andrew Little today introduced a supplementary order paper (SOP) on the Crimes Amendment Bill to crack down on livestock rustling. ...
    6 days ago
  • Small business the focus of Australian talks
    Efforts to progress a seamless trans-Tasman business environment will take another step at a ministerial roundtable meeting in Sydney tomorrow. Small Business Minister Stuart Nash and Australian Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert will co-host a roundtable meeting of senior government and ...
    1 week ago
  • Andrew Little – Speech to Amnesty International event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Univ...
    ANDREW LITTLE - SPEECH TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EVENT TO MARK THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON ...
    1 week ago
  • Tax reforms focus on fairness
    New tax legislation has been introduced to Parliament to ensure greater fairness in the way the tax system shapes commerce, investment decisions and social policies. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has introduced the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Preventing death and injury on our roads
    Police Minister Stuart Nash and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter are encouraging road users to be alert to a new safety campaign launched today by Police and the NZ Transport Agency in the lead up to the Christmas. ...
    3 weeks ago