Thursday, September 27, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford in the land of Narnia?

Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth. (pg. 52) 

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

248 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248
bmiller said...

Well, it seems that the Dems treatment of Kavanaugh has done more to help marginal Republican candidates in vulnerable races than anything the candidates could have done on their own.

Think they should send Hillary to those key states to explain to the electorate once again what despicable people are those who vote Republican? Seems like the next best step right?

Hal said...

I find Bill's analysis sorely lacking. Evidence also has to be examined in context.
Given what we now know about Kavanaugh's behavior during the time period in which this assault occurred, it is perfectly reasonable for a rational person to believe that Ms. Ford is telling the truth.

In any case, I think Kavanaugh's ranting testimony last week disqualifies him from sitting on the Supreme Court. He certainly lacks the character required for that position. His attacks on the Democrats and Clinton supporters were irrational and hyper partisan. I'm not alone in that conviction. Apparently there is a letter signed by more than 1,200 law professors opposing his confirmation.

Haven't bothered reading Bill's blog in years. His he still the rabid conservative?

Hal said...

"Think they should send Hillary to those key states to explain to the electorate once again what despicable people are those who vote Republican?"

I don't think those who vote Republican are despicable. It is Trump and people like those who cheered on his mockery of Ms. Ford who are despicable.

Starhopper said...

"Is the proposition alleged worthy of belief? [...] It is only if there is sufficient evidence."

Total nonsense. I just saw a chipmunk run across the back yard. I allege that I it did so. I cannot produce a shred of evidence that such an event occurred other than my own say-so.

So by your own reasoning, my claim that I saw the chipmunk is a proposition that ought to not be believed by a rational person, there being insufficient evidence. How much evidence is needed? Well, it has to be more than my say-so even if it is a sincere say-so. I have sincerely stated what I sincerely believe is the truth. But that is not sufficient evidence that a chipmunk did indeed cross my back yard. But no other evidence has turned up: there are no corroborating witnesses, for example.

So you conclude that I am not believable in the only sense that matters: the content of my allegation is not supported by enough evidence to make it worthy of belief.

SteveK said...

I should thank you for making it clear exactly how serious you think sexual assault on women is. It's refreshing when sexism is so open.


Huh?? I did not imply anything about sexual assault. You have a vivid imagination.

SteveK said...

If you can clearly see something that isn't there, you have problems that deserve fixing.

bmiller said...

Now it makes sense why CNN has not corrected their story.

Senator Dick Durbin, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would be exposed if they made the correction. So it's not just CNN being naughty.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Huh?? I did not imply anything about sexual assault. You have a vivid imagination.

Am implication is a specific logical structure. I did not claim you formed an implication, and agree you did not make one.

However, by saying future allegations might involve things like saying cuss words and disrespecting your parents, you were comparing those situations to the current situation of accused sexual assault. The comparison is quite poor.

SteveK said...

Wrong again. Seek help.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Wrong again. Seek help.

It's unfortunate when oppositionalism interferes with listening.

Joe Hinman said...

Trump is hiding scientific data on global warming

Metacrock;s blog

bmiller said...

Trump is hiding scientific data on global warming

Did you look in his hair?

bmiller said...

Wow. Tough crowd today.

Starhopper said...

Would you have it any other way?

As Bismarck said, "Leave them only their eyes, that they may weep!"

SteveK said...

I laughed at your joke bmiller.

bmiller said...

Thanks SteveK. Even with your feedback, I'm going to keep my day job.

Unknown said...

Whatever happened to Christian compassion? Why does one have to subscribe to a ''liberal theology'' in order to believe in social responsibility? Are we not the light of the world as the body of the Messiah Jesus?

Unknown said...

If one is a homosexual, shouldn't a Christian show this person love and compassion even though they believe it as a sinful act according to the bible? Shouldn't a Christian weigh each circumstance with the love and wisdom of the holy spirit which dwells within...ie a woman who commits abortion due to economic circumstance

bmiller said...

@Unknown,

Are you a russian bot?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I don't know what you're talking about. Bismarck?

Legion of Logic said...

I think General Sheridan said it first, but both refer to scorched earth tactics.

bmiller said...

He could have been polite and just said he didn't think my joke was funny.
Definitely keeping my day job now.

Starhopper said...

"I think General Sheridan said it first"

Ha! Usually, any quotation can be sourced back to someone in the Assyrian Empire at least, if not earlier.

Yeah, I was probably being too subtle there. A definite fault of mine.

bmiller said...

We've noticed your subtle touch.

bmiller said...

Could have said it was a stupid joke though.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You were in the NSA right? What is FVEY?

Dave Duffy said...

I used to think we paid some taxes to philosophy professors to help the citizens sort out conflicting questions in a democracy. I'm convinced we are just paying taxes.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

It indicates intelligence that is shared/releasable to the "5 Eyes" community (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Why the question?

bmiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I'm interested in the rules. Without any sort of agreement, everyone spies on everyone else I assume. However, in the US, citizens are supposed to be protected from being spied upon unless there is a warrant.

Could a "5 Eyes" country spy on a US citizen and then share that info with the US government without a warrant?

Starhopper said...

Excellent question! No, they cannot spy on each other's citizens - quite the reverse. Part of the "5 Eyes" treaty (and it is an actual treaty, signed way back under President Truman) is that no 5 Eyes nation may spy on any of the others.

I know what Edward Snowden said about the arrangement, but he was quite wrong. He was correct that many inexcusable abuses of the system were going on, but they were actually in defiance of the 5 Eyes agreements and our own US laws. Had the responsible parties been obeying the law, Snowden would have had nothing to complain about.

bmiller said...

No, they cannot spy on each other's citizens - quite the reverse.

Not even if one of the "5 Eyes" legitimate government actually requests one of the others to do it?

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

I need to make my above statement more emphatic.

Imagine 2 guys rob a bank. Now there are laws against robbing banks. But we have a reporter who blames the bank robbery on there being laws against robbing banks.

That is essentially what Snowden did. He was absolutely correct that illegal spying on US (and allied) nationals was taking place. But this illegal activity was being done despite there being very clear laws against doing such. You cannot blame a criminal's activity on the law.

When I worked for the NSA, it was deep in our culture to NEVER spy on a US person. If we accidently did so (happened all the time, due to the nature of technology) we immediately destroyed all traces of the accidental collection and no records were kept of the event.

I was as appalled by the Snowden revelations as anyone else. They happened after my retirement, but I nevertheless felt deep shame over the besmirchment of what had been a fine agency with an until then pristine record. I still think Snowden was a dope for the way he went about his disclosures, but I am very glad that he made them. I firmly think he deserves a presidential pardon.

Starhopper said...

Our postings were made simultaneously, and I missed your last question.

Such a request would itself be illegal.

bmiller said...

Such a request would itself be illegal.

If the request was made, who would the other agency report the misdeed to?
Also, what if they complied? Who would they be accountable to?

Starhopper said...

Sorry, but I have no idea. Such things were would have been, as we say, way above my pay grade.

In my entire 34 year career, I only had to disobey what I felt was an unethical directive twice. The first time was when the then Deputy Director of NSA basically ordered me to hire on as a highly paid consultant to my office a retired general who was a friend of the DepDir. I refused, and told his office they'd have to fire me first before he was hired. (My exact words in my response were "Next you'll be telling me to toss babies into ovens." No kidding.) Never heard anything more about it, so I won that one. The second time was, as the Chief of the exercise support division at NSA, my office was directed to participate in a nuclear war simulation. I felt (and still do) that to do was would be a gravely immoral act and put my immortal soul in grave peril. This time, I made no "line in the sand" declaration, but merely acknowledged the directive, and then instructed my subordinates to do absolutely nothing to carry it out (passive resistance). I guess you could say I was a member of the "Deep State" before there even was such a thing. My career survived that speed bump as well.

Starhopper said...

Holy cow! I just read through my last posting, and am appalled by the typos.

The first one was in the very first line. I should have written "Such things would have been" without the extraneous "were".

The second was in the middle of the big paragraph. I should have written "I felt (and still do) that to do so would be..." instead of the gobbledygook that I actually typed.

bmiller said...

Regarding the nuclear war simulation. Did you discuss with your supervisor that you could not proceed and he should get someone else to do it?

Starhopper said...

Nope. We just "deep stated" it. Can't recall the exact year, but it was sometime in the late 90s.

bmiller said...

Did you not understand that the Department of Defense is prepared to use nuclear weapons when you agreed to work for them?

Don't get me wrong. I understand why you could object to nuclear war since the weapons almost certainly will kill innocents along with combatants. Why did you join at all if you knew this?

Starhopper said...

You're asking for consistency! Oh, vain pursuit - you might as well try to reach the horizon!

Another example of professional inconsistency: Despite being openly and vocally opposed to the war in Iraq, I busted my hump doing everything I could to support the war effort, and demanded the same from everyone who worked for me.

Starhopper said...

But all is now well. As an activist with and financial contributor to Veterans for Peace, I now do penance for my past sins.

Watch for me on the National Mall! I am frequently there with the "angry mob" (Trump's characterization).

bmiller said...

Ah, finally admitting which Church you go to for reconciliation.

Starhopper said...

My sins are many. I need to cover a lot of bases.

bmiller said...

Hmmm. I never would have thought they called them sins at *that* church.

bmiller said...

THIS is worth a read in light of what has transpired.

Starhopper said...

Terrific article on Soviet Communism/atheism, but does it have to do with "what has transpired"?

Starhopper said...

That should have read, "but what does it have to do..."

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248   Newer› Newest»