Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
21
Celtics Talk / Re: Joakim Noah might be available. (Merged Threads)
« Last post by billysan on Yesterday at 11:16:49 PM »
No, in horse terms he needs shot or put out to pasture.   Not much left in the tank, you wait until someone cuts him then you can sign him without giving up any resources.
Pretty simple. Just sign him to a make good or non guaranreed deal.

Invite him to camp.

If he is done then send him on his way.
22
Celtics Talk / Re: Reminder
« Last post by gouki88 on Yesterday at 11:08:19 PM »
I truly am giddy thinking about this team play. Can October hurry up already
23
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.
24
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by hpantazo on Yesterday at 11:00:33 PM »
Rondo coaching Ball, Kobe mentoring Tatum, what's this world coming too?!?!?!?!?
25
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
26
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by CelticSooner on Yesterday at 10:42:56 PM »
Just not right seeing him in that jersey.
27
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.

That's the thing, one does not have to choose to believe one or the other.  One can learn to accept that sometimes there simply is no answer to be found.  This does not imply that should be a rushed decision, but it ultimately may be the answer when there is not definitive way to prove what the truth is.

As for the multiple accusers angle, again, accusations without proof are still just accusations. A second accusation of a different event doesn't prove the first accusation true.  Each accusation should be able to stand on it's own merits.
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations. In both scenarios Kavanaugh is accused of being extremely drunk. His friends are accused of being very drunk. And both times there was sexual misconduct aimed at Kavanaugh and not his drunk friends.

There appears to be much evidence that Kavanaugh was a huge drinker both at Georgetown Prep and Yale. Ford told her husband and therapist about her attack 6 years ago. She passed a lie detector test, which isn't accepted proof in a court of law but suggests she is telling the truth.

And regardless of how many jokes are being made about her exact memories, it was 36 years ago and most people my age can not remember exact details of the where and when of matters, sometimes even important matters. For instance, I can't remember the name of the hotel I stayed in for my honeymoon, but do remember it was in San Juan. Important event in my life but I can't recall all I did or what hotel I stayed in. Probably because alcohol was involved.

And since alcohol was involved in these situations, I truly believe that Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the incidences. They probably weren't important events in his life and could easily have woken up the next morning with no recollection of what happened.
28
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by JSD on Yesterday at 10:37:48 PM »
29
Celtics Talk / Reminder
« Last post by Fireworks_Boom! on Yesterday at 10:34:26 PM »
I often bob and weave through the forums and get lost in all the wonderful debate and discussion which takes place at this amazing resource we have as Celtics fans.

Then I am slapped with the deep sting of amazing reality that this is our team:

Starters:
Irving
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Horford

Bench:
Morris
Smart
Rozier
Theis
Baynes
Ojeleye
Yabusele

I mean that bench is likely an 6-8 seed in the East.

We could be the next dynasty in this league. How sweet would it be to take down another dynasty in GSW? I just can not wait for this season. Pray to God for health and allow this team to develop on the court. Sky is the absolute limit.
30
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. It’s a bit odd to not get first names.   

What’s more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders — one male, one female — into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.

This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10