She Actually Appeared

[Aldebaran]

Spot on. I take the “Believe Women” slogan to convey the message that we should stop disbelieving women so readily when they do come forward....to reverse the culture which dissuades so many (>65%..?) from reporting their attacks...

If she would have "readily" come forward when the alleged incident took place 36 years ago instead of waiting until Kavanaugh was in hearings to become a SCOTUS justice, and then contacted the political party that opposed him, then she wouldn't be so "readily" dismissed.

 

[Belk]

Then how about something a bit more lengthy, such as "We believe survivors". The statement assumes that if someone claims to be a victim, then they are, and the person they accused is guilty based only on the accusation.

Once again this looks to me to be your assumption. It rather specifically states that people who have survived sexual assault are believed. It is you who are stating anyone who makes a claim is to be believed. What leads to interpret the slogan in that fashion?

This was the case, along with "Believe women" that was used as the slogans from liberal protesters during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Why do you keep ignoring that so many women are sexually assaulted, and subsequently dismissed? That the reason for these slogans is to combat that apathy?

 

[Aldebaran]

Once again this looks to me to be your assumption. It rather specifically states that people who have survived sexual assault are believed. It is you who are stating anyone who makes a claim is to be believed. What leads to interpret the slogan in that fashion?

The time and place where they were put out there.

Why do you keep ignoring that so many women are sexually assaulted, and subsequently dismissed? That the reason for these slogans is to combat that apathy?

If those alleged incidents are not even revealed until 36 years later, and then the story is filled with gaping holes, then it should be dismissed. A report soon after an incident with evidence to back it up should be taken seriously.

 

[Belk]

The time and place where they were put out there.




If those alleged incidents are not even revealed until 36 years later, and then the story is filled with gaping holes, then it should be dismissed. A report soon after an incident with evidence to back it up should be taken seriously.

I see. So the whole reason you attack these slogans is because of your political stance. I don't think you have a problem with the slogans, I think you take issue because you perceive the people using them as being on the other team. That seems a poor reason to attack people who are trying to raise awareness of those who are victimized in my opinion.

 

[Allandavid]

If she would have "readily" come forward when the alleged incident took place 36 years ago instead of waiting until Kavanaugh was in hearings to become a SCOTUS justice, and then contacted the political party that opposed him, then she wouldn't be so "readily" dismissed.

There’s a lot to unpack in that short paragraph...

First...the alleged ‘lateness’ of the complaint. You should be aware that, all round the world, countries are dealing with the horrendous truth of child sexual abuse by the Catholic Church and other institutions. Many (most?) of those who have come forward, have done so well in excess of 36 years....many of the complaints are 50 or 60 years old. Yet we believe them, despite the initial denial by those responsible...

Next...the timing re K’s appointment. Ford made a reasonable explanation here, though you might not accept it. She believed that your Congress was about to appoint someone to your highest court, for life, without knowing that they were elevating someone who may have been a sex offender. She felt it her “civic duty” to attempt to intervene in the appointment process.

Finally...the opposing party?? Who else should she contact?? The President, whose strategy for dealing with these kinds of complaints is “Deny, deny, deny”..? The Republicans in the Senate, who have made it clear that their number one priority is to pack the Court with as many of ‘their people’ as possible before they’re run out of town...? Who was she supposed to complain to...?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Finally...the opposing party?? Who else should she contact?? The President, whose strategy for dealing with these kinds of complaints is “Deny, deny, deny”..? The Republicans in the Senate, who have made it clear that their number one priority is to pack the Court with as many of ‘their people’ as possible before they’re run out of town...? Who was she supposed to complain to...?

Indeed -- she contacted the only people who had any interest in caring or even listening...

 

[Aldebaran]

I see. So the whole reason you attack these slogans is because of your political stance. I don't think you have a problem with the slogans, I think you take issue because you perceive the people using them as being on the other team. That seems a poor reason to attack people who are trying to raise awareness of those who are victimized in my opinion.

You're using the word "attack" the same way the MSM does.
And here TLK had been questioning me about whether democrats are allowed to voice their opinions....

Gosh, it's almost as though they thought they were allowed to have opinions...

Is it an "agnostic" thing to be able to voice your opinion while accusing others of "attacking" if they voice theirs?

 

[Aldebaran]

Indeed -- she contacted the only people who had any interest in caring or even listening...

And attempt to block someone due to having different political opinions.

 

[Belk]

You're using the word "attack" the same way the MSM does.
And here TLK had been questioning me about whether democrats are allowed to voice their opinions....


Is it an "agnostic" thing to be able to voice your opinion while accusing others of "attacking" if they voice theirs?

I see you misconstruing these slogans in order to dismiss the people who use them. Would you not consider that an attack?

Just to be clear I am not disagreeing with you voicing your opinion, I am disagreeing with the opinion and the apparent reason you hold it. I am trying to convince you my point of view is correct.

 

[Aldebaran]

I see you misconstruing these slogans in order to dismiss the people who use them. Would you not consider that an attack?

I'm simply taking those people at their word. If those are the words they want to use, then that's what I go by.

Just to be clear I am not disagreeing with you voicing your opinion, I am disagreeing with the opinion and the apparent reason you hold it. I am trying to convince you my point of view is correct.

Well, I disagree with opinions that are different as well. That's human nature. However, my opinion is partially based on what I've been seeing, and what I've seen is the democrat party creating victim classes out of people based on gender, color, race, financial status, etc. and then using that as a base for why they should be believed. If Ms. Ford wouldn't have been a woman, but also black, she would have people siding with her for another reason. When Will We Believe Women?

 

[Belk]

I'm simply taking those people at their word. If those are the words they want to use, then that's what I go by.

Except you are not. You are adding words that are not there and then arguing against that. That seems the definition of a straw man argument.

Well, I disagree with opinions that are different as well. That's human nature. However, my opinion is partially based on what I've been seeing, and what I've seen is the democrat party creating victim classes out of people based on gender, color, race, financial status, etc. and then using that as a base for why they should be believed. If Ms. Ford wouldn't have been a woman, but also black, she would have people siding with her for another reason. When Will We Believe Women?

I disagree that you are with your interpretation of what you are seeing. From my point of view the democrats are saying "Women are sexually assaulted at a rate of 1 in 6 but we rarely believe them. We should take these facts into consideration and start working to address their concerns".

 

[TLK Valentine]

And attempt to block someone due to having different political opinions.

If you're referring to Kavanaugh, she attempted to "block" him because she believed he was a sexual predator.

 

[Aldebaran]

Except you are not. You are adding words that are not there and then arguing against that. That seems the definition of a straw man argument.

What words did I add? The Slogan is "Believe Women". That was the slogan in response to a woman testifying of an alleged attempted rape. No need to add anything to that to see what they are saying.

I disagree that you are with your interpretation of what you are seeing. From my point of view the democrats are saying "Women are sexually assaulted at a rate of 1 in 6 but we rarely believe them. We should take these facts into consideration and start working to address their concerns".

Now that's adding words.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you're referring to Kavanaugh, she attempted to "block" him because she believed he was a sexual predator.

And yet she (a political activist) went to the opposing political party and hired an attorney (Debra Katz) who is heavily involved with liberal groups. Nothing political about that, eh?

 

[Belk]

What words did I add? The Slogan is "Believe Women". That was the slogan in response to a woman testifying of an alleged attempted rape. No need to add anything to that to see what they are saying.



Now that's adding words.

So what should their slogan say Aldebaran? What would be short enough for a slogan that you would then feel encompassed the entirety of the point of view of women who have been sexually assaulted and then dismissed?

 

[Aldebaran]

So what should their slogan say Aldebaran? What would be short enough for a slogan that you would then feel encompassed the entirety of the point of view of women who have been sexually assaulted and then dismissed?

Maybe they should be doing something a little more in-depth and substantive than sloganeering.

 

[Belk]

Maybe they should be doing something a little more in-depth and substantive than sloganeering.

They are. What should their slogan be so you wont object to it Aldbaran?

 

[Aldebaran]

They are. What should their slogan be so you wont object to it Aldbaran?

How about, "Accused equals guilt, especially if you're a man!"
Too long?

 

[Belk]

How about, "Accused equals guilt, especially if you're a man!"
Too long?

It would seem it is not the slogan that you have an issue with Aldebaran. It is the people who are using the slogan is it not?

 

[Aldebaran]

It would seem it is not the slogan that you have an issue with Aldebaran. It is the people who are using the slogan is it not?

It's the idea that the perpetrator/victim and whether or not the accused was guilty was something that was predetermined by those chanting those slogans.