As you want to argue from the premise that she is not being honest you rea
You seem to want from the premise that she is not being honest therefore you need to prove your case, it isn't on others to disprove it, that isn't how it works.
1) the issue is whether women are more likely to be making a valid claim of assault or to be making one up. I think the data suggests the former, going from that premise then lets figure out if Kavanaugh was there that day. The odds aren't even in theis specific he said/she said comparison because of the prior assumptions. If 1 is true, that in most cases women aren't lying about being sexually assaulted, then the men accused have a massive incentive to lie, as the penalties are quite high if they are guilty, which makes the argument in 2 fallacious. As for the accuracy in ID'ing the assailant, the majority of assaults are by people they are in relationships with or that they know, so yeah, they probably get it way more often than not.
As for point 4, this isn't a criminal case, its a job interview where his past conduct is relevant to his getting the job. He gets to judge laws about sexual assault, women's rights, abortion, etc. A guy who thinks he can assault women probably shouldn't get said job.
|
(
In response to this post by CharlestonSC)
Posted: 09/19/2018 at 12:07AM